The Quagmire of Intellectual Property
Ah, what would we do without patent and copyight? Here is patent law being used to threaten Google's for having the audacity to bill people to make voice calls over the Internet--everybody knows that this ... idea? ... is "owned" by Rates Technology; and here's copyright law being used to squelch views dissenting from orthodox evolutionism.
Comments (40)
With the political power, millitary power and propaganda power of USA, the concept of Intellectual Property made Microsoft with market value of 600 billion US$ at the peak. Now, With the political power, millitary power and propaganda power of USA, google is going opposite way and becoming a market value of 1000 billion US$.
The key is the power of USA. Suppose we make things simple, the rule: every one who speak Engligh must pay 100 US$ a year to the Mega company---EnglishUSA Inc. After 20 years later, the rule change to every one who doesn't speak Engligh must pay 100 US$ a year to the Mega company---NoEnglishUSA Inc.
The economy of USA is based on GDP of USA, the GDP mostly come from people trade each other then sue each other in USA.
Published: December 28, 2005 3:54 PM
It all comes back to government force. Get the government out of education and this will sort itself out. Those students who are placed in schools that teach the ID hypothesis would find their skills lacking in the real world and the students who are taught real science will be much better prepared for a high-tech career than our students are now.
Published: December 29, 2005 6:20 AM
Slowly, I think more people are starting to get it. I wrote a post condemning copyright and the music industry's litigation tactics at Slashdot the other day, and it got that site's maximum moderation points.
With Congress firmly in the pockets of the media industry and the White House looking for any excuse to bully the world, votes won't change a thing. Civil disobedience can, and so can moving creative production to freer countries. There are places to get music, movies, and more without supporting the moguls behind the US's copyright-patent regime.
It's no surprise that copyrights are being used for censorship. There was nothing fair or natural about such laws in the first place.
Published: December 29, 2005 10:58 AM
The students placed in schools that teach ID will learn to ask questions like whether X is the product of intelligence or of natural events, where the students who are taught the dumbed down darwinian dogmas will be good little workers who never questions what the authority figure says.
The latter students will be much better prepared for the a high-tech career in the big brother surveillence command and control states while the former will find their skills - reasoning out problems, coming to logical conclusions, examining claims in the light of evidence - lacking any use in the upcoming real world other than to make trouble.
I've commented on ID before, but in sum, the open question is whether the DNA/protein system is capable of generating new and complex information, and specifically not the nature of the designer. I've posited that some collection of nebulae, stars, cosmic rays, etc. might be an intelligence which would be slow (in the same sense we would appear slow to a pentium chip) but might be far smarter and not "God" in any way.
We won't look for systems other than DNA/Protein that might hold intelligence when every effort attempts to find a way that DNA/Protein can be made work even if it never will. This would be akin to confining SETI to listen only for music and only on FM radio bands (wouldn't any sensible intelligent ET use the band surrounding 100MHz?). My point is that SETI is already too narrow and all but assumes something far too much like us. (I'll not go into my belief in Angels - an intelligent being which is also neither man nor God - as that it would be immaterial). Old joke: I lost my wallet in that dark alley - then why are you looking for it under the street lamp? - the light is so much better here.
If any of the G-30 would actually "get it", they would start offering server farms and ignore our IP nonsense exactly as long as we keep our agricultural quotas and subsidies. Which means basically forever. Add a good encryption system, and no one knows what I'm watching from a server in Brazil or Belize.
There is a link between cryptography and libertarianism - which is why the Feds were so big on wanting key escrow and other things. If a group can keep their stuff private regardless of what the state wants (even with the NSA), the state will have a problem. Even if they do a sneak and peek search, if they can't decrypt the information, they have nothing, so will either have to get an injunction from a court, usually in the open, so as to get the key (Libraries under the Patriot act take note), or will have to do without.
Now how can we do torrentcasting?...
Although I would also note that real property and chattels also are just as artificial as IP. If I say I own a piece of land, and you occupy it for a while, we will end up in court since you will claim I abandoned it, and I will claim I don't have to take action against trespassers every week. Much of this - squatting (the original emminent domain), easements, rights of way, etc. evolved from custom more than statute. Which is probably a better way of doing things.
Published: December 29, 2005 3:00 PM
"I would also note that real property and chattels also are just as artificial as IP"
So you believe it's possible to make infinite identical copies of my land and property for yourself without eliminating the original?
The differences between property and information are pretty straightforward. Property is scarce and exclusive, and must be produced or recovered on an item-by-item basis. Ideas are non-scarce, non-exclusive, and can be multiplied without limit to the impoverishment of no one.
Published: December 29, 2005 9:45 PM
Paul,
I have a question with regard to IP:
How does your average programmer (i.e. creator of software) make a living if the results of his/her labor can be copied, ad nauseum, the moment it's published?
Under your system, no one is "impoverished" by the copy. No one "lost" anything. Except we now have the condition where an individual devoted his/her labor to the creation of a product, for the purpose of making a profit, but is denied that ability because you don't believe he/she has any "rights" to their work.
As a software engineer I'm genuinely curious as to how a Lib would handle it. Bashing Microsoft isn't the answer. What about the rest of us who actually devote labor to the creation of software?
Kinsella is happy to give away the result of MY work, but I don't see him willing to give away HIS work. There's a word for that......
Published: December 30, 2005 2:37 PM
anti-lib: "Kinsella is happy to give away the result of MY work, but I don't see him willing to give away HIS work. There's a word for that......"
Stick to substance, and avoid making snide personal insults. What is incorrect in my implicit and explicit criticism of the patent system?
Published: December 30, 2005 2:45 PM
Mr. Kinsella,
Save your nastiness, it doesn't impress me. What about my intial question? Do you have an answer or just more "snide personal insults"?
You write an awful lot about how much you hate IP and how the creators of intellectual works aren't entitled to "ownership" of their work. Put your cards on the table and tell me - tell us all - how you solve the problem of the software creator having his/her work copied.
Thus far all I've ever seen you write are either a scathing attack on all forms of IP or nasty jabs at anyone who dares challenge your supposed superiority on the subject.
I'll ask the question again: The software author spends his/her labor writing a product. It can be copied, as can any book, printed work, etc. The software author is not compensated in any way for his/her labor by the "copier". How do you handle this?
Should all software development cease until a copy-proof program be invented? Should all creative thought cease (including R&D) until we can devise a method to compensate those who devote time and effort (i.e scarce resources) to the R&D? We're not just talking about big companies here - we're talking about every person who labors in those areas of human endeavor which are prone to copying.
I notice that every book sold on this website has a copyright notice in it, or at least the vast majority thereof. Is this consistent with your premise?
Published: December 30, 2005 3:20 PM
Antilib:
I don't "hate" IP. I don't say creators of intellectual works are not "entitled" to "ownership" of their work: I simply maintain that property rights apply to scarce resources and that there therefore are no property rights in non-scarce things such as recipes, methods, techniques--in short, information or patterns.
I have no idea what is supposed to be the relevance of this ad hominem comment. How does this little personal comment of yours help to show that there are property rights in ideas?
You ask this question as if the person maintaining that IP is unjustified has some obligation to answer this question--while the question basically presupposes that there is a "problem" that needs to be "handled". So your question is question-begging and also attempts to subtly shift the burden to opponents of IP to support it unless they have a "solution" to your presupposed "problem". You seem to be unaware that not everyone is a utilitarian, and that it is perfectly sensible to critique something without having a mapped out alternative system. My alternative system is simply whatever system arises in the absence of unjust IP laws. The rest is just details. If for some reason in a free market you would be unable to get compensated for investing your labor in a certain activity, then you should not engage in that activity, unless you want to do it for free.
Your "should" is a normative qeustion--how does holding the view that property rights in ideas are unjustified entail any view as to morals and "shoulds"? You also sneak into your question the premise that there will be no innovation and R&D unless there are patent and copyright laws. Just an assertion.
Is the *fact* of a copyright notice (which simply acknowledges a background *fact*--it does not change anything) "inconsistent" with my conclusion that IP is unjustified? I don't see how--are you confusing is and ought, fact and norm?
Published: December 30, 2005 3:49 PM
Mr. Kinsella:
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, you provide nothing of substance in it.
You say "My alternative system is simply whatever system arises in the absence of unjust IP laws" which means you have no solutions, no suggestions, no ideas. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Just a complaint that you don't like how things are. Oh, and an assertion that all IP laws are unjust. Who says? You?
Yes, I am a Utilitarian, to use your term. If one doesn't like the way things are, one doesn't just destroy everything - one works toward a better answer. Apparently it's a "good" in your mindview to simply complain. All that complaining and $3.00 will buy you a cup of coffee. Nothing more.
"The rest is just details"
I notice that these "details" aren't ones with which you sully yourself. Not everyone has the luxury of being above such concerns.
