Owning Thoughts and Labor
The issue of whether non-scarce things like thoughts or labor are ownable has arisen in recent debates--see, e.g., Thoughts on Intellectual Property, Scarcity, Labor-ownership, Metaphors, and Lockean Homesteading; Intellectual Property and Think Tank Corruption; and New Working Paper: Machan on IP.
Johan Ridenfeldt called to my attention recently a 1988 panel discussion on ethics with Rothbard, Hoppe, David Gordon, and Yeager, which has this exchange:
Question: I have a question for Professor Hoppe. Does the idea of personal sovereignty extend to knowledge? Am I sovereign over my thoughts, ideas, and theories? ...
Hoppe: ... in order to have a thought you must have property rights over your body. That doesn't imply that you own your thoughts. The thoughts can be used by anybody who is capable of understanding them.
This is compatible with (and, of course, pre-dates) my own views on property and scarcity. As usualy, Hoppe got it right early on.
(See also Hülsmann's Knowledge, Judgment, and the Use of Property, at pp. 44, and my Knowledge, Calculation, Conflict, and Law, p. 58, discussing the acquisition and use of knowledge being a mere technical problem.)
My view, as I argue in Against Intellectual Property, is that only some kinds of "things" are ownable in the first place. That is, before you ask who is the owner of a thing, it first needs to be established that the thing is ownable--the type of thing that property rights apply to. This is one mistake, in my view, in Rothbard's attempt to derive a version of "copyright" (but which really also seems to include patents, since he thought it would cover inventions too). Rothbard assumes (as I explain in detail in the above paper) that where someone contracts with a novelist to buy only a single copy of a book and not to copy it, a third party may also not copy the book because he only has the rights that the customer had. This implicitly assumes that knowledge is ownable.
I think Machan also makes the mistake of implicitly assuming that that any "thing" you can conceptualize or name "exists" and "thus" can be owned. Such as a novel, or poem, or invention. And if these things are ownable, naturally, the person with the best connection to or claim to this thing is its creator. As Machan notes,
the status of something as private property appears to hinge on its being in significant measure an intentional object—its status as a private owned entity has to do with in what mental relation is stands with an agent. But then it would seem that so called intellectual stuff is an even better candidate for qualifying as private property than is, say, a tree or mountain. Both of the latter only come to be related to human intentions, whereas a poem or novel cannot have their essential identity without having been intended (mentally created) by human beings.
(This is somewhat reminiscent of what Rand did when she actually elevated patents over mere property rights in tangible goods, when she wrote that “patents are the heart and core of property rights.” See. p. 18 of my Against Intellectual Property article linked above.)
The problem here is it just assumes any "thing" you can identify conceptually may be owned. One problem with this is that it seems to make reality depend on the way we name or conceptually identify things. If I call or understand your output as a "novel," then the "novel" is the unit. But just because this suffices for conceptual understanding of the world does not mean there is some "ontological" class of entities called "novels" that may be owned. In fact our concepts are use to refer to many phenomenon in or aspects of reality--truth, love, the-fact-that-I-woke up this morning, the age of the earth, my favorite drink. Are these things ownable just because they are "things" that can be conceptually identified? I don't think so.
When you ask what things are ownable, before asking who the owner is, you realize the criteria is bound up with the purpose of property rights, which is to assign owners to avoid conflict; that is, they pertain to the types of things over which there can be conflict--that is, to rivalrous (scarce) resources. Clearly not to facts or memories or recipes or patterns or information. So you never get to the question of who owns a poem. It is simply not part of the class of ownable things. Call it a thing if you like; say it "exists"; fine by me. But it's not an ownable thing.
If you restrict the ownership inquiry to scarce resources, you see the question of "creation" never really comes up, strictly speaking: as I have noted before, the focus on "creation" as an independent source of ownership is confusing and flawed. Actually, it is first use that is the key (as elaborated in my article How We Come To Own Ourselves). This is sufficient to allocate title to any particular scarce resource in question (the body is a special case). Creation, it turns out, is neither necessary nor sufficient: for example, if I am the first to homestead an apple, I own it even though I didn't create the apple (yeah, you can torture language to try to say you "created" it in a sense since your creative efforts or "labor" were needed to recognize the opportunity etc., but let's face it: you didn't create the apple). So creation is not necessary. And if you create a statue in someone else's granite slab, you don't own it--so creation is insufficient. By contrast, if you create a statue in your own granite, you own the resulting statue, but not because you created it--because you already owned the granite, but merely changed its form.
Randians justify rights based on man's "need" to be "productive" etc. I find this a very flawed and non-rigorous approach. It is what leads them to focus on creation as the touchstone of ownership; and this is why they are so eager to grant rights in IP--because yes, these things are "created" moreso than unowned scarce resources in the wild that are found and homesteaded.
Comments (190)
All those users betting that Stephan Kinsella would post on intellectual property this week, you may collect your winnings by e-mailing me at econ_punk@yahoo.com
Disclaimer: Since the odds were 1-to-1 that SK would post on IP, you can think of your winnings as simply a refund on the ticket price.
Published: December 11, 2006 12:13 PM
Yeah, Student, same here; just now I only got a refund on my bet that he would trot out the same long-refuted argument (see my post at October 11, 2006 12:56 PM and the surrounding exchange with Kinsella) against IP. C'est la vie.
Published: December 11, 2006 12:32 PM
Person
Enough griping and crying already. What is your actual position regarding IP? You've never presented it in all your months and months of bickering, back-stabbing, bitching and demanding that people accept you as some sort of clever expert in the field. If you are indeed knowledgeable in this field surely you would have the courage of your convictions and present your position.
So fess up and present your grand theory so it can be evaluated and critiqued.
Sione
Published: December 11, 2006 1:11 PM
While I still have a lot of ground to cover on this issue, I personally am coming around to Stephen's view of IP. I think something has to be tangible and scarce to be owned.
Published: December 11, 2006 1:34 PM
Si_one: Why isn't it enough that I can tear down the arguments of others? Why do I need to present my own theory to show others' to be false?
Published: December 11, 2006 1:35 PM
Mark_Brabson: what does that have to do with Stephan's position? In the link above, he concedes that the intangibility and non-scarcity of ideas do not suffice to reject the rights we would recognize as "IP rights". That whole bit is no longer part of his case against IP. So if your oppose IP because "something has to be tangible and scarce to be owned", that has nothing to do with Stephan's position.
Published: December 11, 2006 1:38 PM
My previous comment was meant in a very general way. The tangible and scarce was not a reference to Stephen, but to Hoppe and Rothbard. I am still studying on this whole matter of IP. And yes, I am reading materials on both sides of the matter. I try to be open minded as possible in these things. For example, while I am a great admirer of Rothbard, I differ from him to the extent of supporting ultra-minimalism rather than anarchy. I think that may be the case with IP. There is a lot of wiggle room from what I see. I will TRY to find the rational middle ground somewhere. In any event, I still have reading to do on the issue, so I can't give a final answer to either you or Stephen, because I simply don't know where I will finally end up on this issue. At this point, my viewpoints on IP are at best tenous.
Published: December 11, 2006 1:56 PM
Mark, I agree with every opinion you just wrote. Sione, are you listening?
Published: December 11, 2006 2:07 PM
Devil's advocate for a moment. Of course ideas can't be "owned"--that's why copyright laws (for example) require that the ideas be in some kind of fixed form, like a book, an album, etc.
What bothers me is a lack of clarity in such issues. It would be one thing to claim someone else's novel as your own, for example, but it's quite a different thing to write your own novel based upon the same characters. Yet IP law tends to be far too broad in just exactly what it protects.
Published: December 11, 2006 2:25 PM
Dear “Person”,
You are setting up a straw-man argument. In fact, Mr. Kinsella has repeatedly and explicitly stated (e. g., in N. Stephan Kinsella, “In Defense of Napster and Against the Second Homesteading Rule”, LewRockwell.com, September 4, 2000) that denying the legitimacy of intellectual property rights amounts to denying a “second rule of homesteading” (i. e., non-Lockean original property acquisition).
Yours in Liberty,
Carl Johan Petrus Ridenfeldt
Published: December 11, 2006 2:41 PM
Carl_Johan_Petrus_Ridenfeldt: How exactly does the content of that citation contradict what I said? In fact, it agrees with me: it's an instance of Stephan basing a rejection of IP not on idea non-scarcity, but on conflict with a higher homesteading rule. (Of course, that essay is from long before I schooled Stephan on the non-scarcity argument, so he hadn't abandoned that argument as of that time, but the argument you're referring to in the link is different.)
Published: December 11, 2006 2:50 PM
Dear “Person”,
Actually, the matter is quite simple:
(1) Because of the natural fact that ideas are not scarce, Mr. Kinsella rejects the concept of property in ideas.
(2) Because of his opposition to any “second homesteading rule”, Mr. Kinsella rejects the institution of intellectual property legislation.
The first step is quite helpful in getting to the second step.
