Jeffrey Tucker will be giving a lecture on the evils of Intellectual Property this afternoon at Auburn University. He will be in the Student Center Room 2107 from 5:30-6:30. This should be an exciting event for those who are able to make it on such short notice.
Here is Jeffrey Tucker’s lecture from yesterday evening.
{ 31 comments }
Evils of IP? Did I miss something from Mises?
Ben,
Apparently quite a bit! Mises himself held that ideas, being instantly transferred and transmuted upon utterance, are not property. Ideas are not goods of any order, and as they cannot be utilized or rendered without [human] action, they are outside of the realm of praxeology and thus within the confines of psychology (“why an action is chosen” rather than “the study of action as such”).
More or less, I would imagine Mises retorting to IP enforcement as simple theft (ideas again, cannot be stolen – however, property and liberty certainly can). A man comes onto your land, professes ownership of an object(s), and either takes them or forces their destruction; that the man believes himself to be the ‘owner of the concept’ makes little difference in the actual act of property theft.
Beyond the simple ‘ideas are not physical and thus cannot be owned’ concept is the practical implications of IP enforcement (and here comes the “evil” Mr. Tucker speaks of): just imagine a world where the use of a 2/4 requires sign off from a distant overlord, eager to reap the rewards of conceptualizing a piece of rather narrow wood!
In other words, intellectual property is just another molested liberal concept – maligned precisely to justify the coercive acts of today’s State.
Shorter answer: Mises* is not our God.
* Feel free to put the name of any human being here. See also “Appeal to Authority.”
Seandon,
I can understand this to a certain extent, in the broad strokes of basic or fundamental ideas. There have been ideas patented where I scratch my head. But a specific realization of ideas or knowledge into a whole that did not previously exist is a different thing. If a firm invests 10s of millions of dollars and 100s of thousands of hours into developing X for just the chance to make some profit, only to have it copied upon completion, something seems very very wrong. Did not the copier steal the effort of development? I know who I’d call the thief in this scenario. Is a piece of music, the product of intellectual ability and artistic talent, a highly complex and uniquely identifiable whole, not property simply because it isn’t rendered into a physical form? Taking these ideas to such extremes seems highly reductive and overly simplistic, maybe even childish. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water!
Ben
That a firm spends outrageous amounts of money is not in and of itself a justification for any kind of ownership. They could just as easily spend that money on lobbying congress to give them your home. Would that make your home legitimately theirs? That they spend that money expecting the government to enforce an unjust privilige on their behalf is irrelevant to discussions of the propriety of IP.
Ben,
” ….. something seems very very wrong ”
I understand why you say this, but what can anyone do if it is in the very nature of ideas and patterns? How valid is it that A sells B a product that contains some innovation and then demands that B should either desist from studying his product to understand what the innovation is or if he develops such an understanding, he should not act to incorporate it in his own products? You can’t stop a person from learning or not acting as per his accumulated knowledge without subjecting him to a lot of force.
That’s where the “evil” nature of IP comes in – in that its implementation necessarily involves violation of liberty and property rights of those who initiated no force against the “innovator” who is trying to “protect” his idea. That the State takes a major role in initiating this force only makes matters worse.
I do agree that it would be good if innovators can protect their ideas. However, as in everything else, the onus is on the innovators themselves to decide if and how they want to do so. The idea should be to let it happen as a free market would permit it to, not through State aggression.
Bala
Surprisingly well put!
Here are some nuances of IP regulation that I would also love Mr Tucker to address from his radical point of view thus:
A listener – not being able to afford an outstanding concert recording – cannot objectively feel the same restriction of his free will than say, a dying “reverse-engineer†not being able to afford efficient medication … even though both times they are kept away from a claim to an immaterial “propertyâ€.
On the other hand, the artist not being allowed under contract, to play in concert his music teacher’s composition, objectively feels not the same restriction of his free will than say, a starving man who owns a can of Campbell soup – and is just not able to afford an efficiently engineered can opener…
By pretending both kinds of IP “tariffs†are to be treated exactly the same way from the point of view of economics, one seems to reduce the definition of “free will†in a way that, I m sure, keep many laymen away – even before they start thinking about the benefits of free trade. It just seems that IP abolition raises the social value of free trade above that of free will – which makes no sense in the mind of most people.
All what IP abolitionists can probably say about it, is: human striving for originality … is not a matter of free will !
