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 ;)

  • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    That would be a potentially sound argument in favor of situationally (and with compensation) overriding a creator’s claim to the fruits of their labors.

    But that’s not the issue at hand on this thread. The OP has asserted that “intellectual property should be abolished.” That necessarily means that there is no presupposed right a creator might have to the fruits of their own labor, and that by extension, any and all who might be so inclined do have an unfettered right to them, with no need or even basis at any point for a determination of societal value or any form of compensation.

    • A_A@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re right that OP said that : “intellectual property should be abolished” and that my comment doesn’t take this statement head on. Yet he also writes: “change my mind” and if you want to do this, you have to acknowledge their energy (their convictions) and try to see where that energy can go.

      • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        No - I really don’t have to do that. I might have chosen to, but I didn’t.

        If that’s what you wish to do, you’re certainly free to do so.

        • A_A@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I didn’t say : “you have to change people’s mind”.
          What I said is : “if you want to change people’s mind then…”

          • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I know - I was just being prickly.

            I simply have zero patience for the NoIP position. I think it’s asinine on its face - the philosophical equivalent of flat earth. And I just have no interest in taking someone who espouses it by the hand and walking them through to an idea that actually makes sense (and more to the point and as opposed to NoIP, an idea that actually lines up with the rest of the things that they already believe). I just want to tear their gibbering nincompoopery down to the ludicrous shreds in which it deserves to die and be buried and forgotten. Whether or not they can blunder their way to a better position (they couldn’t hardly find a worse one) is their problem - not mine.

            Ungenerous I know, but I think it’s particularly important at the libertarian/minarchist/anarchist end of the spectrum that people learn to actually think instead of just mindlessly regurgitating whatever impressed them when someone else said it.

        • PropaGandalf@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Clearly no one is forcing you to do this. But I have politely asked for it. I just want to better understand your points of view and present mine to you. I have never claimed to be right. But I think that your hardened attitude of defiance looks like an inner blockade to me. Something that perhaps builds on the fear that all work would be pointless if you can’t expect a reward for it. What is the whole point of doing all thisthen? Would we as a society simply give in and stop developing? Or would we discover a different meaning behind innovation than just money?

          • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            The idea that “intellectual property should be abolished” isn’t even coherent.

            “Intellectual property” exists. It can’t be “abolished” any more than gravity or oxygen can.

            When, for instance, an author writes a novel, they have created a thing. And before you even go there - no, I’m not talking about the physical books that might later be printed. I’m talking about the composition - the specific ordering of specific words that serve to tell a specific story. That composition is a discernible thing, and it exists. It can’t be “abolished.”

            So what you’re presumably really talking about is abolishing the concept that the person who labored to bring that thing into existence had the right to claim ownership of it. And that, not to put too fine a point on it, is asinine

            That thing did not come into existence spontaneously. Words didn’t just magically combine themselves in such a way as to tell a coherent story. They were arranged in that particular order by someone. Someone labored to bring that thing into being.

            And thus what you’re explicitly arguing is that the person who labored to bring the thing into being should not be seen to have the right to claim ownership of it. By doing so, you are in fact arguing that your presumed right to determine the proper ownership of the thing is superior even to the right of the person who created it in the first place - that they don’t get to decide who owns it and you do.

            And so I ask, yet again, because this has been the key all along, by what right do you claim the fruits of somebody else’s labor?

            • PropaGandalf@lemmy.worldOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The term “intellectual property” is something completely man made and does not exists independent of our perception unlike mathematics or gravity. The “ideas” themselves are. But IP suggests that they are a kind of property, which I cannot agree with at all.

              • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Oh FFS…

                Of course the term is man made.

                But the things it describes exist, and in fact you presuppose the fact that they exist when you take a position regarding the rights that should pertain to them.

                And it’s not only the case that they can be considered property, but that they ARE considered property.

                So whether you can and will face the fact or not, what this whole thing comes down to is that you are asserting that you - whether acting for yourself or as a self-appointed representative of humanity - have a claim to that property that supersedes the creator’s claim such that you, and not the creator, can rightly decide what concept of property can be rightly assigned to it.

                So I ask, very precisely and for the last rime, by what right do you claim the fruits of somebody else’s labor?

                • PropaGandalf@lemmy.worldOPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Dude what are you talking about? The fundamental “something” you call intellectual property is simply the idea or construct of your intellect, that is, what the poet imagines when he strings words together. Now you can say that this is his own property and no one can take it away from him, which no one disputes, not even me. Nobody takes anything away from anybody! But someone else can make exactly the same idea, the same string of words, so both have the same idea, the same thought construct. Now both possess the same idea and both have full control over it. One “possession” has become two identical “possessions”, so to speak. IP is therefore only a possible designation for the condition of the control of an idea.

                  And now someone comes along and says that all these properties belong to him and wants to take them away from the others? With what right can he claim this? Where does he draw the line from when something is claimable at all? Otherwise everyone could run to the patent office and claim everything for himself because no one else has done it before him.