Copyrights and Dancing
Yet another example of how copyrights and IP amount to partial enslavement: 'Electric Slide' on slippery DMCA slope:
The inventor of the "Electric Slide," an iconic dance created in 1976, is fighting back against what he believes are copyright violations and, more importantly, examples of bad dancing.
Kyle Machulis, an engineer at San Francisco's Linden Lab, said he received a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice about a video he had shot at a recent convention showing three people doing the Electric Slide.
"The creator of the Electric Slide claims to hold a copyright on the dance and is DMCAing every single video on YouTube" that references the dance, Machulis said. He's also sent licensing demands to The Ellen DeGeneres Show, Machulis added.
Indeed, Richard Silver, who filed the copyright for the Electric Slide in 2004, said on one of his Web pages that the DeGeneres Show had been putting up a legal fight as he tried to get compensation for a segment that aired in February 2006 in which actress Teri Hatcher and other dancers performed the popular wedding shuffle.
[Thanks to BK Marcus for link]
Comments (233)
Taylor
Any day now, someone will get smart and copyright walking...
...or breathing.
Hmmmmmmm... gotta go! (Hurries off to nearest patent office)
Published: February 20, 2007 5:31 PM
Sasha Radeta
Taylor... nope. You can't copyright what you didn't invent.
As far as "electric slide" goes - dr. Kinsella only said that its author claims a copyright, not that any court supported him.
In a perfectly free market, someone can sell their dance videos with a contractual stipulation that the user agrees not to commercially use the content presented there. If the copycat used that video without authorization, well that's a trespass that may result in tort. In both cases, a smart author could protect his copyright with simple application of private property rights.
Published: February 20, 2007 6:14 PM
Adam Knott
Yes, a contract should be binding between the two who sign it.
But if another sees, experiences, hears, figures out something, then there is no contract.
I.P. law as contract. What libertarian could disagree?
I.P. law as binding on a non-contractual basis, now that's a "contract" of another color.
Published: February 20, 2007 8:40 PM
Sasha Radeta
Sure Adam. Contract is binding between the two who sign it.
And if you accidentally trespass (use without authorization) someone else's property - there is no har in that. No one would argue that you should have your brain erased in order to correct this...
BUT, if you decide to use your unintentional trespass to obtain a financial gain (automatically at the expense of the person who was not compensated for such commercial use on your part) - then you aggravated your trespass to tort.
So we're not talking about the breach of contract when it comes to people who never accepted any agreement. In those cases entirely different mechanisms of private property rights take place. We just conveniently cluster it together under terms like "copyright" or "intellectual property."
Published: February 20, 2007 8:53 PM
Brent
Sorry, Sasha, but no one else owns my body movements - regardless if they "invented" the movement and regardless if my movements lose them "potential sales revenues". The idea that people tend to imitate success is called competition, not trespass nor tort. I think it is clear how the progression of intellectual 'property' rights leads us down the dangerous path of destroying real property rights.
Published: February 20, 2007 10:30 PM
Sasha Radeta
Sorry Brent, but no one here claims that he/she owns your body movements. But once you realize that not all of your movement would be allowed in a free market economy (movements that cause trespass and tort), entire common law and its surrogates will become much clearer to you.
People are free to imitate success, as long as they don't breach contracts with other people or as long they don't commit tort. People who just observe someone behavior, or use common body of knowledge (like in agriculture) have something that is closer to so-called pure competition. People whose innovations have some unique physical features could restrict the use of such property.
As I described above, people can simply decide to allow only personal use of their videos, books, or whatever else... and to use free market contracts and tort system to prevent those who trespass and assume full ownership over someone else's items. In this kind of market, people compete by creating unique innovations, or by significantly improving upon their competitors inventions. There’s nothing dangerous about respecting contracts and private property rights.
Published: February 21, 2007 12:24 AM
Sasha Radeta
It’s quite simple and logical: if any owner in this world wants to prevent trespass (some unwanted use of his property) – he will have a right to do so, according to libertarianism. But when it comes to prevention of unauthorized replication and other commercial uses, only those owners whose property have some unique physical features will be able to prove that someone actually trespass (evidence of replication can be established). Copyrights come from these logical premises and not from some abstract and mystical concept of “idea ownership.”
Published: February 21, 2007 12:44 AM
Francisco Torres
I.P. law as contract. What libertarian could disagree?
Laws are not contracts - they are mandates or impositions. A contract is an agreement between two parties, whereas a law is a written mandate imposed to a body of people by another body of people.
I.P. law is more akin to Letters of Marque, than to contracts.
Published: February 21, 2007 10:37 AM
Francisco Torres
People are free to imitate success, as long as they don't breach contracts with other people or as long they don't commit tort.
Third party copying would not violate a contract between a seller and a user. If I see the dancing steps on TV and decide to use them, I would not be breaching any contract, since there was none to sign. IP law is designed to circunvent this truth, artificially, immorally, unethically, in detriment to the market. It is not freedom we are talking about here, Sasha: IP Law is akin to Letters of Marque, not to voluntary contractual agreements.
Also, ideas are not property. You cannot hold possession of someone's electrical firings in his or her neurons. You cannor homestead someone's mind.
Published: February 21, 2007 10:42 AM
Sasha Radeta
Francisco,
No one claimed that ideas per se are property. the fact that you are replying to quasi-argument that nobody claimed on this thread only shows the lack of your own ideas.
You are correct that law is a mandate and imposition. But governments create laws regarding contract enforcements and property rights in order to forcefully monopolize the protection of these rights. So what?
Also, third party copying definitely could constitute a trespass resulting in tort. You just didn't think of such example. I'll give you one: if I steal a video containing some dance steps, I am committing a trespass. If I use that trespass to obtain financial gain, I automatically create a financial injury to the original owner who was not compensated for such commercial use of his material.
As far as TV goes - if you see something on public broadcast - it's the same like you saw something on the street. By "seeing" something, you are not committing any trespass and your further actions will not result in tort (you just compete using a perfectly legal imitation). ON THE OTHER HAND, if you have copyright agreements with your cable provider, or when obtaining per-per-view use, you will have to respect your contract. If a third party uses these services without authorization/user agreement - that is a trespass and any commercial use of viewed material will result in tort.
Published: February 21, 2007 11:31 AM
Francisco Torres
No one claimed that ideas per se are property.
You just did. See below:
Also, third party copying definitely could constitute a trespass resulting in tort. You just didn't think of such example. I'll give you one: if I steal a video containing some dance steps, I am committing a trespass.
Begs the question: Stealing a video constitutes the taking of a box with a ribbon of tape on it, or a plastic disc with little holes in a silvery medium, and that is it. You are not in actuallity stealing the contents - again, ideas are not property. You are assuming what you want to prove, or petitio principii. If you want to make the idea stored in those media property, then do not contend that not one has made an argument for it.
If I use that trespass to obtain financial gain, I automatically create a financial injury to the original owner who was not compensated for such commercial use of his material.
Again, your argument begs the question: you readily assume the contents are property, in order to argue that a financial injury has happened. In order for this to be true, then a third party, by inventing the steps in parallel and exploiting them, would also be "stealing". If that is your contention, then it would mean the "originator" would HAVE to own the medium of storage that such a third party possesses, by extension: merely the third party's own neurons. This would have to be true for your argument to be consistent. This would of course violate the self-ownership principle . . .
As far as TV goes - if you see something on public broadcast - it's the same like you saw something on the street.
I do not see the difference, if the main premise is the safeguarding of the "originator's" financial well-being.
ON THE OTHER HAND, if you have copyright agreements with your cable provider, or when obtaining per-per-view use, you will have to respect your contract.
And if I do not have such agreement? Because my agreement with my cable provider considers no such things. THe company agrees only to facilitate the broadcasts into my home, as long as I pay on time - in the same way the telephone company agrees to facilitate my communications with other people.
If a third party uses these services without authorization/user agreement - that is a trespass and any commercial use of viewed material will result in tort.
I do not think so, if that third party is not part of any agreement. If I invite a person to my home to watch my television, whatever information that person stores into his neurons is HIS, since his mind cannot be homesteaded by a second person (because that would violate the self-ownership principle). If he decides to use that information for financial gain, that would in itself not constitute stealing, since there existed no previous agreement between the broadcaster/producer and that person. It is only through government fiat and the Letters of Marque that pass as "IP" laws that the third person could be prosecuted, but just their existence does NOT justify the argument for IP.
Seems like your argument has been resting on the premise that the financial well-being of the "originator" must be safeguarded, without explaining why.
Published: February 21, 2007 12:16 PM
Joseph Huang
Refute this article: Against Intellectual Property
Published: February 21, 2007 12:16 PM
Francisco Torres
Expanding on the premise used by some to argue for IP law, that government must safeguard the financial well-being of the "originator":
The safekeeping of a person's financial well-being by way of government fiat constitutes a de facto monopoly. People that contend that IP is needed are actually arguing in favour of stifling competition and potential competitors, a concept that stems from human action and liberty.
Basically, the argument states that a person that copies an idea and gains financially through it, is diminishing or limiting the potential financial gain of the idea's originator, and such constitutes a tort against the originator. This argument is made despite the fact that, in order to be LOGICALLY CONSISTENT, then ANY financial LOSS due to competition would have to constitute a tort. If such is the case, then a tort is not only commited by the person that received the "ill" gained financial benefit, but also by his or her conspirators - the customers. So, if I decide to buy Honda instead of Toyota, a financial loss suffered by Toyota should constitute a tort against that company. I should be held liable for this financial loss, as well as Honda.
The fact that Honda or Toyota make different cars is besides the point, since the MAIN premise is the SAFEKEEPING of the originator's financial gains. If the premise is incorrect, then the argument in favour of IP based on that premise is incorrect as well. The person making such argument would do better to find other more cogent premises for his or her argument.
Published: February 21, 2007 12:32 PM
JIMB
Stephen - There would be no right of action at all if people could not own "intangibles" like title, or labor, or ideas, or "space" (condos), or "time of use", etc.
There's just is no easy answer to IP and it's not unlibertarian to object fully to the entire anti-IP crowd: who seem to want something scarce (good ideas) for free.
Libertarian thinking doesn't necessarily agree with the "no patent" arguments - plenty of libertarians would object to their IP being stolen, part of which current law - however imperfect - prevents.
Published: February 21, 2007 12:40 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Jim,
By "scarce" we mean "rivalrous". Not "in short supply". It is not sensible to say "good ideas" are "scarce" in the sense used here. Surely you see this.
If you want to argue that there should be property rghts in non-scarce (non-rivalrous) resources, go ahead, but don't base it on the colloquial, confused comment that "good ideas are scarce." They are not. This is not about word-games or semantics.
Published: February 21, 2007 1:41 PM
Joseph Huang
Define stealing.
If by stealing u mean copying unauthorized by the inventor, are we not stealing from the inventor of the wheel?
Also, explain how ideas, which are not scarce, can be owned.
Published: February 21, 2007 1:41 PM
Lenny
Even under the onerous existing copyright laws it seems strange to me that someone could wait nearly 20 years to copyright something. Patent law at least recognizes that if you publish something without first protecting it then it becomes public domain.
Published: February 21, 2007 2:04 PM
JIMB
Stephan - Positive mkt price for ideas is proof of their 'scarcity'. There is 'rivalry' as the buyer would certainly desire to own the ideas of a profitable thinker for zero payment. A legal system which allowed for any copying of any work based on physical ownership alone looks to be nonsense.
Joseph - Any person owns their ideas (consider the words 'their ideas' ....) until they give or sell it on terms agreeable. Probably you object to the ability of some people (using the state) to constrain the profit from your own ideas, which is definitely a problem, but not one made better by Stephan's arguments.
Published: February 21, 2007 4:48 PM
Joseph Huang
So if I invent the wheel, I own it and can keep others from using their own property to make their own wheels (using the state, or perhaps guns)? That means I have become a partial owner of every1 else's property, which violates the homesteading rule. So what do you replace the homesteading rule with?
Published: February 21, 2007 6:26 PM
Jesse
JIMB - Positive market price for the disclosure of ideas -- a service -- does not imply the scarcity of the ideas themselves. Also, I do not believe that the sense in which you are using the term "rivalry" is the same as that which Stephan was using. Rivalry in the economic sense, as I understand it, means that two people cannot use the item simultaneously. This is true for physical property, ergo the existance of property rights to decide who can rightfully exercise control, but obviously false for ideas. It is true for the use of one's body in performing services, including the creation/discovery and discosure of ideas, but the ideas themselves are non-rivalrous: usable simultaneously by any number of individuals.
Published: February 21, 2007 6:31 PM
Scott D
"Positive market price for the disclosure of ideas -- a service -- does not imply the scarcity of the ideas themselves."
This is an interesting observation. Ideas cannot be passed on without an exertion of labor. Physical objects can be traded for nothing more than the labor cost of conducting the transaction. Ideas have to be explained, performed, transcribed, or otherwise brought into physical existence before they can be utilized by other people. I'll have to think through the implications of that. Thanks.
Published: February 21, 2007 11:18 PM
Dan Coleman
Francisco Torres, you nailed it. Sasha's arguments assume that an idea can be owned, as is shown through the 'purpose' of IP contracts and law -- protecting or safeguarding *value* rather than *property*.
It is the same error that has generated 'slander laws' against those whose speech regarding a product or person might harm its / his / her marketability.
Published: February 22, 2007 9:42 AM
Sasha Radeta
Dr. Kinsella is still clueless about definition of scarcity. The economic definition of scarcity is this: when the price of a good is zero, demand exceeds supply. Only if the supply of free goods exceeds or equals the demand for free goods do we say those goods are not scarce.
It basically means that if private property exchanges did not exist (zero prices) - there would be more wants and needs for goods and services than willingness and ability to supply it.
This makes useful ideas (in terms of production) “rivalrous.” In order to assign property rights and to exchange ideas that originated in their minds, designers write them on some TANGIBLE hardware. Than these authors can decide not allow other people to use their property in certain ways (like a "no trespass" sign), while allowing some other use with "terms of use" contracts.
-----
Dan Coleman,
Don't be silly. I never assumed that idea can be owned. Physical property can be owned - and we can prevent unwanted uses of it (like replication) through contractual restrictions and tort system. That's it.
-------
Francisco,
I did not claim that ideas per se are property. Either you're dishonest, or you didn't understand my basic points.
"Content" in itself is NOT property. But if you decide to restrict replication of your property's physical characteristics (including writing of any kind, even on digital media) you will be able to do that with contracts, as well as tort system (when we have "third party violators). If I copy someone's property that contains a set of characters (a book, for example), the author will be able to prove that I trespassed against his property.
When it comes to television, right now we have those “copyright broadcast notices” (like with NBA) which is totally absurd from free-market perspective. If we didn't have a government's monopoly over copyright, there would have to be a copyright agreement when it comes to content that has restricted access (like cable TV, PPV, etc.). If you "accidentally" get an access to someone else's cable program, you committed unintentional trespass... but if you decide use that trespass for your financial gain, that's a tort issue. I already explained why.
