Epson wins preliminary ruling against aftermarket cartridge manufacturers reports that:
Epson is one step closer to closing the books on a case against third-party ink cartridge manufacturers that make and sell products to work with Epson printers. The company has won a preliminary ruling saying that 24 aftermarket print cartridge manufacturers do indeed infringe on Epson’s patents, and they face orders that would bar them from selling the infringing products in the US.
See, here’s what happens. If you design an innovative laser printer, you can patent its design. But that would not stop some competitor from making ink cartridges to work with it. Just like if you buy a rifle, you can buy bullets from anyone.
But printer manufacturers like HP and Epson make their money on the ink, not the printers. I don’t think they even deny this. So they hate it when you buy a bargain basement generic ink cartridge or pay someone to refill yours. They want you to buy their cartridges only. So what these companies do is this. They intentionally complicate the design of the cartridge and file patents on it. They make their base printer such that it will only work with a cartridge that has the patented devices in it. Voila–they can now stop people from competing with them on ink. Beautiful example of the free market, is it not?
{ 182 comments }
← Previous Comments
rtr: “Assuming, [of course],”
Ceteris Paribus.
Well “I’m” in *awe*! I guess it takes time for others to realize. But not “that” long, *this* time. Nobody even wants to be first with the “Rothbardian” acknowledgement?
Stunned by recognition of the praxelogical professor. Time to appreciate automatic note taking function.
But even this subjective value is fleeting. That’s the middle finger “flux” for ya. Lately, Mises et al have been “dead”. Undercut on terms, with my very own ideas. C’est la vie.
Now that’s what I call a “donation”. You can almost hear the upward movement of my zipper.
And that’s how you get motivated upbraiding energy to keep one on one’s “metaphorical” toes. Give me some “smearing” tactics of early 19th century presidential elections. Got skewled by with a but of a glance of the praxelogical prof? But that’s the likes of the articles about the vulgarity of subjective value, the subjective value of vulgarity.
Eh, more “effort” than I thought it would be to bump off all other replies than those by “rtr” on the front page *new* replies section. But don’t let lack of praise outbid your gratitude.
Or is it beneath the “scientific” consideration of those “qualified”? Or do they need another month to “/ponder”?
Since this RTR dude is clearly out of his mind, screaming and arguing with himself (this poor idiot does not differentiate between perfectly harmless unintentional trespass when you look at someone — and the tort of financial injury that can be caused by the voyeur’s broadcast of someone’s private life), I will just briefly comment Kevin B’s statements:
KEVIN: “You brought up the issue of radioactivity, but you did not notice the subtle difference between invasive and passive observation.”
“Invasive observation”???? You mean like an observation in which observer standing on his own property “invades you” with his own eyesight and the use of his own brain?!?!?!?! Well, you just proved my point – the trespass goes beyond physical contact and it can be applied to copyright violations. It is possible to cause the tort financial injury, without ever stepping on someone’s property. There is no such thing as invasive eyesight, but there is such thing as unauthorized use of someone else’s private property (all trespasses are done through peripheral nervous system, anyway… discriminating against one sense would be nonsensical).
KEVIN: “There are cases of fraud, but we both agree that fraud is trespass. If you wish to argue that hackers may force their way and use your computers resources, then you are right, but that is forced exclusionary use of your computer’s resources – trespass.”
First of all, hackers don’t ever leave their property and they never physically inject anything to your computer. It’s nothing but information they send to people, and information does not amount to the invasion of someone’s property. Even in cases of spyware, there would be no fraud case if it wasn’t for the resulting unauthorized use (trespass). In other words, unauthorized use is perfectly possible without ever physically touching someone else’s property. Even the spyware with RAM booster (that compensates for the use of HDD’s resources) would still be a trespass — although it never interferes with someone else’s use of the computer.
KEVIN: Consider that Mises wasn’t perfect.
Of course he wasn’t perfect. But you still haven’t denied one single iota of what Mises said. You only confirmed that without his definition of ownership, we would never have a case against someone who injures you with voyeurism, computer hacking, spyware, gamma radiation, the next generation brainwashing, etc. This same definition applies to copyright violations. You may not have the courage and honesty to admit it, but you confirmed everything Mises said about ownership rights — and Rothbard’s copyright theory stems directly from it.
