Intellectual Property and Think Tank Corruption
I've learned from reliable sources connected with various free market think tanks around the world that various important companies, in particular pharmaceutical, have become "supporters" of such think tanks--provided, of course, that the think tank supports intellectual property rights. Could this be one reason many free market think tanks are supportive of IP despite a mounting case against it?
I wonder if this is one reason for some of Cato's pro-patent positions. Just wondering, not accusing--but see, e.g., Cato Tugs Stray Back Onto Reservation; Jude Blanchette's The Reimportation Controversy; Protectionist Cato?; Drug Patents and Welfare (see also Epstein and Patents and Richard Epstein on "The Structural Unity of Real and Intellectual Property"). One Cato "scholar" formerly very critical of patents seems also to have "evolved" in his view of pharmaceutical patents.
And note that Cato's pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc., at least according to SourceWatch (admittedly, though, the site does not provide a source for their claim, and none of these companies are listed in Cato's 2005 annual report).
***
Update: Another thought: The lead funder of the old Nafta Network, which roped in every single libertarian think tank except you-know-who, under the leadership of Cato, to propagandize for Nafta--was Eli Lilly. Hmm, I wonder if Nafta had an intellectual property component? Well, see here and here.
Comments (158)
What inference should I draw if *anti*-IP libertarian advocates make obviously flawed arguments in support of their position? Malicious intent as well? I invite everyone to follow the link Stephan posted above and jump to his comment at October 11, 2006 12:44 PM and my follow-up at 12:56 PM of the same day, where he concedes, and I point out his concession, that at least one of his arguments is in clear error, regardless of the validity of his conclusion.
Specifically, IP claims cannot be rejected on grounds of idea non-scarcity because they make claims to the use of scarce objects, and still constitute a conflict of desires between actors. You can, of course, reject them on other grounds, but not that one. This essentially voids pp. 23-31 of Stephan's seminal work and his consistent repetition of "IP can't be property because it isn't scarce". Yet he dodges the matter whenever confronted.
Is he getting sinister funding as well?
Published: October 17, 2006 4:53 PM
Before I go any farther, no ad hominems from either side, PLEASE.
It is a very touchy area, that we are stepping into here. BTW, I am not limited my comments to the issue of IP, but to ALL issues.
Check out this link first, from CATO.
http://www.cato.org/sponsors/sponsors.html
It looks quite....corporate....doesn't it. No, I am not launching into anything about "corporations are bad" or anything like that. But we should understand human nature. Money DOES talk. I don't think anybody here is naive enough, or foolish enough, to think that these companies are donating all that money out of the purity of their hearts or their interest in the free market. These large corporations are necessarily mercantilist by their very nature. They are not interested in a free market. They are interested in maintaining an advantagist mercantile enviroment. CATO must realize this, and this very realization can be subliminaly damaging. They deep down know why that money is flowing and their work is corrupting to keep the money flowing.
I like CATO. Before I became more deeply Austrian, CATO was probably my prime reference point for pretty much everything. But I have seen the direction CATO is taking and it isn't good. I will continue to consult CATO, along with Mises, LRC and others, but I will do so with a watchful eye.
Published: October 17, 2006 5:36 PM
Person, I partly agree with you...but partly with Stephan :-) On another discussion forum I used the argument that IP is inconsistent with property rights to tangible things. This seems to me quite straightforward and it appears to be quite hard to counter attack (unless one believes that property rights are defined by governments).
On the other hand it seems to me that non-scarcity CAN be used as an argument, but it is much simpler to attack with probably incorrect, but hard to counter arguments (I may be wrong though :-) )
It is impossible for 2 or more people to use a scarce thing. Thus, we need a system that would allow us to decide, who will have access to the scarce resource and who won't. We have decided for property rights, but there are other possibilities (government, majority, power, physical presence). In general, though, the society is not restricted in any way - the law decides WHO can use the resource, but does not limit the use of the resource - it is physically limited by scarcity and who can use the resource would have to be decided anyway.
Trivially, this does not apply to the IP. IP, unlike traditional property rights, poses artificial limits on the society without any sensible justification.
We promote liberty. Which basically means that you can do whatever you like. 'Scarcity' is an argument why you are not allowed to do some things. You cannot use this argument for IP and I just cannot find a good, non-arbitrary argument that could support it. Thus, I believe, IP is contradictory to liberty, while property rights are not.
Stephan: I know you worded it very carefully...however I still prefer reading correct arguments instead of ad hominem :-)
Published: October 17, 2006 6:12 PM
We have decided for property rights, but there are other possibilities (government, majority, power, physical presence).
But all of those other possibilities lead to more conflict, not less. The libertarian property rights "decision" is the only one consistent with peace.
Published: October 17, 2006 7:45 PM
Person, you have never to my knowledge, answered my question in previous posts, as to why IP protection has never been created by market forces, spontaneosly. Why is it that the state must always pick up this "market deficiency"?
Why is it that there is no concept of IP when there is no printing press?
Published: October 17, 2006 8:20 PM
Careful, Stephan. You're stepping onto the same thin ice that those envirowackos do when they whine that major fossil producers and users are funding many of the pundits/think tanks that minimize the climate change science and oppose any measures to forestall climate change!
But of course you're onto something. Firms fund think tanks to advance their own self-interests, and think tanks have incentives to cater to those who feed them. Of course there need not be any iron link, but one can see which way the incentives lead. When weighing what others have to say in discussions on complex topics, it is always helpful to understand what the speaker's possible financial interests may be.
Published: October 17, 2006 8:34 PM
Person
"....because they make claims to the use of scarce objects,"
Please define these scarce objects that IP make s claim to.
"... and still constitute a conflict of desires between actors."
Who cares. I'm sure that there are lots of behaviors I can do that will not be what you desire. Property rights are not about feelings.
PS: I red your refferal, I didn't see a concession anywhere.
Published: October 17, 2006 10:12 PM
quincunx:Person, you have never to my knowledge, answered my question in previous posts, as to why IP protection has never been created by market forces, spontaneosly. Why is it that the state must always pick up this "market deficiency"?
And you have never to my knowledge, answered my question in previous posts, as to why property protection has never been created by market forces, spontaneosly. Why is it that the state must always pick up this "market deficiency"?
David_C:
"....because they make claims to the use of scarce objects,"
Please define these scarce objects that IP make s claim to.
Paper, ink, etc. When Bob claims the IP rights to the book "Hunting the Wumpasaurus", he is making a claim on how he believes the (scarce) ink and paper in the world should be used. HEY Before you respond without thinking, please take note: I didn't say his claim was valid. I didn't say I support that claim. I'm just saying that that is a claim on scarce goods.
"... and still constitute a conflict of desires between actors."
Who cares. I'm sure that there are lots of behaviors I can do that will not be what you desire. Property rights are not about feelings.
Of course. But I'm not proving a property right. I'm disproving a disproof of a property right -- specifically, Stephan's claim that "IP isn't scarce". Obviously, IP claims involve a conflict of desires and thus involve exactly the same kind of scarcity as everything else. HEY Before following in others' footsteps and making another irrelevant comment: I didn't say that this means IP rights automatically get validity, just that they can't be dismissed on grounds of idea non-scarcity.
PS: I red your refferal, I didn't see a concession anywhere.
Look again. Here's what happened.
In Stephan's IP paper, he claims IP rights have a property -- call it B -- and that this property invalidates them. He also advanced other arguments against IP -- call them C, D, E, F.
I said IP doesn't have B (when applying his terminology consistently). I have said this many times an got insulted many times in response.
In the passage I referenced, Stephan said, and I'm praphrasing "Okay, So IP doesn't have B. But still, IP is still invalid because of C, D, E, and F." But if my claim was only that IP doesn't have B, that's a concession to my argument.
What is B? That IP rights aren't claims in scarce goods.
andy: My whole point is that there are different ways one can mean scarcity. The example I use is this: A fertile field can be used for growing crops AND sleeping in. One use does not conflict with the other. Yet a farmer can still come into conflict with someone who wants to sleep in the field, in that he *doesn't* (for whatever reason) want anyone sleeping in the field. Has he created an "artificial scarcity"? If no, you concede it's not "artificial scarcity" for an artist not to want (scarce) goods related to their idea to be used in certain ways.
Published: October 17, 2006 10:55 PM
"And you have never to my knowledge, answered my question in previous posts, as to why property protection has never been created by market forces, spontaneosly."
Interesting. First came the state then came property protection. OK. Apparently your knowledge does not correspond to the record.
You must publish your insights immediately!
Published: October 17, 2006 11:42 PM
Violation of copyright is a violation of contract and theft of property!
And this regardless of state laws. If someone sells his property to a person under the condition that the buyer has no right to copy it, the buyer has all rights to the property except the right to copy it. That is, as long as the property is a physical object and is alienable. To find out more on this position go to; (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp).
Björn Lundahl
Göteborg Sweden
Published: October 18, 2006 1:01 AM
Person,
..."Paper, ink, etc. When Bob claims the IP rights to the book"...
Just because information can attach to scarse goods, does not mean that scarse goods are attached to information. It's the latter (information) that's trying to be controled here, so why argue the former?
... "Of course. But I'm not proving a property right. I'm disproving a disproof of a property right" ...
Actually, this beggs the question, why aren't you trying to prove IP is a property independent of the things it attaches to? In fact, I wouldn't even ask you to prove it's a right, just a property. That's your assertion, right?
... [ to paraphrase ] ... Stephan said B, Person said not B, Stephan said OK (aka Person) but so what XYZ still proves point, Person said Concession ...
So is it concession or digression? the end in itself is not the semantics of the debate, but wether it is just to use the coercive power of government to restrict what I can copy. Even if he was wrong on the former, he sure doesn't seem to be on the latter.