Yours in liberty,
Carl Johan Petrus Ridenfeldt
Published: December 11, 2006 3:09 PM
Carl_Johan_Petrus_Ridenfeldt: The first step is irrelevant to the second step. Like I said in the link I gave above, which you didn't read, and which Stephan has already agreed with, any "IP right" or "right to an idea" can be equivalently expressed as a right to the usages of all scarce resources that instantiate the idea, insofar as they instantiate it. That creates a "second homsteading rule" that violates Stephan's higher homesteading rule, but has nothing to do with whether you can literally "own" a (non-scarce) idea.
Published: December 11, 2006 3:17 PM
Person, you are being silly. I have never "admitted" your bizarre correction makes sense. Look. The problem is that advocates of IP always enforce it in the real (scarce) world. So giving rights in non-scarce IP "things" is tantamount to overriding the first-use rule for assigning rights in scarce resources. That is why it's a problem to assign rights in non-scarce things. That's why we have to identify whether a given thing in which there is to be rights, is a scarce thing, or not. If it is, fine; assign rights to it in accord w/ the homesteading principle. If not, you cannot assign rights in it becuase that would transgress rights in scarce things.
If IP advocates would simply say, "Oh, no, we don't think IP is property, nor do we think there are rights in non-scarce things like ideas. Rather, we think that if you come up with a good idea, you should be rewarded by getting partial ownership of tangible property already owned by others--we think there is a property-title-assignment rule for scarce resources that overrides and is more important than the first-use rule: it is the innovatation rule. And we don't care about the prior-later distinction, either." If they said this, Dear Person, then they are talking in terms of assigning property rights to scarce things. Then I woudl not need to point out to them that IP is not scarce. I would only then point out to them that their property assignment rule is not compatible with the conflict-avoiding purpose of property, which purpose shows that only the first-use rule and prior-later distinction satisfy the function of property rules.
But if I just ignore the scarcity aspect, I leave it open for people like Machan to say, "Oh, I don't want to invade rights in your property; I just want to grant rights in other types of things." In fact, this is exactly what he says. This argument is the one that ignores the necessity of scarcity as a prerequisite to a thing's being eligible for property rights.
And in fact, even the basic argument abuot assigning property titles is an argument about how to fairly assign titles to *scarce things*. This requires an understanding of why scarcity is indeed crucial, despite your bizarre and repeated complaints that this is not so.
Game, set, match.
Published: December 11, 2006 3:27 PM
Stephan:I have never "admitted" your bizarre correction makes sense.
Yeah, you just said: "Sure, you can put it this way, if you want--it still suffers from the same set of objections I mounted against it in my paper." That's an admission that it makes sense but you disagree.
That's why we have to identify whether a given thing in which there is to be rights, is a scarce thing, or not. If it is, fine; assign rights to it in accord w/ the homesteading principle. If not, you cannot assign rights in it becuase that would transgress rights in scarce things.
Correct -- you concede that IP claims are claims to scarce things.
If they said [that they are making claims to scarce goods in violation of the homesteading rule], Dear Person, then they are talking in terms of assigning property rights to scarce things. Then I woudl not need to point out to them that IP is not scarce.
If your argument against the IP claim can be voided merely by making the exact same claim, but using different terminology, it is no argument at all, and to assert its relevance is a fraud.
And in fact, even the basic argument abuot assigning property titles is an argument about how to fairly assign titles to *scarce things*. This requires an understanding of why scarcity is indeed crucial, despite your bizarre and repeated complaints that this is not so.
Stephan, how many times do I have to say this? I "get" that scarcity is relevant, but the misunderstanding of its application is on your side. Scarcity implies that not everyone's desires can be satisfied, so property rules have to be spelled out to dilineate exactly whose desire can be rightfully satisfied and whose cant, when it's impossible to satisfy both. Attempting to predicate an argument on "idea non-scarcity" (as you do) is thus a category error. People are making conflicting claims when they assert or deny IP. That is scarcity! You're non-response is to say, "hey, we both have the informational content of the book, no conflict!". But of course there is conflict. The exact same conflict that forms the need for property rights in the first place.
Published: December 11, 2006 3:44 PM
Dear “Person”,
On the contrary, I did read your linked-to material. (In fact, I also read it back in October.)
Further, I did not claim any strict logical “relevance”. What I did claim was helpfulness. Remember that virtually all advocates of the institution of intellectual property legislation use such phrases as “owning ideas” or “property in ideas” as if we were having conflicts over Platonic objects, not (as you correctly note) “scarce resources that instantiate […] idea[s]”. Clearly, the question of scarcity is not irrelevant as to the question of the concept of owning ideas.
Yours in Liberty,
Carl Johan Petrus Ridenfeldt
Published: December 11, 2006 3:46 PM
Poor, befuddled Person:
A few comments.
First, as to Johan's last post, where he wrote: "Remember that virtually all advocates of the institution of intellectual property legislation use such phrases as “owning ideas” or “property in ideas” as if we were having conflicts over Platonic objects, not (as you correctly note) “scarce resources that instantiate […] idea[s]”. Clearly, the question of scarcity is not irrelevant as to the question of the concept of owning ideas."
Oh, oh, ouch.
Now: you wrote:
>Correct -- you concede that IP claims are claims to scarce things.
"concede"? Are you mad? This is my main problem with them. The problem is that IP advocates do not see this.
>If your argument against the IP claim can be voided merely by making the exact same claim, but using different terminology, it is no argument at all, and to assert its relevance is a fraud.
What? Fraud? How do you define fraud?
Published: December 11, 2006 3:52 PM
Carl_Johan_Petrus_Ridenfeldt: The argument people try to make is predicated on ideas themselves not being scarce. That matter (whether ideas are scarce) most certainly is irrelevant and unhelpful. If any so-called "idea ownership" can be equivalently expressed as ownership claims on certain usages of scarce resources, the scarcity of ideas themselves is irrelevant. Is it "helpful" to argue that "one phrasing of your position is nonsense, but another one isn't"?
Published: December 11, 2006 3:57 PM
>Correct -- you concede that IP claims are claims to scarce things.
"concede"? Are you mad? This is my main problem with them. The problem is that IP advocates do not see this.
It doesn't matter if IP advocate so-and-so or such-and-such or whatshisname does or doesn't see this. All that matters, is, "is it true?" If it is true that IP claims are claims to scarce things, your argument against them on the grounds that "ideas aren't scarce" is invalid. Get it?
>If your argument against the IP claim can be voided merely by making the exact same claim, but using different terminology, it is no argument at all, and to assert its relevance is a fraud.
What? Fraud? How do you define fraud?
Lying. You claim that "ideas not being scarce" consititutes a reason to reject the validity of so-called "intellectual property rights", yet you now know it does not consitute such a reason, so you are claiming something you don't really believe.
Published: December 11, 2006 4:03 PM
Dear “Person”,
The phrasing “property in ideas” is nonsense, since ideas are not scarce. Of course, after having proclaimed your advocacy of “property in ideas”, you may proceed to explain that by “property in ideas” you really mean “property in scarce resources that instantiate ideas”. This, however, is disingenuous: The original phrasing, by itself, is nonsensical; hence, it opens up a Pandora’s Box of confusion (for examples, just grab any random writing advocating the legitimacy of the institution of intellectual property legislation).
Yours in Liberty,
Carl Johan Petrus Ridenfeldt
Published: December 11, 2006 4:26 PM
Carl_Johan_Petrus_Ridenfeldt: Just to be clear, I never advocated "property rights in ideas"; rather, I explained why a particular argument against the substance of such a claim is invalid.
you may proceed to explain that by “property in ideas” you really mean “property in scarce resources that instantiate ideas”. This, however, is disingenuous: The original phrasing, by itself, is nonsensical; hence, it opens up a Pandora’s Box of confusion
Not at all; it's just metaphorical shorthand for a more complex kind of claim. So what if it confuses you? I thought the important thing was the validity of the substance of the claim, not whether you can play word games by "refuting" the literal meaning of a metaphorical phrase.
Published: December 11, 2006 4:38 PM
Why don't we step back for a moment from the abstract question of whether ideas actually can or cannot be property, and instead look at this from a common-law, conflict-resolution point of view.
For the sake of argument let's say that there are two individuals involved, A and B. A is an author who has written a book and submitted it for publication. B has purchased one of these books, copied it, and sold that copy to an (unnamed, irrelevant) third party. Let us further presume that there are no external laws or other precedents to cover this situation, and that no special contracts were involved (which would have made this a matter of contract law unrelated to the question of whether ideas can be property).
A maintains that B's actions violate A's property rights in the book and thus constitute aggression; B maintains that no property right violations have occurred, and is prepared to defend itself against what B would consider A's aggression in turn.
Recognizing this state of impasse, and being reluctant to start a costly feud, they have turned to you as a third-party impartial arbitrator.
Is B guilty of aggression? On what basis?
If B is guilty, what restitution is A due?
Published: December 11, 2006 6:11 PM
Dear “Person”,
First, I did not intend to imply that you ever advocated (or, for that matter, not advocated) “property rights in ideas”. In my sentence, “Of course, after having proclaimed your advocacy of ‘property in ideas’, you may proceed to explain that by ‘property in ideas’ you really mean ‘property in scarce resources that instantiate ideas’.”, you may substitute “one’s” for “your”, “one” for “you”, “one” for “you” and “means” for “mean”.