Your comment "If for some reason in a free market you would be unable to get compensated for investing your labor in a certain activity, then you should not engage in that activity, unless you want to do it for free." tells me a great deal about how much you value software, writing, art, music. In short, anything that can be readily copied.
Unless I'm mistaken, in your line of work (as I understand it) you provide a direct service. That service is, essentially, hourly or contractually remunerated. It's a completely un-entrepreneurial perspective.
Some of us actually CREATE things. Things that people use. Do you have even the foggiest notion how much less convenient your world would be if people in the software industry had no viable mechanism to ensure they're compensated for their work? (I suspect you do. We'd quit making the tools that make your computer run and let you post in places like this.)
You talk in other areas about being the second owner of a discarded book. I agree that you should be able to burn that book, eat that book, use it for bathroom tissue if you like. The book is yours. The pattern of words, the ideas in that book, aren't. You contributed nothing toward them. (I know. In your world it's not necessary. It's better to steal those ideas. Or "find" them.)
The same goes for software. In fact, much of the software in the world is ACTIVELY stolen - not found, as in your straw man example. Actively copied by those who wish to profit from the product without compensating those individuals who created the product.
You further assert that ideas are not property because they're not scarce. Have you given that statement any thought at all? If good ideas are so common then how come all technological advances aren't immediate, free and available to every single human, at the same time, without effort? If those worthless ideas you deride are so common and lie littered on the pavement, how come the world is in such a sad state? Oh, never mind, my questions are normative, or positive, or additive or whatever....you just can't answer them. Or rather refuse to.
So, let's take your ideas to heart: Let's stop all software development, worldwide, until a new and completely effective protection program is enabled. That's as absurd a statement as is your assertion that people shouldn't do things they can't get compensated for in your mythical world. In the real world people create things that benefit everyone while trying to make a living for themselves. It's that enlightened self-interest that Libertarians are supposed to be so biased toward.
I'm incredibly thankful that people with your point of view don't hold much power, or have much influence or leverage. Your solution to what is, indeed, a real problem is filled with unintended consequences. Oh, I forgot, you don't care about those other consequences, because they won't affect you directly.
Lastly, if you want to put a proposal (Or in this case a complaint) on the table and expect serious people to give it credence, you'd better be prepared to discuss it. Your response to me isn't a reasonable discussion of the problem and possible solutions, rather, you attack me for having the utter gall to question you. Sir, you're certainly no intellectual if you can't stand legitimate scrutiny of your ideas and take a reasoned, principled approach to discussing them.
You further state "Is the *fact* of a copyright notice (which simply acknowledges a background *fact*--it does not change anything) "inconsistent" with my conclusion that IP is unjustified?" - I then wonder why anyone who holds your views would *want* or *need* a copyright notice when they do not expect - or even want - to prevent their works from being copied, used by others or passed off as the work of another. It seems to be highly suspicious, to me, that someone who doesn't recognize IP rights would need to assert their own IP ownership. Doesn't this smack of hypocricy to you?
You say "Your "should" is a normative qeustion". OK. So what. It doesn't change one single thing. Calling it a zebra wouldn't matter either. The question still stands. I notice you didn't answer it - you just called it dirty names.
The entirety of your "response" is one great big critique of the temerity of one of the masses to challenge your intellect, your superiority. None of my questions - no matter what you want to call them - were answered. That doesn't invalidate my questions or give your evasiveness any credence.
You rail against IP. You who insult anyone who questions your supposed authority. I'll say it again: That's intellectually dishonest. It's also a prime reason why your views will never be taken seriously - because you can't seriously defend them to even the most basic criticism. That's unfortunate because I think you're very right in many of your criticisms of our current system, but without even the willingness to listen and have a resonable discussion, your points are lost, or worse, ignored.
Published: December 30, 2005 9:49 PM
Actually, what I think Kinsella is essentially saying is "let the market handle it". It might be worthwhile to suggest some ways that the market might handle it, but in point of fact, it's difficult to say what millions of people will choose to do.
It's like a situation where only the government makes and sells cars, for example, and along comes some radical libertarian who dares suggest that the government should get out of the car business and let the market sell cars, instead. Our hypothetical lib may or may not have good ideas about how cars could be sold, but the fact remains that the market has found many ways to sell cars in our real society.
Likewise, it would be absurd, as you suggest, to stop production of all software development until a foolproof system is created. First of all, market or no market, an absolutely foolproof system may never be created, and in point of fact, it never has to be. Instead, only a "sufficiently protective" system needs to be created, and only a process of trial and error will tell us what systems will work or won't work at being "sufficiently protective".
That kind of trial and error is well-designed to be handled by the market, as entreprenuers try to come up with effective systems and sell them, and the consumers of the systems can decide for themselves when such systems have become sufficient for their needs. As I'm sure you've read somewhere or other, the market is itself a discovery process, so saying 'let the market handle it' is simply saying let the process to find a solution work.
Asking for a solution before the process has been tried is like asking for the cart before the horse.
Published: December 30, 2005 10:23 PM
Anti-lib:
Sort of an absurd reply on its face.
Actually no, I just don't want to validate your false assumptions by jumping right into the guessing game, *as if* the validity of my critique depends on some workable alternative. Moreover, I am making a more free market point, that the ways the market will adapt are unpredictable. I can try, and others can, but it would really be a big guess.
I've offered my reasons, in detail, and at length. It's not an argument from authority, as is plain to see.
How does this trite observation--which sounds like something an high school teacher would have taught his civils class--show that there ought to be property rights in non-scarce things, that is, ideal objects?
This activisit, tactical mindset is not one I share. I judge ideas on their substantive merit, not on how likely they are to "achieve" things. Your comments and handle here indicate you are not a libertarian anyway, so you ought to be glad my approach does not appear likely to win converts.
My point is it's essential to be clear on basic principles without sidetracking prematurly into detailed discussions of how the principles would play out.
No; I did not say there is no way you would not be compensated; I said "if". But consider: there are often "costs of exclusion" associated with the production of almost any good. See, e.g., note 67 of my Against Intellectual Property:
The point is that if the costs are too high, the activity will not be profitable. The costs might indeed be higher for an easily copy-able good like ideas or patterns. This means it is more difficult or expensive to find means of exclusion. So what? HOw does this show that the state should grant monopolies to recipes, patterns, and knowledge?
Sigh. It's so boring, and, well, just irrelevant, when these things invariably turn to me, personally. I hesitate to defend myself because it is going further down a sidetrack. In a colloquial sense you have a point; but in the economic sense, of course, you don't, as every action is entrepreneurial. In any event, this is irrelevant: even if you were right that I was not an entrepreneur at all; let's say I'm an anti-entrepreneur; or better yet, an evil fat brain floating in a vat--how does this show I am wrong, or, more to the point: how does it show there ought to be property rights in the-way-you-use-your-property?
Ooo, Atlas, don't shrug on me, baby.
Agreed: I'm not the owner of the pattern. No one is. Patterns are not ownable things.
I agree. But how does this commonplace observation establish that there are property rights in patterns?
You may claim I'm wrong but how in the world can you suggest I have not given this any thought. Sign. What a sidetrack--it's not "about me". I tried to carefully define scarcity. I guess I was not clear enough. Scarce does not mean rare: it has to do with a given good's property that it can only be used by one person at a time; one person's use excludes another; this property makes conflict possible and the need for property rules to assign ownership of the object to one person so as to make it possible for conflicts to be avoided. But an infinite number of people can use a given recipe at the same time, meaning there is no conflict in the first place, that needs property rules to be allocated to reduce or eliminate the conflict.
Where did I deride ideas, or imply they are worthless?
I never suggested such a thing.
As I suspected, since you are apparently not a libertarian. So why are you so upset with me then? Would you rather that I did a more effective job of spreading ideas?
Well, not to make it "about me," but if patent law were wiped out, I would be out of a job. It is against my interest to argue what I do.
Nice advice, but totally beside the point at hand. And I certainly am willing, when the other party approaches me with the right attitude.
This is yet another meta-meta-sidepoint, since this comment, whether true or false, has no bearing on the issue at hand. But as a matter of fact I have never dropped credentials nor do I think that my being an IP attorney makes me more able to undestand this issue than others; if anything, I swim against a current, the same one that sweeps along virtually all my fellow patent practitioners. What a coincidence that virtually all IP lawyers are strong supporters of the basic notion of coypright and patent. What a surprise.
This thread is not about "me". It does not matter if I'm an intellectual or not, to the basic issue at hand.
I don't think you know what you are talking about. The copyright notice is not necessary, and does not "assert" ownership, since such assertion need not be made. You have a copyright automatically, whether you "claim" it or not.
Totally untrue. You misread--or distort--me. Again, it's not about me, and I'm loathe to make it so (then people like you would accuse me of arguing from authority).