... [ to paraphrase ] ... bum sleeps on field and interferes with farmer ... Has he created an "artificial scarcity"?
No, it would only be an artificial scarcity only if he slept on a copy of the farmers field. :)
Björn Lundahl,
"Violation of copyright is a violation of contract and theft of property!" ... [ reference to see link for further discussion ]
I already did, see here: http://blog.mises.org/archives/005348.asp
Published: October 18, 2006 1:38 AM
A fertile field can be used for growing crops AND sleeping in. One use does not conflict with the other. Yet a farmer can still come into conflict with someone who wants to sleep in the field, in that he *doesn't* (for whatever reason) want anyone sleeping in the field. Has he created an "artificial scarcity"? If no, you concede it's not "artificial scarcity" for an artist not to want (scarce) goods related to their idea to be used in certain ways.
I would say it MAY conflict with the other. The "empty" field is a use as well as field with some sleeping bags. I think in Norway, they approach it differently - you may sleep anywhere you want as long as it is at least X km from the nearest building and, of course, you don't destroy anything.
The conflict over scarce good is of different "order" then the one over IP. The farmer may say "I want the field to be empty", "I want the field to contain only my friends" and the scouts may want to sleep there. You cannot have both - and still no one needs to say: I don't want YOU to sleep here.
On the other hand, there is no conflict in "I prefer not using this idea" vs. "You prefer using it". It is impossible to formulate this "conflict" in such a way that the options are exclusive - without saying "I don't want YOU to..." - because idea is non-scarce.
Accepting "I don't want YOU to" as rightful would be contradictory to self-ownership, wouldn't it?
Published: October 18, 2006 3:39 AM
I am just now at home and having my lunch and I have only a few minutes left! But I will try anyway.
I quote from page 123, The Ethics of Liberty;
“A common objection runs as follows: all right, it would be criminal for Green to produce and sell the Brown mousetrap; but suppose that someone else, Black, who had not made a contract with Brown, happens to see Green’s mousetrap and then goes ahead and produces and sells the replica? Why should he be prosecuted? The answer is that, as in the case of our critique of negotiable instruments, no one can acquire a greater property title in something than has already been given away or sold. Green did not own the total property right in his mousetrap, in accordance with his contract with Brown—but only all rights except to sell it or a replica. But, therefore Black’s title in the mousetrap, the ownership of the ideas in Black’s head, can be no greater than Green’s, and therefore he too would be a violator of Brown’s property even though he himself had not made the actual contract”.
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp
Björn Lundahl
Published: October 18, 2006 6:01 AM
Physical property rights arise out of the ability to control physical objects. As long as I am responsible enough with my property to lock it up and keep an eye on it, any one who wants to use it in a fashion I don't condone is soon going to have to deceive me, coerce me, or damage my property in some way. Deception, coercion and damage of valuable goods are all destructive to the mutual trust which forms the bedrock of a peaceful society. Such behavior has to be severely discouraged by any healthy community, so we get property rights almost for free.
On the other hand, if I publish an idea in a public forum, it can be used without my consent, without my even ever knowing about it. In order to simulate property rights for intellectual products, it is necessary for a community to impose much finer-grained control over its members. To control the use of an idea, it is necessary to control people's thoughts and communications. This is why the RIAA monitors network traffic so assiduously, and it's why Sony felt entitled to rootkit its customer's machines. I'm not a libertarian, myself, but such impositions seem entirely antithetical to my understanding of libertarian values.
Published: October 18, 2006 6:27 AM
Eli Lilly needs to get a grip on it's outstanding zyprexa personal injury settlement claims
Daniel Haszard zyprexa caused my diabetes http://www.zyprexa-victims.com
Published: October 18, 2006 7:04 AM
Björn Lundahl:
Simple answer: Just as Mises demonstrated a peculiar blindness when it came to government, Rothbard was strangely inconsistent when it came to copyright theory. His statements about not having "the total property right" to the object are incompatible with his statements about property rights in other goods.
Under title-transfer contract theory there are two ways of selling restricted access to a piece of property: one can sell the property itself (primary ownership, including all rights), but establish a system of contractual fines should the restictions be violated, or one can keep the primary ownership and grant only an easement (possibly with a similar system of fines for specific violations). Either way the seller has no claim on third-party copiers, as only trespass -- violation of property rights -- can serve as grounds for a claim of tort. Simply observing a pattern and making a copy does not change the original at all, and thus cannot be trespass any more than operating a radio could be considered trespass against (unaffected) property in the area.
Summary: There is no such thing as the "right to make a copy", and no such right is needed, because, by itself, the making of a copy does not violate the logical boundaries of (trespass against) the original object.
Published: October 18, 2006 10:32 AM
Big Pharma is run by folks who would've been excellent senior party officials in Stalin or Mao's regime. Focused on power and unearned wealthy, they lie, plunder and bribe as necessary, and at whatever cost. These are the kinds of folks who see Narnia or Lord of the Rings and root for the witch or golum.
Bush's multibillion buck BigPharma subsidy is but one example.
Another is the nonstop pressure on docs to prescribe more and more meds for conditions that don't require them (or for which there are homeo/naturopathic alternatives) is another example. (My pediatrician and I regularly argue about this. "Hey, my kid got a C on this quiz." Doc: "No problem, I'll get some Ritalin to control the behavior and some Prozac to help the kid overcome self-esteem issues. Oh, and since prozac will constipate a bit, I'll toss in some stuff to make bowel movements easier." Me: "Drop dead.")
The cooperation with gov't to spread falsehoods re various diseases (through control of regulatory channels and research-grant making foundations). Whether it be HIV mythmaking or Cholesterol myth making, the result is the same: putting a patient on LIFETIME meds that pack a powerful 60-95% profit margin. Now that's a cure for lagging profits! Better than viagra. Wooohoo.
The cooperation with gov't and courts to stop plaintiff's attorneys from bringing BigPharma to justice.
So, yes, Stephan, I see the funding of "libertarian" orgs by BigPharma as something to wary of. Sure, some of the research may be good, i.e., evil FDA hampers research, yada yada, but much of it is bad. As Rand (and murray and mises, et al) said: ideas win in the longrun. BigPharma is out to make sure the wrong ideas get funding while the right ones are relegated to blogs.
But that makes sense, because, as you know, corporations are bad.
Published: October 18, 2006 11:57 AM
Björn> And this regardless of state laws. If someone sells his property to a person under the condition that the buyer has no right to copy it, the buyer has all rights to the property except the right to copy it. That is, as long as the property is a physical object and is alienable.
Jesse> Either way the seller has no claim on third-party copiers, ... There is no such thing as the "right to make a copy", and no such right is needed, because, by itself, the making of a copy does not violate the logical boundaries of (trespass against) the original object.
Two parties could make a valid contract to prohibit copying, and do so completely absent the state or its rules. The would-be copier would be legally bound to not make copies in that case. This is similar to the non-disclosure contracts that firms and individuals already engage in. However, and as Jesse points out, this has nothing to do with a third party, who has no such contract. Ideas would need to be property if the third party is to be prohibited from copying via the concept of property rights.
Published: October 18, 2006 12:51 PM
Greg
Thank you for your comment. You wrote;
“Ideas would need to be property if the third party is to be prohibited from copying via the concept of property rights”.
Yes I agree and I also wrote “That is, as long as the property is a physical object and is alienable”.
Björn Lundahl
Published: October 18, 2006 2:20 PM
Björn Lundahl & Greg:
So are you both agreeing with me that ideas cannot be property, that copying alone does not infringe any property rights, and thus that only direct, voluntary contractors and not third parties can be fined (as per the contract) for making copies (or allowing others to do so, etc.)? Or are you arguing that "ideas" (ideal objects, patterns) can be property? If your position is the latter, I invite you to explain your reasoning. As I understand the concept, property rights are defined by ideas (e.g. the limits of a property right in one's own body are determined by the idea represented by the word "body"), but the rights themselves concern control over bounded portions of the physical world: a specific instance of an ideal type, not the ideal type itself; a specific body, not all bodies.
Rothbard dismissed patents on the grounds that they excluded independent discovery (even where there was no contact with the patented invention or the patent holder) and thus could not be established through contracts -- and then went on to present a theory of copyright with the exact same flaw. His treatment of copyrights relies heavily on non-obvious implicit (non-title-transfer!) contracts, in which simply stamping the word "copyright" on a document or invention somehow creates a binding contract with all observers. A contract for what? He argues himself that contracts must consist of transfers of property titles to be enforceable, which the word "copyright" by itself does not do. Furthermore his proposal is formulated as an implicit contract and yet does not meet a necessary qualification for implicit contracts: it offers nothing by which the contract may be deemed accepted. An implicit purchase contract is validated by the fact that each party keeps the other's (former) property, something they could not otherwise do. A notice on private property is validated by the fact that remaining without accepting the terms would be trespassing. Rothbard's copyright "contract" has no such mechanism; it demands acceptance and yet offers no rights the observer did not already possess.
Published: October 18, 2006 3:14 PM
"Big Pharma... These are the kinds of folks who see Narnia or Lord of the Rings and root for the witch or golum."
Well I did root for the witch... but golum??? Golum was a pathetic wretch and not worthy of the admiration of I, Big Pharma.
Buddy, I rooted for Sauron!
But in all honesty what I would have really liked to see happen was Galadriel take the ring from Frodo and lay the smack down on EVERYONE!!!!!11 The good, the bad, the ugly... it don't matter!
That would have been something worth watching... not this good triumphs over evil crap! The powerful (and ruthless and shrewd and amoral) vanquishes all!