Doesn’t that sound awkward ?
Artisan:
What I’m more concerned with, is how I’ve never heard a justification for IP that didn’t use either appeals to emotion or some very strange twisting around of definitions!
I couldn’t even follow your argument. What does abolishing IP deny humans of their “free will”?
@Artisan
I hope you won’t mind me replying even though I’m not Tucker.
> A listener … cannot objectively feel the same
> restriction of his free will than say, a dying
> “reverse-engineer†…
This claim compares interpersonal valuations, which the Austrian School deems uncomparable. We have no way of objectively comparing how they feel.
> … the artist not being allowed under contract, …
> objectively feels not the same restriction of his
> free will than say, a starving man …
Same issue as above.
> By pretending both kinds of IP “tariffs†are to be
> treated exactly the same way …
Some IP opponents (and IP proponents) evidently do that. But that approach is incompatible with the the Austrian School. Personally, I do not agree that contractual vs. IP restrictions are the same, on the contrary, I see an important difference between them. To me, they only have bear superficial similarities (e.g. if overly restrictive, compliance costs become excessive).
From the group W bench:
I’m with you Seattle, I was going to answer Artisan, but couldn’t quite figure out if he was actually making a point or not.
“If a firm invests 10s of millions of dollars and 100s of thousands of hours into developing X for just the chance to make some profit, only to have it copied upon completion, something seems very very wrong.”
Why? That’s how the fashion industry works and it works well without IP. In fact, the sentence above might be regarded as a short-hand description of the history of economic development. The whole point of the market process is that successful (profitable) strategies are copied (emulated) by competitors and improved gradually in the hope of sustaining profitability.
I’m well aware that my point seems too “subtle†to care about for some libertarians – despite some sympathetic attempts to react to my post. I ll thus try to keep it short.
However, I deny the fact that my claim “compares interpersonal valuations, which the Austrian School deems incomparableâ€. On the contrary I believe that Austrians just like any other humans can well relate to the following difference, as being an objective difference – or to put it differently, I believe any other human being will understand that difference before some libertarians will only try to (LvM obviously being an exception) :
An artist strives for originality while an engineer strives for functionality – of which originality is only a by-product (Is that objective enough?).
@Artisan:
Allow me to rephrase. You cannot objectively compare. Any such comparison is subjective.
> An artist strives for originality while an engineer
> strives for functionality …
Even if we assume that we can actually ascertain this much, we still have no means of objectively valuing either.
The fact that all artists strive (and are rewarded) for originality in society just like all engineers strive for functionality shouldn’t generate any specific conception of property, except for this one: duplicating the authentic pattern of work of an artist without his permission objectively diminishes his originality, while copying the original pattern of a utensil doesn’t objectively diminish the functionality of it. That’s why one would be in defiance of the author’s free will. The other not at all.
shorter answer: Mises* is not our God.
* Feel free to put the name of any human being here**. See also “Appeal to Authority
**Except Rothbard.
@Artisan
> … duplicating the authentic pattern of work of an
> artist without his permission objectively diminishes
> his originality, …
Originality is subjective. It is a concept that only exists in people’s heads and cannot be empirically observed. If I claim that a copy doesn’t diminish the originality of the original, how do you prove me wrong? The only argument can be that it doesn’t appear that way to you.
> while copying the original pattern of a utensil
> doesn’t objectively diminish the functionality of it.
Same problem where, although less obvious because functionality can be partially observed.
> That’s why one would be in defiance of the
> author’s free will. The other not at all.
I can’t see how this follows. That sounds incredibly similar to the value concept of property. Since originality only exists in people’s heads, the changes of its properties cannot influence ownership rights. Just because the author is unable to reach his objective doesn’t mean anyone “defied his free will”.
<< but what can anyone do if it is in the very nature of ideas and patterns? How valid is it that A sells B a product that contains some innovation and then demands that B should either desist from studying his product to understand what the innovation is or if he develops such an understanding, he should not act to incorporate it in his own products?
Perfectly valid. It's a contract between A and B. If B doesn't want to abide by the terms of the contract then no deal. Don't buy X from A. If B wishes to incorporate X into their own product, many patent holders would be ALL TO HAPPY to license the use of their product; therefore an exchange for use of someone else's work and innovation.