Untrue. Explain why there are rights in ideas, I'd be curious. As a patent lawyer I searched for years to find a justification for it, and finally I realized why I was failing; now I've seen dozens of arguments, and in my view there is something wrong with all of them; if you have a new one, I'm all ears.
Published: December 30, 2005 10:37 PM
Mr Kinsella,
I think the crux of our disagreement is the definition of "an idea". I've read your many missives on this issue. I don't happen to agree with your basic assertion that "the arrangement of words" or "the colocation of bits which comprise software" are not property.
The rest of the argument is, functionally, moot. You obviously see an "idea" as something you can't hold - something that has no inherent physical property. It's the concept of "scarcity" or deprivation of original ownership that turns your argument.
Here's where we part ways.
You're an attorney who creates work product. (Yes, I know you "loathe" making this about humans, but, hey, that's what it's all about). I'm a software engineer who arranges those 1's & 0's into something meaningful. We have differing perspectives on the whole IP thing.
You don't see IP as having relevancy. I'm acutely aware that without some measure of protection (and let's leave aside the whole copy-protection argument. For every system that can be devized, there's a hack to break it.) the software industry is in deep kimchee.
One of your prime points is that it's OK (actually a good thing) to attack the status quo and depend on the amorphous "Market" to reach a solution through trial and error. You may be right. You may be wrong. I'm not betting on you.
Back to my essential issue: Software (and novels, and paintings) take time and resources to create. One would hope that you value the scarcity of labor and the many alternate uses for that labor. One may argue that software should not be developed if it is not remunerative. Not the issue here.
Without some method to be paid for my work (and not just by the folks that contract for my time), I wouldn't put it on the market. If I knew that every line of code was susceptible to rampant copying I wouldn't write any. I'd do something else. As would many of my colleagues.
Would you prefer that a huge component of the software industry spend its' time writing anti-hack routines because "IP is bad" or actually writing software that has value. Anti-piracy software is naught but revenue protection and often interferes with the use of the product.
You've got a great line going about how bad IP is, but it doesn't hold water to people on the other side of the table. Yeah, this isn't about you....well it IS about some of the rest of us. All that smartass stuff you throw in is cutesy but doesn't further your point.
You said "I've offered my reasons, in detail, and at length. It's not an argument from authority, as is plain to see." I'll agree wholeheartedly. Nothing authoritarian in your method, tone, presentation or fact.
"My point is it's essential to be clear on basic principles "
Exactly - and we do not agree on basic principles. Your premise is fundamentally flawed. Theft is wrong. Except in your definition that as long as I can't hold it, smell it, taste it, et al, then stealing is OK. That's moral equivocation.
Your premise on exclusion costs is absolutely valid. In software it's often a very large cost. Sometimes prohibitively so. That's a major unintended consequence.
"Ooo, Atlas, don't shrug on me, baby"
See prior smartass reference.
"In a colloquial sense you have a point; but in the economic sense, of course, you don't, as every action is entrepreneurial."
Oh please, care to split that hair any finer? Typical lawyerese. But this isn't about how you answered my assertions.
"non-scarce things"
This is the issue. You see ideas as non-scarce because they can be copied without harming the original owner or creator. It is true that the original owner is not harmed by the copying. No argument there. It's irrelevant, but I won't argue with it.
Why must harm to the original owner or creator be the prime hinge on which this issue swings? Yes, it's extremely important to most other goods, but it doesn't carry the same weight in IP issues.
Here's a question for you, taken right from today's papers: Sony/BMG has added a copy protection scheme to it's CD's which, if used, can cause irreperable harm to the user's PC.
(As an aside: Sony/BMG's "unintended consequences" are that their rootkit harms your PC even if you just play the CD, not copy it. Therefore they're causing harm to someone's property. No argument that they're wrong. However, let's assume the copy protection actually worked as it was *supposed* to).
Would the copier be well and truly deserving of having his/her PC damaged? Would Sony/BMG be wrong for harming someone for stealing their "non-scarce ideas"?
This is one instance where "the market" has taken a stance to cause significant harm to an end user who copies their materials. If all IP laws were abolished, and this mechanism flourished, assuming it worked ONLY on copies and not on appropriate uses, does this represent a "good" solution? I'm genuinely curious to understand your perspective on this.
"how does it show there ought to be property rights in the-way-you-use-your-property?"
That's just it! That stolen copy of Office isn't your property! The disk might be yours, but before you copied Office onto it, it was simply undifferentiated white noise. Now that Office is on the disk how is it your property? If you bought it from some skank in Hong Kong how do you have "rights" to anything except the physical disk?
I differ with your perception that the copy of Office is YOUR property. The DISK is yours, the copy of Office is not. The book is yours, the arrangement of words is not.
"Agreed: I'm not the owner of the pattern. No one is. Patterns are not ownable things"
Who says? If you want to write your own product which functions like Office, knock yourself out. But Microsoft Office is not a randomly occurring "pattern". It most assuredly is anything but random. The arrangement of the stars in the heavens, as far as Mankind is concerned, is random. A few billion bytes on a disk is the least random thing you can name.
Therefore, this "pattern" called Office is not random. Copying it does not directly harm Microsoft. If the copy destroyed your PC, however, would you call that unacceptable?
"Well, not to make it "about me," but if patent law were wiped out, I would be out of a job. It is against my interest to argue what I do"
You're a smart man and quite well aware that your livelihood isn't in jeopardy, so that's not even a meaningful statement. But this isn't about you.
"This activisit, tactical mindset is not one I share. I judge ideas on their substantive merit, not on how likely they are to "achieve" things. Your comments and handle here indicate you are not a libertarian anyway, so you ought to be glad my approach does not appear likely to win converts."
The activist, tactical, high-school civics instructor epithets you toss about aren't the least bit pejorative. Results DO count. The likelihood that a given action will achieve a given result is the bread and butter of every business transaction extant. If you don't share them, bully for you. But this isn't about you.
You're exactly right: I'm not a Libertarian. But this isn't about me. Apparently you can only argue with your own kind. But this isn't about you. And you're exactly right: I AM glad your ideas get no traction.
"You may claim I'm wrong but how in the world can you suggest I have not given this any thought"
Point well taken. I do assert you're wrong. However, you obviously have given a great deal of thought, and written extensively on the subject. My apologies, and I mean that sincerely.
"Where did I deride ideas, or imply they are worthless?"
Your assertion that ideas are "commonplace" is exactly where you implied that ideas are worthless. Would you argue that air is commonplace? Would you argue that air has infinite, yet no value at all? We need air. We need ideas. Air has no intrinsic value, it's ubiquitous. Your argument is that ideas are ubiquitous. They are - but not all of them have merit. Lots of ideas are downright dumb.
The very smart people who do devote those OTHER scarce resources (as per your definition of scarcity and conflict) to create ideas don't seem to think that they should just open the vaults to anyone who wanders by. Yes, this is a cost of exlusion.
You've written on the whole conundrum of someone who steals an idea (e.g an employee of Coca-Cola) and shows it to a third party (the secret formula) who sells it to Pepsi. In your previous work, you hold the original thief responsible for violation of work contract. Not copyright or trade secret, just a workplace issue. The second individual is free to post the Coke formula on the web and there should be no other concerns on the part of the state. Simple employment law violation. Now everyone can enjoy Coke without paying those nasty people in Atlanta for the privilege. I fail to see how the shareholders of Coca-Cola and all it's employees (direct & indirect) have no interest in that formula. I fail to see how that formula is not property. The fact that the formula IS scarce and known to very few people, qualifies it under your definition of scarcity. However, it could be copied a billion times and not harm a sould - at least the act of copying harms no one.
"And I certainly am willing, when the other party approaches me with the right attitude."
But this isn't about you.
"What a coincidence that virtually all IP lawyers are strong supporters of the basic notion of coypright and patent. What a surprise."
No surprise there at all. That Libertarian self interest thing again.
"I don't think you know what you are talking about. The copyright notice is not necessary, and does not "assert" ownership, since such assertion need not be made. You have a copyright automatically, whether you "claim" it or not."
You're probably right. I'm not a copyright attorney. Just a software engineer. I leave the IP stuff to the attorneys.
"Explain why there are rights in ideas"
Here's an area where we clearly disagree. If ideas were so easy to come by, if no resources were expended in the creation or discovery of ideas, if ideas were like air, then I'd agree with you. You don't own the air. (This isn't about you, I'm speaking of the generic "you")
However, since significant scarce resources ARE diverted into the creation of ideas - and the application thereof - they have value. In this metaphysical argument you're making an idea is ether. Of no substance. In practice, however, ideas have significant value. Good ideas make fortunes, bad ones lose them. Good ideas don't come from everyone, bad ones abound.
As I said, until ideas are found lying on the ground like so much sand, they will be valued. Not everyone holds every idea in equal esteem, but that doesn't mean that every idea is worthless.