Sasha Radeta: “perfectly harmless unintentional trespass when you look at someone”
Lol, that says it all. Sasha Radeta believes trespass occurs from looking at someone. He calls it “harmless”. He calls it “unintentional”. But clearly looking at someone is a priori defined *intentional* purposeful action. Yet another false contradiction. Sometimes one may liked being looked at while other times one may not like being looked at. But indeed looking at someone is “harmless” because there is no trespass. It would also be absurd to maintain on the one hand that looking is “harmless” trespass while simultaneously maintaining “copying” someone’s actions or ideas is “harmful” trespass.
Yes RTR,
When someone sick and disturbed only stares at person against his will, I would argue (based on the only possible definition of ownership) that he is committing a harmless trespass, without any injury (tort). You see, even Kevin B had concede that there can be some observing actions that are “invasive.” However, no observation can be “invasive” in a physical sense. We can only conclude that all unwanted use of our bodies is a form of trespass — and that only those unwanted uses that result in an injury (financial or other) can be considered as tort.
You still did not provide any alternative definition of “ownership” and “use.” Mises’s definitions absolutely satisfy the criteria that Kevin B and Dr. Kinsella laid out: they justify the protection against unwanted hackers, spyware, voyeurism — who are “simultaneously” using our own property, without our permission. Unfortunately for you, the same fundamental principles justify the protection against copyright violations. As you could see from Dr. Kinsella and Kevin B., unauthorized use (trespass) is quite possible without the physical contact — and trespass that results in an injury is a tort.
Anyway, your replies do not even deal with majority of copyright cases, which involve much more than mere looking (for example, you have to handle a book before you can replicate it)… You simply cannot justify those normal kinds of trespasses, so you shifted your focus toward the extreme cases — absurdly trying to defend voyeurs and hackers.
Sasha, you said:
I must disagree. The influence of whatever sort must be measurable to say that property has been trespassed. Without physical contact, measurement is impossible. Therefore, physical contact between the owner and the trespasser is required for the interaction to be properly deemed trespass. That statement, of course, attaches all property to its proper owner, since self-ownership is the root of all property.
All of your trespass examples may be proved or disproved using this method, including all possible voyeurism, hacking, radiation, brainwashing, etc.
Furthermore, since, absent prior contract, the copying of a book or printer cartridge does not violate property rights, then copying is a valid action. It may not be assumed someone must seek permission to use what has been passively observed, since that would be a violation of the observer’s property right of self-ownership.
This is not to say that an ancap society cannot agree not to copy other’s works, but that it must be agreed to formerly if the foreceful precention of such action is to be justified.
I would caution against interpreting government edicts as implied contracts, since such edicts nearly always (if not always) violate the rights of the individual.
Kevin B,
How can you now possibly disagree with my statement, when you just stated that someone sending radioactive rays, hackers, and voyeurs broadcasting someone’s private life — are all indeed trespassing?!? These forms of trespasses can be done WITHOUT any contact with trespasser’s touching sense, and there is nothing you can say to change that fact.
You are now in a complete disarray. You feel like you have to disagree with me, although you conceded to all my key points. Obviously, it is quite possible to trespass without physical contact, and even Dr. Kinsella supported this fact.
However, most of the copyright violations are done through unauthorized physical contact with someone else’s property (like books or printer cartridges). So all your self-contradictory statements about non-touching forms of trespass don’t even touch the main issue about third party trespassing. Even without any government edicts, we would still have expressed and implied copyright contracts, as well as tort law, which would protect the owner’s and author’s from any unauthorized copying of their unique property.
Sasha,
I am not in disarray, but I must be communicating poorly.
By physical contact I meant contact of matter and/or energy. Perhaps an example will help. Suppose I wanted to hurt your face. Two options are:
a) punch you with my fist, involves contact between my property (body) and yours (body)
b) burn you with a laser or torch, involves contact between my property (item) and yours (body)
Do you now see how physical contact of property is always involved? I hope you now see what I meant by “That statement, of course, attaches all property to its proper owner, since self-ownership is the root of all property.”
If Dr. Kinsella supported the idea of trespass without physical contact, then I do not think he considered it in terms of matter and energy.