Second, the phrase “property in ideas” is a metaphorical shorthand for the phrase “property in scarce resources that instantiate ideas” in a meaningful way only in as far as one actually states and explains thus to be the case.
Third, of course it matters whether I get confused by a claim or not. The purpose of communication is ordinarily not to spread confusion. That is why we insist on precision, rigorousness and the absence of ambiguity.
Fourth, the validity of the claim that “property in scarce resources that instantiate ideas is justified” is indeed “the important thing”. The validity of the claim that “property in ideas is justified” is, however, important only in as far as it is understood to mean the exact same thing as the claim that “property in scarce resources that instantiate ideas is justified”, since, taken by itself, it is nonsensical. As is evident from the literature, such an understanding is not at all common. Rather, writers (on both sides, admittedly) are frequently confused and nonsensical, having been led astray by the metaphor.
Yours in Liberty,
Carl Johan Petrus Ridenfeldt
Published: December 11, 2006 6:28 PM
Carl_Johan_Petrus_Ridenfeldt:the phrase “property in ideas” is a metaphorical shorthand for the phrase “property in scarce resources that instantiate ideas” in a meaningful way only in as far as one actually states and explains thus to be the case.
Every advocate of intellectual property explains exactly the rights they claim should be enforced, i.e., the substance of their claim.
Third, of course it matters whether I get confused by a claim or not. The purpose of communication is ordinarily not to spread confusion. That is why we insist on precision, rigorousness and the absence of ambiguity.
So do you oppose the use of *any* metaphor, or just the ones that lead you to making irrelevant arguments?
Fourth, the validity of the claim that “property in scarce resources that instantiate ideas is justified” is indeed “the important thing”. The validity of the claim that “property in ideas is justified” is, however, important only in as far as it is understood to mean the exact same thing as the claim that “property in scarce resources that instantiate ideas is justified”, since, taken by itself, it is nonsensical. As is evident from the literature, such an understanding is not at all common. Rather, writers (on both sides, admittedly) are frequently confused and nonsensical, having been led astray by the metaphor.
Yes, it looks like Stephan is an example of someone on the anti-IP side who does this.
Published: December 11, 2006 6:46 PM
Dear “Person”,
You state:
This is not true. Generally, such advocates are simply nonsensically advocating the right to stop people from “stealing their information” et cetera, whatever that means. Rigorously stated rights are in no way legion—quite the contrary.
You state:
I do not oppose the use of metaphors per se. I am, however, constantly vary of them—especially in the context of complex argumentation. If, e. g., someone were to treat the statement “it’s raining cats and dogs” as implying that there are really cats and dogs falling from the sky, then I would naturally protest. I would do the same even if the erroneous implication was advocated in a way that was confused, unsystematic or inadvertent.
You state:
I seriously doubt this.
Published: December 11, 2006 7:32 PM
Enough of this nonsense.
If ideas are a property, then every idea belongs to someone. Every word ever spoken - and so if one happens to listen to somebody else and remember words said, the speaker gets a claim to something contained within the listener's head.
If only some ideas can be property then one needs to tell precisely what diffirentiates property ideas from non-property ideas. A whim of PTO examiner? Or what?
Since no consistent objective theory can be formulated to differentiate between those two kinds of ideas, the only reasonable conclusion remains: ideas cannot be property, period.
What everyone's calling "intellectual property" is merely legal fiction - the transferable temporary monopoly grants, created and enforced by the governments ostensibly for social engineering purposes, and in practice serving only to enrich the legal guild.
So, discuss the necessity and morality of this legal fiction, please, and forget about "property".
Published: December 11, 2006 9:47 PM
...I really have to remember to proofread my messages before posting. My apologies.
Published: December 11, 2006 10:04 PM
"If ideas are a property, then every idea belongs to someone. Every word ever spoken - and so if one happens to listen to somebody else and remember words said, the speaker gets a claim to something contained within the listener's head."
No it just means that some ideas are given away for free. Just like tangible objects. Tabgible objects are often given away for free and then it is the receivers property. But you cant take a tangible property away without consent and claim it is yours, just like ideas taken without consent.
"If only some ideas can be property then one needs to tell precisely what diffirentiates property ideas from non-property ideas. A whim of PTO examiner? Or what?"
Easy. Like every property, the consent of the owner. Because when you mean the difference between ideas that are treated like property and the ideas that are not, you actually mean the owner asking for something for exchange or not.
Published: December 12, 2006 5:10 AM
Maybe I should have said "creator" instead of owner there.
Since there is no difference in production process of ideas and tangible objects. Just the product.
Both ideas and tangible products, in the creation process, use scarce resources.
When I come up with an idea I use scarce resource like my mind, my own experiences and past knowledge, my character etc.
When I produce a tangible object I again use nature given scarce resources plus the scarce resourse mentioned above like my mind, my intellect, experiences, etc.
IP rights are actually the very basis of every property right.
If there are no IP rights and the argument that supports it, Lockean homesteading principal falls right on its ass.
Published: December 12, 2006 5:15 AM
Carl_Johan_Petrus_Ridenfeldt:Generally, such advocates are simply nonsensically advocating the right to stop people from “stealing their information” et cetera, whatever that means. Rigorously stated rights are in no way legion—quite the contrary.
False. Whenever someone defends IP, it's always clear what "right" (or claim) they want protected. The fact that they refer to it as e.g. "stealing music" does not take away from that.
me:[I]t looks like Stephan is an example of someone on the anti-IP side who [has been led astray by the metaphor].
you:I seriously doubt this.
If you've been following, his entire use of the argument from idea non-scarcity is a case study in being led astray by a metaphor. When someone wants to "own an idea", that simply means they want the legal right to prevent others from instantiating the idea without authorization. The fact that Stephan focuses on the problems of literally owning an idea shows he has been led astray by a metaphor.
Published: December 12, 2006 8:34 AM
Person, you wrote:
If you've been following, his entire use of the argument from idea non-scarcity is a case study in being led astray by a metaphor. When someone wants to "own an idea", that simply means they want the legal right to prevent others from instantiating the idea without authorization. The fact that Stephan focuses on the problems of literally owning an idea shows he has been led astray by a metaphor.
Your "simply means" argument doesn't seem to recognize that enforcing such legal "rights" is no simple matter!
Besides, what gives people the "legal right to prevent others from instantiating the idea without authorization"? Sounds fishy to me. . .what's your justification for it?
Published: December 12, 2006 9:42 AM
Okay, Dan_Coleman, I have a few brain cells I don't mind losing.
Your "simply means" argument doesn't seem to recognize that enforcing such legal "rights" is no simple matter!
Saying what something "simply means" implies nothing about the simplicity of enforcing any legal rights.
Besides, what gives people the "legal right to prevent others from instantiating the idea without authorization"? Sounds fishy to me. . .what's your justification for it?
I wasn't attempting to offer a justification for it, just explaining what an invalid argument against that position would be.
Published: December 12, 2006 9:55 AM
Person,
The implicit premise of Stephan's argument is that, in order to have a right to legal defense of something, one must first own the thing that is being defended as a right.
If we cut out ownership and say that copyright is "simply" the legal right in itself, it is certainly a good question to ask how one can have such a legal right. Otherwise, it's begging the question.
In other words, it looks to me like the conversation goes as follows:
P: 'People should have the right to prevent others from instantiating that idea.'
S: 'But how can you own an idea?'
P: 'Wait, who said anything about owning? All I'm saying is that there is a legal right to prevent others from using it!'
S: 'What gives you the justification for that?'
P: 'I'm not giving one; all I'm saying is that it isn't ownership per se.'
S: 'But why must that be so? For what reason can you prevent others from doing that?"
P: 'Does it matter? Your argument doesn't work anymore.'
and so on.
Published: December 12, 2006 10:08 AM
If in the copyright question, opponents could consider just one second, that the infringement on homesteaded property rights is not related to “ownership” of thoughts but to “ownership” of individual identity. (Now you might argue that identity knows no ownership either as it is “immaterial”, but you can’t argue individual identity is not scarce… so that’s one thing).
Most people in the western world think the authors of artistic works who “identify” strongly with their work have good reasons to, just as you do identify with your individual signature or with your “image”. It’s those people that one needs to explain why they shouldn’t care, if one wants libertarian ideas to overcome one day …without copyright.
Here’s an example related to Hoppe to make my concern even more understandable and fitting: some time ago, Hoppe held a lecture on “Small States” in Belgium as he was invited by the “Vlaams Belang” party. This is known as a Flemish “nationalist” party that advocates the dissolution of the actual Belgian Federal State. Hoppe stated he did not agree with all the views of that Party, he only wanted to comment on the dissolution of the larger State entity. If there wasn’t copyright protection however, a political party would be able to republish an “edited” version of “Hoppe’s Democracy” for instance and link it “intimately” to its program, while even writing “dictatorial version approved by Hoppe” on it (what the hell, these are just words, and they cannot be owned, right?). Is that what Mises recommends? Or Hoppe?
It's an infringement on homesteaded identity rights.
Published: December 12, 2006 10:09 AM
Dan_Coleman:
In other words, it looks to me like the conversation goes as follows:
P: 'People should have the right to prevent others from instantiating that idea.'
Didn't say that.
S: 'But how can you own an idea?'