Published: February 22, 2007 10:30 AM
Jesse
Sasha's latest argument depends on classifying copying as a form of trespass. As that is obviously not the case, the argument falls apart.
(I don't really know why I even bother responding; perhaps I should have just left the filter in place. Better yet, I could adapt it to cover the responses in the sidebar; then I wouldn't see such posts in the first place. /me wanders off to fix my junk-comment filter...)
Published: February 22, 2007 10:56 AM
Sasha Radeta
Jesse,
You are unable to respond like an intelligent person, because you know that the definition of trespass is "unauthorized use of another's property".
If I own a book manuscript - and you decide to take it and read it without my authorization - that's a trespass. But if you decide to start replicating my work - that is automatically a tort (financial injury), since you did not compensate me for such expensive use of my property.
In cases in which I have copyright contract (terms of use) we no longer deal with tort. We have contractual provisions that would protect me from that user's unauthorized actions.
PS
Jesse, if we had junk-comment filter on this blog, you would probably overload it.
Published: February 22, 2007 11:05 AM
Sione Vatu
Sasha
Come now. No need for all the ad hominem. It demonstrates you have no serious argument to produce.
It is you who have the problem with understanding what property actually is, what its key attributes are and how the concept of property is derived. Remember it is your contention that, "Property is that which can be legally owned." Remember that Von Mises specifically warns that this approach is invalid. He goes further and teaches that the socialists and communists use that approach to destroy private property rights. So it would appear it is you who shares a philosophical basis (regarding property) with the communists.
You need to quit the name caling and the argument by repetition and assertion. You have not made a case. That's why you are finding it increasingly difficult to make any headway here at all. People have noticed the flaws with your position.
I'd be interested in reading a valid argument in favour of IP but it increasingly appears that there is not one to be had. Certainly, Sasha, you aint got it.
Sione
Published: February 22, 2007 11:53 AM
Dan Coleman
Sasha,
Here is where I see weakness in your argument. Let's take the 'Electric Slide' dance DVD example. Your claim is that the content of the DVD is not ownable:
""Content" in itself is NOT property. But if you decide to restrict replication of your property's physical characteristics (including writing of any kind, even on digital media) you will be able to do that with contracts, as well as tort system (when we have "third party violators). If I copy someone's property that contains a set of characters (a book, for example), the author will be able to prove that I trespassed against his property."
So you've found a way to make illegal -- well, on your own terms, anyway -- the copying of the DVD, while at the same time maintaining that no person can own the content or ideas that the DVD expresses.
But then you say:
"BUT, if you [third party] decide to use your unintentional trespass to obtain a financial gain (automatically at the expense of the person who was not compensated for such commercial use on your part) - then you aggravated your trespass to tort."
Now, wait a minute. You seem to have a problem with the following: Suppose that I see your DVD at a friend's house, learn the dance by watching, and then proceed to make money and fame using the dance.
Nowhere in that entire process was there any physical replication of your original property. Your property consists in the medium of configurations on a piece of plastic. But in my "dance to get rich" example, no blank DVDs or DVD writers were used. I came, I saw, I danced. Your property consists in a DVD of dancing; I danced.
In other words, your case of "property rights" would only apply if I figured out how to make money off of that particular physical copy of the Electric Slide as recorded on that particular DVD.
And unless you own the immaterial idea of that dance *itself*, you cannot make a claim on my money made from dancing. Any claims that my making money from dancing came at your "expense" assumes that everyone would have bought the concert tickets from you instead. It bases itself not in property but in speculation and value judgments.
You did not hold a concert where I went to the back room and stole all of the proceeds. You did not have a voluntary agreement with the concert-attendees that I interrupted in order to strip the money from your wallet. The concert-attendees and I made our own voluntary arrangement.
Because of this, it is my argument that you must be advocating the ownership of ideas in some manner, since otherwise your law suit would never work. (And you seem to believe that it works).
Published: February 22, 2007 1:20 PM
Sasha Radeta
Sione,
It was Jesse who resorted to "junk filter" nonsense in ad hominem attempt. And the fact that you spent so many sentences about baseless accusations shows that you have no serious argument.
You are advocating free and unrestricted use of someone else's property, based on user's needs. This is obviously a communist ideology (as the matter of fact, communists are also opposed to copyright)... That's why you feel the need to mention communism and to accuse me of your own sentiments.
Now, whatever your definition of property may be - if you own something, you have a right to prevent someone else's use of that object (you can post your "no trespass" sign)! Also, if you own something - you have a right to contractually arrange allowed use of that product. There can be no debate about this.
Also, you forgot that I used Ludwig von Mises' definition of ownership (bear this in mind when I say that property is something that is legally/lawfully owned): Ownership means full control of the services that can be derived from a good.
If I have this "full control," that means that I can prevent undesired uses of my good. Sione’s ideology naturally opposes this.
Published: February 22, 2007 1:40 PM
Sasha Radeta
Dan,
The fact that you don't own ideas per se (like the one's recorded on a DVD) does not mean that you can't own a DVD in its entirety. And if you own it, you have an absolute right to prevent any unwanted use of it. Even if you allow its personal use to someone, you can contractually restrict any replication.
You say: "Suppose that I see your DVD at a friend's house, learn the dance by watching, and then proceed to make money and fame using the dance."
OK. What you basically said is that you used my product without my authorization trespass)... but there was no harm involved when you watched the DVD (I didn't sustain any kind of injury so far - no tort). So everything is wonderful! You learn to dance - and everything is also fine...
But if you use that unauthorized use of my property (unintentional trespass) to obtain your financial gains - then we have a tort - because I suffered a financial injury (you didn't pay me to use my DVD in such way... if you did, I would create a contract that would prevent you from commercial use of my DVD and its content).
Everything else you wrote is a complete nonsense. You are spending so much time on nonsensical "idea ownership" (which I never advocated), because you don't have any real arguments against anything I really said. It’s kind of sad that you have to impute something I never said, in order to create the appearance of counter-arguments.
Published: February 22, 2007 1:58 PM
Dan Coleman
Sasha,
The fact that you don't own ideas per se (like the one's recorded on a DVD) does not mean that you can't own a DVD in its entirety. And if you own it, you have an absolute right to prevent any unwanted use of it. Even if you allow its personal use to someone, you can contractually restrict any replication.
In my example there was no replication. I can't see how the rest of your post follows until you show me how it was replication of something other than an idea. Cheers.
Published: February 22, 2007 2:16 PM
JIMB
Jesse - A distinction without a difference - ideas are scarce even if the communication medium is a non-scarce good. Think about this ...
Getting back to the main issue - It sounds like Stephan is arguing "since we cannot express mathematics in concretes, mathematics does not exist" ... "since we cannot express IP in concretes, IP doesn't exist". It just doesn't follow at all.
And so it's not unlibertarian to argue against this stuff ...
Published: February 22, 2007 2:35 PM
Jesse
Dan,
I don't believe that to be the real flaw in Sasha's argument:
"'Content' in itself is NOT property. But if you decide to restrict replication of your property's physical characteristics (including writing of any kind, even on digital media) you will be able to do that with contracts, as well as tort system (when we have 'third party violators'). If I copy someone's property that contains a set of characters (a book, for example), the author will be able to prove that I trespassed against his property."
Look at the wording here: "restrict replication . . . with contracts," "third-party violators." Sasha is using the term "contract" as though it was synonymous with "law", as though someone can just write up a contract and it automatically becomes binding on everyone -- as though contracts could create new property rights. That isn't how contracts work. You don't write a contract restricting replication of your property; some other party agrees (in a contract) to transfer some specified property (which that party must already own) when and if the replication takes place. A contract can't bind the actions or property of anyone who hasn't agreed to it; there is no such thing as a "third-party violator." To be a violator one must first be a party to the contract.
As for the tort issue, it should be clear by now that the replication itself is not trespass. The term "use" is rather sloppy in terms of property rights; not all things that can be called "uses" are rivalrous, and thus not all "uses" are exclusive to the property owner. A better term would be "transformation" -- altering some aspect of the property (it's shape, physical makeup, location, etc.). Divergent transformations of property are always rivalrous, because the property can only be in one state at a time. All transformations are "uses", but not all "uses" are transformations. Copying, for example, does not involve transforming the property, and is non-rivalrous. Another example: Say my neighbor has a fence on the border between our two properties. He ownes the fence, but in the winter the fence helps to keep the snow off my driveway. I'm "using" the fence -- benefiting from its presence -- but I'm not transforming it. Consequently my "use" isn't a trespass against his property rights.
Furthermore, doing something that fulfills the condition of someone else's contract (such as the replication payments mentioned above) cannot itself be a tort; if it were then one could unliaterally place arbitrary restrictions on others' actions just by agreeing to a contract with any other individual. An example: "A agrees to pay $100 to B if C walks around outside." This is obviously a valid contract, but it would be ridiculous to conclude that C walking outside has suddenly become a tort offense as a result, despite the fact that it would cause A to owe B $100.
A person could easily agree to pay an author or distributor for any copies made, but that wouldn't mean that it would become a tort offense for anyone else to make their own copy given the opportunity. It would just mean that the person in question was assuming a huge liability mostly beyond its control -- which is why no one would agree to such a contract in the first place.
----------
JIMB - "A distinction without a difference - ideas are scarce even if the communication medium is a non-scarce good."
I'm afraid I don't see precisely how this relates to my earlier comment. For one thing, I stated that the communication medium (the service) is scarce. Your statement would then appear to reduce to "ideas are scarce" -- which is only what you are attempting to prove, a circular argument. People pay to get other people to create/discover ideas and to communicate those ideas to them. The conclusion one can draw from this is that creation/discovery of ideas, and the communication of ideas, are scarce. It says nothing about the scarcity of the ideas themselves (either way) independent of the discovery and communication services.
Published: February 22, 2007 2:54 PM
JIMB
Jesse - Paper is cheap, good ideas are not.
Published: February 22, 2007 3:20 PM
Jesse
JIMB - Existing ideas are cheap, getting other people to come up with new good ideas and communicate them to you is not.
Published: February 22, 2007 4:02 PM
Sasha Radeta
Dan,
I SAID (you're not reading carefully):
"And if you own it (a piece of property), you have an absolute right to prevent any unwanted use of it."
"Replication" was only one type of unwanted use. Others may include other commercial and non-commercial uses of the product. Anyway, in your example there is no contract between DVD producer and a "third party" trespasser. We are talking about unauthorized use (trespass) that was aggravated to tort.
--
Jesse,
for anyone who cares about private property rights, valid contracts are the "law". I never said or implied that contracts between two sides are binding on everyone. But they can prevent someone from to use someone's property in ways that owner does accept.
JESSE ALSO SAID:
--------------
"replication itself is not trespass... The term "use" is rather sloppy in terms of property rights; not all things that can be called "uses" are rivalrous, and thus not all "uses" are exclusive to the property owner. A better term would be "transformation"
--------------
You are basically attempting to covertly promote communist ideology. You are trying to say that a trespass is not "unauthorized use" - but an unauthorized "transformation" of property. In other words, when politburo of Communist Party decides to allow homeless people into your home, they are not committing any trespass (they're not transforming your house). According to you, people should be free to enter other people's land and homes...
To a libertarian, ALL USES of a piece of property can be exclusive to the property owner - if he chooses to have it that way. There is nothing "sloppy" about the legal definition of trespass: the owner has a sovereign and absolute right to prevent any unwanted use of his property, unless we talk about an easement for someone else's property. If you read and replicate my book without my authorization - that is a trespass resulting in tort (financial injury). That's the end of it.
JESSE ALSO SAID:
-------
"A person could easily agree to pay an author or distributor for any copies made, but that wouldn't mean that it would become a tort offense for anyone else to make their own copy given the opportunity."
------------
Note that I never said that the author should prosecute fourth and fifth parties who replicate some unauthorized copy of his work. A trespasser would simply be responsible for the expensive publishing rights that he assumed - rights which legal publishers must purchase from the author. That's all.
Published: February 22, 2007 4:13 PM
Sasha Radeta
Jesse also said: "Existing ideas are cheap, getting other people to come up with new good ideas and communicate them to you is not."
----
You mean: it costs a lot of money to produce something that will have a zero price - once it gets out on the market. Anyone with understanding of law of supply knows why such situation would be impossible, and why copyright contracts and restrictions in property use will allow people to earn money from their ideas and to supply it to the world. Or they can allow unrestricted use of their inventions if they can bundle it with other products and services on which they will make some money.
PS
Anyway, your communist definition of trespass is absurd. If you take, read, rent, replicate, or do anything else with my property without my permission - that is a trespass. If your trespass creates financial injury to me - that's tort.
Also, if you accepted terms of use of my property (which can restrict your commercial use of my good), you will not be able to unilaterally change those terms (they are part of total price you paid for the use of that good).
Ciao!
Published: February 22, 2007 4:27 PM
greg
SR> Ownership means full control of the services that can be derived from a good.
If I have this "full control," that means that I can prevent undesired uses of my good.
"[A] good" and "my good" can mean nothing other than "a idea" and "my idea" in this context. So for you, ideas are property, no matter how much double-speak, denials, and circumlocution you endlessly put forth.
You'll never derive what you say is derived because (it has to be said at this drawn out date) you are incapable of doing so.
Published: February 22, 2007 5:45 PM
Francisco Torres
I did not claim that ideas per se are property. Either you're dishonest, or you didn't understand my basic points.
No, I understood your points - you just want to have it both ways. See below:
"Content" in itself is NOT property. But if you decide to restrict replication of your property's physical characteristics (including writing of any kind, even on digital media) you will be able to do that with contracts, as well as tort system (when we have "third party violators).
If content is not property, then there is no point in arguing that a person can restrict someone from copying the physical features of his possessions, since that person owns NOT the features, only the physical object itself. You are trying to justify IP by an appeal to legality.
If I copy someone's property that contains a set of characters (a book, for example), the author will be able to prove that I trespassed against his property.
Only if he owns that book and only if you trespassed by forcing an entry into his home or dwelling. Otherwise, if the book is a reproduction belonging to you, then you are begging the question with that argument - you assume the content is still the author's property. Again, you cannot have it both ways - either content is property, for your argument to be logically consistent, or it is not, in which case your argument is not cogent.
When it comes to television, right now we have those “copyright broadcast notices” (like with NBA) which is totally absurd from free-market perspective. If we didn't have a government's monopoly over copyright, there would have to be a copyright agreement when it comes to content that has restricted access (like cable TV, PPV, etc.). If you "accidentally" get an access to someone else's cable program, you committed unintentional trespass... but if you decide use that trespass for your financial gain, that's a tort issue. I already explained why.