Misunderstanding what I meant, you went on to say that the owners and authors would be protected from unauthorized copying – absolutely, I assume. Once you see that there must be contact for trespass, you will notice that there will only be protection from invasive means of copying not from passive means. To “protect” from passive observation would violate the property rights of the observer.
Great progress Kevin B:
“contact of matter and/or energy.”
Dr. Kinsella will love that one (check this out: http://blog.mises.org/archives/006000.asp).
Anyway, if someone’s service is consisting of emitting some kind of energy (like the one needed for watching DVD content) — when you watch someone’s DVD without owner’s permission you are indeed trespassing unintentionally (there is a contact between your body and someone else’s energy).
Also, if you switch on your flashlight in order to glance at someone else’s book, you are committing a trespass (your light is getting in contact with someone else’s book:). You now have to concede that people who have any kind of contact with someone else’s book, without owner’s permission, are also committing a trespass. That’s a great progress from someone who tried to deny all of the copyright — and now trying to deny only a small portion of it (although with one serious problem, which I’ll cover below).
Anyway, you only chose 2 (TWO) out of countless ways in which someone may cause an injury (including financial) against someone else. But what happened to voyeurs who never transmit anything toward your home, but they may broadcast your private life, making money? Once again, your scientistic definition of trespass does not cover that situation, while Mises’s definition of ownership would allow for protection against such invasion of privacy. Anyway, now we’re back at the narrow fringe of this topic.
Sasha,
We’re still disagreeing, but at least we’re on the same wavelength.
The web link didn’t work. HTTP 404.
Anyway, let’s get to it:
You’re saying that I took the DVD without the owner’s permission, or used the owner’s DVD player without permission, or even watched the owner’s DVD on his/her TV without permission and either way it’s trespass. 100% agreement. +1=1
Yesiree. We have measurement. We have trespass. 1+1=2
Uh oh. Not so fast. Who’s initiating the contact? If the owner shines his light of his book, presenting it to me, without prior contract (etc. etc.), then he is co-mingling his property with mine. So does his co-mingling action with my property, the adding of value to my property without permission, give him some rights to my property? That would allow someone to alter another’s body without permission and to claim ownership to the alteration. Who’s trespassing who here? 2-1=1
Au contraire! I did cover the voyeur. He is not trespassing in that case. Keep your curtains closed you somewhat free-spirited exhibitionist!
The definition I have offered is quite solid and indeed measurable. Yours is a little fuzzy, but not too bad given how far the world is from either conclusion. Though I would still disagree in depth, I would nevertheless accept your methods of the current practice.
I conclude that I’ve benefited from this conversation. Final score: 1
I meant to say, “I would nevertheless accept your methods over the current practice.”
Kevin B,
So you finally agree that free market copyright would be enforceable through contract and tort — but you try to reduce the scope of what we consider “use” in acts of trespass against someone else’s property.
Without qualifying “passive” activities as “uses” of market services — you could never have any enforceable contracts that pertain to such activity. If your didn’t “use” the services of your shoe-shine boy — you could simply walk away without paying anything to him…. Oh, by the way, when you sit on that chair, he will start cleaning your shoes without even asking you, because that’s an excellent example of implied contract (he presumes that you didn’t sit on that chair to rest). Unfortunately, you still don’t seem to understand the common law: if someone starts shining your shoes — and you just watch that person do it, you are in fact having an implied contract with that person and you will owe the compensation. The same goes even if someone paints your fence — ask any lawyer.
I think you are still confused when it comes to the issue of what “using someone’s service” means. You don’t have to initiate a physical contact through matter and energy in order to enjoy someone’s service. Some services are consisted of enjoying someone else’s matter and energy. In your theory, I could simply walk into a day-spa, allow a masseuse to initiate the physical contact with my body — and than just run away without paying — claiming I never used any of their services, since I haven’t initiate any kind of contact in a massage. If you try to say that spas could charge you for just laying on their table, that would be equally absurd, since then they could refuse to give you a massage and still charge you for visit… So many services, from just watching a DVD to strip-tease are based on passive use…
But if you think about it harder, your definition isn’t far from mine — the passive use of someone’s service is always user’s choice (back to implied contract theory). If I walk into a room in which someone’s showing a copyrighted DVD content, I can choose not to watch it. If I do watch it, that’s a harmless trespass, however, if I use this trespass to cause some financial injury to the author, I would still be liable.