P: 'Wait, who said anything about owning? All I'm saying is that there is a legal right to prevent others from using it!'
Didn't say that; I said that the substance of so-called "idea ownership" is the legal right to prevent others from instantiating the idea.
S: 'What gives you the justification for that?'
P: 'I'm not giving one;
Yay, the first thing I actually said!
all I'm saying is that it isn't ownership per se.'
No, I said that the claim which is typically referenced as "idea ownership" needn't be expressed as "idea ownership", but rather, as ownership of the right to use any object to instantiate the idea in question; or, as ownership of the usage rights of all objects insofar as they instantiate the idea.
S: 'But why must that be so? For what reason can you prevent others from doing that?"
P: 'Does it matter? Your argument doesn't work anymore.'
and so on.
And so on, what? I'm not offering a justification for the position opposing Stephan's. I'm pointing out why one of his arguments is irrelelvant. I don't need to present a justification for IP rights in order to do that.
Why is this so hard for your to understand? Could you please read my posts? You'll like it, I promise. It's just like reading a book, except "my posts" instead of "a book".
Artisan: that falls under "fraud".
Published: December 12, 2006 10:28 AM
Person,
You'll have to excuse me, because I can often be rather slow in conversation. I was under the impression that your counter to Stephan's 'ownership argument' was that one doesn't need ownership to fully understand IP, and therefore using ownership is taking a metaphor too far.
Instead, it sounds like you are doing something different, but I'm no longer clear on exactly what you are saying (and I do actually read your posts, so no worries there ;)
Stephan's basic argument (in a crude summary) is that IP falls apart because you can't own a non-material thing (a non-material *not* being scarce). In this blog post, he furthers that by saying that 'first use' of a *scarce* thing is the best way to understand ownership.
What is your objection? If you give me a summary of your counterargument then perhaps we'll have something with which to move forward in conversation.
Published: December 12, 2006 10:42 AM
Dear “Person”,
You state:
This is not true, since it is not at all clear what it means to actually “steal music”. Music is not scarce. Music can not be trespassed upon.
Am I metaphorically “stealing” a song if I whistle it? What if I change a note or two? What if I only hum it in my head? What if I express my interpretation of it as a painting? These questions are not obviously solved simply by an appeal to a prohibition of “stealing music”. It is all quite uncertain, confused and non-committal, due to the underlying false concept of owning ideas.
You state:
You are simply incorrect. As I have shown, it is crucial to (1) inform advocates of “owning ideas” that they are (or, if coherent, at least ought to be) merely speaking metaphorically (since the phrase “owning ideas” in itself is non-committal) and (2) investigate the metaphor itself, especially precisely what it is supposed to be communicating. Mr. Kinsella has done exactly this; we owe him our gratitude.
Yours in Liberty,
Carl Johan Petrus Ridenfeldt
Published: December 12, 2006 10:59 AM
Carl Johan Petrus Ridenfeldt
Excuse me to interrupt. Do you think the expression „ownership of identity” is also utterly „non-committal“? If so, you certainly don’t mind I sign with your name under this post? (Just for once)
Published: December 12, 2006 11:07 AM
"It is conventional among economists to be polite, to assume that economic fallacy is solely the result of intellectual error."—Murray N. Rothbard
Mr. Kinsella wrote: The issue of whether non-scarce things like thoughts or labor are ownable has arisen in recent debates.
In other words, Mr. Kinsella's entire argument is based on a false premise. The economic definition of scarcity is this: when the price of a good or service is zero, demand exceeds supply. Only if the supply of free goods or services exceeds the demand for free goods do we say those goods are not scarce.
Employers demand people's labor rather than their mere physical presence at the work-place. Employers don't demand people's body parts, but their labor as a mean of production. Same goes for useful ideas that can be used as a mean to some economic end: we don't have an infinite number of these ideas. These ideas are valuable in the marketplace and they could be sold - hence, implying their scarcity.
If people had a free access to our minds and if we could control other people's bodies there would be no scarcity of labor and/or ideas. Employers would freely help themselves with other people’s bodies or just their minds, "downloading" ideas.
In the real world, however, people own their bodies and production of labor is at their control. People also own their minds and they can choose to exchange their ideas in exchange for money. In his article titled "How we come to own ourselves," Mr. Kinsella says that our self-ownership is the result of "direct and immediate control over the body." If direct and immediate control is a prerequisite for property rights, we can see that both labor and ideas would qualify - simply because they are products our owned bodies.
This settles "non-scarcity" argument. Now we can shift our focus to Mark Brabson's assertion that property must be tangible. Let's assume that this is absolutely correct, without going into real physical properties of work or problems when this notion is applied to the airspace (if you don't own the air molecules that fall on your property, than someone can prevent you to use your land by polluting that air, or by building a low overpass that would physically prevent any construction or growth)...
Going back to economic scarcity of ideas: we can choose not to store our ideas only in our brain, but to write them down on our other pieces of property - like pieces of paper. We can than chose to create voluntary contract with other individuals, in which we allow them to use our writings, while restricting their reproduction and commercial uses (by stipulating that all unauthorized copies that result from that item will become the author's property). These voluntary, free-market, contractual restrictions are the basis for something that we call "copyright". Whether you call these products "intellectual property" or something else is a secondary issue.
Published: December 12, 2006 12:32 PM
I’m new to this topic and I hesitate to add my less studied opinions but it seems to me that while ideas are not ‘scarce’ meaning that there is no finite amount of the thing and so it cannot be owned; we can say that the expression of ideas does become a finite thing that can be owned. But even then, the expression of an idea or of ideas in general is more like a commodity that, while it can be owned, is not very valuable unless the expression is rare.
Take for example the idea that a red octagon means “stop”. This is an idea that is and has been expressed many times and in many forms. I may own my expression of this idea but it has little or no value because so many other people also own similar expressions of the same idea.
But why shouldn’t I be able to take that commodity idea and combine it with a whole bunch of other raw material expressions of ideas, to create a complex expression of ideas that has a greater value than the sum of its parts – whether that is a book, a song, or a design for a great new widget. This complex expression of ideas has more value because it is unique or rare (assuming there is a market for it).
So copyright laws and patent laws are an attempt to preserve the uniqueness and rarity for a long enough period so that the enhanced value is not eroded too quickly. The reason this is deemed necessary is because it is so easy to copy expressions of ideas. On the face of it, this serves a public good by preserving a profit incentive for the creation of unique expressions of ideas.
I suppose it’s inevitable that any system set up to control trade (that’s what copyright and patent laws are) will eventually be abused. It’s pretty clear to me that copyright laws – and patent laws to a lesser extent – have gotten completely out of control. But you don’t have to demolish the right to the ownership of expressions of ideas in order to argue that trade in expressions of ideas should not be constrained by copyrights and patents.
Published: December 12, 2006 2:00 PM
Dear “Carl Johan Petrus Ridenfeldt”,
First, what a lovely name you have!
Second, yes, I do indeed consider the term “ownership of identity” to be non-committal. What is it supposed to mean? How does one trespass upon an identity? Are you “stealing” my identity by having a physical appearance similar to mine? (Good luck, identical twins and doppelgangers of the world!) Are you “stealing” my identity by referring to yourself with a name similar to mine? (Good luck, Joe Smiths and Ali Singhs of the world!) Physical appearances, names et cetera are not scarce.
(Of what relevance is it whether I “mind” or not that you sign my name under your post? I would “mind” if you were to hit on my girl; so what?)
Yours in Liberty,
Carl Johan Petrus Ridenfeldt
Published: December 12, 2006 2:07 PM
You can not steal an identity but you can steal a unique product of it.
Nobody in the world past present or future, could have written, lets say, "The old man and the sea". Only and only the unique person that was Hemingway.
How can anyone say that he doesnt, cant own that novel is beyond me.
Only a socialist claims you cant own what is the product of your labor, your energy, your intellect, and your time (which is the only scarce thing really).
Published: December 12, 2006 2:39 PM
First of all, if someone were to attribute or imply that someone else said something that they didn't (i.e. the Hoppe on the radical party's website issue), that's not so much an issue of intellectual property but a defamation of Hoppe's character. Little relevance here.
But what's not clear about copyright is how far it extends. Obviously, if I republished "The Old Man and the Sea" with my name on it instead of Hemingway's name, I am clearly engaging in a fraudulent act. Is copyright law necessary to deal with such fraud?
But suppose I wrote an entirely different novel with the same character. Is it just the novel that's protected? The characters? The plot? The author's style? Suppose I wrote and published a sequel, "The Old Man's son and the Sea". Would that be wrong without the copyright holder's permission? Why?
Published: December 12, 2006 4:52 PM
Person wrote: "Why isn't it enough that I can tear down the arguments of others? Why do I need to present my own theory to show others' to be false?"
Ah, hollow man!
Consider the context. What is your purpose exactly? If you are here to learn, you should want people to consider your idea. That way should there be shortcomings, errors or inaccuracies in your system of thought you'd be able to enlist their assistance to:
a) identify where you'd gone wrong
b) correct your errors
c) improve the philosophic system of thought you utilise
d) add to your system
In the end your effort may have added to the body of knowledge.