An agreement that only goes one way is not an agreement. It does not matter if there are copyright notices on those programs because unless you have a written agreement signed by the two participants, then the broadcaster or the producer of the program cannot hold a person watching the program liable for copying or reproducing the program. If the contrary were true, then actors and celebrities would only have to stamp copyright notices on their behinds, to hold paparazzi liable for copyright infringement everytime they take their photographs, would they not?
The economic definition of scarcity is this: when the price of a good is zero, demand exceeds supply. Only if the supply of free goods exceeds or equals the demand for free goods do we say those goods are not scarce.
Except that the condition you posit contradicts the definition, instead of complementing it. If the price of a good is zero, it means it is NOT a good, not that it is scarce. It also does not mean that demand will exceed supply - for example, the price of atmospheric air is zero, yet there is no infinite demand. Scarcity means too few goods for too many people that want them. The important concept is "Good" - a good is a rivalrous object or service which cannot be hold or used by two persons at the very same time. Thus, if I am receiving a haircut, another person cannot be receiving the same haircut from the same barber, because I am occupying the barber's resources and space. A person cannot be driving the same car I am driving, and so on. In the case of ideas, however, 100 moviegoers can SEE the same picture I am seeing, at the same time. Thus, ideas are NOT scarce.
Published: February 22, 2007 5:58 PM
JIMB
Jesse: You are acquainted with subtraction, no? paper + idea = X; idea = X - paper, we know paper is cheap, if X is a high price, ideas are valuable.
All the best.
Published: February 22, 2007 6:34 PM
JIMB
Francisco - 'Content' is the ONLY property (the meaning in the context which you are using it), just the reverse of what you say.
Your "right" is a non-concrete justified ability to do with the owned thing as you wish. Your right to occupy housing space (rent) is non-concrete, the ownership of stock is non-concrete, writing verbiage is non-concrete, labor is non-concrete, your own will and valuation is non-concrete. In fact, all action is rooted in non-concrete subjective valuation. Rights and action and economics are non-concrete at root and in practice. So is ownership.
Published: February 22, 2007 7:04 PM
Sasha Radeta
Greg,
Unfortunately for you, I never referred to "idea ownership". You are even uncapable of lying convincingly.
As Mises said: "Ownership means full control of the SERVICES that can be derived from a good"!!!
If I have ownership over a book manuscript, according to Mises and common sense, I can prevent you from using certain services that can be derived from that book. I can contractually allow you only certain services, while prohibiting its commercial use. If you accept that contract - you have to respect it.
And if we don't have any contract, but you commercially use my book without any permission, that is a trespass resulting in tort.
I know this is too complicated for you, but try to understand your limits and be patient.
Regards.
Published: February 22, 2007 8:09 PM
Sasha Radeta
Francisco,
You ambitiously tried to refute basic economic definition of scarcity, but just like any leftist who tries with such endeavor, you only demonstrated your complete economic ignorance. Price of any good can be set to zero at any time. People give away valuable things all the time. Sometimes it's not for charity reasons, but due to outside forces. What happens when price is set to zero is that demand is exceeding supply - and we have shortages. That is what makes goods or SERVICES rivalrous and scarce. Such conditions would not exist for a non-good like atmospheric air, but they do exist for human labor, as well as useful ideas (that can be used as means of production).
You spent time criticizing "copyright broadcast notifications," even though I clearly stated that I am AGAINST these practices and that they are INCONSISTENT with free-markets. why are you wasting time and space refuting something that nobody here advocated?
------
You a priori assume that I advocate "content ownership" - and you derive entire false discussion based on this lie.
Stop with that nonsense and read what I say:
- If you own physical object, you can control all of the services that can be derived from it (Mises). That means that you can allow someone to use your book, UNDER CONDITION that this book will not be used for certain commercial purposes, including replication.
- If someone takes and uses your property (like a book) without your authorization - to any libertarian that is no different than someone entering your land or habitat without your approval!
Now you can hopefully see that there is no need for "content ownership" nonsense in my analysis. Quite the contrary - you need it in order to continue the debate that you lost from the very beginning.
Regards.
Published: February 22, 2007 8:32 PM
Jesse
JIMB - "Jesse: You are acquainted with subtraction, no? paper + idea = X; idea = X - paper, we know paper is cheap, if X is a high price, ideas are valuable."
Your argument sounds vaguely Keynesian. He couldn't handle more than two terms at a time either. Your error -- which I've been pointing out all along -- is that there are more components to the equation than just the values of the paper and the idea itself. To illustrate:
paper + idea + discovery labor + communication labor + control ~= total value
If X is a high price then any of the left-hand terms (or all of them) can be high; any one (or two or three or four) of the left-hand terms can also be low or zero. (There may be additional components to the total value that I left out, as well.) You'd need several more constraints to prove that the "value of idea" term was nonzero, and you're not going to get them.
In any event you must have noticed that in my above comment I established that violation of property rights depends on transformation of the property, rather than simple "use" by a non-owner. Ideas cannot be transformed, ergo any rights one might have in an idea cannot be violated. To claim such rights would therefore be pointless.
Published: February 22, 2007 8:59 PM
Sasha Radeta
JESSE SAID: "In any event you must have noticed that in my above comment I established that violation of property rights depends on transformation of the property, rather than simple "use" by a non-owner."
-----
You must have also noticed that such definition of trespass is completely absurd and totally against real ownership (full control of the services that can be derived from a good). Under your definition, if someone steals your valuable good - but he does not transform it - he did not violate your property rights. Also, according to your communist definition, you would be free to borrow anything without asking for permission, as long as you don't "transforming". In your communist world, people would freely enter people's land and homes, as long as they don't "transform" it.
Please, stop embarrassing yourself.
Published: February 22, 2007 9:09 PM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, you wrote:
"And if you own it (a piece of property), you have an absolute right to prevent any unwanted use of it."
"Replication" was only one type of unwanted use. Others may include other commercial and non-commercial uses of the product. Anyway, in your example there is no contract between DVD producer and a "third party" trespasser. We are talking about unauthorized use (trespass) that was aggravated to tort.
When I put on my dance concert, I do not use your DVD in any way. I do not take any of your property and display it for others to see.
I put on a show with ideas and content derived from the DVD, but you have consistently said that one cannot own ideas or content.
Is it possible for you to demonstrate how putting on a dance concert replicates, uses, or misuses your DVD in any way?
Published: February 22, 2007 10:51 PM
Sasha Radeta
Dan,
You are unable to identify where the trespass or breach of contracts occurs in your scenario.
1. Let's assume that we have a contract:
You used my DVD when you watched it - and you watched it under the condition that its content will not be used for commercial purposes - or else you have to pay specified damages. Basically, in order to obtain the use of my DVD, you accepted a contract in which your certain actions entitle me to some damages - I own them now.
Once you realize that you must respect such valid contract, you will stop with those absurd questions.
2. When no contract exist - than any unauthorized viewing of my DVD is a trespass. If you obtain a financial gain as a result of this trespass - you committed a tort (of financial injury)... In simple terms: the consequences (injury) of your trespass (unauthorized viewing) were aggravated with your action and go beyond the price of watching DVD. You assumed the right of an expensive use of DVD's content (normally contractually prohibited) without paying a dime. You can't do that lawfully.
Published: February 22, 2007 11:39 PM
Sione
Sasha
Now, now. What a short memory you have. When I last requested you explain yourself on the topic of what property is, what its attributes are and how the concept is derived, you wrote that property is that which could be legally owned. That is NOT von Mises definition of what private property is. It never was. He specifically OPPOSED your approach. So stop trying to equivocate and wriggle away from what YOU presented as YOUR definition. You wrote it, you presented it as being the basis for your approach and it has been demonstrated as wrong. Completely erroneous. False.
I note three things for you to consider. Firstly, that von Mises warns that the socialists and the communists employ the definition that you employed. Secondly, it was you who called other contributors to the blog "communists" and so forth. It is most ironic that it is you, Sasha, who shares his definition of property with the communists and the socialists etc.
You wrote: "You are advocating free and unrestricted use of someone else's property, based on user's needs."
No. What I previously mentioned to you was that use of property is contextual. I drew your attention to ethics of emergency situations as examples for serious consideration. I also drew your attention to the task of establishing what attributes are necessary for something to be properly identified as property- something you have yet to achieve. On this occasion what I wrote was: "I'd be interested in reading a valid argument in favour of IP but it increasingly appears that there is not one to be had. Certainly, Sasha, you aint got it."
For the record, I have not advocated what you are asserting above. Either you need to learn to read and comprehend what you read better OR you need to stop telling furfies (a nasty habit to get into). For the moment I'll be charitable and concede that your reading and comprehension need much improvement.
You wrote: "This is obviously a communist ideology (as the matter of fact, communists are also opposed to copyright)..."
Now you're just wallowing in some cheap name-calling.
Sasha, what are you referring to? Some ideology you made up? Some ideology you picked out of your bum? OR is it the fact that I have yet to find a valid pro-IP argument that irks you? Perhaps it's the fact that I do not accept your assertions. Is that it? Well, don't be so precious! You're just not that clever and certainly not as important or as profound as you seem to think. Look and learn: an anti-IP ideology is not necessarily a communist ideology.
To validate this latest assertion of yours (all anti-IP arguments as necessarily communist) you'd need evidence of reality & an unbroken chain of logic to your conclusion- in other words proof. That's something you aint got I'd safely wager.
On and on you go, arguing the man and not the subject. There's this: "That's why you feel the need to mention communism and to accuse me of your own sentiments."
No, wrong again. I referred you to what von Mises actually taught. You're got a bit of cheek, as it was you who started calling other contributors “communists” and the like. It was you who started off along that track. Pot, kettle, black. Hypocrite!
Tell me, why is it YOU feel the need to call names and smear people whenever they challenge your opinion?
You wrote: "Now, whatever your definition of property may be - if you own something, you have a right to prevent someone else's use of that object (you can post your "no trespass" sign)! Also, if you own something - you have a right to contractually arrange allowed use of that product. There can be no debate about this."
Of course there can be debate. That's what we are having right now. You’re not the final arbiter of anything, certainly not when it comes to IP matters. Your argument is sloppy- full of simple errors and critically important omissions. You try to jam various concepts together even when they don't fit. The whole approach is disjoint and inconsistent. Your logic has gaps, which your leaps of faith do nothing to address.
You have been trying to argue that if something is classified as an individual's private property he can expect to exercise a certain control over it. Perhaps, but that's not the core issue at contention. Your fundamental problem is that you are unable to explain what attributes are necessary for something to be properly recognised as private property and why that is. You have not derived the necessary concepts and validated those derivations (and it is invalid to write fluff like, “everyone knows”). You need to address those matters well prior to leaping onto the subject of enforcing full control. It is that problem which undermines your IP position. Actually, it invalidates it totally (as has been established on more than one occasion). It is the "break(s) in the chain of logic" from reality to concept to principle that defeat your position.
Sasha, you can’t treat a principle as an absolute devoid of all context. That’s a grave error to be making. You must address all the fundamentals. As has been said by a well-known author on more than one occasion, “Check your premise.” Have you even identified yours? I seriously doubt it.
You wrote: "Also, you forgot that I used Ludwig von Mises' definition of ownership (bear this in mind when I say that property is something that is legally/lawfully owned): Ownership means full control of the services that can be derived from a good."
No, you did not use the von Mises definition. It is misleading of you to claim you did. Ludwig von Mises uttely opposed your legally owned nonsense. You obviously looked up some of his comments AFTER I demolished your previous position. Now you are attempting to dissemble. Won’t work. It’s misleading and dishonest to behave like this mate. Besides which, do you understand what that quote on property actually means? You need to lift your game.
Here are questions for you to try. How does one attain "full control" of the services that can be derived from a good? When is that right and proper? What type of "full control" is valid and when is it invalid? Why so? How is "full control" recognised? What attributes are required for something to be “owned” or for something to be property? How do you “know”?
And you assert: "I have this "full control," that means that I can prevent undesired uses of my good. Sione’s ideology naturally opposes this."
No. Wrong yet again. Sione's ideology opposes bullshit artists, fraudsters, collectivists, baseless assertions and the people who make them. Sione opposes the stupid and the wilfully ignorant. Do not be trying to be counted among their number.
Sasha, you need to stop crashing onto the blog every time the subject of IP comes up and regurgitating up your repetitive assertion. It's the behaviour of a crank. Do some homework. How about engaging in a little study of von Mises? Then try Hoppe, as you may well discover what private property actually IS.
Sione
Published: February 23, 2007 1:28 AM
Sasha Radeta
Sione,
You actually think that someone is going to read that much nonsense you wrote. You repeated the same insane responses more than once in the same posting... The fact that you wrote so much garbage only shows that you are unable to think straight and to express your thoughts clearly. Sentences like "have you checked your premise, I seriously doubt it. Better revisit your fundamentals. Have you even identified them... blah, blah, blah..." - are nothing but incoherent gibberish, unrelated to our topic.
-----
Like I said before: property is something that can be legally (lawfully) owned. That's a logical description of property. And what does "own" mean - you asked me before... I use Ludwig von Mises' definition of ownership. In other words, you lied. Mises would never be against my approach (since it's based on his basic definition of ownership).
Anyway - you are advocating free and unrestricted use of someone else's property, since you advocate free violation of contracts that would prevent unwanted commercial use of that property. I completely disregarded your attempt to draw on "ethics of emergency situations" - since you clearly don't understand it. The ancient doctrine of "necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura privata" actualy only allows you to commit tort - if without such action you would suffer greater harm. But you forget that this is still treated as tort - and that trespasser will be obligated to pay any actual damages caused in the use of the property but not punitive damages.
In other words, you don't understand that you may commit a tort in order to save lives - but you will still have to pay whatever it costs to be a legal publisher/reproducer of that property. There will be no punitive damages in such case, but you will pay for your actions.
You said:
-----
"You have been trying to argue that if something is classified as an individual's private property he can expect to exercise a certain control over it."
------
WRONG! I didn't "try to argue" anything. I simply restated common sense definition of ownership, provided by Ludwig von Mises: "Ownership means full control of the services that can be derived from a good." But now you ask questions about this simple point that even a child could understand.
Since I feel sorry for your mental situation, I will answer to these questions:
Q: How does one attain "full control" of the services that can be derived from a good?
A: By owning a good, one completely controls what can be done with that good (whether it's going to be used as a tool, as a toy, as weapon).
Q: When is that right and proper?
A: When it does not violate other people's property rights
Q: What type of "full control" is valid and when is it invalid?
A: "Validity" by definition is the quality of being grounded in logic. "Full control" of services that can be derived from your property is always grounded in logic.
Q: Why so?
A: Because logic implies reasoned and reasonable judgment. Full control cannot be established without it.
Q: How is "full control" recognised?
A: It is recognized by owners' efforts in protection of their exclusive rights in use of their property, as well as other people's efforts to purchase some of those services that can be derived from that property.