By the way, your defense of voyeurism is not convincing. Voyeurs are not about sexual exploitation, but the feeling of control (playing all-seeing god’s eye). They can go-off by filming your hypothetical daughter in your garden (when you don’t have any curtains), on her way to school — and actually broadcast and sell this materials to other sickoes… And you would defend their “right” to do it freely? Without accepting Mises’s definition of ownership (which is really broad and fuzzy, but intentionally) you actually would have to defend these horrible acts. I wouldn’t and I think it makes a perfect sense.
Anyway, welcome to the free-market pro-copyright bandwagon
Sasha,
I never denied that current law recognizes many implied contracts. In fact, it is quite often stated that we have an implied contract with the State, whether you and I agree or not. Regardless, I am saying that under an ancap system of justice, some of today’s implied contracts would not be deemed so, and people would behave differently.
I suppose that, since I am without Mises’s really broad and fuzzy definition of ownership, I must defend those sickoes.
After you mentioned financial injuries a few times, I had an entertaining thought: How would Sasha’s tort system look in a barter economy?
I imagine a young man overhears a good piece of advice from an older man, an unintentional trespass. The young man then tells a prostitute that he has some good advice, and the prostitute trades sex for the advice. Well, the old man hears the story and takes the young man to court. So, for restitution, what does the old man get? Sex or good advice?
I would like to point out that you have been taking very obvious examples of acceptance and presenting them as if they would fall outside my definition of trespass. In both of your last examples, the shoe-shine boy and the spa, you present me as actively engaging in the service of another. If you wished to be more truthful to my definition, this is how your examples would read:
Sasha: Oh, by the way, when the boy forces the chair beneath your butt, he will start cleaning your shoes without even asking you, because that’s an excellent example of implied contract (he presumes that he didn’t put that chair underneath you for you to rest). Unfortunately, you still don’t seem to understand the common law: if someone starts shining your shoes — and you just watch that person do it, you are in fact having an implied contract with that person and you will owe the compensation.
Sasha: In your theory, someone could build a spa around me, a masseuse would initiate physical contact with my body — and then I could leave afterward without paying them the payment that they said I owed them — claiming their services were forced on me, since I hadn’t entered the spa or even said that I wanted a massage.
I’m sure that if you think my argument is flawed, then you have the imagination to give an example without altering the essentials of my definition of trespass.
“Regardless, I am saying that under an ancap system of justice, some of today’s implied contracts would not be deemed so, and people would behave differently.”
Whatever dude, saying something – does not make it so. Common law wonderfully preserved free-market principles and it crystallized them through centuries of human experience. Whenever you silently and implied by fact enjoy someone’s services without asking this service-provider not to deliver it — you are actually having an implied contract. The fact that you are ready to defend voyeur sickoes only shows your stubbornness in sticking to something that’s clearly wrong. However, I think you missed my point:
- if passive enjoyment of some service (like a massage, viewing DVD content, or someone’s body) is a legitimate “use” of market services (and it is — since we have market contracts for obtaining these uses), then it is also quite possible to have unauthorized uses, or trespasses in these kinds of activities. It seems like you are trying to deny this tautology, if I understood you correctly.
Shoe-shine boys do not push chairs underneath someone’s butt — and people don’t normally get forced to watch someone’s movie. If you (‘passively”) use some services without paying for them, your trespass may be too insignificant to yield a much more expensive court case…. However, you should not be allowed to use such trespass to inflict a more serious financial injury upon your victim (like copying just one copy of a DVD, which is benign — and then deciding to upload it online for millions of people).
You asked something rather absurd:
““After you mentioned financial injuries a few times, I had an entertaining thought: How would Sasha’s tort system look in a barter economy?”
Now, why would I imagine something so silly?
First of all, you forget that libertarians argue that slave contracts are unenforceable (it is the biological fact that you have the sole control over the services of your body) and that no one should be forced to work (be enslaved) — even in cases of someone who refuses to deliver a service that was paid for.