And what's with the 'good' looking so good and the 'evil' looking so... well, bad? Hmm... one guy is this horrible monster who's malformed face is falling off, and the other is a beautiful female elf followed by an aura of light... gee, I wonder who the bad guy is?
What would have been interesting would be seeing the beautiful yet terrible Galadriel mercilessly laying the smack down on human, orc, elf, dwarf, hobbit, ent, troll, wizard, and deity alike... having the audience loath Galadriel, and feel sympathy for the hideous (and 'evil') orcs. Now that would be something!
Published: October 18, 2006 4:34 PM
Yes, Big Pharma, we know you like to lay the "smack" down on everyone like some hiphop drug dealer off main street. And it helps to have some "ho's" help you distribute the "blow" to everyone, hence the value of foundation funding.
Yo yo yo and many bling bling returns.
Published: October 18, 2006 5:15 PM
Avoid using the term "Intellectual Property". Copyright, patents, and trademarks should not be lumped together and called property they are different from each other and different from physical property. See the link.
Published: October 18, 2006 10:26 PM
I am critical of the current practice of copyright/trademark/patent protection and I believe that the expression“intellectual property” is nonsensical, misleading, and harmful to popular understanding of market transactions. On the other hand, I think that even more harm is caused by some critics of the IP laws on this website (they will recognize themselves), who try to redefine property using some ideas that flirt with Marxism and who misinterpret some basic economic definitions like “scarcity” - in order to justify their point.
We can all agree on fallowing:
-People have a right to sell/exchange their property.
- People may create sales contract that express the conditions upon which their property can be obtained by purchaser. This purchase agreement may prohibit any replication that is not authorized by a certain beneficiary assigned by the seller (copyright holder). By accepting such agreement purchaser relinquishes control over his/her entire property when it pertains to copying of that purchased product.
- People can own property that contains ideas – or content of someone’s cognition. Ideas (without any physical property to contain them) cannot be owned. Their property can include their brains, pieces of paper, computer hardware, etc. This “content” makes one piece of paper more valuable than another (ex. architectural design vs. toddler’s drawing), but it also creates differences in value of labor between different people (ideas stored in out brains).
In short, the only dividing issue between social scientist should be the issue of “third party” involvement in copyright infringement.
Non-statist advocates of copyright, such as Murray Rothbard, imply that copyright violation is not a theft of some intangible concept, such as idea. They claim that violations of copyright contracts in a free market would become a theft of some real property. If the basics of our copyright law were spelled on a sales contract, the purchaser would have to acknowledge that in cases of copyright violation any future copy of that particular product will belong to copyright owner. According to our current copyright laws their violator must forfeit every single copy to the copyright holder. The unlawful possession of these copies would constitute theft and their sale would equal to sale of stolen goods, for which even the purchaser can be punished.
On the other hand, it is no coincidence that copyright issues are not left to contractual agreements between free individuals. In addition to other factors, the competition in a free-market would be based on rigidity/flexibility of the user rights. With our current “intellectual property” interference, the state prevents market competition that would occur based on many possible conditions of sale. So many complicated factors in price formation would be a true nightmare for a central planer that aims to predict future price levels and other data. Such complicated pricing process would make it harder for statists to call for price controls or to accuse someone of price gauging. Furthermore, our law is limiting the period during which the copyright can be applied, implying that this right actually belongs to the state – not to private authors and their successors.
Our current “intellectual property” laws represent aggression on private property rights, because they deny the right of free individuals to completely arrange these issues on a contractual basis. Of course, among the first victims of such liberty would be many econometricians, as well as holders of unjust patent monopolies (many powerful groups). That’s why I think that the regulations of copyrights will be returned to markets - right about the same time when the control of money supply is returned to people (I don’t see that day coming any time soon).
Published: October 19, 2006 8:12 AM
Sasha:
I think I can agree with most of what you said, with one exception, which may simply be a matter of wording:
"If the basics of our copyright law were spelled on a sales contract, the purchaser would have to acknowledge that in cases of copyright violation any future copy of that particular product will belong to copyright owner."
It is true that the purchaser can enter in to a contract to transfer title of any copies owned by the purchaser back to the "copyright holder", which may have been what you meant. However, the purchaser cannot transfer title to property it does not own, including any copies created by others. At most the original purchaser could be fined for each copy, but that would be pointless unless the purchaser was somehow complicit. Once even a single copy exists outside of the purchase contract the "copyright" -- the exclusive legal priviledge of making new copies -- no longer exists.
Published: October 19, 2006 9:02 AM
----------------------------------------------------
"However, the purchaser cannot transfer title to property it does not own, including any copies created by others."
----------------------------------------------------
Why couldn't we say explicitly in our contract that by purchasing my product, you accept that any copies that are created from that particular sample (under your responsibility) - will belog to me.
In essence, that is no different than this:
"If any person or persons, after the recording the title of any print, cut or engraving, map, chart, or musical composition, according to the provisions of this act, shall, within the term or terms limited by this act, engrave, etch, or work, sell, or Copy, or cause to be engraved, etched, worked, or sold, or copied, either on the whole, or by varying, adding to, or diminisbing the main design, with intent to evade the law, or shall print or import for sale, or cause to be printed or imported for sale, any such map, cbart, musical composition, print, cut, or engraving, or any parts thereof, without the consent of the proprietor or proprietors of the copyright thereof, first obtained in writing, signed in the presense of two credible witnesses; or, knowing the same to be so printed or imported, without such consent, shall publish, sell, or expose to sale, or in any manner dispose of any such map, chart, musical composition, engraving, cut, or print, without such consent, as foresaid; then such offenders shall forfeit the plate or plates on which such map, chart, musical composition, engraving, cut, or print, shall be copied, and also all and every sheet thereof so copied or printed, as aforesaid, to the proprietor or proprietors of the copyright thereof..."
Except my scenario is voluntary and can be negotiated with buyers.
Published: October 19, 2006 10:00 AM
Happylee, I've got some bad news for you. Homeo-naturopathic medicines are crap.
I find Robin Hanson's ideas on health care interesting.
Published: October 19, 2006 10:19 AM
Sasha: "Why couldn't we say explicitly in our contract that by purchasing my product, you accept that any copies that are created from that particular sample (under your responsibility) - will belog [sic] to me."
I could only fulfill such a contract if the raw materials which went into the production of the copies -- and thus the copies themselves -- belonged to me to begin with. Even if I am the one who is responsible for the copies, i.e. the one who authorized their creation, I cannot grant you ownership over the copies owned by others. Our contract can specify that I owe you a portion of my own property as a fine, which I must pay (or be labelled a thief), but neither you nor I have any claim against the owners of the copies, who entered into no such contract and have stolen no property from us.
Published: October 19, 2006 11:42 AM
----------------------------------------------------
Even if I am the one who is responsible for the copies, i.e. the one who authorized their creation, I cannot grant you ownership over the copies owned by others.
----------------------------------------------------
Well, legally they are not "owned by others" if our original contract specified that any unauthorized copies that originate from YOUR sample will belong to me, in addition to fines that you might pay (as the current law says)... That is a "consideration" that is given for the use of my product.
If we find that some copies were produced using a "copyrighted" unit, you will be responsible for theft along with violation of contract that prohibited reproduction. The party that obtained those copies will be responsible for purchase of stolen goods.
As far as further copying goes, the copyright protection I assign is still valid even on these stolen (newly coppied) units, because they belong to me... Seller's failure to disclose these legal details are normal for any sale of stolen goods. But every chain in this piracy is punishable by sale and purchase of stolen goods.
Such contract would prevent any loopholes, by which your copy can be "accidentally" obtained by your brother (theft of a single copy) and than multiplied in billion units outside of our contract. But my contract's syntax would prevent such mess.
Published: October 19, 2006 12:11 PM
Let me clarify my position:
Under our current (and past) copyright laws, it was demanded that the violator “forfeits all infringing copy” (in addition to paying a fixed statutory fine, turning over all profits they have made from infringing copies, or a number of other remedies may be imposed by the court)
My contract would contain the same demand – by simply stating that purchaser agrees that any copies of my product - that he produces without my authorization - will be considered my property with the same terms of use that we assigned to the original unit (same conditions for use of my product(s) by that user).
The buyers and sellers of my stolen (unlawfully possessed) goods are not immune from their legal responsibility. Any new chain of copying of my newly produced property will also become my copyrighted property. In this way, no loophole is possible: every unauthorized copy belongs to me and it is protected by the original agreement upon which that copy came into existance.
Published: October 19, 2006 12:47 PM
Sasha, it seems to me that your contract would certainly allow some intellectual property to exits, however it would not be appliable to all things covered by copyright and patents. Mozart is known to have been able to 'copy' a 'secret' church music(the scores of the music were intended not to leave the church) by listening to it and then just writing it on the paper. You don't have to be a genius to do it with the contemporary pop-music. Would the contract expect to bind contractually all who listen to the music?
You can 'copy' a book by reading it aloud with someone listening. Would the contract impede you to read a book aloud?
The contract would be possible, however it seems to me that it would be highly impractical and rarely enforced.
Published: October 19, 2006 1:25 PM
Sasha,
A cornerstone of private property is the fundamental principle that what a person creates with his own property is his. It can only become somebody else's property by the owner (creator) willingly transferring the title to another person.
Now two people can enter into a contract regarding the purchase of an object as you describe (that any copies made by the buyer are the property of the seller), that can only bind those that have agreed to the contract (ie, the buyer and seller). The seller has no claim on the property of any other party unless they can get that party to agree to the contract.
If a third party never agrees to the contract, but they use their own property to produce a replica, that replica has to be considered theirs to be consistent with the private property principle. If that property becomes anothers (involuntarily), that action has to be considered theft.