The definitions you propose to substantiate your arguments are, IMHO, fundamentally flawed. Yes, the marketplace may (and likely would) devise another mechanism to protect ideas which is different from current IP law. If the entitity at which you rail is the implementation of current IP law, then I would not argue with you at all. It's abysmal. All software developers spend countless wasted hours satisfying the attorneys - which is counterproductive in the extreme. I don't blame the legal department - they're doing what they get paid for. The system most assuredly is broken.
Before I go throwing my software out there on the open market, however, I certainly don't want to wait for the market to decide how to protect it. So, unless I can blow up your PC whcn you copy my software (which is easy enough to do. Blow up not in the "kaboom" sense, but in the functionality sense) then we need some practical, workable mechanism. I'd be willing to bet there isn't a single businessman out there who'd say that he'd like to bet his company on it.
"now I've seen dozens of arguments, and in my view there is something wrong with all of them;"
I agree wholeheartedly - and I say the exact same thing about the premises on which you base yours. There's lots of room for arguing the fundamentals. Until a generally agreed upon set of definitions is established, it's near impossible to go substantively further. I reject many of your underlying constructs as being flawed. If we can't get further than that, then all other components of the argument are moot.
I'm confident you'll not accept this as intended, but I would like to thank you for your latest post. Aside from some snide remarks (I've made quite a few myself, no I'm no angel) you addressed substantive issues. We don't agree and likely never will, but I do respect your right to express your opinions.
Published: December 31, 2005 1:07 AM
Anti-lib,
"Without some method to be paid for my work (and not just by the folks that contract for my time), I wouldn't put it on the market. If I knew that every line of code was susceptible to rampant copying I wouldn't write any. I'd do something else. As would many of my colleagues."
Why should the software you write prevent someone else from coming up with something very similar?
All software can be reduced into small functional procedures and even further to simple statements. In fact if each such procedures were fully protected by copyright, then you couldn't write a program without violating other people's "rights". So if you really want to be a hardcore advocate you have to find and pay royalties to every programmer that came before you, because I am confident that almost every line of code you write has been done before.
I have written numerous small open-source programs. The fact that I can't "put it on the market" means nothing. Reading this forum isn't something that can be placed on the market - but certainly you are deriving some value from it, nay? The value I derived from my programming experience was building up my knowledge, and later on (thankfully) gaining employment with decent pay, despite not having a college degree.
Published: December 31, 2005 2:41 AM
"How does your average programmer (i.e. creator of software) make a living if the results of his/her labor can be copied, ad nauseum, the moment it's published?"
You're asking me to figure out your business model for you? Okay, I'll bite. You can attract customers with service, support, upgrades, and so on. You can work on commission, making software for the people that actually need it.
Does the simple business model of "exchanging data for money" become more difficult without patents or copyright? Probably. Agriculture and ship propulsion got a lot more difficulty when slavery was eliminated. It didn't mean those enterprises didn't still happen afterwards, though. In fact, they got more competitive and more efficient.
"… we now have the condition where an individual devoted his/her labor to the creation of a product, for the purpose of making a profit, but is denied that ability because you don't believe he/she has any 'rights' to their work."
You aren't denied anything, and you have every right to your work. What you don't have is the right to control the data other people exchange voluntarily with each other. If that makes certain business models tricky, so be it.
"What about the rest of us who actually devote labor to the creation of software?"
Dude, every industry has its challenges. Not all of us demand that the government hurt people for threatening our business models. Some of us adapt.
Using violence to protect your market is wrong, even if that means you have less incentive. My argument is a moral one.
All advancement in science, art, and culture, from the beginning of time, has been based on people copying and sharing ideas. Copying and sharing are not crimes, and the sooner people figure that out, the better.
Published: December 31, 2005 9:37 AM
MLS,
Your comment about having to pay a royalty for every line of code written because it is similar or identical to another line has merit - if that were the granularity of the discussion. Practicality precludes that level of copy protection, but, taken to an extreme, your point is valid. It has nothing to do with what I originally said, but I see your logic.
With regard to Open Source code: doesn't the name say it all? Open Source. If you read the GNU, or any similar construct, you're being told, right up front, that you have no rights to your work or derivitives thereof. You know that going in. The fact that you chose to devote resources to the creation of your modules wasn't done for direct remuneration, you said as much. Your goal, for which you were compensated but not in cash, was career advancement. It is, indeed, a wonderful place where you can advance yourself in such a manner. I cheer both the Open Source movement and your use of it. While I understand and support your position, it's not relevent to this particular issue.
"Why should the software you write prevent someone else from coming up with something very similar?"
Similar is perfectly fine. As a developer you are likely aware that if you and I both develop a similar mechanism, using non-identical practices, it's quite a stretch to assert that yours or mine is the definitive answer. I am aware, however, of a number of companies who are trying to protect an idea (such as 1-click shopping) which really has nothing to do with the underlying software. If this is the IP that Mr. Kinsella has issue with, then I'm right beside him.
However, if you and I develop competing systems to support, say, credit card processing at a merchant (It's one of my products, so I'll speak to it) these systems are so large and complex that the likelihood that we have some very similar code is quite high. Even if we develop in dissimilar languages, I'd be willing to bet we'll both have to handle the credit card number in a similar fashion. Under your line-by-line perspective we would have a legal fight on our hands. I don't think that level of atomization is productive for anyone.
If however, one of your modules is a letter-perfect copy of one of mine, then I would assert that you're a thief. (This is hypothetical, no personal attack intended) On that basis you don't deserve the ability to profit from my work. That's where I assert the software is property, and thus, falls under property rights as defined in the Libertarian school.
I perceive this is the essential area in which I disagree with Mr. Kinsella and a number of others in this forum.
Oh, and reading this forum DOES, indeed, bring value to me. I'm learning new perspectives, having mine challenged and thoroughly enjoying the exchange of ideas. It's no fun to "preach to the choir", as it were. The Mises foundation put this forum on the web, full-well knowing it would be used by others without paying them for their efforts. That was a choice, which isn't what I'm talking about. Would it be acceptable, to the Mises foundation, if I put up a similar website (Maybe called www.vonmises.org) and copied the articles and posts? I could then engage in my own fundraising using Mises.org labor. Hey, this sounds like a good idea!
Paul D,
I'm certainly not asking you to figure out my business model. That's already taken care of, thanks. My work is protected by IP laws, and I've enforeced them. This, however, isn't about me.
Your assertion that a corporation should differentiate itself based on service, support and upgrades indicates you're not well versed in the competitive software market. That's fine. There is something to be said for your model, as it works in the Linux world wonderfully. Red Hat is doing well in that model, but it's a completely differently structured world. Open Software depends on a different source of ideas than does Closed Software (to use a made-up descriptive term).
"You aren't denied anything, and you have every right to your work. What you don't have is the right to control the data other people exchange voluntarily with each other".
Here's, again, where we part company. As I said, no one has the right to control your physical disk. If you steal a copy of Office, however, you're using your property to allocate the property of another. I know, there's the fundamental argument about whether Office is property or not. I assert it is, IP opponents assert it isn't.
Two things come to mind: If you assert that Office is not Microsoft's property, then don't use it. You want others to respect that which is yours, offer the same courtesy. I suspect that's far too much to ask people to have integrity. Second, with regard to my proposal that stolen software destroy your PC. If that occurred to you, and your Operating System were rendered unusable because you stole a copy of Office, is that depriving you of property?
"Using violence to protect your market is wrong, even if that means you have less incentive. My argument is a moral one."
First, I disagree with the Mises perspective that the rule of law is violence. Mises called any law with which he disagreed "violence" and any law with which he did agree was elevated to near deific proclamation. He cherry-picked to create his philosophical perspective. So, calling enforcement of law "violence" is a misapplication of the word. I flatly reject your characterization as such.
To move, however, away from the phrasing into the context of your statement: "My argument is a moral one". And the arguments of others is amoral? In this one phrase you attempt to reduce your opponents to neanderthals or thugs while elevating your perspective. I would assert that ownership of my work is a moral perspective as well.
So now we have two competing moralities. That didn't alter the fundamentals of this discussion. We're now just a lot closer to God. Or not.
"All advancement in science, art, and culture, from the beginning of time, has been based on people copying and sharing ideas. Copying and sharing are not crimes, and the sooner people figure that out, the better."
Ah, you use a key word here: sharing.
Stealing is not sharing. If it were then I'd like to walk with you to your bank so I can share some of your money for a while. Would that be OK with you?
We're back to the initial premise: IP opponents assert that ideas have no intrinsic value and, thus, are not property. IP proponents assert the opposite. I think most of us would agree that the current IP system is broken and needs repair. That doesn't mean, however, that the entire concept is without merit. Well, in this forum it's asserted that the entire concept IS without merit.
So, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm quite happy that your perspecitve is to end all IP. Full stop. My perspective is that we need to rationalize how IP is handled. Simply throwing out all IP laws doesn't seem to be the answer - and even if it were, I doubt the unintended consequences would be significantly better than the current situation.
Published: December 31, 2005 11:50 AM
Anti-lib, you state,
"Simply throwing out all IP laws doesn't seem to be the answer - and even if it were, I doubt the unintended consequences would be significantly better than the current situation."
This is a remarkable line of reasoning, and I don't mean that in a bad way.
Let's run with the idea that the consequences of not having government monopoly grants on IP didn't make things worse in the IP realm than they are now. What would occur? Individuals would no longer be afraid. An entire aspect of human interrelations, "Sharing", would no longer carry the threat of legal prosecution.
George Harrison could writhe "My Sweet Lord" without being prosecuted for copying "He's So Fine". Beethovan could write "Variations on a theme by Mozart" and not be prosecuted if he didn't get permission in writing first.
I could see a nice cabinet at a neighbors house, and go home and make one that looked just like it myself. How wonderful!
And for people like you, who will not write software without being paid for it, there is always the same market for programmers that there has always been (for as long as there have been programmers, anyway): working to modify and customize existing tools, or writing new tools, to satisfy customer requirements. That's what most programmers do right now.
Oh, and without IP monopolies, you won't be making yourself a target of prosecution by using someone else's code to improve what you produce. But gee, that's what OpenSource does right now.
Forgive me for not being sympathetic to your position. I see people getting along just fine in spite of IP laws. Abolition can only improve the situation.
Published: December 31, 2005 2:53 PM
"I assert [ideas and data are property], IP opponents assert it isn't."
Okay. Property, as a meaningful word, refers to things that are:
(1) scarce, and not available in practically unlimited volume;
(2) exclusive, as one person's full use and ownership makes full use and ownership by another person physically impossible.
Do you assert information and ideas meet these qualifications? It seems quite clear they fail both; there's no point in even arguing about property and property rights if you're going to arbitrarily extend it to mean things that aren't property. I might as well argue the right to put mustard on pizza is my property because I invented it, but such a "property right" fails the qualifications above.
"And the arguments [for copyright] of others is amoral?"
Yes. Most people argue for copyrights and patents from a perspective of pragmatism (they're "useful") rather than a moral perspective. The moral argument is already lost; you'd have better luck with the pragmatic one. Even the framers of your Constitution recognized copyright as an abridgement to man's natural freedom, but felt it would be useful if constrained to very limited applications and terms (now far exceeded).
"If it were then I'd like to walk with you to your bank so I can share some of your money for a while. Would that be OK with you?"
If you make a perfect copy without changing my account balance, I would be fine with it.
"IP opponents assert that ideas have no intrinsic value and, thus, are not property."
There you are in error. We "IP opponents" assert that ideas are neither exclusive in ownership nor scarce in quantity, and therefore are not property. They may well have great value.
"I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree."
That's fine. I thought as you did not too long ago, but the arguments by Mr. Kinsella and others showed me my mistakes. I hope I've shed some extra light on the issue for you to make up your own mind too.
Published: January 1, 2006 10:54 AM
Curt,
If your vision of what would happen with the abolition of IP laws were even possible, I'd be shoulder-to-shoulder with you. Unfortunately, I just don't see it turning out that way.
Using your logic, tho, brings up a couple of questions: Would plagiarism be a problem? Why would we care? Does "sharing" right now carry the threat of legal prosecution? (The very term would imply that it's a willful and voluntary act.....)
OMG, I'm sharing my opinions as I write this. OK, who's gonna sue me? When will The Government show up at my door?
(And if you think it's more profitable to be a grunt coder for someone that a software entrepreneur...wake up and smell the outsourcing. Thanks, however, for presuming that I should do "what most programmers do right now".)
Paul,
You hit the heart of my disagreement with Mr. Kinsella in your opening paragraph: The definition of Property.
Item 1: Scarce and not available in practically unlimited volume.
Ideas are both ubiquitous and scarcer than flawless diamonds. Bad ideas abound and are as uncountable as drops of water in the ocean. If you want to claim "ownership" of them, I'll not argue with you.
Good ideas, ideas that create value, are extraordinarily scarce. If they weren't we'd all lack for nothing.
Your second definition is one I cannot argue with in a meaningful fashion.
To directly answer your question: "Do you assert information and ideas meet these qualifications?" would mean that I accept your former description.
I do not.
On that basis, I would say that information and ideas meet Criteria 1 and fail Criteria 2. Does that make us each half-right? I suspect you'll not agree.
"It seems quite clear they fail both"
I do not concur.
"arbitrarily extend it to mean things that aren't property"
I can assert, just as easily, that your definition of "property" is arbitrary and capricious. Doesn't make either of us right.
I'm not even going to dignify your assertion that copyrights are amoral. That's a personal-belief system and yours is no more right or wrong than is mine.
"The moral argument is already lost"
Again, I disagree.
"We "IP opponents" assert that ideas are neither exclusive in ownership nor scarce in quantity"
Again, I disagree. Ideas ARE scarce in quantity. IP opponents don't seem to have any answer at all - or avoid the question - of scarcity. If all ideas were equally valuable, you'd be right. All grains of sand are equally valuable, at least in our world. Ideas are as different as people. Do you assert that all people have the same value?
If ideas were all valued equally the market would not reward people differently for their creation. On that basis alone, it says that ideas are inherently UNequal. That indicates that ideas are, indeed, scarce.
"I hope I've shed some extra light on the issue for you to make up your own mind too." I appreciate your perspective, and you have, indeed, presented some points that I've not considered before. I still disagree with you and Mr. Kinsella, but, as always, I support your right to believe as you please.
ON a side note: I would like your perspective on my straw man argument about copied software damaging your computer.
As you assert, copying an "idea" (in this case a piece of software) is acceptable. If one of the unintended consequences of copying the software is that it renders other software less-than-useful, does that constitute harm? (Let's say that I use a copy-protection scheme that formats your hard drive if you copy my software. Your PC is still intact, but the hard-drive is now restored to the original state; that is with no data on it.)
After all, under your premise, ideas (i.e. software) are not property. If you copy my "idea" and it erases your "idea", because neither one is property, did you actually experience loss? Again, under your premises, ideas are not property and thus, the destruction of ideas cannot constitute a loss.
Just looking for your $.02 worth.
Published: January 1, 2006 5:05 PM
Anti-lib,
"If your vision of what would happen with the abolition of IP laws were even possible, I'd be shoulder-to-shoulder with you."
Then examine what happens in the "lawlessness" of public domain and OpenSource.
"Would plagiarism be a problem? Why would we care?"
So I take the text, or portions, of The Illiad, bind them and call myself the author. What happens? People laugh at me.
Giving credit to my source, such as Michael Crichton saying that _Eaters of the Dead_ is a retelling of Beowolf, gives credibility to the work without detracting at all from the quality of what Crichton has created.
Or how about the unending line of films remaking _The Iliad_ and _The Odyssey_? Am I to believe that no one makes money because the materials are in the public domain?
I'm surprised that you didn't realize that Beethovan indeed did write "Variations on a theme by Mozart" without permission of the author or his heirs, an act punishable under todays absurd IP law. Musical examples abound in the time of chaos prior to modern IP law.
Open Source uses IP law to codify only that if I utilize someone else's work, I have to give them credit for their work and provide the changes I made under the same rules under which I received their work. That is, however, the only functional restriction.
So I don't understand how you can say, "Unfortunately, I just don't see it turning out that way." What I'm talking about is the way it was, prior to the stifling environment of modern IP law.
It is only that IP law has recently been taken to an extreme by the powers that be that has demonstrated the absurdities and conflicts that IP law creates. If patent and copyright were as restricted and limited as they were at inception, it would be difficult to argue against them. Difficult, but hardly impossible.
Published: January 1, 2006 7:17 PM
I wonder if a EULA, as form of contract, with a warning could render ethical the practice of re-formatting a hard-disk as a form of copy-protection. Without one, it wouldn't be because it would be trespass against physical property which is the hard-drive. A reformat changes the physical state of a hard-drive just as a bump on the head changes the physical state of that head. Either uninvited action would be the initiation of aggression. It's not the information that is central to the question, it is the fact that physical property was infringed on.
Published: January 1, 2006 7:48 PM
Not sure about "ethical", but it could certainly make it "legal", if the EULA could both communicate the severity of what is being agreed to, as well as ensuring that it could not be "clicked through" without that communication occurring.
I never read a Microsoft EULA, for instance, yet I was able to use their software. But then, they never tried to hold me to its terms either.
Published: January 1, 2006 8:06 PM
Paul,
Using the definition of Mr. Kinsella, et al., by reformatting the hard drive the stolen software did not destroy anything. If you accept Kinsella, et al., in their assertion that software is an "idea", and that ideas are not property, then the software that was erased was not property, thus, you have no infringement.