Even if you pay me for a delivery of 100 hamburgers, and I decide not to make them — I could not be forced by any court to make this burgers… I could just refuse to work. However, the court can ask for monetary or any kind of material compensation in the value of those goods that I didn’t deliver.
So there’s your answer: the young man will owe whatever the court determines to be the value of the advice. Even in your twisted world, in which there is no money (some kind of universally accepted good used as a medium of exchange), you would still have some material compensation in the amount of some good (representing the free-market compensation that would be necessary to obtain this “advice” if the “young man” decided to obtain it through legal means). Satisfied?
I’m sure that if you think my argument is flawed, then you have the imagination to give an example without altering the essentials of my definition of trespass.
I am sure that if I really “altered” any essential of your definition of trespass, you will have no trouble of pointing out where I actually altered anything. Didn’t you say: “Uh oh. Not so fast. Who’s initiating the contact?” Well, let’s see…
If you come to someone’s spa or sit in someone’s chair, you are not initiating any contact with personnel — and your presence there cannot be charged (if that was the case, they could refuse to provide you the service and still ask for your money). Anyway, when you enjoy the service that you are being charged for, the massage, you are not initiating any kind of contact with either matter or energy of the masseuse.
Even in your counter-example in which someone shines his light on his book, presenting it to you, that person does not force you to read, deriving the strictly limited kind service that someone offers. Watch for implied contracts
Sasha! How, when we just finished discussing it, could you say such a thing:
After all that typing, you’ve forgotten already. Property ownership stems from self-ownership. If I go to someone’s spa or sit in someone’s chair, then my property’s action is the initiation of contact with his property.
Egad, I said be imaginative, but are you serious? You just said that I went to the spa, but I am not initiating contact?! How the hell do I enter a spa without initiating contact? Who are you? David Blaine? I don’t know what kind of magic tricks or supernatural powers you have, but the rest of us physical mortals have to come into contact with the material world to get into a spa. With your miraculous abilities, it’s no wonder people are trying to get you on tape!
Apparently he is forcing me to turn away, because, according to you, if I maintain my current action of observation, then my body will be altered and I will come under his partial ownership! Damned if I do, damned if I don’t. And don’t you dare – DARE try to say that I have accepted an implied contract not to share what I’ve read when someone shoves a book in my face without asking. Sicko voyeurs, move over! How rude!
Kevin B.
I just hope you were satisfied with my answer to your question about restitutions in barter economy. You’re welcome, anyway.
When it comes to the massage example, you seem to be very confused. By entering someone’s spa and placing myself on a massage table, I am not engaging into any kind of physical contact with personnel who is providing any market services. Once again, my presence there, even a handshake with a receptionist, cannot be considered as a service that I can be charged for.
The only service they would charge me for is the massage — and in that kind of service I am completely passive. Now, according to your theory, without initiation of physical contact is not a “use” of service. In other words, there can be no enforceable contracts when it comes to massages and I can just walk away without paying.
The same absurdity is present when it comes to your defense of voyeurs who could, according to your theory, freely film and broadcast the life of your child. You simply accept obviously sick conclusion of your theory, instead of concluding that your theory is twisted and wrong.
By the way, you don’t have to turn away when you walk into a room where someone is presenting a copyrighted movie, or when someone is showing you a copyrighted text… You can simply choose to enjoy the free service, without trying to breach an implied contract and to commit a tort of financial injury, afterwards. It’s analogous to the well-known example in which someone is trying to paint your fence by mistake… yes, he is forcing you to shout: “stop!” But so what? Go ahead and sue him for making you do that, if you can convince the court that saying that simple word caused you some kind of an expense…
Anyway, most of the “third party” copyright violators are not forced to commit trespasses. They do that because they have an incentive to enjoy market services for the smallest price possible.
Regards.
Sasha,
Your definition of property would be used as justification for the “lawful” hinderance of the action of some for the benefit of others, whose actions were not first threatened. That is a partial taking of self-ownership. Is that not intentional trespass?
In your own words:
It appears that you would reduce the self-ownership of others for your own material gain, all in the name of self-ownership, of course. Your argument is illogical.
Kevin B,
Uh… What?
Asking someone to respect his implied contract does not take away anyone’s self-ownership. You have choice not to make such contract and if someone trespasses against your property — ask him to leave.
