Discussion of the legitimacy of Intellectual Property

[smoking357]

Again, his enjoyment of the book is irrelevant to whether he has it or not. Are you now claiming his enjoyment is property as well?

You're being paternalistic and presumptuous. Where do you have the authority to know or decree how he does or should enjoy his book.

What worth is property if not for the benefits it confers? Did Papa John buy back his Camaro because he merely needed a car? Does he smile when he drives it? Why are there different types of cars made? I reject your attempt to divorce property from its benefits.

 

[smoking357]

Of course I wouldn't have a claim, you're not a walrus.

I don't understand the second clause.

 

[level.eleven]

Whoa, Nellie, that's a whopper of a circular argument.

You're presuming the nature of the property, and you're being asked to justify your premises.

Say you held a beautiful thought in your mind that you recalled whenever you wished and it brought you great joy. Your life was better for this thought. Say I had a thought stealer and I deleted this thought from your mind. Would you consider yourself harmed? If I were contracted to delete some thoughts from your mind and I deleted this one, by accident, would you have a claim against me?

Now, don't laugh, kids. This is how Philosophy is done.

I'll take a stab. Why not, right?

The first part, yes, I think there would be harm as you set foot onto private property to take something that hasn't been released into the public domain. Not in the legal sense of public domain, but rather "out there" as in available to the market. Does this differ much from breaking into a lab and stealing a guarded formula that its creator hasn't yet decided to release to the world? I don't see how it directly relates to protecting IP. Those who oppose IP protection do not authorize criminal entry into private property. My body is my private property and you may not enter it without my permission.

If you were contracted to delete certain thoughts and you accidentally or maliciously deleted others you would be in breech of the stated contract and should be liable for damages. Both parties voluntarily entered into the contract without coercion.

I think I see where you are going in response to the stealing of thoughts. I just don't think the thought stealer is a good avenue for debate as it relies on agressing against a human body, not how words and numbers are arranged on a page.

 

[smoking357]

If you were contracted to delete certain thoughts and you accidentally or maliciously deleted others you would be in breech of the stated contract and should be liable for damages. Both parties voluntarily entered into the contract without coercion.

If we deny that a thought has any value, what is the measure of damages? Further, if you can't own a thought, how can you claim damages for the loss of one?

 

[level.eleven]

If we deny that a thought has any value, what is the measure of damages? Further, if you can't own a thought, how can you claim damages for the loss of one?

I knew where this was going.

I assigned my thoughts values. Those values are reflected in the contract and how much I am willing to pay to have them erased. The contract was voluntarily entered into by you and me. I would not enter into a contract to have thoughts erased without stipulations regarding accidental deletion and the resulting compensation.

As an aside, this thought stealing machine made me just think of the black market for urine and organs. Weird train of thought. Yeah, its actually been a good day back after the long weekend.