If you are here to argue for the sake of arguing, then you are in the shocking position of having nothing constructive to present and no intention to learn. Then the only things you are seeking from people are:
a) response to your posting in order for you to generate a feeling of self-worth
b) someone to argue with so you have something to do
Not very productive or useful really. Where is the profit in ego-stroking yourself by trying to tear down other people? Is your sense of self worth so fragile that you need to do that? That's a dangerous game to be playing. It is self-deceptive.
Note that given the evidence of the numerous postings opposing your efforts, you have not succeeded in tearing anyone down at all. Be honest. You do not have much support (excepting a possible alter ego).
All it takes to frustrate your approach is to deal directly with specifics. For example, asking direct questions seeking straight answers that require you to commit to a firm position. That method usually stops you dead in your tracks looking for a way to evade. Another example, when you made a specific suggestion (dealing with the establishment of "obviousness"- we never got to novelty or inventive step etc.) it was very simple to demonstrate the idea was facile. That screams "hollow man", all argument, no confidence, no knowledge, no content.
Concluding: You need to present your theory in order to demonstrate how it is that others may be in error. Of course the risk in this is it may (and in this case likely is) you who are in error.
It all comes down to context. Why are you here?
Sione
.
Published: December 12, 2006 7:51 PM
ktibuk --
"If only some ideas can be property then one needs to tell precisely what diffirentiates property ideas from non-property ideas. A whim of PTO examiner? Or what?"
Easy. Like every property, the consent of the owner.
Oh? I hereby declare that I (as a creator, and therefore the unquestionable owner) of the text you have read (and quoted from) do not give you consent to read and copy it. The fact that you assumed there's my consent is irrelevant, as your assumption is incorrect.
Please write me the check for $1000.00 to compensate me for the misuse of my property, or erase the copy of the content stored in your head immediately. You are also expressly prohibited from any future use of this content, including its reproduction on the screen of your monitor. It is my property, so stay clear of it, ok?
By the way, this applies to this note as well.
I think those who hold ridiculous beliefs should be required to live according to them, and that means you.
Oh, and the Lockean homesteading principle works only when applied to material things. Using it to justify "IP" is demonstrably self-inconsistent, as "IP" and property in physical objects are logically incompatible.
Published: December 12, 2006 10:30 PM
Person,
You are still using the term "scarcity" in an absurd and incorrect way, and so all of your arguments against Kinsella are invalid.
Let's just take this one step at a time.
As I showed in this blog -- http://blog.mises.org/archives/005196.asp -- your definition of scarcity as you use it in your "value scarcity" concept (the main pillar of your "IP is scarce" argument) allows for the absurd conclusion that (for example) imaginary squares and the Mona Lisa are **EQUALLY** scarce. It is not debatable that your definition of "scarcity" allows for this. The only question is, do you not see the absurdity in this conclusion? Are you actually willing to assert that the Mona Lisa and an imaginary square are **equally** scarce?
As a refresher, please read my final post on this blog -- http://blog.mises.org/archives/005196.asp .
Published: December 12, 2006 11:46 PM
Ooops. That last link should be to this blog:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005713.asp
Published: December 13, 2006 12:01 AM
Averros,
You used an invalid example. Advocates of free-market copyright protection (like Murray Rothbard) do not claim that you can force contract on someone by having that person read your conditions. Contracts are mutual agreements - not the list of your wishes. Other person must express his/her agreement to your conditions - which in market exchanges means that this person accepted some contract terms by giving his/her money for some goods or services.
For example, if I say that I don't sell certain uses of my product - you can simply walk away and not buy it. But if you choose to buy the product under these conditions, you will be legally bound by that contract.
Also, you cannot force some information on someone - and than demand that this person erase it from their memory, just like you cannot put an ice sculpture in my backyard without my knowledge (allowing it to melt), and than demand that I return the original sculpture.
As far as Lockean principles go, we should remember that he stated that property is established when someone's labor is mixed with unclaimed objects. In other words, some object becomes our property when we transfer our body's product to it, transferring something we own. This view basically holds that ownership of object is a strong and logical extension of self-ownership, whose manifestation is physical labor or work (when our body is applied to means of production). Lockean argument is closely tied to common law principles that can even be found in Roman law, as evidenced by the principle of adverse possession (as opposed to some "first-used-forever-mine" absolutism).
On the other hand, communists view property as something that is not so rigidly determined by our self-ownership. To them, property is some kind of social arrangement of scarce resources, which was determined by "community" in order to avoid conflict. In other words, property can be rearranged based on "needs", if "proletariat" starts a conflict. Some pseudo-Austrians subscribe to this dangerous idea.
Published: December 13, 2006 12:07 AM
Fred_Mann: Please, for your own sake, give it up. I just said the exact same thing I've said everywhere else without using the term "value scarcity". Your entire "argument" is just some bizarre fixation on terminology. Move on.
Dan_Coleman: I'd like to respond, but I would simply be repeating what Stephan and I said elsewhere in the thread. Please, read this thread again for the first time.
Carl...etc. If you're not going to be serious about this, I'm not going to waste anymore time on you.
Sione: I've explained this before, and your grandstanding is getting old. I'm here to point out the errors in both sides. I don't have to reference my own theory to do it. I simply must show internal inconsistency on the part of existing arguments. Also, I see once again you failed to read my posts. Try again. Search out the last post where I use your name. That should make it easy for you to read my posts, but then, this is you we're talking about ...
Published: December 13, 2006 12:09 AM
Person,
Clearly you do not understand the basics of my argument. So I'll just provide a very brief outline, and you can pick and choose from my "bizarre" statements below and refute away ...
You are inventing a non-seniscal definition for the term "scarce". Your entire argument rests on the validity of this definition. But it is invalid and non-sensical, as I have shown. Therefore your entire argument is incorrect. It's really very simple. Why can't you understand this?
I am not fixated on terminology. It just so happens that your ridiculous definition of "scarcity" is at the heart of your errors.
The fact that you do not want to respond to substance of my arguments makes me think that Sione's evaluation of you is on target. We'll see ...
Published: December 13, 2006 12:38 AM
By the way, Person, when Stephan says "Sure, you can put it this way, if you want--it still suffers from the same set of objections I mounted against it in my paper." , he is NOT saying that your position "makes sense".
If I say to you, "Sure Person, you can *SAY* 2+2=5, but you'd be wrong", I am not saying that 2+2=5 is plausible, or that it makes sense.
People who are not Ted Kaczynski usually understand this.
To sum up, Kinsella is NOT admitting that you are correct, as you asserted above.
Published: December 13, 2006 1:00 AM
By the same token, entire Kinsella's argument in this thread is incorrect, because it is based on fallacious notion that labor is not scarce, when in fact there is a scarcity of labor services that are exchanged in the marketplace (demand for labor would exceed supply if price was zero). People value some valuable ideas written on a piece of paper - more than a paper written in gibberish, using same letters. Means of productions are valued because of their valued ends - and these means include labor and ideas that are embedded in our property (our minds, our papers, our computers...).
We can conclude that conflict does not automatically implies scarcity, contrary to what Person claimed. Also, there can be no historical evidence that property is invented by "comunal agreement to avoid conflict", as Mr. Kinsella claims.
Published: December 13, 2006 1:28 AM
“yes, I do indeed consider the term “ownership of identity” to be non-committal. What is it supposed to mean? How does one trespass upon an identity?”
Hmm. I thought so. You seem though to suffer some lack of imagination, not knowing how one could trespass upon your identity… defamation is one example.
Let me just suggest another possibility: by pretending in some circumstances he is you, and cashing on the reputation you might have unmistakenly tied to your individuality, a person may engage in something that is called plagiarism. It is a copyright issue, very closely related to defamation in fact. But I imagine you are not really an opponent of plagiarism.
Do you believe perhaps , like Michael Clem for instance, in the example above involving Hoppe, “it’s not so much an issue of intellectual property but a defamation of Hoppe's character?”
But why such nuances anyways? Is fame less immaterial than identity perhaps then? Please tell why would the Ridenfeldt-libertarianism not be defamatory, considering that identity would be “non-commital”?
Published: December 13, 2006 5:05 AM
Perhaps this debate on copyright has missed one vital point: copyright only prevents others from COPYING your copyrighted works. It doesn't prevent others from creating their own similar, but nonetheless original, work.
Patents on the other hand, only last for about 16 years, I think, and are there to give a short monopoly on an, usually UNIQUE, invention to compensate the bother of research and development. Once the time is up its there for all.
Similarly there are issues of trade secrets: such the recipe for Coca-Cola, KFC, etc. Would exposing such recipes do anything than destroying businesses and put people out of work?
The only reasons such ownership rights are there is to give the creator the right to profit from their work. Why would anyone bother to invent or compose something when they know anyone else could take their creation and make all the money? It is interesting to note that inventors of yesteryears, such Leonardo da Vinci, in the days before protection would put deliberate flaws in their designs to hopefully thwart dim-witted copycats.
But one last question: do you think that copying commercial software without permission is theft or not? Such as burning a CD onto a blank CD and giving it to a friend . . .
Published: December 13, 2006 7:12 AM
Person,
Perhaps I am simply missing your argument amongst all of your references to 'read what I already wrote' and your claims that everyone is misquoting you. It seems to me that this conversation would move forward if you were able to restate your position briefly and coherently, but I'm beginning to suspect that this either won't or can't happen.
