MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

Greg Anos · 07-23-2008, 03:52 PM

Once more into the breach...

1. An idea cannot be property. Correct. According to the western implementation of societial values, a specific implementation of an idea can be treated as property, for a limited period of time.

2. Although it can be treated as property, it is not property. It is a production monopoly granted for a limited period of time. These production monopolies have only been in existance slightly less than 300 years, and have always been granted on the proposition the society will tolerate the inherent evil of a monopoly for a period of time as a incentive to a skilled creator to do more creating, as more creation is considered a social good for the long term.

3. There is confusion of the terms involved. Because these monopolies can be treated as property, some people think that they are property, and demand all sorts of other aspects of property, such as perpetuity, which are not, and never have been, part of the original grant of monopoly.

4. This is not a social welfare program for creators, or their heirs and assigns. Those interests are meaningless to the granting of the monopoly. It is the society's interest in incentifiying new implemetations of ideas is the only interest concerned.

5. It does create a unique form of rentier income, unique in that it is based on a wasting asset. Property, as separate from granted monopoly, has perpetuity as a central tenant, in a granted monopoly, it does not.

6. Large corporations, over the last 50 years, have refused to give up the rentier income involved in these limited monopolies, and have used some of the profits to bri..excuse me, lobby, governments to continually extend the terms of the monopolies in order to maintain their rentier income for as long as they possibly can.

7. While this has always been sold as "helping the creator", in actually it has been about corporations helping themselves....

8. The original question of how to incent creators of new implementation of ideas for the benefit of society has gone by the wayside. Society's long term benfits have been given short shrift.

9. Technology has shattered these monopoly's grip, even thought they are still legally defined. Because of 6., 7., and 8., the moral standing of these monopolies have been eroded, leading to widespread civil disobedience of these monopolies. This is commonly refered to a theft or piracy, but it is neither, it is unlawful monopoly infringement, and should be referred as such.

10. What constitutes a optimal length for these limited monopolies is still subject to debate. Creator's lifespan has often gotten involved as part of the idea that only a live creator can create. That is the only reason lifespan has gotten involved.

Enough, I'm tired of typing....

07-23-2008, 03:52 PM	#156
Greg Anos Grand Sorcerer Posts: 11,531 Karma: 37057604 Join Date: Jan 2008 Device: Pocketbook	Once more into the breach... 1. An idea cannot be property. Correct. According to the western implementation of societial values, a specific implementation of an idea can be treated as property, for a limited period of time. 2. Although it can be treated as property, it is not property. It is a production monopoly granted for a limited period of time. These production monopolies have only been in existance slightly less than 300 years, and have always been granted on the proposition the society will tolerate the inherent evil of a monopoly for a period of time as a incentive to a skilled creator to do more creating, as more creation is considered a social good for the long term. 3. There is confusion of the terms involved. Because these monopolies can be treated as property, some people think that they are property, and demand all sorts of other aspects of property, such as perpetuity, which are not, and never have been, part of the original grant of monopoly. 4. This is not a social welfare program for creators, or their heirs and assigns. Those interests are meaningless to the granting of the monopoly. It is the society's interest in incentifiying new implemetations of ideas is the only interest concerned. 5. It does create a unique form of rentier income, unique in that it is based on a wasting asset. Property, as separate from granted monopoly, has perpetuity as a central tenant, in a granted monopoly, it does not. 6. Large corporations, over the last 50 years, have refused to give up the rentier income involved in these limited monopolies, and have used some of the profits to bri..excuse me, lobby, governments to continually extend the terms of the monopolies in order to maintain their rentier income for as long as they possibly can. 7. While this has always been sold as "helping the creator", in actually it has been about corporations helping themselves.... 8. The original question of how to incent creators of new implementation of ideas for the benefit of society has gone by the wayside. Society's long term benfits have been given short shrift. 9. Technology has shattered these monopoly's grip, even thought they are still legally defined. Because of 6., 7., and 8., the moral standing of these monopolies have been eroded, leading to widespread civil disobedience of these monopolies. This is commonly refered to a theft or piracy, but it is neither, it is unlawful monopoly infringement, and should be referred as such. 10. What constitutes a optimal length for these limited monopolies is still subject to debate. Creator's lifespan has often gotten involved as part of the idea that only a live creator can create. That is the only reason lifespan has gotten involved. Enough, I'm tired of typing.... Last edited by Greg Anos; 07-23-2008 at 04:27 PM.