Published: October 19, 2006 1:59 PM
Andy, musicians should earn their bucks like the artists used to do before recording devices were invented - by going out and performing. And I am aware that market in this situation would eliminate all “Milli Vanillis” of this world who are not talented enough to pull-off a live show. As far as patents go, Rothbard explained why they should be abolished (they monopolize one discovery, while penalizing other similar invention that occurred by accident or based on the same developments in science… well known example is the clash between Tesla and Marconi, regarding their radio patent)… Those authors who read out-loud do not seek contractual protection for their verses… et cetera
Contractual basis for copyright is not only possible (and natural development of purchase agreements) – but it is less impractical than our current “intellectual property” laws. Contracts would not include anything that we currently don’t have (just some things would be eliminated that are inconsistent with free and voluntary market exchanges)
JORDAN SAID: “A cornerstone of private property is the fundamental principle that what a person creates with his own property is his. It can only become somebody else's property by the owner (creator) willingly transferring the title to another person.”
That is absolutely correct. If you buy something from me (as a publisher) and you agree that your unauthorized copies will automatically become my property – with all of the protection of my copyright clause – that implies that any additional unauthorized third party copies of MY STOLEN PRODUCT will also become mine - and protected by our signed copyright statement.
A third party cannot obtain my stolen good ("stolen" according to our contract) and than create a pseudo-property by violating contractual considerations that describe the permitted use of that particular (stolen) piece of property. The third party copier is responsible for:
- the purchase of stolen good(s)
- the infringement of the conditions for permitted use of my product, that applies to my copies/my property (based on our contract)
- the theft of my newly created units, because any copy of my property (even newly created property founded on infringement) belongs to me based on copyright protection that stems from our original agreement (your theft cannot change this contractual facts, nor create a loophole).
Published: October 19, 2006 2:55 PM
Sasha: "Andy, musicians should earn their bucks like the artists used to do before recording devices were invented - by going out and performing."
What are you attacking Andy for? He appeared to me to be arguing against the viability of enforcing copyrights and patents through contracts, not supporting them. In any event...
Sasha: "If you buy something from me (as a publisher) and you agree that your unauthorized copies will automatically become my property – with all of the protection of my copyright clause – that implies that any additional unauthorized third party copies of MY STOLEN PRODUCT will also become mine - and protected by our signed copyright statement."
(a) Your product was never stolen, and even if it were you would only have a claim to the stolen property itself (and possibly equal retribution), not any copies that were made.
(b) The purchaser has no right to give you the property of others. No contract you could make with the purchaser could possibly give you any claim over copies made by third parties from their own raw materials.
You appear to be misunderstanding contract theory itself. Contracts cannot specify legal limitations on the use of one's own property. They can only specify conditional or unconditional transfers of title, in the present or the future, to real property owned by one of the parties to the contract. Contracts must be entered into voluntarily by both parties to be binding, and thus you cannot claim title to all copies made by others (since they have entered no such contract), but rather only the copies owned by those who agreed to the contract. Furthermore, implicit contracts must meet rigorous standards to be considered valid, including, at minimum, that the contract must grant both parties some property right they did not previously possess, the acceptance and use of which indicates voluntary agreement to the implicit contract, and that the terms of the contract must be fully understood by both parties. Thus, you can't use an implicit contract to enforce copyrights as no additional property rights are required to make copies, even when the original is owned by someone else.
Published: October 19, 2006 4:04 PM
Sasha,
". . . any additional unauthorized third party copies of MY STOLEN PRODUCT will also become mine - and protected by our signed copyright statement."
You have committed a logical fallacy here. You are assuming that this is theft in order to demonstrate that this is theft.
If we adhere to the principles of private property, we must allow that a third party person (who is not bound by the contract because they have not agreed to it) use their own property as they see fit.
What you seem to be claiming is that if someone uses their own property in certain ways, it can become subject to confiscation by someone who claims they violated their copyright. I believe that this confiscation represents a violation of private property principles and I fail to see how it could be understood otherwise.
Published: October 19, 2006 4:05 PM
JESSE SAID: "What are you attacking Andy for?"
Where do you see an attack? The fact that I answered the question about my views on performing arts does not constitute an "attack" even if my corespondant is on LSD. Andy probably didn't feel like he was attacked.
O Kay... I will try my last attempt to explain my points, before I stop occupying more space with the repeated messages:
If in a contract you agree to declare any of your future unauthorized copies as my property with all the original terms of use – no one in the world should be able to deny your will.
If these newly created copies (my protected property) get copied by the third party – this is a copyright violation and also a theft (since these copies are protected based on our contract - and they are declared as my real property - by you).
If these new copies get copied by the fourth party - this also represents unlawful copying of my property (according to our contract) and theft based on the same principle.
Basically - when my firs (ab)user admits in a contract that any of his unauthorized copies will become MY PROPERTY, PROTECTED UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS THE ORIGINAL, this protection and my property right will logically roll-over to any newly created copies.
I can explain why these contracts are valid, using exactly Jesse's and Jordan words.
Published: October 19, 2006 8:35 PM
I will answer to Jesse's objections, using his own arguments (hopefully, he will not object, since I accept his theoretical statements as valid, but I deny that they disaprove my arguments).
__________________________________________________
"If you buy something from me (as a publisher) and you agree that your unauthorized copies will automatically become my property – with all of the protection of my copyright clause – that implies that any additional unauthorized third party copies of MY STOLEN PRODUCT will also become mine - and protected by our signed copyright statement."
__________________________________________________
(a) Since using your free will, you declared that any unauthorized copies will become MY PROPERTY - and any failure to deliver these units to me represents a dishonest appropriation - OR A THEFT.
(b) The purchaser has no right to give me the property of others. The purchaser simply states that he can produce some copies that legally belong to me - and that these copies are protected by the same user agreement that apply to the original. That simply means that if the third party copies my new products without authorization, he will be subject to my stated conditions, whether he is aware of them or not.
I am not misunderstanding contract theory. Contracts can specify conditional or unconditional transfers of title, in the present or the future, to real property owned by one of the parties to the contract. That is how you agreed to transfer any future copies of my product to my title and under my specific terms of use. If you fail to deliver my product, you are committing a theft. When some third party acquires this property without my knowledge (purchase of stolen good) and when he/she copies this product without any authorization - your own contract must come into play - because you provided my product to the third party.
Contracts that involve the purchase of my stolen goods are not considered valid, and the property-right cannot be established when even terms of permitted use of such product are violated. Thus, I don't use any implicit contract to enforce copyrights as I already have property rights on your copies - based on your own signature, and I even have the same copyright provisions on those copies, and their copies as well, based on that contract.
Published: October 19, 2006 9:34 PM
Sasha:
I'm getting a bit tired of going over the same points over and over again. Can we just agree that we're basing our arguments on completely different theories of property, one of which (mine) is consistent with the Austrian/libertarian theory of property elaborated by Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, etc., and the other of which (yours) has no basis in either homesteading or contractual title-transfer? It's rather pointless to discuss the finer points of copyrights and patents while even the most fundamental concepts of property rights and contracts remain in contention.
Published: October 19, 2006 10:39 PM
I will now try to respond to Jordan's objection to this statement:
__________________________________________________
". . . any additional unauthorized third party copies of MY STOLEN PRODUCT will also become mine - and protected by our signed copyright statement."
___________________________________________________
I did not commit a logical fallacy here. I am assuming that any unauthorized appropriation of my property is theft.
If we adhere to the principles of private property, we must allow that sides in contract have a right to assign the private property rights and terms of use of future copies - as they see fit. Since these copies contractually become my possession, and since they are protected by the copyright (which state that any unauthorized copy will also become my property), a third party person cannot simply take my property and violate its terms of use. The fact that this person is not caring for my property rights and your contractual obligations is only proving that this person is a thief.
---------------------------------------------------
Jesse, I only answered to repeated arguments. I also got tired of them.
My points are based on logical extension of Rothbard's copyright theory. He basically stated that anything that copyright be stated in a free marker contract. If you look at my example more carefully, you will see that I only follow the fundamental right that a purchaser can obligate himself/herself to assign property rights of any copy to the seller - and to agree that the same terms of use will apply to the copy (including the right to transfer any unauthorized copy to the original seller). I am sorry I have to repeat myself, but you still have not logically denied this basic right.
Published: October 19, 2006 10:58 PM
Correction:
Jesse, I only answered to repeated arguments. I also got tired of them.
My points are based on logical extension of Rothbard's copyright theory. He basically stated that anything that copyright implies can be stated in a free marker contract. If you look at my example more carefully, you will see that I only follow the fundamental right that a purchaser can obligate himself/herself to assign property rights of any copy to the seller - and to agree that the same terms of use will apply to the copy (including the right to transfer any unauthorized copy to the original seller). I am sorry I have to repeat myself, but you still have not logically denied this basic right.
Published: October 19, 2006 11:00 PM
To make a long story short Jesse (or anyone else):
- Do you agree that we can create a contract in which you state that any future copy of a product will belong to me and that you agree that the same copyright terms will apply to it?
YES OR NO?
Please just provide answer and refrain from comments.
After you answer that question, I will ask you this:
- If you sell your copies of this purchased product, whose property you just sold based on our contract - mine or yours? Is there a copyright protection assigned to these items somewhere in our contract?
- If you sell your own original item, do you just break-up our contract, even if it states that it would apply to any purchaser of that item? Please explain.
Published: October 19, 2006 11:22 PM
Jesse, Sasha: The contract would have to state, that the contractual party would bind all people who come in contacts with the 'copyrighted' piece of art with the same contract. That's why I think it would be impractical in most of the areas.
