[Neraphym]

Here's a little quote from a paper I just wrote for my computer class on matter replication:

Currently, technology exists that allows humans to replicate information. This is, of course, a computer. Computers allow humans to take any information and make infinite copies of it to be distributed it to the masses. There are some, however, that believe they have the right to own this information. These people make a living by selling this information to other people. Before the advent of the computer, this was a valid concept. When the computer took off, people began to share this information with each other without paying the person who owned it. This made the owners very upset, so they lobbied their governments to make sure that information could never be shared for free. Laws were passed, and people were forced not to use the technology to replicate information.
When matter replication technology comes to be, the very same could happen. Someone who wanted to buy a pair of shoes might be forced to pay Nike $5000 (odds are there would be a great deal of inflation due to original, uninhibited use of replicators prior to regulatory laws being passed) just to replicate it (it is also worth mentioning that Nike will probably still own those shoes, even though they are on that man’s feet. He is just renting the subatomic particles from Nike. Since those same subatomic particles could also be used to make a Pizza Hut Pan Pizza™, Pepsi owns those shoes, as well. Lawsuits will undoubtedly ensue…). As long as people hold to the belief that intangible items can be possessed, people will be forced to pay for things they can easily get for free.

Let us discuss the validity of owning something that cannot be touched. Right now, it is a popular concept by which many make their living off of. What do you guys think about doing away with such silly concepts?

[Kaezion]

so if someone works his {expletive antidisestablishmentarianized by Cspace} off for a year developing plans for some grand project, he isn't entitled to 'own' his intellectual creation?

i believe in intellectual property. if someone spent his own time and effort into making something, what does it matter whether or not he used his hands or his brain?

why do they administer tests in school at all, and why do colleges need to be selective? if all intellectual property was to be shared anyway (i.e. the concept of intellectual property was to be abolished), there is no need to distinguish between students who are mentally apt and those who are not, because it wouldn't matter in the future who invents what - everyone gets an equal cut. does that sound familiar? yes, that's communism.

[Res]

Hands/Brain.
Both are parts of the body.
Both can create, even though the hands require the brain to create, the brain doesn't require the hands to create.

I believe in intellectual property for a few reasons. Mainly when I think of something, and tell someone, then a week later, someone else thinks of the same thing. :gasp: It's mine! Nope. I didn't tell everyone. So I didn't think of it.

Looks good on paper.

So did communism.

[Neraphym]

Ah, that's definitely a good point. But what is going to happen when matter replication becomes possible? Would money even be necessary? Why work your {expletive antidisestablishmentarianized by Cspace} of to get money if you can't buy anything with it? All you'd have to do is press a button and whatever you want appears. Of course, this only applies to goods. Services and real estate would be unaffected. What might happen?

[Res]

I dunno. I think if matter replication were ever made possible, all sources of it would be destroyed, as it could REALLY screw the world up. If something that great were to be used by bad people, good people could be screwed. Very screwed.

[Kaezion]

matter replication is a ridiculous concept for several reasons (i hoped that i wouldn't have to get into a scientific explanation):

1. you would still need the base material (such as chunks of carbon, iron, or aluminum or whatever your finished product will be comprised of). if not, that implies that this replicator fabricates matter from the void using pure energy (under the equation e = mc^2), but this requires an impractical amount of energy (greater than the energy released by a standard atomic bomb detonation, i would think) spent to create something like a pencil.

however, that isn't much of an issue, as we see in...

2. fine, let's say you have the base material. after all, a chunk of carbon (aka coal) isn't all that expensive. however, there is the question of arrangement. manufactured products have a high degree of 'order.' by this, i mean that specific materials are arranged in a specific manner to create the structure of the final product. whatever mechanism you are proposing will have to spend energy to arrange the base material into a structure with lower entropy than before - this will most likely consume, again, impractical amounts of both energy and time. can you imagine constructing a Nike shoe by single atoms? that's like trying to build the Great Wall of China with a single grain of sand at a time. and for matter replication, you will have to work on the atomic - or at the very largest, molecular - level or otherwise you will have a duplicated product with dissimilar properties (the dissimilarity will vary, obviously); that defeats the purpose of matter replication.

i'm sure there are many, many reasons which i haven't thought of.

[Neraphym]

You could have made a similar arguement about computers 100 years ago.

[Kaezion]

can you imagine any process that will enable you to record the position of every single atom in an object? can you make an image of an object so that, when you keep zooming in on any area of that image, you will get down to the molecular and atomic levels?

and that's with only electrons and photons.

what makes you think it will be practical, assuming it's even possible, to move every single atom of an object into place exactly according to that original object, and make those atoms form ionic/covalent/intermolecular bonds with each other? to break down a product into its constituent matter particles is one thing, but to bring those particles together and form the whole product, atom by atom, is a process that requires the exportation of very, very large amounts of entropy (meaning, you have to use obscene, impractical, and most likely impossible amounts of energy).

it's definitely not the same argument made against computers from a century ago.

there's a fine line separating the technological visionary from the sci-fi junkie.

[Neraphym]

I'm sorry you feel that way. What might be unfathomable today might be trivial tomorrow. My computer analogy is absolutely perfect. Take a mindset from the late 19th century and try to make an arguement as to how such a crazy contraption like the internet could never practically exist. It is way too complicated. Can you image a machine that can quickly search and locate a string of billions upon billions of 0's and 1's on a tiny little magnet, then translate them into commands, respond to those commands appropriately, then display them on a light-making machine thousands of miles away? It would require an enormous room full of thingermabobs and doohickeys the likes of which could not possibly exist.