Q: What attributes are required for something to be “owned” or for something to be property?
A: There must be an objective link between our self-ownership and that object before anyone else claimed it (our labor must be mixed with it); This object must be scarce, because any property claim implies the issue of scarcity.
Q; How do you “know”?
A: a) By mixing our labor we transfer something we own onto that object. b) if there was no scarcity, there would be no need for exclusive control of anything, since supply would always exceed demand.
Now, how about seeing a healthcare professional that could help you with that rambling? Unlike you, I'm using my own mind and I don't have go to brilliant Dr. Hoppe (with whom I mostly agree) when it comes to basic logic.
Published: February 23, 2007 3:27 AM
Dan Coleman
"1. Let's assume that we have a contract:
You used my DVD when you watched it - and you watched it under the condition that its content will not be used for commercial purposes - or else you have to pay specified damages. Basically, in order to obtain the use of my DVD, you accepted a contract in which your certain actions entitle me to some damages - I own them now.
Ah, I see, we're back to this argument. OK, Sasha, so if I buy a DVD of yours, watch it, and return it to you, saying "I no longer want to associate with you, so our contract is void from now on", I have the right to do that (it's that blasted right to free association -- so annoying at times).
Now, if we were under some kind of lease agreement with the DVD -- your free market "copyright", of course, assumes that everyone will "buy" DVDs without actually *owning* them! -- it might be possible for you to sue me over the broken contract. You might (and I'm not even sure about this) get your money back. However it works out, our association will be done and over with.
But the moment you try and claim ownership of ANY of my future actions, you will be de facto claiming ownership of an idea and enslaving me.
Take, for example, the following contract. I give you a pencil, and in return you agree to give me the products of your labor for the rest of your life. You have transfered ownership of all of your actions, present and future, to me, and I own them. Even if you come to your senses and decide to renege on the contract (and return to me my pencil), according to Sasha's system of property and ownership I *still* own all of your future actions and could sue for them if you don't follow through! In effect, you will be my slave no matter what you try to do, or at least pay the equivalent to me in damage money! Poor Sasha.
"Once you realize that you must respect such valid contract, you will stop with those absurd questions."
And once you realize that you can't own someone's future actions absolutely, and that this is slavery, you will understand the nature of my objection.
"2. When no contract exist - than any unauthorized viewing of my DVD is a trespass. If you obtain a financial gain as a result of this trespass - you committed a tort (of financial injury)... In simple terms: the consequences (injury) of your trespass (unauthorized viewing) were aggravated with your action and go beyond the price of watching DVD. You assumed the right of an expensive use of DVD's content (normally contractually prohibited) without paying a dime. You can't do that lawfully."
Okay, so we're back to the Dance-Man example. Although the DVD's content (and its use) -- that is, the use of the IDEAS in the DVD -- is normally contractually prohibited (in your scenario), it is clear in this example that Dance-Man never agreed to those terms. If he has taken your physical DVD, you are able to sue him for those damages.
If, however, he has taken ideas from the DVD, you are out of luck when it comes to demanding "damages." You can only sue for physical trespass and theft; you cannot sue over ideas and how they affect the market value of physical goods. Otherwise, you could sue me for spreading lies about your character, which could hurt your reputation in the business world.
Again, unless you own the IDEA contained in the DVD, OR unless you think it's OK to own absolutely someone's future actions, I don't see how even your own system applies to the Dance-Man scenario. Please enlighten me on this.
Here is where I see you departing from advocating only physical damages: "In simple terms: the consequences (injury) of your trespass (unauthorized viewing) were aggravated with your action and go beyond the price of watching DVD."
Why must that be so? Show me how that trespass aggravated the injury to physical property, and not the market valuation of a good? What physical damage has occured?
Published: February 23, 2007 7:03 AM
Jesse
"Otherwise, you could sue me for spreading lies about your character, which could hurt your reputation in the business world."
Since not everyone believes that this would be a bad thing (not me, but some still support suing over defamation and the like) it is worth pointing out that the same reasoning would allow people to sue over spreading the truth about someone's character as well, if such damaged their reputation.
Published: February 23, 2007 8:52 AM
Dan Coleman
Jesse, I am well aware of the state of current opinion. I agree with you completely!
Published: February 23, 2007 8:54 AM
Marcus
Sasha you have it all wrong. It's not ownership that establishes control over property, it's control that establishes the ownership. Thus you only own something to the extent that you can control it. This is in accordance with natural law, the homesteading principle, self-ownership etc.
You can try to "fix" reality all day long by inducing bizarre legal bindings (third party contract violations etc), but you will never be able to control (without serious coercion) what goes on in another persons mind and, bottom line, that's what matters! No control - no ownership.
Published: February 23, 2007 9:15 AM
Sasha Radeta
Marcus,
Are you insane???? Do you actually claim that someone who contractually rents you his property does not have a right to prevent you from unwanted use - or to uphold voluntary contractual provisions???
I am not trying to "fix" reality - I am only saying that property rights are meaningless if you cannot create enforceable contracts with other individuals who want to use your property.
------
Greg and Jesse, you are both equally ignorant. At least you try to make people laugh by trying to be serious.
Greg,
If you purchase the use of DVD and you want to return it and completely abolish your contract - I have every right to decline your return! Money you paid is now my property. There is no legal and logical doctrine that would force me to accept your return.
In case of copyright contracts, I am not claiming ownership of your future actions. I am claiming the ownership over specified DAMAGES that you voluntarily agreed upon in exchange for the use of my property.
When it comes to tort, you ask: "What physical damage has occured?"
Is it possible that you are so ignorant???? Tort does not have to involve physical "damage" (I will presume you meant "injury" here). A trespass can create financial injury beyond physical harm. In my example you are responsible for loss of earnings to the author of the DVD. You assumed full ownership of that item (with unrestricted use, including replication rights) you basically took for free what legally costs a fortune to obtain (publishers pay it).
You are actually so ignorant that you confuse the price of limited use of DVD with the price of full ownership, which includes unrestricted replication and commercial use. You would also pay punitive damages.
Your example with "spreading lies" is completely irrelevant. You don't understand that trespass occurs only when you use my physical property without authorization. By saying your words - no trespass occurs and I could not claim a tort. It is amazing how "differently able" you are (to use politically correct term).
----
Comrade Jesse,
Do you still claim that a trespass occurs only when you transform someone property and that proletariat will rise again?.
:))
Published: February 23, 2007 11:15 AM
Sasha Radeta
To make it even simpler for Marcus and Greg:
You cannot assume ownership rights by controlling property that is rightfully claimed by someone else. Your control (labor mixing) can be used to obtain ownership rights over unclaimed objects only.
So when you rent someone's property - you did not establish a necessary control to claim it as your property. That means that you cannot lawfully use all services that can be derived from that object. The rightful owner has an absolute right to hold you accountable to the contract (terms of use) you accepted when you obtained that item. You cannot go to Hertz, rent a car, and than change your mind and assume full ownership, without paying for it.
As far as tort goes, you cannot get away with Jesse's communist excuse: "if you don't transform (or damage as Greg says) the property, you didn't commit a trespass." That is ridiculous. To use car rental example again, you cannot lawfully break into Hertz, "borrow" their vehicle and then claim that no physical harm took place and that you owe nothing (saying how their claim of loss of earnings is "unlibertarian,” referring to communist-libertarianism). You will be responsible for the use of that vehicle - just like in case of unauthorized replication of DVD you will be responsible for such expensive co-ownership rights (normally paid by authorized producers and publishers).
Published: February 23, 2007 11:45 AM
Dan Coleman
Sasha,
I'm assuming that you were writing to me (Dan) when you wrote "Greg," so I'll respond to that part of your post - but please correct me if I'm wrong.
To start with, you wrote: If you purchase the use of DVD and you want to return it and completely abolish your contract - I have every right to decline your return! Money you paid is now my property. There is no legal and logical doctrine that would force me to accept your return.
I am not denying your right to "decline" my return of the DVD. If you do not wish to take it back, that is your prerogative (and you may rightfully ask for it back at any time).
However, I may exercise MY right NOT to be under contract with you anymore. Are you denying that people may cancel their contracts if they do not wish to be a part of them anymore? (That is, assuming that they will be willing to pay back the original terms of the deal, in this case the DVD)?
What a strange "free market" that would be, if someone could reject my cancellation of a contract, and then potentially sue me later based on the terms of that contract!
"Tort does not have to involve physical "damage" (I will presume you meant "injury" here). A trespass can create financial injury beyond physical harm. In my example you are responsible for loss of earnings to the author of the DVD."
It is impossible to aggress against your person or property without actually aggressing (or threatening to aggress) against something physical! Your ability to sue for "loss of earnings" will depend on whether or not the aggressor has trespassed on your property -- as you actually state below.
(Unless, I need to add, you can show that the original DVD producer owns the idea itself).
"You assumed full ownership of that item (with unrestricted use, including replication rights) you basically took for free what legally costs a fortune to obtain (publishers pay it)."
This would be more persuasive if you had demonstrated how my dance concert was a replication or 'unrestricted use' of something other than an idea! This is the third time that I've challenged you to demonstrate it. Each time you have answered by claiming that I am still bound by the terms of the original contract, OR you assume that the dance concert is a physical trespass in some way.
I have rejected the claim that Dance-Man is under contract, as he is free to leave at any time (and he's willing to pay back the original terms of the deal so as to restore property).
Before we can talk about the consequences of the dance concert being physical trespass, it would help if you could show WHY that is so. (It would be great if you could show this without resorting to saying that I'm bound by contract even though I no longer want to be and will restore the original terms on request!)
Or, if you think that you can hold me contractually bound against my will, perhaps you could answer my "slave" example: Given my scenario, is Sasha bound to owe me the "damages" for a complete life of labor, even though he has returned my pencil?
And, more fundamentally:
You write: "You don't understand that trespass occurs only when you use my physical property without authorization."
Actually, we agree on this point (it seems). I'm maintaining that Dance-Man with his DVD inspired concert in no way uses your physical property without authorization. Can you please demonstrate how the dance concert itself is anything other than copying an idea?
Published: February 23, 2007 11:50 AM
Francisco Torres
You ambitiously tried to refute basic economic definition of scarcity, but just like any leftist who tries with such endeavor, you only demonstrated your complete economic ignorance.
Thanks you for pointint that out. Curiously, you compare me to a leftist-something.
Price of any good can be set to zero at any time. People give away valuable things all the time.
Giving away a thing that is valuable to one does not make its price "zero", Sasha. A price can only be known through a market exchange, which means that even in the case of a donation there IS an exchange. First, a person gives away that which represents the lower marginal utility - a person would very seldom just gives away his or her house, for example, but could most likely donate a TV Set, especially if the TV set represents for him or her that which is lower in his valuation roster. Second, there IS a price, since the person IS exchanging something, which is a TV Set for the PSYCHIC benefit that he ir she receives from the donation. Third the person is NOT giving away a good blindly to a market (needed for your contention to be true), but to a SPECIFIC person that will deliver this psychic benefit - be it a relative, a person in distress, someone he or she likes or loves, et cetera. This is the very reason why the definition you gave does not make much sense. Sounds more to me like the kind of definition a neoclassical economist would make and not an Austrian.
Sometimes it's not for charity reasons, but due to outside forces.
It would be irrelevant. The good is not scarce because of a "zero" price. In the case of coercion, the good would be valued against something that would benefit more, like the owner's life, for instance. Again, there would be not a "zero" price.
What happens when price is set to zero is that demand is exceeding supply - and we have shortages.
That is an a posteriori rationale. It leaves the question in the mind: were goods NOT scarce before the price was set to zero? And who gets to set the price to zero? Does it happen as if by magik?
The aprioristic reason for scarcity is that since there is a finite amount of resources (raw materials, people's time, et cetera), then goods created from them will necessarily be scarce (finite). A thing that is not finite is necessarily NOT a resource, like atmospheric air, or the oceans, or sunlight.
That is what makes goods or SERVICES rivalrous and scarce.
Eh, no. Again, the definition you provide is aposteriorical - IF the price of a good is set to zero, THEN it becomes scare (you mean it wasn't before???). It is the fact that they are finite, and the fact that no two people can hold it or use it at the very same time.
Such conditions would not exist for a non-good like atmospheric air, but they do exist for human labor, as well as useful ideas (that can be used as means of production).
Oh, boy... And I am accused of not knowing economics. Labor is finite and rivalrous because at one point there is only ONE laborer and ONE labor. Ford cannot enjoy the labor of Smith if Smith is working in the GM plant at one time. Instead, ideas are *NOT* rivalrous because they can be spawned ad infinitum inside people's brains and in storage media. You are simply attaching the idea to the originator as if without him, there would be no idea at all. That is silly, of course, considering just how many times things are reinvented, and themes (plots, stories) reoccur many times.
- If you own physical object, you can control all of the services that can be derived from it (Mises). That means that you can allow someone to use your book, UNDER CONDITION that this book will not be used for certain commercial purposes, including replication.
You twist von Mises words, Sasha. The services derived from an object are those that are rivalrous and scarce themselves, like for example a hammer hitting a nail in my roof. The person that holds the hammer and KNOWS how to drive the nail can have CONTROL of that service and charge me for it. But where in your mind do you contend that the roof repair person also owns by extension the ACT of nail driving???
- If someone takes and uses your property (like a book) without your authorization - to any libertarian that is no different than someone entering your land or habitat without your approval!
The book is not the writer's property. You are mistaken here. When you go out to buy books, you buy to own them, not to NOT own them. This is why there are copyright notices in books and media, because arguing that you are merely buying the privilege of holding a book is irrational. This is why I also have contended that you argument would only make sense if you hold as true that the originator of an idea holds ownership of content.
Now you can hopefully see that there is no need for "content ownership" nonsense in my analysis.
You are quite incorrect. The problem is in the contention that the book or media is still the property of the writer or producer, which is incorrect. It does not make sense that a person buys a book or a CD so as NOT to own it.
Quite the contrary - you need it in order to continue the debate that you lost from the very beginning.
Gee, were we competing?
Perhaps you should reconsider what you say. If in fact you believe that the books and CDs you purchase are NOT owned by you, then you should look out your door for the police, every time you lend a book or a CD, since you would be doing so without the originator's permission. If this makes sense to you, then I can concede that your argument works, in YOUR world. In the world of private property rights, however, the logical approach is to own whatever you buy.
Published: February 23, 2007 12:25 PM
Dan Coleman
Francisco Torres, it seems to me that in Sasha's world there were hardly ever exist someone who actually *owned* anything after an exchange! The car manufacturer would have to loan certain services from his car under strict contracts, lest others reproduce the machine itself. No one would own the books in their own library, nor the movies in their film collection. We would eat with borrowed cutlery and plates, write with loaned pencils and pens, and type on leased computers and keyboards (using a borrowed version of Windows!), while drinking leased Cokes and eating loaned potato chips.