If the person in question breaks the contracts ('doesn't bind somebody else with the contract'), what could you say of the resulting copies that were made by somebody else?
It is similar to trade secret: If a Coke manager accidentally allows to leak the recipe for Coca-cola, can you demand that another company stops producing copies of this beverage? You definitely can demand retribution from the manager, but the '2nd-coke' company did not break any contract and did not trespass any of your property.
Published: October 20, 2006 3:54 AM
Andy:
"The contract would have to state, that the contractual party would bind all people who come in contacts with the 'copyrighted' piece of art with the same contract. That's why I think it would be impractical in most of the areas."
I don't think it would. The contract would be exact substitute for current copyright law, plus patent and trademark legislations... Now that's complicated.
As far as your hypothetical examples go, think about this way: if you sold only a partial use of your product to me (as spelled out in contract), I cannot "accidentally" provide full use of that product to someone else. That purchase of unauthorized use is not different in principle than purchase of stolen good.
Published: October 20, 2006 10:20 AM
Sasha, Question #1: Yes, you can.
Sasha, Question #2: Yours (the original sellers'). I agreed to the contract, I owned the raw materials, I made the copies; there is no conflict. As per the contract any copies (or copies of copies, etc.) I create immediately become yours and I have no right to sell them.
Sasha, Question #3: If I own the original then I can choose to sell it. Any contract you and I have agreed to is binding on you and me only. If I sell the original (which I own) the contract remains valid, but is no more binding on the buyer than it was before the sale. If you wish to prevent this you have a few options: you can retain ownership of the item, preventing me from selling it at all; you can include in the contract that the title transfers back to you should I attempt to sell the item (effectively the same thing); or you can use the latter approach, but allow the sale to go through (avoid the title-transfer) if the buyer voluntarily enters the same contract. This last approach comes closes to the "viral" copyright contract envisioned by Rothbard -- but it doesn't address the situation where the maker of the copies is not a buyer, or otherwise related in any way to a contractual participant.
Sasha, Response to Andy: ". . . if you sold only a partial use of your product to me (as spelled out in contract), I cannot "accidentally" provide full use of that product to someone else. That purchase of unauthorized use is not different in principle than purchase of stolen good."
If by "selling a partial use" you mean "retaining ownership but permitting some limited set of uses", then you are essentially correct. Since you still retain ownership, anything that would normally be considered trespass (loosely equivalent to "damage" or "transformation") against the object, and was not specifically permitted in the list of valid uses, would form a just basis for a claim of tort. This is based on the fact that in the absense of the contract any trespass would support a claim of tort, and you are obviously free to waive that right for specific kinds of trespass through the contract. Unfortunately for your conclusion, however, making a copy of something does not trespass against the property rights you have in the original.
To illustrate, if I intended to rent a machine from you I would need a contract similar to what you described, due to the fact that I need to move the machine to a different location and impose normal wear and tear on it, both of which would normally constitute trespass. In exchange for a title to part of my property you waive your right to claim tort for these forms of trespass resulting from my use -- all of which is perfectly normal, and consistent with Austro-libertarian principles of property and contracts.
On the other hand, if you own a painting (for example) and I can manage to observe it (say, by taking a picture) without agreeing to any sort of contract (say it's visible to the public, or you simply neglect to keep it hidden and/or make your guests sign a contract on entering your house), then I have committed no trespass. The painting remains in its original form, at its original location; there is no damage, no transformation. For a single object this isn't much of a problem: just protect the painting better from casual viewing. For anything intended for mass-market, however, this makes the copyright-contract system costly and unworkable; the cost of maintaining the contract would far exceed the value of the media.
Published: October 20, 2006 11:54 AM
Sasha> I cannot "accidentally" provide full use of that product to someone else.
I doubt many contracts would be signed by the buyer that included what amounts to severe policing of the "property" (by the buyer) to protect the interests of the seller, since that is what it amounts to. A contract could say -- just like non-disclosure contracts -- that the buyer won't disclose the information. Through no reasonable fault of the buyer, the information could leak out. The third party is no part of the non-disclosure agreement, and can use the information however they wish.
A tornado could "hit" and move the information. Who's fault is that? Even if, say for example, an employee of the seller, leaks the information/idea/pattern, the damages are only due from the dishonest employee -- third parties don't necessarily have any blame whatsoever in that case. Once a third party has it, the cat is out of the bag.
I can only speak for myself, but I still can't understand how you are linking a 3rd party into a contract between two parties.
Published: October 20, 2006 12:16 PM
With regards to Jesse's painting example, what I am claiming is that--if we are to assume that the third-party picture-taker owns the camera and equipment, he owns anything he creates with that property--ie, the picture of the painting.
Since he has not agreed to any copyright contract, he has full ownership of the picture and can dispose/sell/publish the photo as he sees fit. He maintains his copy absent of the original--he has not trespassed nor damaged the original in any fashion, i.e., he has not violated private property principles.
If this is not the case, on what grounds do we have to take any action against the third party?
If the contract between painter-owner and painter-buyer directly affects the painter-photographer, who never agreed to the contract, what's to stop Sasha and I agreeing to loot Jesse, pray tell?
Published: October 20, 2006 1:19 PM
As far as performing art goes - or painting for that matter, or reading poetry out loud - I already explained that you cannot protect that with copyright.... Someone can hear a song or see a painting and try to replicate it - without any contractual restriction. if you put your artwork in an open public, recording it with a camera is not essentially different than recording it with our brain. That's why I said that these artists need to go out and perform.... and use their recordings as a mean of additional support by their fans. If artists want to prevent the unlimited display of their works, they need to specify that in their contract with each buyer.
These examples do not refute my position on privatization of copyright.
----------
Greg, a tornado can move around our current copyrighted material as well... so what's the difference. See my first post and you will see my view on why copyright is nationalized.
------------
Jesse, if I sell you "some limited set of uses" for my product (if I copyrighted it) a third party cannot obtain the full use from you. If a third party does that, he/she is committing a theft (that's what Rothbard meant). So we agree on that.
If we contractually agree that any copies that you create without authorization will belong to me and that they will also be protected by the same copyright clause (even their copies will become my property) - than all possible unauthorized copies and profits that they created will belong to me.
So that's not different from our current copyright - it's just privatized... and some things that are inconsistent with free markets are excluded.
Published: October 20, 2006 1:59 PM
Very well. If you put it that way, I think we actually agree on the validity and limitations of contract-based copyright; the only differences appear to be semantic or technical in nature -- for example, where you talk about selling "some limited set of uses" or "a partial use" I would instead say "permitting certain, specific kinds of trespass to fulfill the conditions of a contract", which has the advantage of clearly indicating that the ultimate ownership of the property remains unchanged. Also, you sometime leave out important qualifies, e.g. saying "all possible unauthorized copies" rather than "all unauthorized copies created and owned by a party to the contract." Our meanings, however, appear to be the same as far as this discussion is concerned, taking into account the first paragraph of your most recent response.
I must say, however, that this system does possess several notable differences which separate it from the current copyright arrangement; an important part of the current system, the part which gives it most of its power, is that any copy or recording found without a clear record of authorization is automatically assumed to be infringing on the copyright, which can be enforced with huge punitive liabilities (up to $150,000 per copy). A contract-based system works the other way around: the person with the copy must be shown to be a voluntary participant in the contract before any penalty can be levied. This is technically one of the "things that are inconsistent with free markets" which must be excluded, but without it one might as well consider copyright unenforceable for any mass-market good.
It would still be applicable in the same situations which work for trade secrets, of course.
Published: October 20, 2006 2:34 PM
Copyright protection, or any other limitations in term of use, does not need to be nationalized. It can be carefully spelled out in a free-market contract. It is not an easy task to create such contract that would prevent a third party infringement (that's why I insisted on current practice of forfeiting pirated copies straight to the original owner)... But I am glad that guys here actually understood and accepted most of my arguments, in spite of initial disagreement. You helped me tremendously in explanation and development of my arguments.
Published: October 20, 2006 2:34 PM
====================================================
Jesse:
"A contract-based system works the other way around: the person with the copy must be shown to be a voluntary participant in the contract before any penalty can be levied."
====================================================
The privatized copyright would create a situation similar to any sale and purchase of stolen goods. Here, you have theft of unauthorized use and its sale. The main targets are massive copyright violators. I don't think that privatized copyright would be less efficient than our current mess.
Published: October 20, 2006 2:43 PM
Sasha,
As far as performing art goes - or painting for that matter, or reading poetry out loud - I already explained that you cannot protect that with copyright....
I beg your pardon...what would you protect with the 'contractual copyright', then? It seems to me that your definition excludes pretty everything that today's copyright cover. (maybe except musical scores(the graphics), which is...umm..personally I find not being able to copy Bach's scores rather crazy (even rewriting it to the computer, because there was some 'editorial work', if you want to do it, you must find the original scores(written by Bach personally), or some that are more then century old)
Published: October 20, 2006 4:03 PM
Sasha,
I think we're 99% of the way toward agreement. I tend to disagree with the term "copyright" to begin with. It is more appropriate to all it a "contractual agreement." The term "copyright" is typically attributed to an object. This implies that it can be enforced on any person because it a property of the object. A contractual agreement demonstrates a consented arrangement between parties, which is perfectly valid. But it should be clear that this is NOT Intellectual Property.
A contractual-agreement would, I would guess, work in most cases involving trade secrets--things that are meant to be kept out of the public image. I don't think it would work (in a free market) when exposed to the public eye however.
Note, I'm only referring to "ideas," not to any physical embodiement of said idea (ie, the story of a book, not the physical bound paper and ink).