The thief/copier still has his hard drive, still has his motherboard, monitor, etc. None of his "property" (Based on the aforementioned definition) has been removed even in the slightest. No theft occurs to the thief/copier as everything he had before the copy-protection-scheme he has afterwards....except the "ideas" on his hard drive. They're all gone now.
Let's suppose, however, that you are, indeed, correct. And I don't disagree with you to any great extent anyway.
The next question I have is, assuming that the thief/copier WAS harmed by the software-protection-scheme.....what's his recourse? Does he have any? I would assert his recourse is specious at best, none at all in a "fair" world.
I would argue that the "unintended consequences" of stealing the "idea" is that you get what you get. There was no contract between the software originator and the thief/copier, so is the software originator responsible for the actions of the software on the thief/copier's system?
Take this a step further: If, as in Mr. Kinsella's previous writings, I find a book that advocates cannibalism. I draw, quarter and roast my pesky neighbor, Steve. Aside from the obvious moral issues and the incursion into Steve's wellbeing, does the author of the book bear responsibility for the irresponsibility of the "eater"? I would assert not, and most people of good conscience would as well.
Are not these situations analagous?
Stolen/copied software comes with an unintended consequence. I assert the thief/copier got what he deserved. The "found" book has bad ideas in it, but in our world they're not property, so there's no responsbility. The cannibal should pay his penalty. (Steve, on the other hand, is sacrificed to this straw man!)
Even though I don't accept many of the definitions provided in this space, I'm still curious as to how (assuming we DO accept the theorems presented) the world "might" work.
Curt,
Just a couple of points: Public Domain and OpenSource were already addressed. I don't have any issues with them at all. Why you raise them again is beyond me. They're not at all illustrative to this discussion. Or maybe I fail to understant the relevancy of the point you're attempting to make.
I agree that in a world where IP doesn't exist, you can copy till you drop. I was referring to, and failed to explicitly state, plagiarism in education. It was a minor point anyway, so I'll agree that your statements are, in this model, correct. (BTW, it wasn't me who made the point about Mozart/Beethoven.)
"What I'm talking about is the way it was, prior to the stifling environment of modern IP law"
Just as I said, I simply do not envision a time or a place (even returning to the time prior to "modern" IP law) where the nirvanas described here would occur. It's wishful thinking.
I guess the missing part here is that, in these "ideal" solutions, there's no thought given to ANY unintended consequences. It's as if though none CAN or WILL occur in your future world.
Lastly, I'll certainly agree that current IP laws are, indeed, absurd. That doesn't mean that I accept the premise that they're ALL bad. I've said it before: The perspective here is binary. IP is ALL GOOD or ALL BAD. There never seems to be any room, at all, for any sort of compromise position. Of course, with the moral certitude exhibited here I'm amazed that some deity hasn't smitten me for my anti-lib heresy. *grin*
Published: January 1, 2006 8:13 PM
Anti-lib,
"Why you raise them again is beyond me."
If it weren't beyond you, we wouldn't be having this discussion. "Public domain" is what you get when you don't have restrictive IP laws. It is only in the presence of restrictive IP laws that "public domain" has any meaning, just as light only has context when there is dark, and vice versa.
I am arguing that the benefits of "public domain" outweigh the detriments, as has been demonstrated through time until the very recent introduction of IP laws. It was only through this introduction that the destructive nature of government granted monopolies on ideas has been seen.
"...where the nirvanas described here would occur. It's wishful thinking."
No one is describing nervana. Utopian visions are tools of control freaks who both try to convince people that, if only the control freaks were in control, then utopia would come. Or alternately (and often at the same time) try to say that utopia is impossible and assert that their opponents are proposing utopia. You are doing that repeatedly.
Unintended consequences happen no matter what, no one has said they won't. Indeed, someone, some time, won't make money with an idea with no IP law that would have made money under IP law. Just as now, some people are ripped off through IP law that wouldn't be ripped off if there were no IP law.
As for compromise, if you want to say you would prefer the legal structure were rolled back to, say, 1900 time frames and filing requirements, then do so. But so far, all I've seen you do is say that it must exist, so people who disagree have argued that there is no such "must". Thus the black/white tone of the argument.
What you fail to put into the pro/con equation is the environment of fear created by the threat of prosecution by government force simply for being the Leibniz to someone else's Newton. I consider this highly important, and an excellent reason for removing the artificial government monopoly grants.
Prosecute force and fraud. If it's not "The Real McCoy", you can't sell one saying it is. That's fraud. See the difference?
"with the moral certitude exhibited here I'm amazed that some deity hasn't smitten me for my anti-lib heresy."
All the more clear that you don't understand what "lib" is. You're free to disagree all day long, just don't force your opinion on others. Remember that "force and fraud" thing?
Published: January 1, 2006 9:52 PM
Anti-lib, I've gone back and re-read some of your postings here. You should be aware that every bit of software on my systems is actually free. People did indeed write it so I could use it without requiring any remuneration at all.
I accept the fact that it wasn't you. That's ok by me, why can't you accept it?
Published: January 1, 2006 10:45 PM
Has everyone seen this: Against Intellectual Monopoly? (also, the side-bar links are interesting)
Curt Howland: Open Source uses IP law to codify only that if I utilize someone else's work, I have to give them credit for their work and provide the changes I made under the same rules under which I received their work.
Actually, it doesn't even say that. Open Source covers a lot of ground. You're obviously thinking of GPL, but the GPL only requires you to make your changes available under the terms of GPL if you make your changes available at all. You're perfectly entitled to keep your code to yourself, use it as you see fit, and never let anyone else see it -- you can be as "closed" as you like. Other Open Source licenses don't even require that much.
Published: January 2, 2006 12:29 AM
Mr. Edwards, the concept of EULAs is just as bad a quagmire as patents or copyright. A "license" is permission to do something that is otherwise illegal or forbidden. I need no license to read books or use software, as I'm sure you'll agree. However, software companies enjoy this terminology as a fundamental attack on the right of consumers to own property.
An EULA is not a contract. The very idea that one party (a publisher or manufacturer) would stealthily foist a contract on a customer is deplorable. Such a "contract" would hold no moral weight. EULAs ("if you click this, you agree to blah blah blah") remind me of schoolyard pranks from childhood, where you'd go up to another kid and quickly whisper "say 'what' and you owe me five dollars", to which the other kid usually replied, "what?"
Published: January 2, 2006 2:54 AM
Anti-lib, I appreciate your replies, and I think it is a problem of terminology where you misunderstand me rather than any basic disagreement.
— "Ideas are both ubiquitous and scarcer than flawless diamonds. Bad ideas abound and are as uncountable as drops of water in the ocean."
Here, you have confused the notions of scarcity and rarity. A certain kind of idea might be rare in the colloquial sense, but once it comes into being, it is certainly not scarce in an economic sense. It can be copy infinitely many times with no effect on the original. There is no scarcity to be found in ideas. It is a flawed argument to say ideas are "rare", and then use that to prove the very different concept of "scarcity".
The inability of a physical object to be replicated without building a new one using new materials is I mean by scarcity, and it's a crucial definition of property. Until you understand the difference, there's no point in advancing the discussion. I don't mean this as an insult; many people would confuse the two words since their colloquial meanings are similar.
In short: Ideas *fail* the property test because once they exist, they can be copied infinitely. My special pizza recipe is not property because it's not scarce. Anyone in the world can make the same pizza without depriving me of my ability to do the same.
Ideas also fail the property test because they are non-exclusive. There is nothing intrinsic about an idea or thought that makes its application impossible while someone else is applying it.
— "If ideas were all valued equally the market would not reward people differently for their creation."
Another common mistake among those new to economics is confusing emotional value with economic value.
Emotional value comes out of a misplaced sense that since you worked hard on something, people or society "owe" you something for your work. While quaint, this idea has no application in economics (except perhaps in communist theory).
Economic value is whatever a buyer will pay you for a good. If no one wants to pay you for a copy of your brilliant idea, then I'm afraid its economic value is $0. Typically, it is the transport or storage medium (a CD, a printed book, etc) that has economic value, and the cost of media provides a certain barrier to market entry.
"If one of the unintended consequences of copying the software is that it renders other software less-than-useful, does that constitute harm?"
No, unless you're distributing the software with the intent to cause harm to my equipment.
"Again, under your premises, ideas are not property and thus, the destruction of ideas cannot constitute a loss."
Well, it's worth noting that certain information and computing algorithms (software), installed a certain way, will improve the performance of my computer. If you wilfully damage the operation of my property — my computer — that is vandalism, and I suffer a loss. This is materially quite different from me copying software onto my computer — a process that improves my own equipment while damaging no one else's.