What some seem to be oblivious to here, curiously in the same way the communists were, is that people will work to innovate at the same rate if their innovation is not protected as if it were. This seems a rather dangerous assumption and is not supported from historical observation as we do have nations that do not recognize or enforce IP, namely the communists and socialists. Not exactly hotbeds of innovation.
I work in the productive world, not academic or purely intellectual world, where we MUST innovate and produce or fail. Here's but one perhaps counter-intuitive concrete example for some here from recent history for us. A competitor had a quite good solution on how to solve a problem. We knew exactly what they were doing and how they were doing it. It would have been trivial to duplicate it (contrary to claims about reverse engineering, that's just hooey a lot of the time out here in reality). We were frustrated as the competitor was getting customers specifically for this piece of technology. So we thought, and thought . . . and thought. Then finally after many years came up with a completely different and better way to solve the problem. We were specifically motivated to invest and innovate a new solution entirely because we couldn't just duplicate theirs. That's just a fact and I'm sure it's not the first or last time that's happened.
<<
I do agree that it would be good if innovators can protect their ideas. However, as in everything else, the onus is on the innovators themselves to decide if and how they want to do so. The idea should be to let it happen as a free market would permit it to, not through State aggression.
<<
In principle it's just the State protecting property an enforcing contracts. The most essential and valid function of the State.
I can understand this line of thinking when it takes the form of "excesses of IP" but the notion that IP is in and of itself Evil across the board is way overboard to me. Fortunately, while not perfect, the US has protected IP from the founding and it has served us very well.
Like everything in life, applying our rational mind to evaluate ideas, including ideas ABOUT ideas, rather than just following an abstract construct to its furthest logical extents makes a lot more sense to me.
@Ben:
> What some seem to be oblivious to here, curiously
> in the same way the communists were, is that
> people will work to innovate at the same rate if their
> innovation is not protected as if it were.
I don’t think any of the serious IP opponents claims this.
Even without IP, there are still ways to protect your investment. Also, IP not only has the ability to increase revenue, it also can increase the costs. So just like it might encourage some new creations, it might also discourage some others.
Ben
“Fortunately, while not perfect, the US has protected IP from the founding and it has served us very well.”
Have you read “against intellectual monopoly”? This book confronts your statement head on, very interesting reading. Everyone in this debate should read that book and Kinsella’s “Against Intellectual Property” before wasting time going over ground these two books cover exhaustively.
<< Have you read "against intellectual monopoly"? This book confronts your statement head on, very interesting reading. Everyone in this debate should read that book and Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property" before wasting time going over ground these two books cover exhaustively.
<<
No I haven't read it, but I'll give it a try some time.
Here's some countries with varying degrees of IP protection.
- United States (which has originated more ideas, technology and products than anywhere else in the world)
- Western Europe
- Japan
Do you disagree? Do you think that maybe IP has played some role in that development? Working as I do in R&D for a multi-national my answer is an unequivocal, hell yes. We bust our nuts trying to get ahead of competitors, to be first with an idea and protect it. They do the same. Use your imagination on the result. Now use your imagination on what might happen if there was no way to create competitive advantages from "mere" information. It takes vastly more effort to create, which seems to be nonchalantly disregarded in this assertion, than to copy. That's a fact and I've seen it up close and personal. That's why many companies have to go to great lengths to protect their designs if they're sold into China (like potting). If they don't, they'll sell one copy. Awfully hard to pay your engineering staff for years of development off one copy of almost anything. Principles are fun to ruminate over, maybe even enlightening. When you're done, you still have to feed your kids.
Here's some places that don't protect IP
- Soviet Union (they gone)
- China (they don't invent, just copy what others invent, often at the expense of those who carry out the apparently un-protectable act of creation)
- Cuba, lovely little island that hasn't budged from the 50s
- Scandanavia? Nice place. Not a hot bed of creation.
So what gives? Seems as though this may be crying for the moon, a place that is NEVER going to exist.
One more time, from the top, with feeling. If you want to talk about IP reform to discuss, identify, and remove what's negative and keep what's positive, I'm all ears. If you just want to make a borderline anarchist assertion that IP is inherently indefensible, well have fun, that's not going anywhere.
“If a firm invests 10s of millions of dollars and 100s of thousands of hours into developing X for just the chance to make some profit, only to have it copied upon completion, something seems very very wrong.”
Why? That’s how the fashion industry works and it works well without IP. In fact, the sentence above might be regarded as a short-hand description of the history of economic development. The whole point of the market process is that successful (profitable) strategies are copied (emulated) by competitors and improved gradually in the hope of sustaining profitability.