What really amazes me is Sasha's belief that this would ever occur spontaneously on the free market! What a system!
Published: February 23, 2007 12:43 PM
JIMB
Jesse - You should more carefully consider the original post: It refutes the entire string of your argument. You would pay a great deal for an 'idea' that would save your life even if it took no labor to develop. Ideas are frequently the most scarce good in the package of "idea + whatever else you want to add" (the non-idea components have existing market prices which are near zero in comparison. Seriously, to argue that 'discovery' has any bearing whatsoever on value is to invert cause and effect and to argue a Marxian labor theory of value).
Ideas do have value, they are scarce and rivalrous. There are no 'concrete' rights, only 'abstract' rights of action (i.e. justified choices which are themselves non-concrete rules of moral behavior, unobservable in their essence, but affecting real existence). That is the nature of things which is visible to any observer. Frankly, this entire line of 'Libertarian' thought is - in my opinion is very poorly thought out, or perhaps I severely misunderstand.
Published: February 23, 2007 2:05 PM
Marcus
I am not trying to "fix" reality - I am only saying that property rights are meaningless if you cannot create enforceable contracts with other individuals who want to use your property.
Property rights that can't be derived from control does not exist. You may control some physical object, but you can never own the knowledge i gain from observing it. That knowledge is mine, since i am the only one who can control my own knowledge and righfully so since i myself - not your physical property - created that knowledge through interpretation.
What is the proper solution to this problem of yours? Postulating clauses forbidding me to utilize my own knowledge? Forcing me to knowingly make stupid decisions ("you must act as if you didn't know")? Assuming that arbiters in a free society would respect the principle of self-ownership, i can't see how your hypothetical contracts would be enforced. Luckily for you, todays courts are different.
Published: February 23, 2007 2:55 PM
Sasha Radeta
Dan, sorry I confused you with Greg. You are also ignorant.
:))
You cannot unilaterally decide that contract is void. You basically exchanged any of your future (unauthorized) copies and some money - to obtain the personal use of someone's property (like DVD). Transaction is complete and that's the end of it.
Even if you convince the DVD's owner to do another transaction, in which he will give you back your money - and get back his DVD - he would still insist that any replication of his material will belong to him. If you don't think that's fair, don't exchange it back.
Then you go with some insane comments in which you show that you are totally out your mind. First we assume that someone uses my DVD (physical property) without my authorization and uses it to obtain unlawful gains - and than you start blabbing: "It is impossible to aggress against your person or property without actually aggressing (or threatening to aggress) against something physical!"
Well isn't a DVD physical? If you use it without owner's authorization - you commit a trespass. If you choose to use in a manner that assumes full ownership (expensive commercial uses) you commit a tort (a financial injury in the amount of unpaid use). Once again, you can't go into Hertz, take their car and then refuse to pay for your rent - claiming that you didn't damage their vehicle.
If you were not so ignorant, you would know that slave contracts have nothing to do with our DVD example. Imagine that I really sold you my lifetime of servitude - but then I changed my mind. You cannot force me to work (enslave me), but just like a Hollywood actor, I would be responsible to pay you the amount that would allow my employer to find a substitute, plus punitive damages. In our DVD example - there is no enslavement - a contract violator does not owe labor, but real property (specified damages) and that is the part of total price that both side voluntarily agreed upon.
And don't make me laugh with your lies that in "my world" people would not own anything. Quite the opposite! In a perfectly libertarian world you would not be able to violate property rights of other people - you would not be able to pay for rent, and than assume full ownership of another's property.
Published: February 23, 2007 4:20 PM
Sasha Radeta
Francisco,
You must be really confused. You just confirmed that price can be zero when something is given away for free. Subjective satisfaction from giving is not a part of monetary price. Anyway... You even lack basic intuition, since you are ignorant of basic economics:
Imagine that government forces us to give away goods for free (asked price is zero) and that there are no subjective benefits to supplier. If demand exceeds supply in such scenario – than we have the evidence that this object is scarce.
Why am I mentioning this "zero-price" scenario? Poor Francisco asked "were goods NOT scarce before the price was set to zero." Well that's exactly my point! Before markets even occurred and Stone Age hunter-gatherers used resources for free (price is zero) there was a shortage and conflict for certain goods (demand exceeded supply).
So you can always check whether something is rivalrous and scarce by lowering their price to zero and see if there will be shortages and conflicts (like in USSR). That is the basic economic definition and your attempt to refute it is a futile attempt to fight against logic.
But enough with that...
FRANCISCO SAID:
"You twist von Mises words, Sasha. The services derived from an object are those that are rivalrous and scarce themselves, like for example a hammer hitting a nail in my roof."
That just demonstrates more of your ignorance of economics. The commercial use of a DVD, like replication rights, right to rent it, broadcast it, etc. cost a lot of money because people demand such use above supply if price was zero.
FRANCISCO CONTINUED:
"The book is not the writer's property. You are mistaken here. When you go out to buy books, you buy to own them, not to NOT own them."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?!?! So even if someone purchases only limited use of someone's item.... if they rent it and sign a contract which specifies their allowed use, you claim that you can wipe yourself with that contract and just assume full ownership. Please, try to assume full ownership over a car that you rent at Hertz! Let me know how that went!
FRANCISCO ALSO SAID:
"If in fact you believe that the books and CDs you purchase are NOT owned by you, then you should look out your door for the police, every time you lend a book or a CD, since you would be doing so without the originator's permission."
Are completely out of your mind? If I lend my book to someone and that person assumes he is now a publisher and a co-owner of that book, and starts making unauthorized copies - he is committing a tort against the rightful owner. Who will call police is not our subject here.
Published: February 23, 2007 4:21 PM
Sasha Radeta
Marcus,
If I rightfully own something, thanks to my right of first possession, I get the right to control all services that can be derived from that good. Only completely insane person would argue that a rightful owner would not have a right to rent his property and to contractually arrange how that property will be used by this customer. That is not only common law - but common sense.
I agree with your assertion that courts today are different, since we're moving toward socialism.
Published: February 23, 2007 4:23 PM
Sasha Radeta
And one more time for Marcus:
Copyright contract would not declare that some "knowledge" in user's brain would belong to the original author... The ownership of any replicas from that user would become the property of the original, based on the specified damages portion of the contract, which user accepted voluntarily in order to obtain the personal use of that product.
When we don't have a contract, but someone "borrows" my property without asking me and assumes full ownership, we're talking about trespass and tort. If he doesn't return it, then we have a larceny.
Published: February 23, 2007 4:29 PM
Cosmin
"If I rightfully own something, thanks to my right of first possession, I get the right to control all services that can be derived from that good."
Very true. How does it apply? Well, your good being a DVD containing a dance routine in our current example, I have to get your permission to view, or hold a public projection, or play frisbee with, or dig graves with your DVD.
However, the idea of a dance, that is conincidentally contained on that same DVD, is not your property, since ideas are not property. Hence, after someone has seen your dance, the idea is also in his brain and you have no right to control any service that can be derived from that idea.
Published: February 23, 2007 5:52 PM
Sasha Radeta
Cosmin,
You say that someone has a right to control services that can be derived from his brain - which is true.
Of course, someone can use his own body (services that could be derived from it) to produce a good that were purchased in advance by someone else. Likewise, conditionally transferred property legally belongs to person who holds legal title based on the contract and it does not necessarily belong to its manufacturer.
Published: February 23, 2007 10:23 PM
Sasha Radeta
Going back to my DVD example... As a DVD author facing the breach of my contract, I would never claim the control over someone's brain or services/labor produced by his body. I only hold ownership title in contractually specified damages (real physical property), because the other side in that contract entitled me to it in our contract (part of my asked price for DVD use). That's all...
Published: February 23, 2007 10:34 PM
Francisco Torres
You just confirmed that price can be zero when something is given away for free.
Did I?
Subjective satisfaction from giving is not a part of monetary price
Who is talking about monetary price?
Imagine that government forces us to give away goods for free (asked price is zero) and that there are no subjective benefits to supplier
Price would not be zero, Sasha - a government has to invest in a coercion apparatus in order to extract goods from the citizens. It is clear there is a value and a price for those goods - they do not become all of a sudden "zero price". Also, I do not know why you want to beat the same dead horse: things do not suddenly become scarce BECAUSE they are given a "zero price" (an a posteriori argument), but because the resources needed to create them are finite (a priori argument, or Austrian).
If demand exceeds supply in such scenario – than we have the evidence that this object is scarce.
And ONLY then? You mean we cannot know before then?
So you can always check whether something is rivalrous and scarce by lowering their price to zero and see if there will be shortages and conflicts (like in USSR). That is the basic economic definition and your attempt to refute it is a futile attempt to fight against logic.
No, I simply do not see the need to go to all that trouble (set things to zero price) to conclude that which is obvious. The aprioristic approach is a bit less messy.
That just demonstrates more of your ignorance of economics. The commercial use of a DVD, like replication rights, right to rent it, broadcast it, etc. cost a lot of money because people demand such use above supply if price was zero.
Sasha, you are begging the question - you readily assume that demand will outstrip supply of something regardless of the desirability of the good. You are also bringing up replication rights which would be pertinent ownership of contents (which you stated are against). Are we talking about the scarcity of such goods as books and DVDs, or about the ideas contained in them?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?!?! So even if someone purchases only limited use of someone's item.... if they rent it and sign a contract which specifies their allowed use, you claim that you can wipe yourself with that contract and just assume full ownership.
No, if I agreed to rent a thing, I would not assume full ownership. You are however avoiding the issue, since I have not talked about renting a book but buying one. Renting is not the same as Buying. I do not see how you can confuse the two.
If I buy a DVD with a dance steps, I do not buy it expecting NOT to own it. If I Rent a DVD, I do have the expectation that I have to return it.
Are completely out of your mind?
Is it necessary to use such language?
If I lend my book to someone and that person assumes he is now a publisher and a co-owner of that book, and starts making unauthorized copies - he is committing a tort against the rightful owner. Who will call police is not our subject here.
Sasha, again you want it both ways - what do you mean by "unauthorized copies"? Copying a book would mean copying the content - so, again, are arguing about the ownership of content (ideas) or of the very media that contains them? Because copying a thing is NOT stealing a thing, if that is what you are getting at.
Published: February 23, 2007 10:58 PM
Francisco Torres
I only hold ownership title in contractually specified damages (real physical property), because the other side in that contract entitled me to it in our contract (part of my asked price for DVD use). That's all...
Only if both parties agreed to such a thing. However, the process of buying means the exchange of titles of ownership - I BUY something, I get to OWN it. The supplier now OWNS my money. You want to extend ownership of a thing to the producer as if by the very fact he or she produced it, the buyer cannot hope to own it. That is nonsense - no market could function in such a way.
Published: February 23, 2007 11:03 PM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, you aren't responding to my question, so I'll second Francisco Torres' question:
Sasha, again you want it both ways - what do you mean by "unauthorized copies"? Copying a book would mean copying the content - so, again, are arguing about the ownership of content (ideas) or of the very media that contains them? Because copying a thing is NOT stealing a thing, if that is what you are getting at.
The same holds true for the Dance-Man and his concert. I want to know how his concert has done anything beyond copying the content of your DVD.
Published: February 23, 2007 11:10 PM
Sasha Radeta
Francisco,
You are clearly confusing value with price! Something can be valuable to people who pay nothing to obtain it (price they pay is ZERO) - but when demand exceeds supply at this zero charge - we say that we have scarcity. These conditions existed before markets and private property took place... Again, you are confusing prices with value (subjective category), and you keep showing how much you're clueless about basic economics.
Back to our topic....
FRANCISCO SAID:
------
"If I buy a DVD with a dance steps, I do not buy it expecting NOT to own it. If I Rent a DVD, I do have the expectation that I have to return it."
--------
NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR EXECTATIONS. Because of silly statements like this I lost my patience and started with questions about your sanity. We do not care about what you expect - but what your contractual obligations (that you voluntary accepted in a market exchange) state! Unless you're a publisher/co-owner, for much less money you only buy limited use of someone else's good. If you think that you obtained "full control of all services that can be derived from a good" (definition of ownership) - you are clearly wrong! Your contract allows you only limited kind of use, because that is all you bought!
FRANCISCO ASKED:
------
"Copying a book would mean copying the content - so, again, are arguing about the ownership of content (ideas) or of the very media that contains them?"
-------
WRONG! In cases of copyright contracts, the ownership over unauthorized replicas transfers to the original author ONLY because this is stated in your free-market contract (damages portion).
When it comes to situations in which someone "borrows" my unique work of authorship and then makes unauthorized replicas - I never claimed that I could legally own these copycat items!!! I would only sue this person for tort, because he used expensive co-ownership rights for free. He owes me whatever I normally get from publishers for such use.
Published: February 24, 2007 9:30 AM
Sasha Radeta
FRANCISCO ALSO SAID:
------
"I BUY something, I get to OWN it. The supplier now OWNS my money. You want to extend ownership of a thing to the producer as if by the very fact he or she produced it, the buyer cannot hope to own it. That is nonsense - no market could function in such a way."
----------
Again, you write total nonsense. If you buy only certain services from someone - that does not mean that you own his property with which he provides you that service. When you "own" something, this means you have a full control of all services that can be derived from that good. You simply don't buy something like that when it comes to unique works - because the authors would choose to have it that way. You would only buy limited use of their items. That's how markets for unique inventions would function. The end.
Published: February 24, 2007 9:31 AM
Sasha Radeta
DAN ASKED:
---------
"The same holds true for the Dance-Man and his concert. I want to know how his concert has done anything beyond copying the content of your DVD."
---------
It hasn't done anything beyond that.
In case of copyright contracts, this action represents contractual breach that would be sanctioned according to the word of that contract (that's the total price this Dance-Man paid).
In cases of "borrowed" and unauthorized use of DVD, we talk about tort - and not the ownership over someone's dance moves (trespasser is free to do those concerts, but he still owes the amount of money that producers pay for the full ownership of that DVD, the ownership he unlawfully assumed).
Published: February 24, 2007 9:33 AM
Dan Coleman
Sasha,
You write: "You cannot unilaterally decide that contract is void. You basically exchanged any of your future (unauthorized) copies and some money - to obtain the personal use of someone's property (like DVD). Transaction is complete and that's the end of it."
My apologies, for that is certainly not "the end of it." (Poor Sasha). I can "unilaterally" decide to end ANY contract WHENEVER I see fit. When it comes to exchanged property, I must be ready to make restitution for ANY physical property that was transfered in the original contract.
There is a difference, however, between transferred or exchanged property and a *promise* of future exchanges or services (or actions). This is what you are failing to distinguish. It is all fine and good if I promise in our contract NOT to use the DVD's content in the future. I might *promise* to pay you any "damages" from such use. But to claim ownership on promised future actions -- even if I renege in the meantime -- is to declare me your slave. You are claiming ownership over something that is inalienable to me: i.e. my mind and body.
