> > It is one thing to hold the opinion that infinitely copiable memespace
>
> Assumption check: Who says memespace is infinte? In a finite universe, there is
> a limited amount of memespace.
>
> > should be fenced off and privately held the same way as uncopyable
>
> > dirtspace, but it is quite another to continue claiming that those who
> > oppose the former also oppose the latter when you know that's not true.
>
> memescapes and landscapes are equal to me. I am equally comfortable living in
> the land of ideas as I am living in concrete reality. This is one reason why
> even extropians have let the socialist statists at ICANN steal the whole kit and
> kaboodle out from under us. Since eventually that is where most of us will be
> living one day, failing to see memespace as real estate is a serious
> miscalculation.
You are once again confusing two separate things--namespaces such as those
administered by ICANN and Trademark law (and which are indeed uncopiable
scarce resources like land, and which I have always supported property
rights in), and Patents, which were the subject of this thread. Come back
to this debate when you understand the difference and can stay on-topic.
A piece of fish, and the lake from which I fish are singular scarce
resources; if you use them, you lessen what I can use. The name "Joe's
Quality Fish" is a scarce and valuable resource. If you use that name,
you commit fraud by pretending to be me and you lessen the value that
name has to my customers. My _method_ of fishing is different. If you
watch me fish on my lake, then copy what I do on your own lake and
sell your own fish under your own name, you are not stealing my fish
or my name, you are just competing in a market I created, and our
respective customers will decide who is better. Just because I created
the market doesn't give me any right to muscle out my competitors.
Patents and copyrights pretend to protect "property rights" in the
space of ideas and expressions; what they really protect is the _market_
for products based on those ideas. If the government stepped in to
grant a monopoly market to an apple farmer, shutting down farmers who
grew their own apples on their own land, we would rightly call that an
act of force. I don't see any reason to change that opinion just
because farmer A "invented" apple farming by doing it first.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:20 MDT