Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> wrote:

On 19/05/14 17:42, Lee Winter wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net

> <mailto:zen@freedbms.net>> wrote:
>
> Are you aware that there is a useful (from the perspective of
> freedoms) distinction to be made between physical property and
> so-called 'intellectual property'?
>
>
> No. In fact hell no.

You may not consider the distinction useful; others do.

Too bad for those others.

But claiming there is a distinction is not the same as there being such a distinction. If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg. (Attribution to A. Lincoln).

The only distinction I have heard of is the cost-of-copying argument. It claims thatbecause information can now be copied inexpensively it is somehow in a different category than ordinary, material possessions. But that argument is nonsense. Copying informationis not free. Injection molding is rigiculously cheap compared to other methods of production (once the molds have been made). Does that mean that injection-molded property is in a different category than machined property? Hardly.

And as for arbitrary and capricious distinctions, I draw a distinction between what is mine and what is not mine. Shouldn't that distinction have the same weight as the distinction you would like to draw between intellectual and non-intellectual property?

Note that that question is really a trick question. So-called non-intellectual property _always_ has an intellectual component of its value. Often it it the only component with any value. So I can argue that there is no such thing as non-intelletual property because anything that just happens naturally is not property. It is only when it is removed from or altered from its natural state that it becomes property.

> Consider if you please (or use the Socratic defense of not listening)
> the definition of property. How does something become property?
> Materials in the "wild" are not property. So how does it become
> property owned by some person(s)?
>
> I like John Locke's answer in the labor theory of
> property/ownership/first appropriation. Natural materials become owned
> when a person, who automatically owns their ownself and thus their own
> labor, mixes that labor with the natural materials. So plowing a field,
> digging a well or a mine, or cutting down a tree are all ways of mixing
> one's labor with raw land, which combination is the basis for all
> property. Even unimproved land can be characterized as property if the
> would-be owner is willing to defend it.

It's an interesting definition; I doubt it's universal. For example, one
might consider that 'wild' materials are owned by everybody, rather than
nobody. So if you improve it, then both parties - everybody as well as
you specifically - part-own it. Or if nobody owns the wild materials,
then it could be considered that you part-own it, and nobody owns the rest.

The phrase I think you are looking for it "the common heritage of all mankind". It was stupid when it was adopted by the United Nations,it is stupid now, and it will always be a stupid excuse (as opposed to a reasoned reason) for preventing people from benefiting from their own efforts. Control freaks love it though.

> Intellectual property is the most pure form of personal property. It
> involves skull sweat. There may be little or no physical property or
> even no tools involved in the creation of the intellectual "stuff". But
> it is absolutely and unconditionally the fruit of human effort. Mental
> effort.

I agree that by your (Locke's) above definition, you own the results of
your thinking. But remember Newton as well - "If I have seen further
than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." The
results of your thinking are almost certainly a 'derivative work' of the
results of many other people's thinking. I would suspect in most cases,
most of what you (not specifically you) come up with is not original.

Those are just attributions. They need to be made, but if you read Newton's work product it is difficult to the point to impossibility to avoid the conclusion that his contribution was unique in human history.

And if you don't consider pure thought to be property, we're back to
square one.

So, what are the arguments in support of the proposition that pure thought, principally ideas, are not property? I have studied this question for a long time. I know of no such argument that holds gravel.much less sand or water.

> And we have an unlimited supply because, while real estate is a finite
> supply, the scope of human thought is not finite. So no limit applies.
> And there is no barrier to entry. One cannot erect a fence to prevent
> people from thinking the way one could erect a fence to protect a field
> against trespassing.

Not only is the scope of human thought not finite, the ability to
reproduce it is also very cheap.

Wrong. Talk to any teacher.

That doesn't affect the value of your
labour, but it arguably does affect the price of the result, by simple
supply and demand. That makes it very different from (most) physical
property.

An economic rationale then. But a dysfunctional one. If the cost of transferring or"copying" intellectual property was actually zero there might be a distinction. But that cost is non-zero.

> Intellectual property is the most human form of property. Many animals
> will defend their own territory, often by marking, but always by
> attacking interlopers. Real estate predates humanity, probably by over
> a billion years.

I wouldn't call real estate a form of intellectual property; it's very
physical. Real, even. On the other hand, I would still treat it
differently from ordinary property, on the basis that it will continue
to exist essentially for ever, well beyond the lifetime of the current
owner. As such, I feel that while some form of 'ownership' is generally
ok, it should be considered more like custodianship - the current owner
shouldn't be free to drain it of all its resources, and leave nothing
for the next.

But that leaves a small problem. One worthy of genocidal warfare:who decides?

> It sounds like you are somewhat pro-freedom, yet from my position, to
> use the word "property" as Jerry (and here you) are using it, in
> relation to 'intellectual' things (like say mathematical algorithms),
> is actually a conflation brought into our language by the pro-monopoly
> pro-drm etc lobby groups.
>
>
> No. Your history is wrong. And your example is silly because
> mathematical algorithms cannot be protected whether by copyright,
> patent, or trademark,

Well, that may be true under current law (in whatever jurisdiction), but
it's the kind of thing that gets debated and can change.

Yup. And they can pass enough laws to make the circular circumference/diameter ratio into an integer. That does not mean anyone, specifically me,will pay any attention to it.

> They can be protected by trade secrecy,but that
> does not prevent anyone else from coming up with the same secret. But
> _stealing_ a trade secret is theft. Theft of what? Property.

I'm not a lawyer, and certainly don't know the law in all jurisdictions,
but I have my doubts that misappropriation of a trade secret is legally
considered theft, any more than copyright infringement is.

Doubt away. if you steal a trade secret what kind of crime is it if not theft?

> So you are a socialist. The truth comes out. I should have known.
> Please take your drivel elsewhere.

Hmm. You appear to be applying a label to someone based on a few data
points, then making a complete judgement based on your interpretation of
that label. Not a very strong argument.

My comments above are not an argument within the context of the prior discussions. They are_about_ the prior discussion and indicative of my lack of interest in debating an idiot.

> > But, contrary to Stallman's arguments, intellectual property is
> real and
> > worth protecting.
>
> RMS never said intellectual creations are not real.
>
> Yes he did. To me.
>
> RMS never said intellectual creations are not worth protecting.
>
> Yes he did. To me.
>
> PLEASE cite, when you are unsure. You were doing quite well up to
> this point.
>
>
> I am not unsure. I am absolutely certain.
>
> At the World Science Fiction Convention in Boston (cirra 1980) he made a
> presentation about his then-recent efforts. He also took questions
> from the audience. I asked whether he believed in intellectual property
> at all. He said no. At that point further discussion became pointless
> and I left.

Did you ask about "intellectual creations" or "intellectual property"?
They are very different things. And if you can't cope with further
discussion when the terms don't quite match your understanding, that's
your limitation.

Wrong. If you use terms without defining them then I, knowing what you have _said_, get to guess what you _meant_. Whose problem is that? Not mine.