You obviously have denied this, and hence you are able to write this:
"Even if you convince the DVD's owner to do another transaction, in which he will give you back your money - and get back his DVD - he would still insist that any replication of his material will belong to him. If you don't think that's fair, don't exchange it back."
Oh really? Actually, if the DVD owner doesn't want to face the risk of seeing IDEAS and CONTENT emulated, he ought to keep those ideas to him or herself! A DVD producer might insist on contractual promises, but life is full of risk and that is no reason to suppose that such promises will be kept come hell or high water.
In order to back these contractual promises legally (that is, with force), you *must* claim ownership over someone else's person.
This paragraph finally brought what I suspected you believed to the forefront. I've deleted the personal attacks, which were your most "persuasive" tool, so I apologize if the argument now looks quite weak ;)
". . .you would know that slave contracts have nothing to do with our DVD example. Imagine that I really sold you my lifetime of servitude - but then I changed my mind. You cannot force me to work (enslave me), but just like a Hollywood actor, I would be responsible to pay you the amount that would allow my employer to find a substitute, plus punitive damages. In our DVD example - there is no enslavement - a contract violator does not owe labor, but real property (specified damages) and that is the part of total price that both side voluntarily agreed upon."
As always, my friend, a little Rothbard will cure what ails you:
"Let us take a seemingly more difficult case. Suppose that a celebrated movie actor agrees to appear at a certain theater at a certain date. For whatever reason, he fails to appear. Should he be forced to appear at that or at some future date? Certainly not, for that would be compulsory slavery. Should he be forced, at least, to recompense the theater owners for the publicity and other expenses incurred by the theater owners in anticipation of his appearance? No again, for his agreement was a mere promise concerning his inalienable will, which he has the right to change at any time."
and again:
"Let us illustrate this point. Suppose that Smith and Jones make a contract, Smith giving $1000 to Jones at the present moment, in exchange for an IOU of Jones, agreeing to pay Smith $1100 one year from now. This is a typical debt contract. What has happened is that Smith has transferred his title to ownership of $1000 at present in exchange for Jones agreeing now to transfer title to Smith of $1100 one year from now. Suppose that, when the appointed date arrives one year later, Jones refuses to pay. Why should this payment now be enforceable at libertarian law? Existing law (which will be dealt with in greater detail below) largely contends that Jones must pay $1100 because he has “promised” to pay, and that this promise set up in Smith’s mind the “expectation” that he would receive the money.
"Our contention here is that mere promises are not a transfer of property title; that while it may well be the moral thing to keep one’s promises, that it is not and cannot be the function of law (i.e., legal violence) in a libertarian system to enforce morality (in this case the keeping of promises). Our contention here is that Jones must pay Smith $1100 because he had already agreed to transfer title, and that nonpayment means that Jones is a thief, that he has stolen the property of Smith. In short, Smith’s original transfer of the $1000 was not absolute, but conditional, conditional on Jones paying the $1100 in a year, and that, therefore, the failure to pay is an implicit theft of Smith’s rightful property."
So, Sasha, if what Rothbard is saying is correct, you are conflating morality with legal obligations. I understand the plight of the DVD owner, but that does not give him or her rights over someone else's body.
I encourage you to read 'The Ethics of Liberty.' Here is the chapter that I was quoting from:
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nineteen.asp
And here is the book in full:
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
This conversation isn't about "winning" a debate (well, not for me, anyway). I'm interested in the truth, and I find Rothbard persuasive here. Between your personal attacks and claims of victory over ignorance, I have yet to see the philosophical substance needed to explain the difficulties that arrive in forcing others to pay for "damages" in the sense that you are using the term.
Published: February 24, 2007 9:57 AM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, you answered to an earlier post as follows:
"In case of copyright contracts, this action represents contractual breach that would be sanctioned according to the word of that contract (that's the total price this Dance-Man paid)."
So you are able to file suit based on what would have been a contract had the person obtained the content or idea from you in exchange. Unfortunately, you haven't shown how the Dance-Man has actually done anything more than copy an idea or bit of content. The most you can claim, at this point, is that he saw your DVD without buying it. Therefore, you could charge Smith (that is, Dance-Man's friend who "rented" the DVD from you) the price of one DVD. But you cannot force Dance-Man to buy into a contract that he never agreed to.
Your lawsuit still assumes that you have some kind of ownership of that specific content or idea, as far as it pertains to Dance-Man. I still need you to show me how he has done anything more than copy an idea. At most, it seems to me, you have a DVD's-renting's-worth of beef with Smith (Dance-Man's friend). Can you show how Dance-Man has done anything more than copy an idea?
Published: February 24, 2007 10:22 AM
Sasha Radeta
Dan, poor Dan,
I am sorry, but you cannot unilaterally invalidate any contract (exchange of property titles). If that was possible, you could invalidate any market exchange.
If you accept a contract in which any replicas of my DVD become my property, in exchange for personal use of my DVD - that's the end of it. You can't lawfully say: "oh, I used your DVD (your side of the bargain) - but when it comes to my side, I will decide to confiscate the property for which you hold a legal title".
You were not capable of understanding Rothbard and you clearly don't understand why Dr. Kinsella attacked my and Rothbard's position.
Rothbard stated that you cannot force someone to work, because labor is unalienable (you cannot enslave him). And I agree with that 100%. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR DVD EXAMPLE! I also agree with Rothbard that my mere promise to pay you 100 dollars tomorrow is not enforceable contract, since there is no market exchange there!!!!
Excuse my honesty, but you were not capable of understanding that in case of your DVD use - there was an exchange of property titles! You paid money and conditionally transferred title to any replicas that you may produce, in exchange for the specified services you may derive from my DVD. If you take my services - but you decide not to keep your end of the deal - that's nothing but a theft!
ROTHBARD SAID, and you missed to understand it:
"the only enforceable contracts (i.e., those backed by the sanction of legal coercion) should be those where the failure of one party to abide by the contract implies the theft of property from the other party. In short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill it is an implicit theft of property."
In your Dance-Man example, he satisfied the condition (violation in terms of use) which entitled the DVD author to specified damages. These damages now belong to the author - it's his property based on a voluntary market transaction. You can't change terms of exchange unilaterally, because that's nothing but a theft (promising someone one set of goods before service is provided - but then only delivering small part of your deal)... If you don't understand that, you are clearly "differently able" and we can't have real communication.
Published: February 24, 2007 12:45 PM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, let's be clear about this. You write:
"in case of your DVD use - there was an exchange of property titles! You paid money and conditionally transferred title to any replicas that you may produce, in exchange for the specified services you may derive from my DVD. If you take my services - but you decide not to keep your end of the deal - that's nothing but a theft!"
In the first place, our example involves Dance-Man and his friend Smith. In your world, Smith has paid "rent" money to use and watch the DVD, and has promised NOT to replicate its content. Dance-Man, his friend, watches the DVD at Smith's house, has made no contract with you, and replicates an IDEA from the DVD. Unless you own the idea, you may not sue him for physical trespassing. This is the nth time I've asked for an example as to how his trespass was physical; I have yet to see why this is so.
In fact, you have admitted that Dance-Man's actions have not done anything beyond copying an idea:
"[Dan writes]:"The same holds true for the Dance-Man and his concert. I want to know how his concert has done anything beyond copying the content of your DVD."
"[Sasha answers]: "In cases of "borrowed" and unauthorized use of DVD, we talk about tort - and not the ownership over someone's dance moves (trespasser is free to do those concerts, but he still owes the amount of money that producers pay for the full ownership of that DVD, the ownership he unlawfully assumed)."
Dance-Man has never entered into a contract with Sasha, he has made no physical breach (instead we must talk about what "would have been" IF a contract *were* used). It would be great to see how it goes beyond copying an idea.
Secondly, let us suppose that Smith, and not Dance-Man, put on his concert. But before he ever conceived of working his concert, he decided that he no longer wanted to "rent" the DVD from the producer and be under that contract. To be sure, Smith has promised not to copy the DVD's content, but he wishes to end this association with the producer.
Before you object that none of this matters since future copies of the idea *already* belong to Sasha, consider Rothbard's example once again:
"Suppose that Smith and Jones make a contract, Smith giving $1000 to Jones at the present moment, in exchange for an IOU of Jones, agreeing to pay Smith $1100 one year from now. This is a typical debt contract. What has happened is that Smith has transferred his title to ownership of $1000 at present in exchange for Jones agreeing now to transfer title to Smith of $1100 one year from now. Suppose that, when the appointed date arrives one year later, Jones refuses to pay. Why should this payment now be enforceable at libertarian law? Existing law (which will be dealt with in greater detail below) largely contends that Jones must pay $1100 because he has “promised” to pay, and that this promise set up in Smith’s mind the “expectation” that he would receive the money."
Potential future copies cannot be considered property that has been transferred because they do not exist yet! By its nature, your copyright scheme involves the promise that any future copies will be the liability of Smith.
Using Sasha's reasoning, we would take Rothbard's example and say that Jones' $1100 after a year belongs to Smith because the transfer was made at the signing of the contract. Jones' gave up rights to that future good and it became the property of Smith from day one; therefore, Jones' MUST pay Smith the $1100 or face a lawsuit with damages.
In the same way, my dance-DVD example Smith might purchase 'watching' services of your DVD and agree that he will surrender any future replications or the value of future replications should he use the product in a way that you do not approve of. You have assumed that this involves a transfer, but unfortunately this is only a promise to surrender future goods. Should Smith change his mind, that is nothing that Sasha could sue him over.
And so it seems to me that in the case of Dance-Man, the 3rd man not under contract, nothing more than copying of an idea is the case. Further, Smith himself can be set free from the demands of Sasha should he decide to cancel the contract, provided that he restore the original terms of the deal to Sasha should he want it (in this case, the physical DVD).
Published: February 24, 2007 2:46 PM
Francisco Torres
If you buy only certain services from someone - that does not mean that you own his property with which he provides you that service.
Excuse me? Since when has the purchase of media (like a DVD with dance steps, for instance) become "providing a service"? Care to explain how that works?
The producers of a DVD with dance steps are NOT providing a service, Sasha. They are providing a product - a convenient media that carries information. A service is labour applied to a thing for a price - like fixing my roof. Except it is still MY roof. The book, the dvd, are NOT services, since labour was applied a priori, the same as when producing bolts and screws.
When you "own" something, this means you have a full control of all services that can be derived from that good. You simply don't buy something like that when it comes to unique works - because the authors would choose to have it that way.
You're begging the question. You just assume it is so in order to prove it is so. It does not matter what the authors chose, because when they sell (exchange) their work they are exchanging titles of ownership.
Also, your contention would make art resalers become instant thiefs, when obtaining a profit out of selling a painting, for example - the profit not being obtained by the author.
You would only buy limited use of their items.
I would? How come? Again, you are begging the question - you just assume it to be so in order to argue that it is so. Saying that a thing is a "unique work" does not ipso facto make it different than any other good in a market. Saying that because it is a "unique work" I only have a limited access to it is ludicrous. My home IS a unique work by the strictest definition of the word, yet that does not mean I do NOT own it in its entirely.
Also, the term "unique work" seems too much a subjective term. Care to explain what constitutes a "unique work", and what does not? Who decides this, you? Me? The producer? God?
That's how markets for unique inventions would function. The end.
What is a "unique" invention?
Published: February 24, 2007 9:16 PM
Sasha Radeta
DAN SAID:
----
Dance-Man, his friend, watches the DVD at Smith's house, has made no contract with you, and replicates an IDEA from the DVD. Unless you own the idea, you may not sue him for physical trespassing. This is the nth time I've asked for an example as to how his trespass was physical; I have yet to see why this is so.
------
No, poor Dan. Trespassing is by definition UNAUTHORIZED USE of someone else's property. Since DVD is mine, and Dance-Man used it without my permission - he committed a trespass.
DAN SAID:
----------
"Potential future copies cannot be considered property that has been transferred because they do not exist yet!
Using Sasha's reasoning, we would take Rothbard's example and say that Jones' $1100 after a year belongs to Smith because the transfer was made at the signing of the contract."
--------
Not true. People pay for goods in advance all the time and they hold property titles for such goods. You're probably just a teenager, so you have no idea about this.
In Rothbard's example of debt contract - there is no market exchange. If I just promise you the payment of $1,000 tomorrow, I can just break my promise, since you did not provide me any good or service in return.
ON THE OTHER HAND, when I sell you a DVD, you contractually agree to pay me $14.99 for limited personal use ONLY! You also agreed in that contract that if you decide to assume full ownership of my DVD - you must pay specified damages.
What poor Dan is trying to argue is that you can simply take someone's service - and then not keep your end of the bargain when it comes to paying for it. That is completely insane.
Published: February 24, 2007 9:52 PM
Sasha Radeta
FRANCISCO SAID:
-----
Excuse me? Since when has the purchase of media (like a DVD with dance steps, for instance) become "providing a service"? Care to explain how that works?
-------
Poor Francisco, using any good is nothing more than using the services it can provide. Remember how Mises defined ownership:
"Ownership means full control of the services that can be derived from a good."
Now, if someone contractually allows you to conditionally use his apartment - that does not mean that you become the owner of that apartment. Likewise, when a DVD seller allows you a limited use of his property, you don't become its full owner with an unrestricted use. Furthermore, a copyright contract would actually specify damages that you AGREE to pay if you assume more expensive kinds of use (like commercial use).
FRANCISCO:
---
"It does not matter what the authors chose, because when they sell (exchange) their work they are exchanging titles of ownership."
------
Nope. Again, read your terms of use. If the author is not selling you full control of services that can be derived from that good - he is not giving you the ownership title of his property. Imagine if people say: "it doesn't matter what my landlord says - we exchanged titles of ownership and now his flat belongs to me!" HEY!!! IT DOES MATTER WHAT THE CONTRACT SAYS - and that is exactly what's exchanged in a market transaction. You did not obtain the ownership of copyrighted work, if the author chose to sell you only limited services that can be derived from that good.
And you may be allowed to resell your limited use to someone else - but you cannot sell ownership title which you don't have.
FRANCISCO:
---
"My home IS a unique work by the strictest definition of the word, yet that does not mean I do NOT own it in its entirely."
-----
Who said you don't own your home??? What are you hallucinating about?
FRANCISCO:
-----
What is a "unique" invention?
-----
It is a radically distinctive invention and without equal. It means that the author could prove whether someone replicated his work, which becomes important in cases of unauthorized use. If I get caught distributing the book "Democracy - The God that Failed," it would be relatively easy for Dr. Hoppe to prove that I used his work contrary to the word of our contract (I used the services for which I didn't pay for... I failed to respect demands of the books rightful owner, which I contractually accepted)... On the other hand - someone will probably not be able to prove that someone replicated their drawing of a transparent cube.
Published: February 24, 2007 10:22 PM
Cosmin
We've been over this before Sasha. Stop fraudulently calling your "limited services transaction" a sale and watch the free market pass it buy. Why? Because people prefer to buy things, and own them.
And also, the right to make use of an idea in my brain, regardless of its origin, is UNALIENABLE!
Published: February 24, 2007 11:10 PM
Cosmin
That should've read: "watch the free market pass it by."
I'm off to bed.
Published: February 24, 2007 11:13 PM
Sasha Radeta
Cosmin,
It is so common for socialist to speak in the name of society's will, but I actually agree with you on this one! Yes, people prefer to own everything, but that does not mean that they are able to afford everything. Not everyone is able to own everything - especially not many new inventions (ownership/co-ownership rights for these are pricy). Fortunately for them, people who have ownership rights make money by allowing people to have limited use of their property, using many different arrangements, including contractual terms of use.
There is nothing fraudulent about that. Quite the opposite - it's people like Dan who advocate the fraud... For example he thinks that someone who uses some kind of service restricted by contract should not pay the price that this contract demands (basically, he wants to fool the owner once he obtains the good). If we followed that logic, I could contractually promise you that you'll get $50 do moan my lawn, and in case you clear my lawn from crabgrass (weed) pay you $500 - BUT once you satisfy both conditions to simply "change my mind" and declare contract void, depriving you of your earned money. Now that's fraudulent - just like it would be fraudulent to keep property (specified damages) that belongs to someone else after I used that person's good (and we both agreed to this exchange prior to that use).
Published: February 25, 2007 12:25 AM
greg
The irony of intellectual property is that it is not intellectually supportable. Again in this thread we see this simple fact in high relief.
Published: February 25, 2007 12:46 PM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, Dance-Man was invited over by a friend to watch a DVD, which I would suppose was a legal use on Smith's part (or will all DVD producers in a free market restrict use of their product to one person's viewing?(!!) You should really consider Francisco's objections on these kinds of considerations, since while I'm willing to assume the crazy 'house rules' of your "free market" -- because I see deeper systemic problems -- he isn't taking them for granted). Your contract with Smith of not reproducing the DVD's content is not binding on Dance-Man.
In other words, you make a contract with Smith that he will not reproduce the DVD.
Smith (lawfully) shows Dance-Man the DVD.
Dance-Man takes the CONTENT, that is, the IDEA, from the DVD, and -- not being under contract with you -- uses the IDEA only to make money.
Unless you can show that you own the idea, or that Dance-Man did something other than copy an IDEA (still waiting on that one), I don't see how you have any philosophical substance to back up your point.
Your objections:
"In Rothbard's example of debt contract - there is no market exchange. If I just promise you the payment of $1,000 tomorrow, I can just break my promise, since you did not provide me any good or service in return."
Unfortunately, in Rothbard's example, there was "a good or service in return" for the re-payment with interest. When Jones lends Smith $1,000 and expects $1,100 next year, don't forget that he has lent Smith $1,000 in the meantime!
That is why this next objection is invalid:
"ON THE OTHER HAND, when I sell you a DVD, you contractually agree to pay me $14.99 for limited personal use ONLY! You also agreed in that contract that if you decide to assume full ownership of my DVD - you must pay specified damages."
No, there is a promise that Smith (and not Dance-Man, by the way . . . you continue to conflate the two characters) will give you future copies should he make them. While it may be moral for Smith to follow up on that promise, you cannot sue him for anything more than the physical property that was part of the original exchange. For example, in the case of Jones and Smith the original amount was $1,000, and in this example there was an exchange of money and a DVD.
"Dan is trying to argue is that you can simply take someone's service - and then not keep your end of the bargain when it comes to paying for it. That is completely insane."
If you decide to renege your promise of a service, you can be taken to court for the original terms of the deal (that is, the physical property involved). You are suggesting that Dance-Man, never involved legally in contract, will be forced to pay the "market price" of content ownership . . . which coincidentally can be set to *any* price.
But I'm glad to see that debate isn't the only tool in your box. You should probably stick with calling others teenagers, or ignorant, or insane (because clearly, in that case, you enjoy spending your time talking to them . . . right?). You are gaining far more ground with your logical fallacies than any other aspect of your writing.
Published: February 25, 2007 1:05 PM
Dan Coleman
I wrote this:
"No, there is a promise that Smith (and not Dance-Man, by the way . . . you continue to conflate the two characters) will give you future copies should he make them. While it may be moral for Smith to follow up on that promise, you cannot sue him for anything more than the physical property that was part of the original exchange. For example, in the case of Jones and Smith the original amount was $1,000, and in this example there was an exchange of money and a DVD."
And I should add that, in my example, Smith has decided to cancel his association with you. He wil return the DVD or whatever physical property you own, should you want it. You can no longer consider Smith as bound to follow your rules than you could claim that a free man was your slave.
This is another point that I don't think you've fully appreciated as you've made responses.
Published: February 25, 2007 1:08 PM
Sasha Radeta
Greg,
We actually see your whining. Copyright is based on private property rights and that's why it is so easy to intellectually destroy its opponents. Now look what happens to Dan's attempts:
-----
Dan,
In you DVD example, a person who watches DVD without any contract or permission from DVD's owner is doing an unauthorized use. "Unauthorized use" is also called "trespass." There is nothing so terrible about that, since accidental trespasses occur often and there is no injury involved... BUT in your example your unauthorized viewer decides to obtain financial gains from that trespass, making that unauthorized use more expensive.
YOU FAILED TO SEE THE OBVIOUS! In Rothbard's example, when person decides to cancel his promise NO EXCHANGE OF PHYSICAL PROPERTY TOOK PLACE. There was no theft - only exchange of promises.
In DVD example, you first decided to use restricted services for which you have to pay a high price based on your valid contract - but then you decide that you don't want to pay anything and that contract no longer applies to you!?!?! That's nothing but a theft!
It's like my lawn example in which I pay you $50 to mow my lawn, but I promise you $500 more if you clear it from crabgrass weed... But once you satisfy both conditions, I say: "I cancel my association with you - I'm not paying you a dime more"... You just don't have capability or even some intuition to realize that in your DVD example you use a specifically mentioned service - but you refuse to pay its price (you only paid the smaller price for a specific, limited use).
I am sorry for calling you a teenager, but I wanted to believe that you are one - rather than an adult with a severe handicap when it comes to reasoning.
Published: February 25, 2007 4:53 PM
Sasha Radeta
Also Dan, why do you think Rothbard was a great supporter of copyright contracts? I'll tell you - he was intelligent enough to understand that they are enforceable contracts. These contracts determine the price someone must pay for certain kind of use - ONLY AFTER that kind of use takes place.
The fact that you wanted to use Rothbards contractual theory against his brilliant application of it (my copyright position) simply shows the level of your sanity.
Published: February 25, 2007 5:01 PM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, what you are saying is that Smith was wrong to show the DVD to Dance-Man in the first place, and that everyone who views the DVD is liable to pay the producer for the "service" of viewing the DVD producer's property, i.e. the DVD.
You say that Rothbard was a brilliant defender of copyright. I am familiar with Rothbard's support of copyright in Man, Economy, and State. What's interesting to me is that Rothbard speaks of conditional purchasing, rather than "renting" goods out -- it seems that one cannot hold your position on copyrights without also advocating that no one owns a DVD when they buy one!
You will notice, however, that he gives the following qualification about copyrights:
"the acid test by which we judge whether or not a certain practice or law is or is not consonant with the free market is this: Is the outlawed practice implicit or explicit theft? If it is, then the free market would outlaw it; if not, then its outlawry is itself government interference in the free market."
He goes on to show the example of a book producer who sells books to purchasers. Unfortunately, while this form of copyright would hold for the purchaser of the book, it does not hold for a third party.
You have not shown me how the Dance-Man's concert was anything more than copying of an IDEA. The only thing that it seems you have to say is that the very *viewing* of the DVD by Dance-Man was an infringement on physical property!
So, it seems you must say that the purchaser of a DVD would have to agree NOT to show it to non-DVD purchasers, since the DVD is the property of the producer and not, say, Smith. We are a far cry from Rothbard here, who only advocated conditional selling of property.
And, in light of the rest of Rothbard's corpus, it is clear that the kind of copyright you advocate is not part of his idea of the functioning free market. (Notice how you vaguely refer to him rather than showing *how* he advocates what you say he does, e.g. he was intelligent enough to understand that they are enforceable contracts. These contracts determine the price someone must pay for certain kind of use - ONLY AFTER that kind of use takes place. as a particularly blatant example).
I see that you have not gotten beyond name-calling. Unfortunately, I can't keep this conversation up forever, so the next time there is more insult than philosophical substance to a post I'm going to have to call it quits. I'm happy discussing Rothbard -- I can talk about this stuff all day -- but it would be nice to see ideas floating around instead of baseless personal attacks. Cheers.
Published: February 25, 2007 5:55 PM
Peter
While it may be moral for Smith to follow up on that promise, you cannot sue him for anything more than the physical property that was part of the original exchange. For example, in the case of Jones and Smith the original amount was $1,000
But he still has to pay back $1100, not $1000. But not for the reason Sasha thinks. Thus, it might be helpful to look at a variation on Rothbard's example - Jones lends Smith $1000 today in return for a promise to pay back $50,000 next year. Now when Smith wants to break the contract at the end of the year, how much does he have to pay? Sasha will no doubt say "$50,000", because that's the amount in the contract. The Court of Rothbard would say $1100, because that's the original amount at the (assumed) market rate of interest.
Published: February 25, 2007 6:35 PM
Sasha Radeta
Peter,
Why don't you stop with such lies and nonsensical comments? Rothbard intellectually destroyed your leftist position. Like any other leftist, you believe that the courts should allow you to pay any interest rate that is "assumed" in you deranged minds - and not the amount that was actually specified by contract. That's why socialist low-life is trying to ban many lending places or force courts to invalidate their contracts to something that is more "fair".
I support Rothbard's position 100% - because Rothbard was a brilliant defender of contractual copyrights. Contracts are NOT enforceable when there is no movement of goods or services. In case I promise to give you $100,000 for $110,000 a year from now - but I change my mind before I actually give you any money - there is no theft and no harm done.
----
Dan,
In your last to comments you were unable to say anything against my (and Rothbard's) position about enforceable contracts. Copyright contracts ARE enforceable according to Rothbard's definition and that's why he supported them. These contracts only state that you have to pay the price that you agreed upon for certain restricted services (use) of someone else's property.
Hopefully with my lawn example you were finally able to understand how wrong and ridiculous your comments are... but you're still not a man enough to admit it. Instead, now you try (again) with failed attempts to show how these perfectly enforceable contracts would not protect us from third party violations - as if I ever claimed such stupid thing.
You say:
"What's interesting to me is that Rothbard speaks of conditional purchasing, rather than "renting" goods out"
You don't even know what rent is, how it is similar to other purchases of services, and why Rothbard defended copyright contracts - IN WHICH OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY IS NOT SOLD - only the specific services that some good can provide.
You're not listening to any reason or even you own arguments (actually Rothbard's)...
Unauthorized viewing of someone else's DVD is TRESPASS. Unauthorized use is called "trespass" by definition and you cannot do anything about it. There is no need for contract law in your Dance-Man example, since we talk about TORT of financial injury caused by trespass. Tort is an injury OTHER than breach of contract, so there is no need for you to repeat insane comments like: "Unfortunately, while this form of copyright would hold for the purchaser of the book, it does not hold for a third party."
CONTRACTS DON'T HAVE TO HOLD FOR A THIRD PARTY - because third party is restricted from unauthorized use by the virtue of private property rights.
You Say:
"So, it seems you must say that the purchaser of a DVD would have to agree NOT to show it to non-DVD purchasers, since the DVD is the property of the producer and not, say, Smith. We are a far cry from Rothbard here, who only advocated conditional selling of property."
NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO DEFEND THE GREATEST ADVOCATE OF COPYRIGHT FROM HIS OWN POSITION!?!?! Insane!
What you don't understand is that purchaser of certain services does not have to be expressly prohibited from anything when it comes to third party. If a third party commits unintentional trespass (unauthorized use) because he thinks that his neighbor owns that DVD - that is perfectly fine and he doesn't owe anything to anyone. What is not fine is when this trespasser tries to use this unauthorized use to obtain financial gain, because then we have a tort of financial injury to the author.
Published: February 25, 2007 8:32 PM
Peter
you believe that the courts should allow you to pay any interest rate that is "assumed" in you deranged minds
What I meant by "(assumed)" is that it's assumed in the statement of the scenario, not that it should be assumed at the time of payment. At the time of payment, the actual market rate of interest is known. But in writing the example, Rothbard just assumes it's 10% (I'm using Rothbard's figure of $1000 now = $1100 a year from now)
Published: February 26, 2007 4:10 AM
Sasha Radeta
First of all, "market rate" is an arithmetic mean of individual rates - suggesting that individuals pay (and they should pay) different interest rates. There is no reason why courts would become arbiters of people's interest rates -- and it would be a complete contradiction if they would use average of (different) individual rates in reaching such socialist, unjust, and completely insane decision. I guess such court revisions of voluntary, free-market decisions are “freedom” that anti-copyright crowd advocates.
Peter totally misunderstood Rothbard's example, or he is intentionally saying stupid things. ROTHBARD stated:
" Suppose that Smith and Jones make a contract, Smith giving $1000 to Jones at the present moment, in exchange for an IOU of Jones, agreeing to pay Smith $1100 one year from now... Our contention here is that Jones must pay Smith $1100 because he had already agreed to transfer title, and that nonpayment means that Jones is a thief , that he has stolen the property of Smith. In short, Smith’s original transfer of the $1000 was not absolute, but conditional, conditional on Jones paying the $1100 in a year, and that, therefore, the failure to pay is an implicit theft of Smith’s rightful property. "
In other words, Jones should pay $1,100 NOT BECAUSE that was an average interest rate at the time of scheduled delivery of his payout - but simply because SMITH HOLDS PROPERTY TITLE for that particular amount.
Using Rothbards words and reasoning, you can apply similar scenario in contractual copyrights. Transfer of a DVD is not absolute, but conditional. Full use of any copyrighted DVD has its price that is specified by contract. Only after the purchaser decides to transfer such service to himself, property title of specified damages transfers to the original owner.
It is no surprise that Rothbard (who you dared to misinterpret) was one of the greatest defenders of copyright. The fact that you chose Rothbard’s theory to support your anti-property, anti-copyright nonsense only illustrates the state of mind of typical enemies of capitalism.
Published: February 26, 2007 6:19 AM
Jesse
JIMB - "You should more carefully consider the original post: It refutes the entire string of your argument.
I beg to differ.
You would pay a great deal for an 'idea' that would save your life even if it took no labor to develop.