A useful analogy might be to compare information to air. There's so much air around it can be considered non-scarce. Everyone in the world can breathe identical copies of my air without destroying my air, and the act of breathing air is not exclusive to one person at a time. It would be foolish for someone to claim they owned the air, and that people had to pay to breathe.
However, I can take some of this non-scarce air and incorporate it into another device or machine. Maybe I'll use it in a hot-air balloon or liquify it to cool a superconducting magnet. That copy of the same air we all breathe is now a value-added piece of my device. If you came along and let all the air out of my device, that would be vandalism.
Published: January 2, 2006 3:34 AM
Paul D:
Paul, this is an excellent comment. I have been intending to write about this for a while but have not yet found time. I think most libertarians are a bit too rationalistic and just assume that whatever is put into the fine print of a contract is binding. I think this is too formulaic, too quick. A contract is commonly viewed as based on a "meeting of the minds." If one party inserts tons of fine print it knows is not read and is not really understandable except by herculean efforts of a specialized attorney, then why would libertarians assume those terms are necessarily part of the agreement?
A written contract really should be viewed as evidence as to what the parties really agreed to. Is it infallible or always the final word? No--"observe," as Rand would say, the following cases:
1. There are oral promises or agreements made in addition to what is written; it is possible the orally-agreed to terms vary from those in the written agreement. Does natural law say the writing should always prevail? Even if the written contract has an integration clause (which tries to limit the agreement to that document, and not any former documents or oral agreements/discussions), so what? What if the oral agreement had one too?
2. The agreement might have been signed under duress, meaning its black-and-white terms are simply null and void.
3. There might be typos or other mistakes that do not represent the parties' real intent. The common law has developed various nuanced ways of handling these real-life situations.
Libertarians are too constructivist sometimes, probably largely because of a Randian or hyper-rationalist aspect to libertarian thinking, and tend to equate an agreement with "what is written" (seemingly oblivious to the fact that contracts need not be written at all), and also assume that "whatever is written" is binding on the parties, no matter what. This kind of cookie-cutter response loses sight of the real nature of contracts.
Published: January 2, 2006 7:36 AM
Curt,
"If it weren't beyond you, we wouldn't be having this discussion." Being nasty doesn't support your point nor does it give you credence.
""Public domain" is what you get when you don't have restrictive IP laws. It is only in the presence of restrictive IP laws that "public domain" has any meaning, just as light only has context when there is dark, and vice versa."
Agreed. So what.
"You are doing that repeatedly."
You're correct. I'm saying you're proposing nirvana/utopia and that it's impossible. So, on that we agree. Your assertion that I'm somehow wrong is misplaced.
"What you fail to put into the pro/con equation is the environment of fear created by the threat of prosecution by government force"
Don't steal/copy ideas that weren't yours to begin with and you have nothing to fear. What's problematic there? If you refrain from taking a given action you cannot be prosecuted for said action. Lest, of course, you assert - which it's apparent you do - that YOUR liberty is being infringed upon when you're told you cannot steal from me. Hmmm - interesting perspective you have there.
"Prosecute force and fraud"
I agree. Stealing is both a form of force and fraud. Why shouldn't that be prosecuted?
"You're free to disagree all day long, just don't force your opinion on others."
I see. So expressing my opinion is "force". Back at ya, bud. Stop "forcing" me to believe the way you do or I'll have you prosecuted. (Sarcasm intended)
"You should be aware that every bit of software on my systems is actually free."
OK. So what. Either you have entirely open-source or you copied it without paying for it. That's your choice and you're free to make those choices.
"I accept the fact that it wasn't you. That's ok by me, why can't you accept it?"
That comment doesn't make any sense.
Paul,
I appreciate your posting. "I think it is a problem of terminology where you misunderstand me rather than any basic disagreement." You may be right.
You say "Until you understand the difference, there's no point in advancing the discussion." but here's where we part company. I DO understand the difference, I just don't see the difference as you do.
Yes, your definition of the difference between economic scarcity and rarity is, indeed, enlightening, but doesn't change my argument. Frankly, while your construct is valid, it's not convincing.
"Emotional value comes out of a misplaced sense that since you worked hard on something, people or society "owe" you something for your work. While quaint, this idea has no application in economics"
Agreed. Just because I spend lots of time and energy on something it may be meaningless to you. So, don't buy my work. Same goes for my work-product. If you don't like my software, don't buy it. If you do like it, don't steal it. There's no emotion here, at least not in the sense you're applying it.
We're still arguing over the same point: I see software (ideas) as property, you don't. You use the argument that because the idea can be copied without dimunition to its' creator it is not property. I agree that the creator is not harmed, but I don't see that as the final arbiter in this equation.
"Well, it's worth noting that certain information and computing algorithms (software), installed a certain way, will improve the performance of my computer. If you wilfully damage the operation of my property — my computer — that is vandalism, and I suffer a loss. This is materially quite different from me copying software onto my computer — a process that improves my own equipment while damaging no one else's."
Ah, here's the dichotomy.
You steal/copy my software. In my code is an algorithm that says, essentially, if this code was not "purchased from the inventor" then it will undertake the "format" command. That's a function of my software. (Note that this isn't a virus, and your PC was not altered without you taking the initial action.)
So now you assert that because "my idea" and "your ideas" come into conflict I'm causing you harm. Hmmmm. That's quite a clever logical pyramid to be able to say that if my "idea" has unintended consequences (which a copy-protection scheme may have) and I'm *NOT* using IP or the long-arm of the hated Government to enforce my "ownership of the idea" that I should be held responsible for your actions. YOU stole/copied the idea. You elected to accept the software "as-is". This is tantamount to you saying that your stolen/copied copy of Office should be covered by Microsoft if a given feature does not work as you want it to.
Let's assume, for the moment, that I accept your definitions. Let's assume that "ideas" (such as software) are not property and you're free to copy them as much as you like. We won't examine any other issues that may come into play, except your freedom to copy (note, I did not say steal) software.
You somehow "discover" that I've written a utility to perform Function X. Under your definitions you're perfectly free to copy my work. You do so and install it on your system. You're absolutely aware that you did not pay me for my work, therefore no contract between us exists. As a matter of fact, no relationship between us exists at all.
Let's further say that instead of *purposefully* formatting your hard disk, I'm just a lousy coder. I *accidentally* overwrite a portion of your hard drive that prevents your PC from starting. The end-result is functionally identical: your PC is now unusable until remedial action is taken.
At the end of the day are these situations different? In each case, whether I accidentally or purposefully wrote software that harms your PC's "ideas" (i.e software) you're still in the same spot. Does my intent in creating that software make a difference?
One might emotionally say that if I intended the software to be malware (i.e. virus) then it does make a difference. If I wrote a useful tool that has a rotten side-effect (purposeful or accidental) then maybe it's a different story.
Which leads me to the next situation: Whatcha gonna do about it? Your PC is busted. My software did it. Are you going to sue me? For what? Again, under your definition, software is NOT property. You don't "own" anything. After all, how can I take an "idea" away from you?
All I did, in this example, is to rearrange the bits on your hard-drive. Yes, your hard-drive may have brought value to you with the "ideas" intact - but you run the risk of failure with every piece of software you install.
I'd be perfectly fine with your assertion that I owe you compensation for your loss *IF* (and only if) that was part of our agreement. If you purchase something from me with a given set of expectations as to specific performance, and the product fails to perform (or has other side effects) you have the right to expect me to rectify the situation. If you acquire that software from a source unaffiliated with me then we have no contract.
Mr. Kinsella aptly describes this situation in his "found book" writings. The author may have a contract with the original purchaser of the book to prevent the purchaser from copying the material. If the book is thrown away and found by someone else, Mr. Kinsella asserts that the second owner has no responsbility to the author because he did not enter into a contract with said author.
If this construct works in this direction (call it left-to-right) then it must work in the opposite direction (right-to-left). If the author cannot assert a claim against the second owner of the book, how can the second owner of software assert a claim against the author?
Your case rests on the assertion that the damage caused by the copied software is damage to property. The same condition is impossible (in any practical sense) in the book example, so there's no meaningful comparison there. Putting a "found" book in my library will not harm any of the other books in my library. (Discounting any arguments about pests the found book may contain)
Because software becomes "active" and books do not, there is a limit to how we can compare them. However, some of the constructs created in this forum regarding obligations of author and copier do work in both instances.
Back to the original issue: Software (ideas) either are property or are not property.
Based on your definitions they are not property. My issue is that I don't accept your defintions as being definitive. I can't argue with your constructs (i.e. the copy doesn't harm the creator) but that doesn't mean I accept them as "the" definition of property.
It's pretty clear that I'm not going to change your mind and you're unlikely to change mine - at least on this matter. Thanks, however, for your perspective!
Published: January 2, 2006 11:41 AM
Peter,
Thanks for the link to the Boldrin & Levine site at UCLA. Lots of interesting stuff here.