Published: October 20, 2006 4:15 PM
To clarify--whether or not (or exactly how) contractual agreements would work in a free market is something that would be decided in a free market.
One point that must be clear however is that the agreement can only affect the property of those that agree to it. So long as you adhere to this, let the market decide what works and what is profitable.
Published: October 20, 2006 4:28 PM
Jordan, amen. The term copyright in itself is not as bad as “intellectual property.” Former actually describes something that can be arranged between a seller and a user.
----
Andy, contractual copyright cannot be formulated in cases in which you let everyone record your artistic performance, either by a recording device or a brain. Now, you can restrict recording devices and perhaps even put some disclaimer on an admission ticket regarding a copy, but that is not the point.
With a contractual copyright you can protect anything that is recorded and established as your property. On the other hand, if I hear your song on the radio I will be able to perform it on my concert. You basically allowed that to happen - and it is not a big deal (if you are any good and I am not). If I purchased printed version of your unperformed musical scores – and than used it against written terms of use, that’s a different story...
We basically understand each other, but I don’t think that copyright privatization would be ineffective (not more than any other contract enforcement). It would open some different aspects of pricing and create a nightmare for econometricians. That in itself is worthwhile : )
Published: October 20, 2006 5:08 PM
Sasha> Greg, a tornado can move around our current copyrighted material as well... so what's the difference. See my first post and you will see my view on why copyright is nationalized.
There is no difference, so that would provoke some questions. It seems like you believe "ideas" (absent mass) are themselves are property. True? Can you explain why?
Published: October 20, 2006 6:14 PM
Greg, the fact that there is no difference explains why tornado example does not prove that nationalized copyright is superior to voluntary private contracts that would settle this matter.
Your comment that "it seems" like I believe that ideas are property themselves, shows that you didn't read my first posting, in which I explicitly dealt with that issue (the third point bellow the statement: “We can all agree on fallowing”). My other messages also had nothing to do with such notion.
Regards.
Published: October 20, 2006 7:05 PM
Sasha> [T]he fact that there is no difference explains why tornado example does not prove that nationalized copyright is superior to voluntary private contracts that would settle this matter.
Of course not. The "act of God" example was and extreme example for third party inclusion without reference to a State. I still don't know how the third party is bound.
Sasha> Your comment that "it seems" like I believe that ideas are property themselves, shows that you didn't read my first posting, in which I explicitly dealt with that issue (the third point bellow the statement: “We can all agree on fallowing”). My other messages also had nothing to do with such notion.
I read it, but I did not see in it what you do.
Published: October 20, 2006 9:03 PM
Greg,
"The act of God" example had no relevance on my arguments for copyright privatization. Accidental inclusions in any kind of property are never punishable by law. What we talked about here were examples of theft in regards to violations in terms of use.
I am also sorry that you unable "to see" in my comment "what I do"... Either way, your comment that I believe that - "ideas (absent mass) are themselves are property" - is simply not true.
Regards.
Published: October 20, 2006 10:17 PM
Sasha: "The privatized copyright would create a situation similar to any sale and purchase of stolen goods. Here, you have theft of unauthorized use and its sale. The main targets are massive copyright violators. I don't think that privatized copyright would be less efficient than our current mess."
Am I correct in inferring that the "main targets" you are referring to here are limited to people who have clearly entered into the contract, who are making copies from of their own raw materials, and who are then selling these copies they have made on the street (or wherever)? If so then I wholeheartedly agree that this would be sale of stolen goods, and that this system would be quite effective against such targets.
I just think that you won't find many people who actually meet these qualifications; one could just as easily (perhaps more easily) pull the digitized recordings off some anonymous online file-sharing service and make and sell the exact same copies free of any contractual obligation.
P.S. A copy of stolen property (made of non-stolen raw materials, of course) is not itself stolen property -- do you agree or disagree?
Published: October 20, 2006 11:01 PM
Jesse, it is clear what categories of offenders would be the obvious target of any kind of theft. The old-fashioned street market of piracy is still wide-spread all over the world. As far as digitalized theft goes, there are fancy ways to track it and fight against it, but that does not change the nature of theft and the issue of unauthorized use. We deal with that issue now, so privatization of copyright is not an issue.
A copy of stolen property (made of non-stolen raw materials, of course) is stolen property, if the contract specifies that any such copy belongs to me, and the offender refuses to forfeit it. The same goes for a third party that obtains your rights of use and enters my contract, and so on... but what if a third party realizes that by legally obtaining your user rights he is unable to make unauthorized copies for himself - so he decides to steal it?
You cannot obtain the right of full use of my product by "stealing" it from someone who only has a right of partial use. In such case, our contract still holds. You cannot be legally responsible for someone who stole from you, but our contractual ramifications for unauthorized use of that unit of product are still very much alive. So any produced copies by him would still belong to me, but he would be responsible for the damages - not you, of course.
If a thief was able to break any legal title by the act of theft, he would not owe anything to the person he stole from (in this case – to both of us) and no theft would ever be committed.
Published: October 21, 2006 1:20 AM
Sasha> "The act of God" example had no relevance on my arguments for copyright privatization.
I know. The example was to help determine how a third party would be bound. That is, to understand your foundations before worrying about how they are to be built upon.
From your writing, it seems to me you believe ideas are property without tie to (non-human) mass. That is, without physical objects manifesting the pattern. It would seem this is the only way a physical object possessed and even created by a third party -- with a highly correlated pattern to the first parties physical objects -- could be considered the property of the first party.
You're saying the idea -- without regard to non-human propertied mass -- was owned by the first party seller and that transmission of this idea (manifestation) into the physical property of the third party somehow transformed that physical property to that of the first party seller. (It is actually irrelevent whether or not the first party seller ever contracted this out to any buyer. All that mattered was that a non-contracting third party created a highly correlated pattern with his/her own physical property, and somehow that first party would be seller claimed that property was now his/hers, because they "owned" an idea/pattern absent mass.)
To say that someone owns any physical manifestation of an idea or pattern is to say that the idea absent (non-human) mass is what is owned -- after all, that is how it could get transmitted into a physical object and then have some particular person assume ownership of that physical property without regard to another's previous claim. I can't figure out how else I could interpret your writings.
Published: October 21, 2006 9:39 AM
Greg,
The hurricane example could not possible help you with the issue of a third party involvement in copyright infringement (theft of unauthorized use) – because accidental acquisition of property is never punishable by law and it is not a theft. For example, you would not be responsible for a theft of a piece of silverware that hurricane brings to your property, so your example is completely irrelevant in the area of copyright – it is never punishable.
In spite of my explicit explanation that - I DO NOT THINK THAT “IDEAS ARE PROPERTY WITHOUT TIE TO MASS”- you continue with that false assertion. Unfortunately for you, I didn’t write a single sentence that would support such insane argument. “It seems” (now I will use your style) that you are imputing me this false statement, just so you can do a rebuttal, no matter how absurd it is.
If you read my postings, you would have seen that a person can become the owner of unauthorized copies of his product – only based on contractual agreement that provides that – not on some abstract “idea without mass” notion. I explained why a third party can never obtain the right to replicate my product if that right was not available under my contract (terms of use) with the original buyer or second party. Remember – I never sold a product – I sold the rights for certain uses of it.
Of course, a contract can be violated by an involvement of a third party outside of contract. That is why terms of use always state that such involvement is not permitted. The contract states that only personal, non-commercial use is allowed and it prescribes the measures in cases of infringements of these terms (ex. “any violation of… will result in...”). Terms of use are phrased in a way that prevents you from violating the contract and than safely passing the blame to your household member (or any third party) who is not a part in that contract.
PS
Can you please not assume what I wanted to say (sentences that start with "it seems"). If my points are not clear to you, simply ask me to clarify them. That is - if you care about intelligent and civilized dialogue.
Published: October 21, 2006 12:39 PM
I have not been following this thread closely, especially with Sasha's involvement, but someone I believe seems to be linking "mass" with property. LEt me just say that it is scarcity (rivalrous), not "mass," that is the key thing. Think of the paradigm case of property: land. But is it really mass you homestead, or more like a defined surface area (volume?) *on* the surface... etc.
Published: October 21, 2006 1:26 PM
"The key thing" is that no one here claims that the "ownership of an idea in itself" is possible - but that we can own property that contains some pattern or idea. The ownership over a physical property implies the right to sell some uses of it - and to restrict other uses, such as replication. As far as homesteading goes, if you are able to claim ownership over a body of water on your land, you will have right to claim the air that is on it as well... At the same time, if taping into an oil well gives you the ownership right over its volume, your labor at the surface of the property provides you with claim over entire piece of land (usque ad coelum principle)... but that is not directly relevant for our discussion on privatization of copyright.
Published: October 21, 2006 2:11 PM
Sasha:
Apparently it is as I said before: we don't share any common theory of property rights or contracts.
"A copy of stolen property (made of non-stolen raw materials, of course) is stolen property, if the contract specifies that any such copy belongs to me, and the offender refuses to forfeit it."
What contract? Contracts exist between people, not pieces of property. The only way a contract would do what you say here would be if the thief had already entered into a contract with you directly. A contract between the seller and the buyer cannot alter the ownership of the (rightfully acquired) property of the thief. The contract does not automatically attach itself to everyone who comes into contact with the property. It is called "theft" precisely because there is no contract between you and the thief. What was stolen remains yours, but what was owned by those who came into contact with the stolen property likewise remains theirs.
"You cannot obtain the right of full use of my product by "stealing" it from someone who only has a right of partial use. In such case, our contract still holds."