Here's the best formulation of your objection that I can gather from these threads (it's strange how often you claim that other people have not read what you wrote, by the way):
From the fact that ideas are not scarce, it does not follow that there are no property rights in them. IP only has to show that it is legitimate to assign "rights" in scarce objects that use the original idea, without ever referring to ownership of the idea itself. One might reject these particular property rights, but these are only being rejected because the property rights have already been assigned through a higher principle, (that is, the homesteading principle). Therefore, "ideas aren't scarce" doesn't speak to IP and property rights.
So it seems to me that your objection is to shift the debate from talking about IP in itself to questioning how it is that people obtain property rights.
While this seems to make irrelevant whether IP is scarce or not, should we grant some of your premises, it also leads to some seemingly absurd conclusions if we take the objection seriously. (For example, if intellectual property is a way of assigning "rights" in scarce objects, then I may create for myself ownership of physical objects scattered across the nation merely by sitting at my desk and drawing a blueprint).
But in order to talk about this, I think some terms are going to need to be made a little more clear -- and perhaps cleaner, too. I made bold the word "rights" in my summary paragraph because I'm not really sure what you would mean by it. For this sentence:
"IP only has to show that it is legitimate to assign "rights" in scarce objects that use the original idea, without ever referring to ownership of the idea itself."
Can you (a) say whether you (more or less) agree with it as a formulation of your objection and (b) define what you would mean by "rights" in that context?
Published: December 13, 2006 7:33 AM
What on earth are yous debating about again? Copyright, patents, trade secrets, trade names, etc., give ownership to a creation such as a book, film, software, invention, etc. That is, yes, something tangible and that which is going to be sold on the market. I haven't a clue what these 'ideas' are supposed to be or whether they are supposed to scarce or what. Just because something is scarce doesn't mean it's valuable. Toxic waste would be considered scarce in terms of volume but I don't want it nor value it.
Since copyright, patents, trade secret require a process of application to see if it warrants such protection means that you have to prove you have something tangigle and even then it could still be rejected!
Published: December 13, 2006 8:04 AM
Sam, you wrote:
What on earth are yous debating about again?
Your next two sentence (mostly) answer this question:
Copyright, patents, trade secrets, trade names, etc., give ownership to a creation such as a book, film, software, invention, etc. That is, yes, something tangible and that which is going to be sold on the market.
The operative phrase "give ownership" seems to be the object of greatest contention in this debate.
For example, why should my "inventing" a particular configuration of matter give me (at least partial) ownership of *every* physical object that uses the same configuration?
Published: December 13, 2006 8:28 AM
Fred_Mann:You are inventing a non-seniscal definition for the term "scarce". Your entire argument rests on the validity of this definition.
No. I am using the same definition Stephan is using and I have clarified this with him several times. When it is impossible to satisfy two people's desires for a good, there is scarcity. On this, Stephan agrees. I have tried to clarify precisely *which* sense he uses the term (because he shifts) by using new terms. Unfortunately, rather than simplifying, this caused you to go berserk and focus on very irrelevant matters.
By the way, Person, when Stephan says "Sure, you can put it this way, if you want--it still suffers from the same set of objections I mounted against it in my paper." , he is NOT saying that your position "makes sense".
If I say to you, "Sure Person, you can *SAY* 2+2=5, but you'd be wrong", I am not saying that 2+2=5 is plausible, or that it makes sense
Read the context of that statement. He was specifically conceding that that phrasing of the argument, which asserts the exact same claim, completely sidesteps the objection he spent ten pages of his paper on. Here is a better analogy to math:
S: 2+2=5 is false. 5 isn't even a number! And, 2+2 really equals 4.
P: Wait -- of course 5 is a number. It's the fourth successor to 1. I mean, it may be the case that 2+2 doesn't equal 5, but that has nothing to with 5 not being a number.
S: Okay, so what? Alright, 5 is a number; the fourth successor to 1. 2+2=5 still suffers from the same objection I laid out in my paper, namely, that actually peforming the computation on 2+2 actually yields 4 -- the third, not the fourth successor to 1.
P: Okay, so you agree that "5 isn't a number" is not a valid objection to the claim 2+2=5.
F: That's not what he said!
Dan_Coleman:From the fact that ideas are not scarce, it does not follow that there are no property rights in them. IP only has to show that it is legitimate to assign "rights" in scarce objects that use the original idea, without ever referring to ownership of the idea itself. One might reject these particular property rights, but these are only being rejected because the property rights have already been assigned through a higher principle, (that is, the homesteading principle). Therefore, "ideas aren't scarce" doesn't speak to IP and property rights.
Wow, that's actually an accurate representation of what I claimed. Odd that you could get that far yet still make your previous posts. Go fig. But then you start to err:
So it seems to me that your objection is to shift the debate from talking about IP in itself to questioning how it is that people obtain property rights.
Yes and no. Yes, I'm pointing out the invalidity of a frequently used objection IP; and yes, if that objection is valid, the debate must shift to another matter; but no, this isn't a clever rhetorical strategy to prove the validity of IP. I consider it intellectual garbage cleanup.
While this seems to make irrelevant whether IP is scarce or not, should we grant some of your premises, it also leads to some seemingly absurd conclusions if we take the objection seriously.
So what? I first want to establish the invalidity of the frequently used "but ideas aren't scarce" objection that crowds out serious debate.
"IP only has to show that it is legitimate to assign "rights" in scarce objects that use the original idea, without ever referring to ownership of the idea itself."
Can you (a) say whether you (more or less) agree with it as a formulation of your objection and (b) define what you would mean by "rights" in that context?
a) agree; b) legally enforcible claim.
Published: December 13, 2006 8:34 AM
To Dan Coleman:
I have been said simply that copyright, patents, etc., give an inventor, author, creator, etc, the rights to get a return for bothering to create something (assuming anyone could be bothered to buy the product, of course!). Did I not also mention you can only own what YOU have created. And you can make something similar to a copyrighted product provided you created it. AND copyrights and patents are temporary, you don't get to own your creation for ever. Wasn't there a recent squabble of certain music bands fearing their songs are now coming out of copyright?
Some other contributors, seem to suggest that anything, no matter how intangible, such as an idea or thought, can be owned for ever and be expected a royalty for it, or something. Personally I don't know what they are talking about.
Simiarly, your last entry seemed to suggest that when someone made a sci. fi. film, for instance, then no one else is allowed to make another sci. fi. film without paying a fee to the first maker. Rather, you are free to be original and creative, you just can't go around copying others' creative work. i.e. Just Be Yourself ;)
Did I not also finally mention that ownership does happen automatically, you have to get the creation registered (I think copyright in Australia is automatic upon creation of the something new, where in the U.S.A. you have to pay a fee, I'm not exactly sure.). Actually I'm pretty sure I read once that copyright doesn't give a great deal of protection anyway.
Finally, when various works do come out of copyright then it's a free-for-all for those works! Hooray!
Published: December 13, 2006 9:13 AM
Registration? Wow, sam, you really need to get the latest information on copyright. Like M.E. Hoffer would say: someone didn't do his homework.
Maybe you're just reading too fast? Because I don't know what you are talking about now: "Some other contributors, seem to suggest that anything, no matter how intangible, such as an idea or thought, can be owned for ever and be expected a royalty for it, or something. Personally I don't know what they are talking about."
Anyways, as libertarians, we are more talking about philosophy, not governmental enforcement of legislation. Not utilitarian aspects.
Published: December 13, 2006 10:00 AM
Dan Coleman asked: "why should my "inventing" a particular configuration of matter give me (at least partial) ownership of *every* physical object that uses the same configuration?"
Why? Because you (hopefully, for the sake of our argument) stated in your contract with some buyer that every unauthorized copy of your product (and profits they yield) will automatically belong to you. We call this free-market contractual formulation - a "copyright".
Note that copyright only protects those products that are unique (not part of some common knowledge) - so much that you can prove that people didn't reach that design on their own, but through unauthorized copying of your item.
Published: December 13, 2006 11:11 AM
Remember, Dan, Sasha thinks you "own" your "energy," like wow man. And because I think that is just a confusion, I'm a "pseudo-Austrian." Whatever, man.
Published: December 13, 2006 11:27 AM
Dan,
pay no mind to Kinsella's bitter comments. He believes that property is communal agreement that was invented to avoid conflict (implying that "community" can rearrange property whenever conflict between proletariat and bourgeoisie arises)... Words of a "true Austrian", indeed.
Like I said, "copyright" is simply a product of free market contractual agreement in which you protect your original idea. That does not mean that you have to argue that you own idea per se... nor that you own your energy (which is implied by owning your body which is consisted of energy patterns according to physics)...
Copyright advocate only needs to argue that you own a product that contains that idea - and you will have a right to formulate free-market contracts which will protect you from unauthorized copying. Kinsella has a problem with this, because he believes is communal origin of property, as opposed to Lockean view that all property is logically and inseparably tied to self-ownership.
Published: December 13, 2006 12:11 PM
Sasha: "Why? Because you . . . stated in your contract with some buyer that every unauthorized copy of your product (and profits they yield) will automatically belong to you. We call this free-market contractual formulation - a 'copyright'."