I’m not advocating taking anyone’s self-ownership. Let’s go closer to our topic: if I send you my product for free personal use (for free), and I clearly explain this to you — and you accept such use — that doesn’t mean that you are now entitled for full ownership of that product (including commercial rights).
The fact that you don’t understand some arguments does not mean that they are illogical. Try to be more modest.
Sasha,
Regarding your painter scenario, I am not arguing that it wouldn’t be interpreted by some, even in a contractual society, as a quasi-contract. I am simply trying to point out that it is illogical.
I assumed that you would agree that our right to action is only limited by the equal rights of others. If that was an error, then let me know. That rule seems to me to be a necessary consequence of complete self-ownership, but you may disagree.
If you do agree, then consider this:
We own ourselves. Our property is an extension of our self-ownership. To alter another’s property without permission is a trespass, whether intentional or not. To force others to assist you denies their complete self-ownership.
Your painter commits an unintentional trespass when he paints the fence. If the owner does not mind, he forgives the trespass. Allowing the painter to continue may be considered rude, but it is not trespass, since he is not compelling the painter in any way, shape, or form. In fact, the owner is allowing the painter to make a mistake. For the painter to demand that the owner stop him would be to force the owner to action against his will – trespass! The “implied contract” is trespass!
If it must be that “ownership is a full control of services that can be derived from a good,” then in the painter’s full control, he painted the wrong fence, he made a mistake, he wasted his labor, he provided a service for free, he, he, he.
Your example of implied contract is a welfare contract, forcing others to work to protect the fools. If the law agrees with you in this case, then the law is foolish. If it is doing so in the name of self-ownership, then it is illogical as well.
I understand your argument full well, Sasha. You want me to prevent you from making a mistake. Well Sasha, that’s my choice and not yours.
Kevin said: “To alter another’s property without permission is a trespass, whether intentional or not.”
The problem here is: the permission you refer to can also be implied in fact. Person can make an honest mistake, without being an idiot, but in this scenario you can prevent someone’s mistake (trespass) by a simple “stop” (or by not using product someone sends you for personal use).
If you choose not to say anything — you actually don’t have a trespass case. You actions can only be interpreted as welcoming this particular kind of service and you will be responsible for this implied contract.
Imagine that an attractive call-girl gets to my apartment by mistake (she was told just to come in and to proceed to the bathroom). When I see her, don’t ask her leave, but instead I let her pleasure me with her services. After all night worth of her labor, I decide not to pay her anything, but to actually declare her entry as a trespass, although I more than welcomed her — don’t you see a problem with this?
The absence of price negotiations will really help you in painter’s scenario (you will be responsible for the cheapest price possible). However, when it comes to products that someone sends you for free, you really have nothing to complain about — if you accept this kind of service, you cannot lawfully assume more expensive uses that were never given to you by the rightful owner.
Regards.
PS
I agree. Nobody can prevent you from making mistakes that you consciously choose. I just tried to point out that insisting on these mistakes seems absurd. If your conclusions are clearly wrong and even twisted (like your defense of someone who stalks your hypothetical child and broadcasts her life over the internet), something is obviously wrong with your premises. Since you refuse to reconsider these arguments, I guess we will not move a millimeter further in these discussions? Nevertheless, the fact that you accepted the principles of free-market copyright shows a great progress on your part and maybe I’m expecting too much now.
In case I haven’t been clear enough:
In an otherwise blank scenario, if the painter tells me that he will paint my fence for $5 and then I ask him to paint my fence, then, of course, I owe him $5. If he begins to paint my house as well, then I still owe him $5, even if I do nothing to stop him.
True story:
A couple of months ago, I went to Best Buy and purchased a computer for about $1500. When I got home, I realized they had given me a more expensive model that went for around $2000. I thought about returning it, and if they happened to show up at my door with the right one, then I would have returned it, but, since otherwise I would gain nothing, I decided to keep it.
It ended up breaking a few days later, and so I returned it anyway. They quickly realized it was the wrong one. Did they accuse me of trespass? No, they apologized for giving me the wrong model. They even commented that it would have been a great deal had it not broken. I agreed and soon left with my new correct model. I’m sure the salesman left that day with something new as well, a new reprimand.