There's a fine line separating the technological visionary from the Jules Verne addict.

[Res]

I see both sides of a circle.

True. The same argument could be made about computers whenever ago. Just ask anyone over the age of 70/80. The thought of me talking to you, wherever you are through a machine is completely unfathomable.

Same way with this. Matter replication seems so far-fetched to us now, with all of the effort it would take, and all of the time and money, it seems incredible. But that's not to say here within the next hundred, two hundred years it would come up. Science is making advances every day, so I'm sure one day people will run out of things to discover and say "Hey, let's make another shoe. Out of the same shoe. "

[Kaezion]

i concede; i admit that such technology in the distant future might exist with powerful enough energy sources.

it still won't be as practical as simply purchasing the product from a specialized factory designed solely to generate that one product (because factories will, i imagine, be significantly more efficient in the future than today - if matter replication technology is availabe to consumers, so it will be to manufacturers who will inevitably implement a specialized form of that technology to their factories, boosting efficiency beyond that of the standard consumer 'matter replicator').

but we digress.

intellectual property laws are absolutely vital to a capitalist society, and global society as a whole. i guess we already know that.

so you ask, what happens if matter replication becomes available to the masses?

i think the more important question is, should it? if such technology becomes viable, i think it should be (and would be, by any prudent government) withheld as the property of the government or at least some kind of power strictly overseeing the use of such technology. you don't see the printers of the U.S. mint readily accessible to common people, do you?

but in all technicality, this concept of matter replication would still fall under the jurisdiction of intellectual property. no one cares if you possess a blank CD. however, if you arrange the atoms on the surface of that CD in a particular way without receiving proper authorization from, say Justin Timberlake, you will be a valid target for an intellectual property lawsuit. you are still in full ownership of the actual atoms of that CD - what you are not in ownership of is the way in which those atoms are arranged.

the same goes with matter replication. you still own everything there - the thing you are stealing is the arrangement of those materials which are nevertheless in your legal possession.

so i would imagine that, if matter replication ever became available to the masses, the first action that major companies would take is to label their products with some kind of un-copiable label (sort of like how they protect CDs nowadays), and if anyone is walking around in un-labeled Nike shoes then they can be sued for violating copyright laws.

[Nuu™™]

Here's a little quote from a paper I just wrote for my computer class on matter replication:

Sorry, I am going to have to get fine you $200 for replicating those words that were solely written for school purposes and therefore are owned by the school you go to, not you.










Onto seriousness, I just want to be sure that I am understanding this here. So a matter replication device is a machine that has a supply of elements available to it. You can synthesise these elements using a chemical formula to create, well, anything. And you think people will copyright these formulas?


>.>
<.<


If people were foolish enough to copyright chemical formulas, where would the line stop? Could you copyright, a tree? A planet? Pygmies? C332652H492388N98245O131196P7501S2340 is the chemical formula for poliovirus, and anyone with the right equipment could mass produce this. Funnily enough, no one has copyrighted this. If some corporation did copyright their product's formula, what could they do about it? You could just synthesise an army of monsters to blow up their headquarters.

It might be a good philosophical discussion, but it really doesn't make sense in reality.

[Neraphym]

I have also drawnt he conclusion that matter replicators should not be given to the masses. The problem that arises here is that only big businesses will be able to get replicators, and that completely destroys the ability for small businesses to compete. Also, it is unlikely the price of any materials would go down, as supply and demand would remain unchanged.

For example, the cost of Coke syrup is about 3 cents per drink*, yet McDonalds sells cokes for over a dollar, just because they can. Right now it costs a lot to make a shoe, but if Nike could make them very cheap with matter replicators, the cost wouldn't go down. They'd probably use the replicators as an excuse to raise prices. Either way, consumers will still buy shoes, because smaller companies wont exist that would put out same-quality shoes at a cheaper price, and because consumers are their own worst enemies.

*could be wrong about this, I heard it from a guy who worked at McDonalds.

[ticktockclok]

I have also drawnt he conclusion that matter replicators should not be given to the masses. The problem that arises here is that only big businesses will be able to get replicators, and that completely destroys the ability for small businesses to compete. Also, it is unlikely the price of any materials would go down, as supply and demand would remain unchanged.

For example, the cost of Coke syrup is about 3 cents per drink*, yet McDonalds sells cokes for over a dollar, just because they can. Right now it costs a lot to make a shoe, but if Nike could make them very cheap with matter replicators, the cost wouldn't go down. They'd probably use the replicators as an excuse to raise prices. Either way, consumers will still buy shoes, because smaller companies wont exist that would put out same-quality shoes at a cheaper price, and because consumers are their own worst enemies.

*could be wrong about this, I heard it from a guy who worked at McDonalds.

Its not costing Nike much to make them right now. They get dirt-cheap labor from Asia right now anyway.

[Neraphym]

There's also something very scary that I thought about. As you read this sentance, you are storing my intellectual property in a small part of your brain. Under penalty of law, I hereby command you never to think about this sentence ever again. I also wish that the part of you brain stealing my intellectual property be biopsied immediately. (Let's hope this never happens..)