Sure, that might work -- if every person who happened to observe your product and might be interested in making a copy actually agreed to the contract. In practice, of course, that is unlikely to be the case for anything involving mass production. (I believe we've been over this before.)
Stephen: "Remember, Dan, Sasha thinks you 'own' your 'energy,' like wow man. And because I think that is just a confusion, I'm a 'pseudo-Austrian.' Whatever, man."
As much as I might sympathize with your feelings on this matter, it does no good to employ ad-hominem attacks on your opponents. This is particularly true when the position you are disparaging happens to be entirely correct -- people do own the energy that makes up their bodies just as much as they own its matter. This is a simple correllary of the principle of self-ownership. (It still doesn't support the conclusions that Sasha was trying to draw from it in the prior conversation, but that is another matter.)
Everyone:
I don't believe anyone has so far managed to clearly explain just how making unauthorized copies constitutes any form of aggression, or what sort of defensive coercion "owners" of "IP" are justified in employing in response to that "aggression."
Published: December 13, 2006 12:12 PM
P.S.: Be sure to consider the principle of proportional response with regard to that last question. The general libertarian principle has always been that defense is justly limited to the equivilent of the original aggression: a life for a life, property for property in equal value. The equivilent for "IP" would be what, exactly? Copyright infringement for copyright infringement? I think most people could happily live with that arrangement. The conflict generally arises only when "IP" supporters try to extract real-property compensation for imaginary-property damages.
Published: December 13, 2006 12:19 PM
Jesse,
Thank you for your great comments. I will remind you of my defense of contractual copyright in our previous discussion:
If some copycat unlawfully obtained my book from person who purchased in a bookstore - and than made copies of that book from his own raw material - he will still be liable to my purchaser for all the he damages caused by creating the violation of his contract with my publisher (in the amount of these unauthorized copies and/or profits they generated).
So copycat outside of my contract will not be liable to me - he will be liable to person whose contract stipulated concrete sanctions in case that unauthorized copies occur (and who is liable to me). Similar terms of use always prevent violations of any kind of contract by some third party. In that way, we prevent defense that would always go: "I didn't do it - my son did"....
There is no need to argue with this, since you basically agreed with all my points in our previous discussion.
As far as your "life for life" argument goes, you failed to see that contract don't always stipulate an "eye for an eye" type of deal (for example, you cannot force someone to provide some undelivered services, because that would amount to enslavement). You have contracts with all kinds of conditions; and "copyright" is saying that copyright infringement (and its profits) will belong to the author.
Published: December 13, 2006 1:15 PM
Jesse said:
>>I don't believe anyone has so far managed to clearly explain just how making unauthorized copies constitutes any form of aggression, or what sort of defensive coercion "owners" of "IP" are justified in employing in response to that "aggression."
Read my comments. Copyright infringement is a violation of contract. If you agree to purchase the personal use of my product, and yet, you decide to use it for commercial purposes, directly contrary to the letter of our contract - you committed a violation or aggression - by using my product in ways that you didn't pay for (my publisher did).
Published: December 13, 2006 1:29 PM
If you don't like our explicitly stated terms of use or copyright agreement, you can simply walk away and not buy the use of my product. No one is forcing you to conduct a market transaction with me - if I insist on such "dreadful" copyright agreement. Of course, there are individuals who think that you can violate free-market contracts based on the alleged communal interests, just like they claim that property rights are assigned based on communal needs. Fortunately, these individuals are marginalized after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Some of them dwell on cyber-space, posing as libertarians.
Published: December 13, 2006 1:38 PM
Sasha: "pay no mind to Kinsella's bitter comments."
Bitter? Ha! I don't even take you seriously, dear Sasha, what in the world would I be bitter about.
This is simply a fabrication or a misunderstanding by a confused mind unable to escape from the scientism it has been steeped in and brainwashed with.
I do believe the social function of property rules is to assign identifiable owners to potentially contestable (i.e., scarce, or rivalrous) resources. Can anyone doubt that?
See Hoppe on this: discussed in The Scarcity of Time, notes on Hoppe's lecture regarding scarcity, and Hoppe's TSC:
So I guess Hoppe is just a pseudo-Austrian too, eh, Sasha? Or is it that he is able to see past the errors of scientism that have infected your muddled views?
It is a confusion to say we own energy, just like it's a confusion to say we own our labor. Either you are double-counting (ownership of the body is sufficient, just like there is no independent right to free speech b/c private property rights are sufficient to allow you to exercise speech), or you are trying to grant ownership in a non-scarce resource.
To be clear: I was not using ad hominem; I was poking fun at obviously ridiculous ideas. And also: you are wrong: it is a confusing over-use of sloppy, scientistic, imprecise, non-rigorous, overly metaphorical ideas to maintain that we own our energy.
Published: December 13, 2006 1:45 PM
I wonder, just musing: who's more annoying: Sasha, or Person? Hmm.
Sasha:
Poor Sasha appears not to realize that copyright affects third parties, not just parties to an agreement. And she does not realize how silly she looks implicitly calling Hoppe a pseudo-communist.
Published: December 13, 2006 2:03 PM
Mr. Kinsella,
I never claimed that property does not arise from scarcity. Therefore, your entire comment totally missed my arguments and it was completely useless. You didn't have to copy Hoppe - any serious economist will say that there would be no need for property if there was no scarcity.
Our issue here is: how is property right established? Austrians, such as great Murray Rothbard, followed John Locke (who only observed practice that existed for centuries) by stating that you obtain property by mixing your body's labor with some unclaimed object - transferring your ownership on that object. On the other hand, communist think that property is not tied so strictly and inseparably to self-ownership. To them, property is a function of conflict avoidance. Like Mr. Kinsella said, property is assigned in ways which will prevent conflict. In other words, at some point in history, "first use" principle was good for conflict avoidance, but if this does not prevent conflict, the proletariat could reassign property based on some other principle. This is why Kinsella has a need to deny physics and ownership of our entire physical body, including its energy. But that is not our main issue here. Let's go back to the copyright.
-----
Mr. Kinsella is naturally upset, because he is unable to demonstrate in libertarian terms why would someone be allowed to violate any free-market agreement such as copyright. And this is his raison d'etre on Mises institute. The only possible argument he can make is some kind of communist nonsense that my knowledge, contained on my product, somehow belongs to everyone, regardless of any contractual obligations and without any respect for my private property.
Published: December 13, 2006 2:17 PM
Copyright is NOT a free market agreement. A copyright is a government fiat order, agreed to by no one, but the copyright holder. Copyright could only exist under the realm of government and the state, NOT in a pure free market.
I am not presuming to otherwise judge on this discussion, which I have decided to sit on the sidelines and just observe, but I had to point that non sequitur out.
Published: December 13, 2006 2:31 PM
Mr. Kinsella says:
" Poor Sasha appears not to realize that copyright affects third parties, not just parties to an agreement. And she does not realize how silly she looks implicitly calling Hoppe a pseudo-communist. "
That is nonsense. Third party's involvement can never be an excuse for contract violations. If that was the case, contracts would be completely meaningless. In reality, the side who is obligated to protect my product from unauthorized use will be liable to me - and any third party violator will be liable for damages to person who entered the contract with me.
---
I never called Hoppe a pseudo-communist. I wrote about pseudo-Austrians (false or non-genuine Austrians, in case you forgot what "pseudo" means).
The fact that you equate yourself with Hoppe only shows how this discussion took its toll on your mental concentration. Did you demonstrate that Hoppe ever advocated the violations of free-market contracts, including copyright? Did he ever stated that property over a particular object is based on some society's will (which is than subject to change)?
Published: December 13, 2006 2:40 PM
Sasha: "So copycat outside of my contract will not be liable to me - he will be liable to person whose contract stipulated concrete sanctions in case that unauthorized copies occur (and who is liable to me)."
No, that isn't how contracts work. The liablity of the party to the contract is self-imposed; the buyer chose to enter into that contract and voluntarily agreed to become liable for any unauthorized copies (potentially whether or not the buyer was actually responsible for those copies). That liability does not transfer to the "copycat", however, as there is no such contractual arrangement between the "copycat" and the buyer; unlike the buyer, the copycat has not agreed to any such liability. Any losses the buyer suffers are purely due to the buyer's voluntary choice to agree to the terms of your contract and not the fault of any outside party.
Sasha: "There is no need to argue with this, since you basically agreed with all my points in our previous discussion."
I beg to differ. We agreed on some points, to be sure: the ones which were irrelevant to your conclusions. As evidenced above, however, I certainly did not agree with all your points, or even the most important ones.
Published: December 13, 2006 2:45 PM
Mark,
You did not prove your quasi-religious exclamations with any logical argument. Just like Kinsella, you were unable to explain why you would have a "right" to violate expressed terms of use, or market contract, which would provide the copyright protection. Murray Rothbard provided an excellent explanation of contractual, market origins of copyright. Like I said, if you hate my "dreadful" copyright terms of use, just walk away and don't buy that product. Make it yourself, if you can.
Published: December 13, 2006 2:45 PM
Sasha, while I see what you are going for with a private contract copyright, it seems to me that this will fall into the same category as free market labor unions, monopolies, merchant guilds, etc.: it can happen -- after all, *anything* could happen, but it is highly, highly unlikely to be a product of a free society.