<<
The notion the fashion industry spends 10s of millions and years to develop a line of clothing is comical on its face. It’s also an industry dominated by quite wealthy at the top, and armies of borderline slave labor around the world. Great model!
Moreover, observation and extrapolation principles into NEW realizations is perfectly fine. Again, in my practical real world experience, I’ve seen and participated in this. Evaluation of a competitive product that was protected by IP. We couldn’t just copy it. After a great deal of effort to become more competitive in this field, we came up with a different and better way to solve the problem. BECAUSE WE HAD TO, rather than just copying “an infinitely repeatable pattern of *mere* information”.
This is getting dumb.
If you’re at Auburn go speak to the greater professors Yeager and Garrison instead.
@ Peter Surda
I think you are playing with words. Use uniqueness as a synonym to originality if you want and rephrase your question like this:
“If I claim that a copy doesn’t diminish the uniqueness of the original, how do you prove me wrong?â€
I would say you must be out of your mind, and here’s my proof:
In this world, one is less than two.
to ralph keys:
whilst not harming the anti-ip case, george selgin’s paper “strong steam, weak patents…” does shoot holes in b&l’s use of the watt steam-engine example.
http://www.terry.uga.edu/~selgin/#Watt
sorry for torturing your name, t. ralph kays.
newson
Interesting, thanks for the link, I am not entirely convinced, but certainly think it needs to be looked at more.
Ben,
” In principle it’s just the State protecting property an enforcing contracts. ”
Two points….
Firstly, you err in saying that “ideas” and “patterns” can be legitimately called “property”. By their nature, they cannot be. You fight nature at your own peril. That’s the problem with IP.
Secondly, you cannot claim validity for a contract that infringes upon my Liberty. Do not confuse the present confused state of affairs for the validity of your claim.
” I work in the productive world, …… it’s not the first or last time that’s happened. ”
How is this story a valid argument that justifies the claim that IP is legitimate “property”?
As I wrote some friends:
Jeff’s talk had me thinking. He was pointing out the difference between scarce resources and non-scarce, infinitely reproducible ones. Yes, they are different, but I think we also need to combat another fallacious view: people seem to implicitly think it’s BAD that ideas are infinitely reproducible. This is a “problem” we need to combat by making them artificially scarce. But this is wrong: the non-scarcity of ideas is a GOOD thing.
It is actually unfortunate that material things are scarce. But it would be GOOD if material things WERE more abundant. So imagine that some benevolent genius invents a matter-copying device that lets you just point it at some distant object, and instantly duplicate it for free for you. So I see a coat you are wearing, click a button, and now I have an identical copy. I see you having a nice steak, and duplicate it. Etc. This would make us all infinitely wealthy. It would be great. Of course people would fear the “unemploymennt” it would cause–hey, I WANT to be unemployed and rich!
And the (formerly) rich would hate it because they would now not be special. They couldn’t lord their Rolls Royces and diamonds over the poor; the poor would have all that (it would be similar to how audiophiles were irked by the advent of the CD so tried to find granite turntables and special “weights” and gold connectors, to adopt the affectation that they were still getting better audio quality than the masses).
So imagine a rich guy suing a guy who “copied” his car…. imagine farmers suing people who copied their crops to keep from starving… how absurd! I guess they’d ask a judge to order a famine as a remedy to crop-copying!
And what damages would the copied guy request? Not monetary damages–the defendant could just print up wealth (gold, cars, whatever) to pay him off. So the only remedy he could want would be to punish or impoverish the defendant… for satisfaction, to once again feel superior. The essence of IP is destruction!
@Ben
Your comparisons and pseudo-analysis of different nations and their development are just plain stupid.
Why? Because you do not realize the difference between correlation and causation.
You should ask yourself: Is it possible for me to determine cause and effect by just viewing descriptive statistics?
>> If I claim that a copy doesn’t diminish the
>> uniqueness of the original, how do you prove me
>> wrong?
> I would say you must be out of your mind, and
> here’s my proof:
> In this world, one is less than two.
So, in your world, the existence of a pen diminishes the originality of a rabbit? The existence of this website diminishes the uniqueness of the smell of dandellions?
My point is, the connection between those two only lies in people’s heads (and then, only on some). From objective point of view, they are not related.
Comments on this entry are closed.