I've only finished the first two chapters and already I'm seeing that their perspective is one of *compromise*. They're not out to simply destroy IP at a sweeping blow, but rather to rationalize how it's done.
In general - and so far - they're laying out a case against OUR CURRENT IP SYSTEM that is absolutely sensible without suggesting that we should completely kill IP. I hope the rest of the site and their arguments are as reasonable, rational and well balanced as what I've seen so far.
Thanks again!
Published: January 2, 2006 12:24 PM
Paul and Stephan,
"An EULA is not a contract."
I can accept that. Would you say a EULA is more like a copyright notice on a book then?
How does copy-protection sit with you from an ethical perspective? It strikes me on the surface that this is justified. What's your take?
Published: January 2, 2006 1:06 PM
(That's copy-protection that does not mess with the bits on the person's machine. But it prevents the person's machine from installing the protected program.)
Published: January 2, 2006 1:08 PM
Anti-lib, I'm beginning to believe that your misunderstanding is deliberate. Let me try again.
"Being nasty doesn't support your point nor does it give you credence."
It's not nasty to say that if you understood what the "public domain" is and how it works, you wouldn't continue to make mistakes concerning interactions without coercive IP laws. It is simply a statement of fact.
"Your assertion that I'm somehow wrong [about Kinsella and others saying that no IP law will bring about utopia or nervana] is misplaced."
Incorrect. I am not, nor is anyone else here, proposing utopia. That you continue to assert we are, and state therefore that other peoples arguments are false, is what is called a "straw man" fallacy. That you continue to do so when your fallacy is pointed out demonstrates dishonesty.
"So expressing my opinion is "force"."
No, you deliberately twist what I said. You propose to force on everyone, by government statute at gunpoint, your opinion that I may not do with my property what I wish to do. Specifically, copy and share. You have decided that my doing so harms you in some way, and rather than demonstrate that harm you choose to use prohibition to make it illegal for me to do what you don't want me to do at all.
Demonstrate harm to a jury, harm that I have done to you. No statute is required.
As far as "that statement doesn't make any sense", try to understand it this time: You want to get paid to write software. You won't write software without being paid, and you have stated above that therefore unless I have paid for all the software on my system I am a thief. Since I have not paid for any of the software on my systems, and yet am not a thief, therefore none of the software was written by you.
Might I suggest a basic logic course? I'm pretty sure they're offered in community colleges, it would do a great deal toward improving your reading comprehension.
Peter, yes I know that attribution only applies upon redistribution. Also, this function doesn't apply only to the GPL. Even the BSD licenses require attribution, but they only if source is redistributed. I was trying to be brief. Oh well.
Published: January 2, 2006 1:57 PM
OK, Curt, I'll repeat the statement:
Being nasty gets you nowhere.
Now on to the issues:
"your misunderstanding is deliberate"
I understand you just fine. I don't agree with you. Full stop. If that upsets you...tough.
"It's not nasty to say that if you understood what the "public domain" is and how it works, you wouldn't continue to make mistakes concerning interactions without coercive IP laws. It is simply a statement of fact."
I'm quite well aware of what constitutes "public domain". If you want the Websters definition, visit your local library. That being said, we're not arguing about the same thing.
If a work is in the public domain, you may do with it as you please. That's never been in contention. If the work is NOT, then you aren't entitled to do as you please. "It is simply a statement of fact".
"That you continue to do so when your fallacy is pointed out demonstrates dishonesty"
You assert my argument is a fallacy. Fine. Assert away. Calling me dishonest for disagreeing with you is specious. You don't have a corner on the "right" market. Don't act as if your proclamations are somehow the only ones with merit. It's dishonest.
"Since I have not paid for any of the software on my systems, and yet am not a thief, therefore none of the software was written by you."
OK. So what. I never had any disagreement with what's on your system to begin with. Your system, and how you acquired the contents thereof, are irrelevent. Move along.
"Might I suggest a basic logic course? I'm pretty sure they're offered in community colleges, it would do a great deal toward improving your reading comprehension."
Grow up. This sort of petty ad hominem indicates you can't (or won't) argue on merit but rather rest your case on insults. That should be beneath you. Should be.
I'm beginning to see a strong pattern in this thread: Either agree with me or else you're a: (fill in your favorite epithet here). Such a pity that no better arguments can be advanced.
The participants in this august forum should be capable of defending their chosen views better than taking potshots at those who disagree. It's fine to argue that I'm wrong. I may, in fact, be wrong. I'm quite happy to admit that I don't know everything. That doesn't mean just because you say it's so that it is so.
The nasty epigrams you keep tossing, Curt, are akin to yelling louder, expecting that by getting more brusque, more obnoxious, more insulting that your point somehow becomes more valid. Or, conversely, that I'll suddenly say "OMG, you're absolutely correct!".
I'm quite happy to let you have this thread, and for that matter, your whole world view. Apparently having your preconceived notions challenged, your obvious intellectual supremacy called into doubt and your point of view placed under scrutiny is much, much more than you're capable of accepting.
I won't waste any more of my time with you.
Published: January 2, 2006 2:59 PM
Caveat: I didn't read all the comments before posting; so, sorry if this is redundant.
Re: anti-lib w/r/t "I'm a programmer; how will I make money without copyright?"
As a programmer, it is your (and my) scarce and unique brain capable of creativity (particularly in the domain of software design) which retains its monetary value -- not the products (code) of our brains.
Possible examples of how intellectual creators such as ourselves can (and do!) reap wealth creation from our activities include: futures markets, dominant-assurance contracts, and combinatorial auctions. Essentially, people invest (or bid) on our ability to create solutions (new code, which did not previously exist) to their problems; rather than trying to collect rents on old code (through the gun-point of government force).
Here's the same concept from another angle: during the industrial revolution factory managers considered the rate-limiting factor of their production to be the scarcity of physical material inputs. e.g. "What limits my ability to sell trousers is the cost -- scarcity -- of cotton." Today, any half-intelligent business manager will tell you that global trade has largely "solved" problems of physical resource scarcity. Rather, the most prominent rate-limiting factor (scarcity) is the intellectual question of "What kind of trousers will people -- diverse individuals -- want?"
In other words, more scarce than cotton or coal or oil or steel is the CREATIVE HUMAN MIND capable of complex problem-solving. The great scarcity is the lack of novelty.
So stop creating artificial scarcity through government intervention in the marketplace; we've got more than enough natural scarcity as it is!!!
Published: January 2, 2006 7:04 PM
FYI, interesting lengthy forum discussion of this topic is going on at FreeTalkLive.
Published: January 2, 2006 8:39 PM
I just wanted to say that I was at a programmer conference once and when it was asked how many people here make a living from writing code that is not sold as a proprietary product? at least 75% raised their hands. And from my experiance that is true, most companies I've worked for as a programmer do not sell software, they sell services or products and software is written to make things more efficient for them. When more software is free to copy, that increases the productivity of developers and thus the demand for developers. In fact, if a competitor can and does copy innovations, it means a company is more likely to hire developers to get a "first mover" advantage.
Of course, this only makes sense and has many parallels in an industrial settings too. Eg, if you can spend 1% of your annual income to make your assemply 10% more efficient anually. Is the fact that your competitors can copy you going to stop you. Hell no. It will only motivate you to do it first before the competitors get one up on you if you don't.
I'm not saying that some people won't loose out in an IP free system. Perhaps things like entertainment that have less intrinsic value will get less revenue too. But then again, the current system has created an entertainment (distribution) cartel that locks out 99% of small time entertainers. Without that cartel, most small time entertainers will probably fare far better - so even there IP doesn't make sense.
Either way, the bottom line is that society doesn't owe people an incentive, or a living, or a personal distribution monopoly coerced at other peoples expense. Property rights exist to allocate limited resources, not to put artifical choke holds on the supply side to offer people cozy little incentives. As another poster said, there is enough natural scarcity as it is.
Published: January 2, 2006 11:00 PM
It is beyond the scope of catallactics to enter into an examination of the arguments brought forward for and against the institution of copyrights and patents. It has merely to stress the point that this is a problem of delimitation of property rights and that with the abolition of patents and copyrights authors and inventors would for the most part be producers of external economies.
Human Action, Ludwig Von Mises.
Ludwig Von Mises seems to understand the concept and consequence of IP, however the current batch of Austrian School Economists have decided that Authors and Inventors should be in the business of creating external economies.
Published: March 1, 2007 5:24 AM
When the conclusion of an argument is dependent upon premises or statements that can be shown to be false then the argument and the conclusion are invalid.
Mr. Anti-lib's argument in totality rests on the ethical doctrine of utilitarianism. Since said doctrine has been shown repeatedly to be incoherent and invalid itself then any argument that rests on such is invalid.
Anything else Mr. Anti-lib is nothing more than sophism --- you need to find a different argument for your case.
Published: January 24, 2008 10:41 AM