You say this as if one actually needed a right to "use" a piece of property in a certain way (also known as the theory of "positive" rights). Libertarianism and Austrianism are based on the theory of "negative" rights, where property rights are defined as rights of exclusion; violation of the defined boundaries of the property (without the owner's permission) is trespass, the only justification given for self-defense or retribution. Not all "uses" violate this exclusion. Observing the pattern of a piece of property (and thus, by extension, making a copy of it) does not violate the exclusive rights of the owner in any way.
(Also, the above objection holds that the property of this thief does not suddenly become yours simply because it is transformed into an imitation of your property. There is no contract between you and the thief which would make the thief's property yours (not what he stole; what he had originally); you only have the right to recover your own property, plus -- according to Rothbard -- the same amount again in retribution.)
"If a thief was able to break any legal title by the act of theft, he would not owe anything to the person he stole from (in this case – to both of us) and no theft would ever be committed."
Theft can neither create nor break a legal title. What the thief stole remains yours, and you have the right to take it back, plus equal retribution. You do not have the right to anything beyond that. Contracts do not define property; they merely transfer its title from one person to another with the express agreement of its owner. The existance of the contract with the buyer, in which the buyer agrees to give the seller any copies he or she makes (which must have belonged to the buyer before they were given to the seller) has nothing to do with the property of the thief, who did not agree to give the seller any of his/her property, and who is bound only to return what was stolen: the original copy.
"The ownership over a physical property implies the right to sell some uses of it - and to restrict other uses, such as replication."
It implies no such thing. Ownership gives you the exclusive right to determine who may trespass the boundaries of the property (not who may "use" it). Replication (or imitation) does not trespass the boundaries of the property and thus does not violate the exclusive rights granted by ownership. One may only restrict, on the basis of property ownership, those uses which trespass against the property: anything involving relocation of the property, transformation, consumption, etc. Replication does not alter the property in any way; it cannot be restricted.
-----
Greg: Exactly so, except for the confusion between mass (physics) and scarcity (economics) that Stephan so kindly pointed out.
Published: October 21, 2006 6:53 PM
Sasha> Of course, a contract can be violated by an involvement of a third party outside of contract.
That does not make sense to me. I cannot conceive of how someone not party to a contract could violate it. It seems to self-contradict.
I'm sorry you don't like "seems." I was only trying to give you the benefit of the doubt -- the opportunity to explain yourself. Whether I am too dense, or you can't articulate, is beside the point now, as we've given it several go-rounds and I just don't understand your foundations. So now I give up. I don't care about your development and details because I don't get your foundations.
I think that some idea of "physical mass with a pattern" being the foundation of idea-property is a stretch, to say the least. I wanted you to give you the opportunity to explain what I perceived as your idea-mass linkage, since I could not understand it myself. I have no idea why you make the link, and other things you write appear to contradict. (Incidentally, I am an engineer, have written correlators that, of course, do pattern recognition. I believe your link is ill-founded. There is an archetype -- a pattern -- but the an approximate physical representation of that archetype is not a matter of hard physics and pure objectivity. It is a matter of human subjectivity, as each copy is different -- there is no "perfect correlation," even in applied science. You might know porn when you see it, but it is subjective, an archetype, not a matter of physics.)
Published: October 21, 2006 9:37 PM
Greg, super! I really don't need any more insinuations about things I never said. If you change your mind, I will explain my position to Jesse
------
Jesse,
I am not referring that an implied contract passes to a third party that acquires my product from you (although some people would see it that way). Like I said... in case that a third party steals my product from you - our contract would still be intact - and its clauses regarding any copies made would still apply (whether your household member copied it or someone else makes no difference). You would not be legally responsible for the violations, but our contract (like many of them out there) would state that "any violation" in terms of use would result in... (my ownership title of these copies). I don’t care who violates it under your supervision – I care about the realization of our contract’s provisions. Thief should find out who owns the product, who has the right to use it, and what uses are prohibited to anyone else.
If a third party cannot legally obtain the right to full use - it cannot obtain it by theft, either. A thief cannot annul the existence of our contract, just like he/she can't break my ownership title. A thief enters into the contract right where out terms of use state that only permitted use is your private, non-commercial use - and that in cases of violation some terms apply. The thief should ask about these in advance : )
When it comes to “observing” my product instead of stealing before copyright, my contract still holds… and Rothbard said something about it:
ROTHBARD: " A common objection runs as follows: all right, it would be criminal for Green to produce and sell the Brown mousetrap; but suppose that someone else, Black, who had not made a contract with Brown, happens to see Green’s mousetrap and then goes ahead and produces and sells the replica? Why should he be prosecuted? The answer is that, as in the case of our critique of negotiable instruments, no one can acquire a greater property title in something than has already been given away or sold. Green did not own the total property right in his mousetrap, in accordance with his contract with Brown—but only all rights except to sell it or a replica. But, therefore Black’s title in the mousetrap, the ownership of the ideas in Black’s head, can be no greater than Green’s, and therefore he too would be a violator of Brown’s property even though he himself had not made the actual contract."
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp
As far as "positive rights" go, we understand each other perfectly, and there is no need to go into semantics (whether the glass is half empty or half full). I stated that all uses of my product are permitted to you - except sales and replication... In other words you obtained a right to observe, burn, or do whatever you want with this product - except for two restricted uses. That is exactly how Murray Rothbard phrased it in his mousetrap example - and he is a great Austrian, right?
Published: October 21, 2006 10:27 PM
Suma Sumarum: it is your responsibility to prevent any abuse of our contractual terms. If you fail, you will still have to prove that you were not negligent or an accomplice. Nevertheless, my contractual provisions will still apply: I would have a claim against you in the amount of these copies - and you would obtain them from Mr. Thief, because he caused you that liability by an illegal and premeditated act. You guys would sort it out... Rothbard was confident in that, and so am I : )
Published: October 21, 2006 11:01 PM
Naturally, this debate has not changed my views regarding copyright. I think Rothbard was correct.
When it comes to logic, nothing beats Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe!
Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden
Published: October 22, 2006 2:18 AM
Sorry, I did a terrible mistake (joke), in my above statement, Ludwig von Mises should, of course, be included as well!
Björn Lundahl
Published: October 22, 2006 2:30 AM
Sasha:
I'm going to ignore your first post, since it didn't address what I said in the slightest: namely, that contracts (under Rothbard's own title-transfer theory) cannot create or restrict rights (i.e. property), but only transfer them from one person to another. According to Rothbard contracts must consist of terms of the pattern "if this condition occurs, then this property title will transfer to this person." Anything else is a "mere promise" and unenforceable. You can, of course, keep the property itself and just agree to "look the other way" when specific exclusive rights you already have are violated (allowing you to "sell specific uses" of the property). Looking the other way would be the condition of the contract; the title-transfer would be the payment.
"Suma Sumarum: it is your responsibility to prevent any abuse of our contractual terms. If you fail, you will still have to prove that you were not negligent or an accomplice. Nevertheless, my contractual provisions will still apply: I would have a claim against you in the amount of these copies - and you would obtain them from Mr. Thief, because he caused you that liability by an illegal and premeditated act. You guys would sort it out... Rothbard was confident in that, and so am I : )"
I think Rothbard's confidence in his copyright theory was misplaced, as in it he flatly contradicts several of his more general statements about property and contracts. You may indeed be right that in the situation you have specified here, where the contract makes the buyer liable for all copies made, and where someone actually steals an existing copy from a buyer in order to make one or more duplicates, the thief may be considered liable for the secondary results of the theft (the fines the buyer now owes for the additional copies); this would be quite reasonable, and consistent. Nonetheless the contract cannot directly alter the title to the thief's property; it can only impose fines on the buyer, which the buyer can then recover from the thief. Thus, if the original was not stolen, but instead copied in-place, then the copies were not made through an illegal act and the buyer cannot shift the fines onto the copier.
"I stated that all uses of my product are permitted to you - except sales and replication... In other words you obtained a right to observe, burn, or do whatever you want with this product - except for two restricted uses. That is exactly how Murray Rothbard phrased it in his mousetrap example - and he is a great Austrian, right?"
You quoted that passage before, and I stated then that I believe he was inconsistent on that score. Replication is not exclusive to the property owner to begin with, being merely a combination of observation (also not an exclusive right) and manipulation of one's own property (which one does not require any sort of permission to do).
Think of it this way: If I were to see this object and then manipulate my property in any other way -- not in imitation of the object -- then I believe you would agree that no contract you might have with the keeper of this object could cause my property to become yours as a result. (Otherwise you could effectively steal all my property simply by placing some huge object where I can't avoid observing it.) However, the only difference between this and the scenario we have been discussing is that the former manipulation does not employ the idea or pattern of the original object, and the latter manipulation does. In other words, you are placing the idea or pattern in a special, protected position, granting it additional exclusive rights. You are making the idea itself subject to ownership, which you claimed previously you did not support.
Published: October 22, 2006 10:23 AM
As I have explained several times, Rothbard went astray in his copyright comments. They are incompatible with his title theory of contracts and his property rights views. He somehow views stamping at thing "copyright" as a way to protect not only works of authorship (what copyright covers) but also inventions, like a moustrap. The view is confused and wrong; there are any number of problems one can point to. First, what about methods? There is no way to stamp "copyright" on a method; yet that too is an invention that ought to be protectable if a new apparatus us. And anyone with familiarity with patent law and the difficulties of defining the metes and bounds of an invention (by means of "claims") will realize that stamping something "copyright" is an utterly unworkable way of specifying the invention that is to be claimed. Moreoever, anyone familiar with the utter lack of objectivity and inherent ambiguity and vagueness of IP concepts will realize that it is not possible to arrive at an objective identification of what invention one is entitled to have ownership over etc.
