Ted Wolff
Rookie
mooseodeath said:
Excusing the ad hominem attack, that is quite a shaky generalization, and definitely quite a slippery slope. Are you a soothsayer? what's your record for predicting my future, let alone any future? Is your statement about my creations based on any historical fact that people who refuse to copyright always have their creations misappropriated? And how would my creations be misappropriated when I would have meticulous documentation of my creation process? How would any person misappropriating put forth a better claim on my creation than me?
mooseodeath said:
Is this statement about Korea indicative of some kind of stance against foreign (i.e., outside U.S.) competition? And will these massively, cheaply produced versions be of the same quality? How will they obtain the know-how and genesis behind my creation? Details! Details!
Also, a patent is not an intellectual protection on a created product. Patents protect the process of invention or exercise. Coca-Cola doesn't have a patent on Diet Coke; they have a patent on its process. That's what patents protect, and you misstated their use.
mooseodeath said:
Question: Why is an authentic Van Gogh valued more highly than its copies? Because it was painted by Van Gogh himself and not cheaply reproduced; that is, it is more scarce. There is a market for authenticity, not merely copies. People will rightly value the original: What I would have originally created.
mooseodeath said:
Where does this idea that I have no aspiration to create and expand society come from? On the contrary, I have greatly expanded this discussion on intellectual property outside of the myopic view that all intellectual property must be protected. On the contrary, intellectual property rights hinder and restrict aspirations of many people to create and expand because their rightful self-ownership is restricted: They cannot speak freely because certain ideas are "owned."
Why do I have no right to tell others whatever? It is the right of self-ownership to use my property freely without infringing upon the property of others, such as in speech. Answer me: Where does the right to a creation come from? How is it established? I answer your questions; please, answer mine. If I go into your house and create a salad out of your lettuce, beets, carrots, and ranch dressing, is that salad now mine because I created it? No; I did not own the lettuce, beets, et cetera. They are owned by you; I do not appropriate them simply because I create them. The underlying property must be owned before a creation can be "owned"; that is, the ideas of any creation, as you argue in intellectual property, must be able to be owned.
mooseodeath said:
Greed? You are the one who wants a right to what you think are "your ideas," and to prevent the free exercise of others' property. Talk about greedy!
EdEdEd said:
Why do you qualify your statement with the preposition of place "on the Internet"? What does it matter, for this argument's purposes, where it takes place? And suckered? Are you so easily deceived?
EdEdEd said:
I am steadfast in my argument, yes, but this is not a pejorative stubbornness â€â€