This is probably why the government takes it upon itself to enforce copyright currently -- without coercion it is highly unlikely to exist.
I have a scenario that I'd like to see you address. Suppose that I'm a publisher in your model of copyright. I sell some books to person A with our copyright contract agreement. A, in turn, sells it to person B, except he attaches no copyright contract to this transaction.
Person B, further, sells the book to person C (also without a contract), who in turn sells it to person D.
Should person C or D set about copying the book and producing copies, I don't see how person A is any better off in your system unless the contract between A and B can somehow affect person D through violent force -- since person D is clearly not involved with the original, "copyright" contract.
Is person A out of luck, or am I missing a piece of your argument?
Published: December 13, 2006 2:47 PM
I mixed up my letters a little bit (typical). My example should look something like this:
I sell to person A. (with copyright contract)
A sells to B. (no contract).
B sells to C. (" ")
C sells to D. (" ")
I seem to refer to me as 'person A' later in the post. Sorry for the confusion. . .
Published: December 13, 2006 2:51 PM
Jesse,
- If the buyer chose to enter into that contract and voluntarily agreed to become liable for any unauthorized copies (potentially whether or not the buyer was actually responsible for those copies) - he will be liable to me. That's the end of it, if buyer caused these unauthorized copies to occur, either through direct action – or by his neglect of contractual obligations.
- If the unauthorized copies occurred due to trespassing of some third party, that party will be liable to my buyer, because his unlawful actions caused him some damages (in the amount of the unauthorized copies this buyer owes me).
I think we agreed on everything, although you don't like to admit it.
: )
Regards.
Published: December 13, 2006 2:55 PM
I was not making any conclusion as to whether copyrights were "desirable" or not. I was merely stating that copyright could not exist in a free market. And, I might add, as a Deist, I am not very prone to religious pronouncements.
I am not going to argue the "desireability or ethics" of copyright at this time, nor am I necessarily taking sides with Stephen, as you mistakenly seem to be inferring.
Published: December 13, 2006 2:58 PM
Dan Coleman: "I don't see how person A is any better off in your system unless the contract between A and B can somehow affect person D through violent force . . ."
I think you meant "I don't see how I am any better off in your system unless the contract between myself and person A can somehow affect person D through violent force".
The answer would be that person A (the publisher, a party to the contract) would be wholly liable for any unauthorized copies. You, therefore, would be compensated according to the terms of the contract; person A, on the other hand, has no recourse, since person A's liability was entirely its own fault (self-imposed by voluntary agreement to the contract).
Published: December 13, 2006 2:59 PM
Dan Coleman,
As in my third party theft example, person A (publisher) is liable to me (the author). This will make sure that publishers will not be stupid to resell my work without any contract (as they do not in real life).
Before you try to make a claim that copyright would not exist in purely free market, why don't you try to explain why would voluntary contracts (terms of use that we have today) be incapable of providing such protection.
Published: December 13, 2006 3:02 PM
Mark Barbson,
I am anxiously waiting for any argument that copyright (within terms of use) could not exist in free-market contracts. I have not seen one, as of yet (I only saw Kinsella's attempt to sidetrack this discussion, by misinterpreting my critique of "communal" property acquisition theory).
Published: December 13, 2006 3:15 PM
Hmm, well I think I understand now how that would be enforced in a free market.
I still think that a free-market copyright standard would be likely to fail. In my view there would be far too many authors trying to get published (talk about a saturated market as it is!), and there would be too few publishing companies and distributors willing to take on the extra burden and risk that copyright contracts create. The market wouldn't be especially friendly to these agreements.
The result would be that the most demanding authors and publishing companies -- wanting exclusive rights for authorizing (and profiting from) copies -- would lose out to authors and publishing companies who were less concerned about IP.
Likewise, the companies taking the least risk by not accepting copyright contracts would be the least penalized for their production. They would spend less time worrying about others making copies of their books (for which they'd be liable) and more time worrying about making a quality product.
Short of forcing people to recognize copyright (whether they like it or not), I don't see how these contractual agreements could last in a free market. But I could be wrong.
Published: December 13, 2006 3:18 PM
Dan Coleman,
Unfortunately, you are not alone in your lack of trust in free-market contract. This fear that without state power terms of contract would not be enforced is responsible for the existence of government monopoly in many areas, not just in copyright contract enforcement.
On the other hand, I insist that this fear must be supported by some sort of logical argument or evidence - or it would be nothing but a religious claim.
Published: December 13, 2006 3:26 PM
Also Dan, free-market copyright would not be one-size-fits-all type of arangement. As I said in our previous discussion:
"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: December 13, 2006 3:30 PM
Sasha, I think you may misunderstand me. I have no doubts that such contracts could be worked out in a free market without the help of government intervention (I am, in that sense, leaning more every day toward Rothbard's vision of libertarianism).
Just like labor unions without aggressive coercion, I can see the logic for why there might be contractual copyright agreements. What I am disputing is whether such contracts are likely to be widespread in a libertarian society.
It seems that you agree that IP cannot be owned in any meaningful sense (like a physical object such as a book). If one's 'intellectual property' is to be guarded from unwanted duplication, then it must be done in a peaceful manner.
You are arguing that a free society would likely still have copyright; I think that it would die out as an archaic, impractical system. (Just like merchant guilds, labor unions, monopolies, etc. -- even if they refrained from aggression -- would in a free market).
Published: December 13, 2006 3:37 PM
Dan,
Sorry if I misunderstood you, based on your earlier claims.
If you argue that in free-market copyright would "die out", it is normal that some people who share your opinion, but see the logical and practical reasons for copyright, would turn to government.
I don't see a single reason that would prevent any author in free-market to contractually limit ability of others to use his product for commercial purposes. If there is such argument, I would love to see it.
Published: December 13, 2006 3:48 PM
Sasha, you wrote:
If you argue that in free-market copyright would "die out", it is normal that some people who share your opinion, but see the logical and practical reasons for copyright, would turn to government.
Surely that can't be an argument against my position. The same could be said about social security and a plethora of other government programs.
I don't see a single reason that would prevent any author in free-market to contractually limit ability of others to use his product for commercial purposes. If there is such argument, I would love to see it.
There is no argument against that particular claim, but there is good reason to think that such authors wouldn't stay in business very long! Again, there is no reason that labor couldn't organize into a union in the free market (if there is an argument against this idea, I'd love to see it), but likewise that 'union' isn't likely to keep their jobs for very long at all!
Published: December 13, 2006 4:00 PM
"I am anxiously waiting for any argument that copyright (within terms of use) could not exist in free-market contracts. I have not seen one, as of yet (I only saw Kinsella's attempt to sidetrack this discussion, by misinterpreting my critique of "communal" property acquisition theory)."
Sasha:
I insist that "copyright" could not exist, in a pure, non governmental market. Free market "agreements" as to usage could be made between author's/publishers/customers etc. Free market agreement's are just fine and dandy. If somebody wants to add a contract to sale, that is just fine.
However, copyright, is NOT a free market agreement. A copyright is a government fiat order. A free market agreement is a voluntary agreement between free citizens. I have no problem at all with free market agreements. I have NOT yet reached a conclusion as regards to government "copyright" other than making the distinction between a fiat copyright and a free market agreement.
Kind of like how fiat money is not real commodity money.
Published: December 13, 2006 4:01 PM
"I am anxiously waiting for any argument that copyright (within terms of use) could not exist in free-market contracts. I have not seen one, as of yet (I only saw Kinsella's attempt to sidetrack this discussion, by misinterpreting my critique of "communal" property acquisition theory)."
Sasha:
I insist that "copyright" could not exist, in a pure, non governmental market. Free market "agreements" as to usage could be made between author's/publishers/customers etc. Free market agreement's are just fine and dandy. If somebody wants to add a contract to sale, that is just fine.
However, copyright, is NOT a free market agreement. A copyright is a government fiat order. A free market agreement is a voluntary agreement between free citizens. I have no problem at all with free market agreements. I have NOT yet reached a conclusion as regards to government "copyright" other than making the distinction between a fiat copyright and a free market agreement.
Kind of like how fiat money is not real commodity money.
Published: December 13, 2006 4:02 PM
"I am anxiously waiting for any argument that copyright (within terms of use) could not exist in free-market contracts. I have not seen one, as of yet (I only saw Kinsella's attempt to sidetrack this discussion, by misinterpreting my critique of "communal" property acquisition theory)."
Sasha:
I insist that "copyright" could not exist, in a pure, non governmental market. Free market "agreements" as to usage could be made between author's/publishers/customers etc. Free market agreement's are just fine and dandy. If somebody wants to add a contract to sale, that is just fine.
However, copyright, is NOT a free market agreement. A copyright is a government fiat order. A free market agreement is a voluntary agreement between free citizens. I have no problem at all with free market agreements. I have NOT yet reached a conclusion as regards to government "copyright" other than making the distinction between a fiat copyright and a free market agreement.
Kind of like how fiat money is not real commodity money.
Published: December 13, 2006 4:02 PM
Sorry for the triple comment, computer just went bonkers on me.
Published: