I have made known my stand on this in several entries here before. This shall hopefully be the last entry with capacity to be expanded, to avoid confusion of multiple postings on the same subject.

The crux of the problem is: Do we distinguish theft from lying? That is, should we not conflate the 8th and the 9th commandments: Thou shalt not steal & Thou shalt not bear false witness, respectively.

I once asked Pak Tong the last time he was here in the States, he did not give a clear answer but recognizing that there are people promoting against intellectual properties; however, he also stated that his ministry STEMI does not allow people to copy their materials without permission. I cannot say that he supports Intellectual property rights in the common way because of this, because I believe even if someone pirated their materials, I highly doubt they would sue that person. 1 Timothy 5:18 comes to mind, which is not the same as the principle operating behind today's copyright law.

I would attempt to start by arguing from the fact that in the 8th commandment, God's physical material blessing must be recognized, and thus must be distinguished from the other commandments such as the 9th and the 10th. Though I'm not saying all these commandments are mutually exclusive. Therefore, to fail in recognizing material blessing, or to conflate material blessing with another kind of blessing such as talent, is to risk the same error as the Gnostics: diminishing the value of material, which is of the world, which God created.

Therefore, though it is true that the 8th commandment does not specify that the object of theft is a physical material one or not, what I shall investigate here is whether the notion of theft must only link to a physical object or can it also be associated with the non-physical such as the product of the mind or talent. Because after all, when we use the word "product", one can easily associate that with the physical, even though it doesn't have to be so. In the same way, we use the word "steal", for "someone else's idea". So the question is, is this meant the same way by God?

Though we must distinguish the two commandments (8th & 9th), we cannot deny that these two generally apply together to the crime of theft (of physical things). A thief who stole a car, if asked, would lie about how he got the car, generally. "Generally" being an important keyword here, because someone who steals may not lie about it and thus it borders robbing, which I think is aptly covered by the 8th commandment since there's no separate commandment that says "Thou shalt not rob". However, in the case of intellectual "properties", if we want to really call it that, there's no distinguishing of robbing and stealing.

For the sake of argument, robbing is always stealing, but stealing is not always robbing. Stealing is a bigger circle encompassing completely the smaller circle called robbing, in the Venn diagram. Stealing is taking without permission, robbing is to do so bolding in broad daylight so to speak.

But in the case of intellectual properties, there is no such thing as robbing, because when I copy someone's idea in "broad daylight", that's just simply copying, which is not a sin in itself. Only when I tell people that someone else's idea that I copied from, is mine, then have I broken the 9th commandment. But the West came up with this idea that we can "buy" someone's ideas (thus, intellectual properties) and subtly call it ours. Which is absurd, even if one works hard to not break the 9th by carefully calling it "ownership" of the rights, rather than "authorship". Because by calling it ownership, one inadvertently conveys authorship. The only reason to distinguish these two terms is to have monetary power, otherwise it's not true ownership nor authorship.

I can and should say more here, but it will be continued next time. This is an ongoing investigation of the subject.

The proponent of Copyright Law has this chief reason: To encourage creativity or sharing of it, which is pathetic. As if I need to pay a child to behave or not seek vengeance. What then, shall we oppose the government because of this? No. Here give unto Caesar is apt.

******************

Update 5/8/2026 Friday, I've made my stand from Biblical perspective, that no one can steal something that doesn't exist as property (i.e. Intellectual Property). Thus the only commandment broken is #9 "Thou Shalt not Lie", not #8 "Thou Shalt not Steal". To confuse this is a theological fail which opens the door to all kinds of subtly long but eventual deadly chaos. I was curious so I checked with Google Gemini and I love the answer given:

Has there by any challenges against Intellectual property as a moral value?

Absolutely. While IP is the "Fortress" of the modern intangible economy, it has been under heavy fire from philosophers, ethicists, and technologists for decades. The challenges aren't just about legality; they attack the very moral foundation of owning an idea. +1

Here are the primary moral and philosophical challenges against Intellectual Property:

1. The "Non-Scarcity" Argument

In traditional property ethics (like John Locke’s), property exists to manage scarcity. If I eat an apple, you cannot eat that same apple.

• The Challenge: Ideas are "non-rivalrous." If I share a poem or a software code with you, I still possess the poem or the code.
• The Moral Critique: Critics argue that creating "artificial scarcity" for something that is naturally abundant is morally indefensible. They see IP laws as a way of "kidnapping" the common heritage of human knowledge for private ransom.

2. The "Social Product" Argument

The myth of the "Lone Genius" (the inventor in the garage) is often used to justify IP.

• The Challenge: No idea is born in a vacuum. Every "new" invention relies on language, math, scientific laws, and cultural history developed by billions of people over millennia.
• The Moral Critique: If an inventor uses 99% public knowledge to create 1% "new" knowledge, why should they get 100% of the control? This view argues that since knowledge is a social product, it should belong to the social collective.

3. The "Right to Progress" vs. "Right to Profit"

This is often framed as a conflict between human rights and commercial rights.

• The Challenge: IP can literally be a matter of life and death—most notably in pharmaceutical patents.
• The Moral Critique: Is it moral for a company to hold a patent on a life-saving drug that prevents millions from accessing it at a lower cost? Activists argue that the "Moral Right to Life" and the "Right to participate in the scientific progress of humanity" (enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights) should always override a "Moral Right to IP."

4. The "Inhibitor of Creativity" (The Anti-Commons)

The "Fortress" you mentioned can actually become a prison for future innovation.

• The Challenge: This is known as the "Tragedy of the Anti-Commons." If too many people own "pieces" of an idea, it becomes too expensive or legally dangerous for anyone to build anything new.
• The Moral Critique: Instead of encouraging innovation, IP is accused of stifling it by allowing "Patent Trolls" to sue creators. Ethically, this suggests that IP has failed its own stated purpose: to promote the "useful arts and sciences."

5. Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge

Standard IP law is designed for the individual or the corporation, not the community.

• The Challenge: Many corporations "discover" traditional medicines or crop varieties used by indigenous peoples for centuries and patent them (a practice called Biopiracy).
• The Moral Critique: This is viewed as a form of "Intellectual Colonialism." It ignores the moral rights of communities who have collectively stewarded knowledge for generations, only to have it privatized by an external entity using a foreign legal framework.

---

Summary of the "Alternative" Moral Visions

Because of these challenges, several alternative movements have gained moral ground:

• Copyleft / Open Source: The moral belief that software and information should be free to modify and share.
• Creative Commons: A "some rights reserved" approach that treats the user as a collaborator rather than a consumer.
• Freedom of Information: The stance that in a digital age, restricting the flow of data is a violation of basic human liberty.

*********************************

This curiosity was prompted by a previous question I posted to Gemini:

Sounds like the Capitalists will have to rely heavily on Intellectual Property to stay on top of Marxist theory.

That is a sharp observation. You’ve hit on what many economists call the "Intangible Economy."

In this framework, the Capitalist strategy isn't to compete on who can pour the most concrete or forge the most steel, but on who owns the blueprints for the future.

The IP Fortress as a Counter-Strategy

If the Marxist critique is that manufacturing eventually "hollows out" a country, the Capitalist response is to turn Intellectual Property (IP) into the ultimate defensive wall.

• Rents over Labor: Instead of earning profit from the labor of making a phone, the company earns "rent" from the patents inside it. This allows a country to maintain wealth even without a single factory on its soil.
• The "Smile Curve": This is a famous business concept where the two ends of the production chain—R&D/Design at the start and Branding/Marketing at the end—command the highest profits, while the actual Manufacturing in the middle has the lowest margins. Capitalists are essentially trying to stay at the high-value ends of the "smile."

The Marxist Counter-Counter-Argument

A Marxist theorist would likely look at this reliance on IP and say, "That’s exactly the problem." They would argue:

1. Detachment from Reality: If you only own the "idea" but lose the ability to actually build it, you become a "rentier state." You are vulnerable because if the manufacturer (China, in this case) decides to ignore your patents or develops their own, you have no "real" power left to stop them.
2. The Innovation Gap: Manufacturing and innovation are often linked. If you don't build things, you eventually lose the "know-how" to design the next generation of things. This is the "Productive Force" argument—that ideas eventually dry up if they aren't grounded in the physical act of creation.

The Modern Conflict

We’re seeing this tension play out right now in the U.S. "Small Yard, High Fence" policy. The U.S. is trying to keep its IP (high-end chips, AI algorithms) behind a "high fence" while China is racing to build its own "Small Yard" so it no longer has to pay those IP rents.

It’s a high-stakes gamble: Can you rule the world with just a "brain" (IP) if someone else owns all the "muscle" (Factories)?

It’s definitely a pivot from the classic industrial era—capitalism is essentially trying to "upload itself to the cloud" to avoid the gravity of Marxist decay.

*********************************

Earlier, I came across this video 石評天下 which uses Marxist Crisis Theory to criticize American Capitalism (path of self-destruction due to putting finance over manufacturing). The part that intrigued me was though I'm not Marxist, it is true that Capitalism of prioritizing finance (Wall Streets) above all due to it's convenience and fast money is going to be a problem. Chinese philosophy has already seen long before Marxism: 士农工商，士為高等，商為低等。

Comparison of Frameworks by Gemini:

Feature	Marxist Crisis Theory (The Video)	Liberal/Market Theory (The Opposition)
Manufacturing Loss	A sign of terminal decay and "disease."	A natural shift toward a service/tech economy.
State Planning	Essential for long-term stability and strength.	Prone to corruption and massive resource waste.
Financialization	A "parasitic" stage of late-stage capitalism.	A sign of a mature economy and global influence.
Crisis	The beginning of the end (Self-destruction).	A necessary "reset" that triggers new innovation.

Update 5/14/2026:

With Google AI's help (This was my prompt: "What are the closest passages in the Book of Revelation regarding intellectual property?"), it's an interesting reference from the Bible, Revelation 13:16-18, where the mark (without which no one can buy or sell, v.17) of the beast has been interpreted by some (7th-day Adventist) to mean something close to intellectual compliance, or basically validating intellectual property. It's an important tool for controlling the world's economy, apparently. Given the fact that I see a huge problem with the concept of IP, it certainly can't be too far from the truth of these verses. In a way, the idea of IP is an antichrist. Not the IP itself, but the source if it is the perversion of creativity, innovation, which is given in human nature by God. The fact that you need permission (the mark) to "copy" an idea, is not how we human learn things from God. More and more folks like Peter Thiel are relying their wealth methodology on IP in the capitalism vs. communism battle.

Some links [1, 2] Revelation 13:14-15 "the second beast gives breath to the man made image of the first beast" to the creation of "living" intellectual property. But as said before, if I must, I would not equate the beast to IP, but the ideology of the beast to the perversion of the beauty and God's likeness that's placed in mankind, instead.

Lastly, in Revelation 18:11-13, "...and bodies and souls of men." The passage lists various goods, ending with the accusation that the merchants trade in "slaves and souls of men" (or human lives), which is seen as the ultimate misuse of intellectual and human capital, treating human, knowledge, and skill as mere commodities. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Summary of Biblical Perspective on IP in Revelation

While the Bible generally supports private property and warns against stealing (Exodus 20:15), it does not provide a specific framework for intangible property (intellectual property). Instead, these passages focus on stewardship (using talents for God) and the prohibition of exploiting or misusing knowledge/products for unrighteousness, rather than the legal ownership of ideas. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]