Indicator sentences: Or do you mean if one creates an idea, someone has to give him money, no matter how bad the idea is?
Trigger words: unfair
Indicator sentences: Define "unfair" in this context, please.
Negotiation parts: It's unfair for the creator not to be compensated well for making a product that people find useful. I mean what meaning of "unfair" are you using? "Unjust"? It de-incentivises creation. If I work for years to create something, sacrificing time and money, but then have that thing stolen, why in the world would I ever waste my time creating again? In fact, depending on my sunk cost, the lack of profits made by the theft could make it impossible for me to continue creating. Let's take the example of a movie. Now a days, a movie is just a bunch of data, but it's data that took years and millions of dollars to create. If you take away my ability to market that movie as I see fit, you're doing the exact same thing as taking away to my ability to market an actual, physical product.
Trigger words: media
Indicator sentences: Could you define "media" in this context?
Negotiation parts: Ok media here means content, sorry English isn't my first language, I meant content.
Indicator sentences: He would be entitled to get paid for whatever he sells. Is that what you mean?
Trigger words: human rights
Indicator sentences: What human rights are we talking about here?
Negotiation parts: Property rights (e.g. fines, wage garnishment)
Indicator sentences: You mean reduces the control over the idea in other people's lives?
Trigger words: right (2)
Indicator sentences: Are you using "right" to mean "positive right"?
Negotiation parts: It's a very problematic word, similar to "fair." I think if we define these words, we'll be very close to a conclusion. By "right" I mean that you can do it if you want to and nobody should prevent you from doing it With "deserve something " I mean that you have the right to take it and that although it is not necessary to be given to you, it should I will try to explain myself better: I understand that both concepts have no real "meaning" to an objective observant outside humanity, or to the universe itself (if that makes more sense). However, they do "exist" in the way that we as humans perceive them. Morality, right or wrong, having the right to do something or deserving a reward are made up and carry no "real" meaning, sure. But within the context of the human behavior they receive the meaning that we decide to give them, and although this seems subjective to a third observant, some things are "objectively" bad for us humans, some things are "objectively" our rights and we "objectively" deserve rewards for our work. We humans have evolve to think this way since it has helped improve the society. Does that make these concepts "right" or "real"? I don't think so. They seem however to be efficient and to actually help our survival. This is the context in which I define these concepts, giving them their most common and "objectively true" for all humans definition. I admit that I don't have a great knowledge of philosophy and I'm not sure about the validity of my ideas. I hope I have explained myself clearly enough.
Trigger words: deserve
Indicator sentences: And could you define "deserve"?
Negotiation parts: It's a very problematic word, similar to "fair." I think if we define these words, we'll be very close to a conclusion. By "right" I mean that you can do it if you want to and nobody should prevent you from doing it With "deserve something " I mean that you have the right to take it and that although it is not necessary to be given to you, it should I will try to explain myself better: I understand that both concepts have no real "meaning" to an objective observant outside humanity, or to the universe itself (if that makes more sense). However, they do "exist" in the way that we as humans perceive them. Morality, right or wrong, having the right to do something or deserving a reward are made up and carry no "real" meaning, sure. But within the context of the human behavior they receive the meaning that we decide to give them, and although this seems subjective to a third observant, some things are "objectively" bad for us humans, some things are "objectively" our rights and we "objectively" deserve rewards for our work. We humans have evolve to think this way since it has helped improve the society. Does that make these concepts "right" or "real"? I don't think so. They seem however to be efficient and to actually help our survival. This is the context in which I define these concepts, giving them their most common and "objectively true" for all humans definition. I admit that I don't have a great knowledge of philosophy and I'm not sure about the validity of my ideas. I hope I have explained myself clearly enough.
Trigger words: prevent
Indicator sentences: And by "prevent," you mean "coerce into stopping"?
Trigger words: product
Indicator sentences: Not if "the product" means the idea in his mind and not the copies.
Negotiation parts: Interfering with the creator's notes or thoughts, for example, would be unjust. But copying his work creates something that is not "their product." In general English, "product" can mean "the result of" or "something made or grown to be sold." One meaning confers ownership, the other doesn't. As for the rest, it seems that we have a disagreement about whether the ideas are the same thing or not. But how can ideas be different depending on whose mind they are in? Is the English language that I speak different than yours? Is democracy different for me than what it is for you, if we both interpret it in exactly the same way, give it the same definition etc? If you interpret an idea differently, then that's another thing. But if you interpret it differently in our case, it won't be the same product but it will be just two similar products, one of which was inspired by the other, and I'm absolutely fine with that. But we are talking about taking the idea and creating essentially the same product, meaning that you have interpreted it in exactly the same way. Can you prove that then the ideas are different? Because the person who copied the idea didn't actually create anything , they just stored the original in their memory.