Moreover, the main problem is Rothbard here attempt to ensnare third parties by the analogy that you are not entitled to use a good if it is stolen property--but this analogy requires one to hold that the informational aspect of a particular material scarce resource is itself property. Of course, it is not, since the information itself is not a scarce resource.
And amateurish, scientistic ramblings about the "energy" of an object don't change this.
Published: October 22, 2006 10:36 AM
There is a strange pattern among some self-proclaimed "Austrians" to insinuate and impute some statements to their opponents - just so that they can do some absurd attempt of a rebuttal. The latest victim is Murray Rothbard. This great economist opposed patent protectionism - and he never claimed that honest discoveries and the use of known methods should ever be sanctioned.
Rothbard only called for the freedom of contracts, in which you can clearly state: what uses of your private property are not permitted - and what will be the consequences in case of such violation.
And amateurish, insane ramblings about how contract violators can "not act and just exist" don't change this... and neither do communist ramblings about how we acquire our property (foolish denials of ownership over our entire body and our own labor).
-----
JESSE SAID: "the contract cannot directly alter the title to the thief's property"
Our contract would not alter property title of a thief's property! As I said:
"it is your responsibility to prevent any abuse of our contractual terms. If you fail, you will still have to prove that you were not negligent or an accomplice. Nevertheless, my contractual provisions will still apply: I would have a claim against you in the amount of these copies - and you would obtain them from Mr. Thief, because he caused you that liability by an illegal and premeditated act."
JESSE SAID: "You may indeed be right that in the situation you have specified here, where the contract makes the buyer liable for all copies made, and where someone actually steals an existing copy from a buyer in order to make one or more duplicates, the thief may be considered liable for the secondary results of the theft (the fines the buyer now owes for the additional copies); this would be quite reasonable, and consistent."
If I didn't think that I was correct and consistent - I would not have made such argument. But thank you for the confirmation, anyways. It confirms that Rothbard was correct in his confidence in private contracts, which can allow for copyright protection, without state interventions and aggression.
Published: October 22, 2006 11:55 AM
NSK> Moreoever, anyone familiar with the utter lack of objectivity and inherent ambiguity and vagueness of IP concepts will realize that it is not possible to arrive at an objective identification of what invention one is entitled to have ownership over etc.
I was trying to make that same point -- perhaps awkwardly -- by saying there is no such thing as "perfect correlation" in the physical world when it comes to pattern replication. There is no scientific way to do this, and even then, any set point chosen for lack of correlation to distinguish between "idea-property" from "idea-non-property" can only be subjective and arbitrary. While I pressed Sasha for a foundational "physics" theory of property -- since it looked to me some link was being made, I never thought it was possible by definition, although I thought even a wrong theory might be interesting.
The transmission of ideas via language, sounds, and images is indeed through a physical medium. But this is irrelevent because these mediums are abstractions of physical things by definition. Language in its many forms is symbolic, an abstraction by definition. In fact, book is nothing but a collection of abstractions, despite the recording in physical ink and paper. A bill of materials and an assembly drawing are nothing but abstractions. Proponents of IP law -- whether by state or private -- need to demonstrate how ideas (abstractions) can be property. I haven't yet heard/seen a comprehensible demonstration.
Jesse [to Sasha]> You are making the idea itself subject to ownership, which you claimed previously you did not support.
That is what I saw too -- an implication going one way, but then outright denial of the implication (assertion of the opposite). So I used "seems" to see if there was any explanation to make me see things in another way. If an explanation was given, I neither understood it, nor even noted a hint that the apparent contradiction was being addressed. So I gave up. It has not been explained to me how ideas can be property to my satisfaction. I'll keep an open mind though.
Published: October 22, 2006 12:34 PM
Greg,
It has not been explained to you how ideas can be property - because no one here (to my knowledge) made such argument. Does that "seem" clear enough?
I stated that supporters of privatized (contract) copyright do not need to claim that abstract idea-ownership is possible. Quite the opposite... those who claim that private contracts cannot provide copyright protection feel the need to impute such nonsense to my side - in order to create the appearance of a rebuttal (or to spam this thread to the point where no one will read the responses to the original posting).
Privatized copyright is based on contractual agreements for the use of private property - which would stipulate that unauthorized sales and replications are not allowed - and that in cases of any violations of thse terms, any resulting profits and/or copies will belong to the original owner. I explained that the contract with a thief is not necessary in my previous post, as well as why third party violations of contracts can never become a loophole or "license to steal”.
Regards.
Published: October 22, 2006 12:59 PM
To those who are squarely against any form of copyright (via property or contract), here is a situation: Let's say that I have spent countless nights writing an original book, and now I wish to sell copies of it to consumers. However, shortly after my final draft is complete, Jones breaks into my house and steals my final draft. Jones is eventually arrested and my stolen property is returned, but before his arrest, Jones allowed Smith to make a copy of my book. Smith begins to sell copies of my book for a very low price, and refuses to allow me to share in any of his profits.
In your theory of property rights and contracts, has Smith done anything wrong? If he has not, then is there anything I could have done to make his actions wrong (e.g. stamping 'copyright' on every draft of my book)? If the answer is still "no", then to me, your theory of property rights and contracts is flawed.
It's similar to ending a lecture with "...and therefore, nothing is wrong with murder." If I consider the conclusion to be wrong on its face, there's no point in discussing the definitions and arguments leading to that conclusion.
Published: October 22, 2006 2:33 PM
Blah, more enlightened opponents of contractual copyright protection would say that Jone's actions didn't only result in a temporary loss of the original book - but also in economic takings from you. He would have to recover your loss from Smith. This is not a contractual copyright issue, but justice would be served.
----
But what if you borrowed your copy to Jones (he didn’t steal it), and Jones allowed Smith to make a copy of your book. Smith begins to sell copies of my book for a very low price, and Jones refuses to allow me to share in any of his profits?
In that case, you clearly put a great effort to write that book, but you were lazy to "stamp" a copyright disclaimer on it - to inform what use of your property is not permitted. I think it would only be fair that you should pay the consequences of your own stupidity. When the government starts subsidizing people's carelessness (by intervening and correcting the outcomes of non-aggressive actions of individuals) we can only expect more irresponsible behavior in general.
Published: October 22, 2006 3:25 PM
Blah, more enlightened opponents of contractual copyright protection would say that Jone's actions didn't only result in a temporary loss of the original book - but also in economic takings from you. He would have to recover your loss from Smith. This is not a contractual copyright issue, but justice would be served.
----
But what if you borrowed your unpublished original to Jones (he didn’t steal it), and Jones allowed Smith to make a copy of your book. Smith begins to sell copies of your book for a very low price, and Jones refuses to allow you to share in any of his profits?
In that case, you clearly put a great effort to write that book, but you were lazy to "stamp" a copyright disclaimer on it - to inform what use of your property is not permitted. I think it would only be fair that you should pay the consequences of your own stupidity. When the government starts subsidizing people's carelessness (by intervening and correcting the outcomes of non-aggressive actions of individuals) we can only expect more irresponsible behavior in general.
Published: October 22, 2006 3:32 PM
Information is not a scarce recourse but the original material object and property is. The right to make contracts about property is derived from the right of property.
If any derived principle from the right of property is impractical or very costly in certain circumstances and situations to enforce in a libertarian society, I am sure, because it is in everyone’s interest, that law enforcement agencies, insurers, arbitrators etc will solve such problems and work them out.
Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden
Published: October 22, 2006 4:00 PM
Sorry, “scarce recourse” should be” scarce resource”.
Björn Lundahl
Published: October 22, 2006 4:13 PM
That is true Björn. Denying the right to establish a contractual copyright is the denial of the property rights, but that shouldn’t surprise if such statement comes from person who denies the very basis for property acquisition.
What if that person tells you that we don’t own our work (labor)? You don’t even have to know any physics and the fact that our body is made of energy that produces the work. Forget that – he’ll accuse you of scientism for reminding him of reality in which our actions take place. Every true Austrian knows that by denying ownership of our labor – you deny that property is generated when we first use it (when we apply OUR labor to it, before anyone else did). If we do not come to own unclaimed things by mixing our labor with them (with “USE”) that implies that we do not own ourselves. For, what is the self-ownership - but our right of first use (first labor/energy) that is mixed with our matter?
If someone denies self-ownership, of course that they will deny contracts. They think that we do not posses our property as the result of application of our labor or self-ownership… No, they think that we only “control” things, because “society” (whatever that means) decided at one time that this is the most optimal way to avoid conflicts. That implies that same “society” can deny you property rights when you want to write a voluntary contract about the copyright with your customer. That also implies that this “society” can use the excuse of “avoidance of conflict” to deprive you from your property, if the “proletariat” threatens with aggression.
The question that comes to my mind is: who would pay such an imposter to pose as an Austrian? Is it possible that there is no conspiracy and that this person is simply deprived of common sense (like a lawyer who doesn’t know the definition of theft, and never heard of implicit contracts)? That is a tough one to break. We’ll probably never know.
Published: October 22, 2006 5:26 PM
Sasha:
Why bother quoting the narrow areas where we agree while simply ignoring the far more significant areas where we clearly disagree?
I said: "Thus, if the original was not stolen, but instead copied in-place, then the copies were not made through an illegal act and the buyer cannot shift the fines onto the copier."
Do you agree or disagree?
I also said: "Think of it this way: If I were to see this object and then manipulate my property in any other way -- not in imitation of the object -- then I believe you would agree that no contract you might have with the keeper of this object could cause my property to become yours as a result. (Otherwise you could effectively steal all my property simply by placing some huge object where I can't avoid observing it.) However, the only difference between this and the scenario we have been discussing is that the former manipulation does not employ the idea or pattern of the original object, and the latter manipulation does. In other words, you are placing t