Sasha,
PS
I didn’t see your last post before I wrote mine. I can’t believe you’re awake…and here!
Red Bull kicked in
Anyway, Best Buy did what it did — for exactly this reason: great advertisement. Legally, things stand as I said. Our hypothetical painter is well-known business law example, and I explained why your welcoming actions do not demonstrate any trespass on his part.
Anyway — imagine that Best Buy gave you an extra product by mistake — and then after you use it, you decide that they actually trespassed against you. You decide to sue them for storage fee
That’s what your theory is suggesting.
Anyway, as I said: you can accept some services for free, and many sellers will do that for you (advertisement will pay for it) — however, you cannot lawfully assume more expensive uses that were never given to you by the rightful owner.
And one more “anyway” — I think you’re done with concessions on this thread… Maybe I should do something else
Sasha,
Not for you, you lucky dog!
Seriously, her entry was an unintentional trespass, since you accepted it after the fact. I agree that the “night worth of her labor” would not be trespass, and that I seem to have overlooked that in the painter scenario from my earlier post, but, unless she mentioned the price, there was no price. Have you considered that perhaps a friend of his sent her over? That happens…and that’s one of the troubles with people assuming implied contracts such as these – they are ignorant of all of the possibilities.
Are you suggesting that the ends justify the means?
I suppose that my use would imply acceptance, but not price. If they realize their mistake, then they must make the effort to retrieve it. They cannot recoup their labor losses.
The defining characteristic of a free gift is that there are no strings attached. In trade, there must be agreement before there is contract. If someone offers me a service and asks for nothing in return, he cannot say that I agreed to a price. Handing me a knife, he cannot say that I agreed not to use it – in any way. Now that would be an assumption.
Allow me to counter your sex scenario:
Suppose that instead of a hooker, there is a vagrant. Instead of sex, he washes your window. Now, many people give him money afterward, but does that mean it is implied that you will as well? Suppose he wears a sign that says, “$1 per window.” Would your inaction be agreement? I gather that you would say so, but what if there were hundreds of them, driving you nuts to have to say no all the time. See that their action is forcing you to action.
I had to change it from hookers, because nobody would believe that you would say no. ;P
Kevin said:
‘I agree that the “night worth of her labor” would not be trespass, and that I seem to have overlooked that in the painter scenario from my earlier post
THERE YOU GO! Another mile forward from you
Now, since there is no trespass when it comes to services in question (once again, we can’t charge someone for entering the room), here comes the issue of price. You can stop assuming that someone bought a call-girl for you, since that’s not part of our scenario. When someone delivers goods and/or services by mistake, it is true that you didn’t negotiate the price. However, you decided to obtain and enjoy these goods and services — and you will owe a compensation. The court will determine the amount of compensation and there’s nothing strange about that. That’s what tort is all about.
Furthermore, if someone gives you a specific use of his product without any strings attached — that doesn’t mean that he gave you the full ownership rights over that item. You cannot legally have more rights than you actually got from the owner. If I give you my car for your personal use (and I make you aware of that), you can’t lawfully assume the full-ownership over my property.
—–
PS
I never said that end justifies means. I only said that if your conclusion is clearly wrong from the perspective of substantive self-ownership, something must be wrong with your premises (assuming that your logic is valid — and it is). If ownership means the control over all services that can be derived from a good, our self-ownership should give us the control over the broadcasting rights of our private lives. This becomes clearer when I use a “child vs. adult voyeur stalker” as an example. However, you can see that this isn’t even crucial for my copyright argument. That’s why I put this under the post scriptum.
Sasha,
Bravo! You must first make me aware of limitations before I accept the property for limitations on ownership to be accepted. If you are given a piece of property without agreeing to conditions beforehand, then the rights to the property are unlimited.
There is something strange about owing compensation for a gift.
If ownership means the control over all services that can be derived from a good, our self-ownership should give us the control over the broadcasting rights of our private lives.
Your self-ownership gives you control of your actions. You can remain in control, even if you are being recorded. One may choose to give certain property to others, even when one is too ignorant to realize it, i.e. walking around naked on the lawn.
Wisdom includes the tendency to reconsider one’s own position. Consider yourself formally invited.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.