No, I would not pay a great deal for "an idea". I might pay a great deal to get someone else to tell me an idea they have and I do not. Obviously the amount I would pay would depend on the benefit I expected to receive from that communication, not the cost to the other party of producing it; the latter would, however, probably play a part in how much the other party would charge for sharing its knowledge. It would also factor into my estimate of the cost of independently discovering the same idea, which would set an upper limit on the amount I would be willing to pay.
On the other hand, if I already know the idea I wouldn't be willing to pay anything for it. I wouldn't need to, since you can't "use up" an idea. I don't have to worry about "wasting" it, and I can give it away an unlimited number of times and still have full use of it myself. What I value is learning the idea for the first time, not the idea itself. In other words, I value the communication of the idea to me -- but only with regards to ideas I don't already know.
Seriously, to argue that 'discovery' has any bearing whatsoever on value is to invert cause and effect and to argue a Marxian labor theory of value).
Luckily I wasn't trying to say any such thing. Where I said "labor of discovery" try substituting "labor required to discover the idea without assistance from the other party"; that is what I meant. Obviously the labor the other party went through to learn the idea has little or no value to the buyer except as an approximation of the cost of independently learning the same idea.
In any event my unrelated statement regarding the pointlessness of property rights in something which cannot be transformed still stands unchallenged. You are not talking about property rights in an idea per se, the right to prevent others from interfering with your nonaggressive use of the idea -- which is impossible in any event without aggressing against the ownership of your own body, which is much better established -- but rather the "right" to prevent others from benefitting from the idea in ways which do not interfere with your use. That is an "external benefits" argument, and such arguments have been thoroughly demolished many times on this site.
Published: February 26, 2007 10:01 AM
Sione Vatu
Sasha
When I originally asked you about property you wrote that it was that which could be legally owned. At the time, that was your position- that and no more (aside from nonsense like “everyone knows what property is”- that sort of thing). That was the position and given your dependence on legalisms, likely still is.
Subsequently when it was pointed out to you that Von Mises did not support your “legal ownership” as the determinant of what is property, but rather, specifically opposed it, you appear to have looked up Human Action and discovered what Von Mises had written about private property.
Von Mises wrote:
"Ownership means full control of the services that can be derived from a good."
And that’s what you’ve been selectively quoting ever since, claiming that was your position all along. Really? Then why didn’t you answer thus when first asked? Anyway your selective quoting is itself dishonest, for you have evaded what Von Mises was actually explaining.
It was this:
"Ownership means full control of the services that can be derived from a good. This catallactic notion of ownership and property rights is not to be confused with the legal definition of ownership and property rights as stated in the laws of various countries."
He specifically warns not to do as you have done, not to confuse the two separate concepts. Property is NOT defined as that which can be legally owned. Strike one against Sasha.
Von Mises continued: "It was the idea of legislators and courts to define the legal concept of property in such a way as to give to the proprietor full protection by the governmental apparatus of coercion and compulsion and to prevent anybody from encroaching upon his rights. As far as this purpose was adequately realized, the legal concept of property rights corresponded to the catallactic concept. However, nowadays there are tendencies to abolish the institution of private property by a change in the laws determining the scope of the actions which the proprietor is entitled to undertake with regard to the things which are his property. While retaining the term private property, these reforms aim at the substitution of public ownership for private ownership."
You can’t rely on that legal ownership approach at all. Von Mises explicitly challenges it and opposes it. Strike two against Sasha.
Von Mises continued: "This tendency is the characteristic mark of the plans of various schools of Christian socialism and of nationalist socialism."
And he goes on to warn of how this leads to government control etc. So Von Mises explains whom you are sharing your approach with.
That’s strike three! Oh dear!
Right then, so what is demonstrated here is that the legal ownership approach is invalid- specifically opposed by Von Mises. YOU are WRONG! But you are in great company, in with the socialists, national socialists and the like, just as you were warned.
It is clear that once you'd read von Mises you knew your approach was incorrect, yet you attempted to hide it by selective quoting and employing half-truths. That does not make you correct. And the record exposes your deceit.
Conclusion #1: You can't unify what Von Mises was saying with its antithesis. I know that is what you are attempting to do but no amount of equivocations, dissembling or rationalisations will achieve it. You are still wrong.
Conclusion #2: You have been dishonest in your approach to this debate. You wrote what you wrote. It’s on the record. I read it. Others have seen it as well. YOU KNOW you made a grave error. Best to admit the error, face up to it, correct it and learn from the experience. Creating mountains of BS rationalisation does not make your position a valid one. Nor does telling furfies! That’s very naughty of you laddie!
*
As with the example above, the rest your arguments are based on a partial or superficial understanding of the concepts you rely on.
The reason I asked you questions is to prod you in the direction of examining what your position presupposes. In other words, you needed to consider the fundamentals. Half a dozen quick sentences does not mean you understand the import of what you have been asked to consider. Your answers (non-answers more like) are flippant and shallow. In general your contribution goes nowhere except in circles. Property can be owned, ownership is full control of property, full control is legal ownership, legal ownership defines that which is property – formulations similar in structure to that approach.
Conclusion #3: You are attempting to apply the recognition of property to certain goods and services (or entities) in the absence of understanding WHAT the recognition of property is, how it is derived, how it is validated and what context it operates within.
Sasha, in the absence of a uniting principle applied within specified context, arguing compartmentalised concretes does not establish or validate your case. You can cite all the examples and analogies you like but there will always be someone with an example that will frustrate your cherished schemes. That’s what’s been happening to you on the VMI blog. You are experiencing an inability to adequately defend your assertions in the absence of establishing the proper principle. You have not established suitable principles because you do not understand the nature of property (whenever I’ve asked you for this you’ve provided polemics, excuses, evasions, ad hominem etc.).
Conclusion #4: To validate your position you are required to demonstrate that the entities or actions you wish to classify as property ARE indeed property (consider attributes) and hence should be treated as such. That is, that they are properly recognised as property and, as you have written, that they do not violate other peoples’ property rights. Then, you need to show why they are to be associated with a particular party and what the attachment should be- WHY it is valid and why it should be recognised. For example why it is that goods and services you claim full control over in your scheme actually are your property.
*
It's interesting how you keep accusing those who challenge your precious faiths of having mental problems, being communists and so forth. All this serves to demonstrate is that your position is weak and you have little else to offer. Pathetic and degenerate. Try not to be so unpleasant. You really should lift your game.
But in the end I finally lost patience with you Sasha. You wrote this and it is dishonest:
“Anyway - you are advocating free and unrestricted use of someone else's property, since you advocate free violation of contracts that would prevent unwanted commercial use of that property.”
I have not advocated. You are repeating your own untruth. I already pulled you up on that. But this is where it becomes clear that the evidence demonstrates that you’ll shamelessly tell fibs and write anything, just to keep your ego intact. Must be in the genes! You should go back to the place you came from you uncivilised thing! You have nothing.
Sione
PS. your definition of validity omits something important. You need to consider that logic must be grounded upon evidence of reality. Failing that what you have is floating abstration...
And that’s where you go wrong- rationalising on invalid assumption. That’s why I quoted the venerable Rand, “Check your premise.”
Published: February 26, 2007 12:05 PM
Sasha Radeta
Sione,
Why do you feel that need to lie...? I always define property (and I will keep doing so) by the only logical definition: property is physical object that can be legally (lawfully) owned.
Then you asked me what does "own" mean - and I provided you with definition of Ludwig von Mises:
"Ownership means full control of the services that can be derived from a good."
So basically, I did not revise my position for a single sentence! Ownership (right) and property (good claimed by its legal owner) are not synonyms in any Indo-European language. Two definitions I provided perfectly complement each other - and that's why you mumbled incoherently, without disapproving any of my common law applications.
Now we come to diagnosis part: you spent so much space refuting NOTHING, because either you are liar, or seriously challenged individual. I am sorry, but that's the way it is. Your last posting is simply ridiculous.
...........
And we finally come to your final false objection... You dare to say that I don't have "evidence of reality".... HEY!!!! Dan tried to come up with any possible contractual scenario that would invalidate copyright - but he was unsuccessful, simply because Mises' definition of ownership is on my side.
If person OWNS his invention, he has a property right to CONTROL all services that can be derived from his good (look at definition of von Mises once again). That means that he can sell certain services for different price, or restrict certain uses. That's what property rights are all about.
When we apply Mises' definition and Rothbard's contract theory, we can conclude that enforceable contracts can specify that commercial use of some good will cost certain amount of damages, while personal use costs a lot less. At the same time, tort system will protect these owners from unauthorized users who would want to use their trespass for financial gains (and consequent injury to the author).
-----
PS
Comrade Jesse,
you didn’t tell me: do you still claim that trespass only occurs when property is transformed - and do you still support the class struggle of the proletariat...
:))
Published: February 26, 2007 2:46 PM
Peter
Peter totally misunderstood Rothbard's example, or he is intentionally saying stupid things. ROTHBARD stated:
[elided]
In other words, Jones should pay $1,100 NOT BECAUSE that was an average interest rate at the time of scheduled delivery of his payout - but simply because SMITH HOLDS PROPERTY TITLE for that particular amount.
So what's your position on the same scenario with the later payment being $50,000 instead of $1100?
The point is, either party is free is "dissolve" the contract at will - they only have to put the other party back in the position they would have been in had the contract never been made. That means repaying the net present value (at the time of dissolution) of the original $1000 - which is $1000 plus interest accrued (whatever the next-best investment opportunity would have been, as best as can be determined), not $50,000.
Published: February 27, 2007 12:10 AM
Sasha Radeta
No sir.
A party is not free to "dissolve" contract in order to confiscate someone else's rightful property. Property titles exchanged according to the letter of contracts (go to Rothbard's definition of enforceable contracts) - and you cannot reverse the transaction based on your will and some "net present value."
The only way under to invalidate contract according to Rothbard - is to cancel it before any contractual condition of exchange takes place. You totally misunderstood his simple point, which he used to defend copyrights.
Published: February 27, 2007 12:45 AM
Jesse
Since you guys could argue the interpretation of that Rothbardian passage all day, why not look at one of the later passages in the same chapter for clarification?
"For utilitarians shocked at the consequences of this doctrine, it should be noted that many, if not all, of the problems could be easily surmounted in the libertarian society by the promisee’s requiring a performance bond of the promissor in the original agreement. In short, if the theater owners wished to avoid the risk of nonappearance, they could refuse to sign the agreement unless the actor agreed to put up a performance bond in case of nonappearance. In that case, the actor, in the course of agreeing to his future appearance, agrees also to transfer a certain sum of money to the theater owners in case he fails to appear. Since money, of course, is alienable, and since such a contract would meet our title-transfer criterion, this would be a perfectly valid and enforceable contract. For what the actor would be saying is: “If I do not appear at Theater X at such and such a date, I hereby transfer as of the date the following sum ___, to the theater owners.” Failure to meet the performance bond will then be an implicit heft [sic] of the property of the owners. If, then, the theater owners fail to require a performance bond as part of the agreement, then they must suffer the consequences." -- Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 19
It should be clear that if Rothbard intended for contracts involving future transfers of title (rather than "mere promises") to be voidable at will then this passage would be meaningless. What use would a performance bond be if the bondee could simply walk away, owing nothing? No, Rothbard's intent was that transfers of title would be considered binding contracts, and failure to turn over the property at the specified time after the fulfillment of the contract's conditions would be considered theft.
I might note here that it would not be considered violation of the contract; title-transfer contracts cannot be violated. Transfer of title is a single, atomic action; if there is a contract and its conditions are fulfilled then the title has already been transferred, and witholding the property after that point would be theft.
Published: February 27, 2007 8:26 AM
Sasha Radeta
Jesse,
That passage has nothing to do with our topic. It deals with fact that labor is unalienable. So what? Material damages are alienable, and a side in copyright contract only pays them AFTER they use some restricted service that costs that much (according to voluntary agreement). Once again: you can't agree that it will cost you $500 to use some service, and then to say that you "change your mind." The fact is that copyright violators did not change their minds - they already used the restricted service. They are simply refusing to pay for it (deliver someone else's property, for which the title was transferred), which is a theft.
Please stop with these shameless attempts to misinterpret Rothbard. The man was the greatest copyright advocate and he understood his simple and strong theory of contracts much better than you.
Published: February 27, 2007 9:27 AM
Sione Vatu
Sasha
Still at it I see. Dissembling and prevaricating and name calling all over again!
It is indeed characteristic of you to wallow in misquotes, misrepresentation and half-truth. At the time I asked you what you meant by your term "legally owned". Subsequently I explained that your "legally owned" definition opposes the approach taken by von Mises. It still does. You can keep using it all you want but von Mises s specifically warned against it. You're stuffed and you know it.
==
You keep retreating into evasions. You were not asked to repeat assertion or compartmentalised concretes or analogies or even ramble on about scenarios. You were asked to derive from first principles. You can't. Face it!
When I refer to evidence of reality it is to try to get you to avoid using your floating abstractions and circular rationalisations. You shouldn't try to substitute another point for the one being made.
Your problem is that you rely on self-referential circularities. On and on you go about legalisms and contracts and common law and selective quotes etc. Yet you understand little or nothing of the derivation of the ideas that you rely upon. You certainly don't appear to understand the importance of context.
==
You can't keep trying to equivocate the rights you claim, over certain types of entities and services, with ownership. That is something you have to yet to establish. To do that you need to show your derivation for the concept of ownership and validate it. Then you need to show why what you are claiming fits the definition and is valid.
Clue: Appeals to social metaphysics such as "everyone knows" won't make the cut.
==
Going on the evidence of your difficulty understanding von Mises (see previous correspondence above), your habit of selective quotation, your misrepresentation of objections to your arguments, your dissembling & equivocation and your propensity for intellectual degeneracy, there is little point in dealing with you much further. We have come to an impasse. Until you deal with the issues presented to you in an honest manner and THINK about the fundamentals you'll find many objections against what you are presenting. That is something you've experienced on the VMI blog for some time now. You can't justify yourself by considering "everyone is wrong, except me I'm always right". You're ideas are just not that profound or important. They're derivative and the trouble is you don't know or understand the sources...
Sione
Published: February 27, 2007 1:29 PM
Jesse
Sione,
Just do what I did -- block him (or her) out. If you use the Firefox web browser, install the Greasemonkey extension from the offical addins site and add this script to your filter list: http://jessemcdonald.info/~nybble/mises-comments.user.js. (Just follow the link; it will be added automatically.)
Presto, no more Sasha in the sidebar or the comment pages.
It's not really a proper substitute for server-based user ratings (which all the respectable sites have these days), but every little bit helps.
Published: February 27, 2007 2:21 PM
Sasha Radeta
Jesse clearly has some serious issues. After my last posting, in which I politely explained him Rothbard's position he suffers a breakdown. He got so humiliated after that attempt to redefine trespass in communist terms, so he now must protect himself with software against uncomfortable truth.
----
Sione,
In all those sentences you said nothing. The fact is that you lied: I did not change my definition of property and ownership, and I never departed from position of Mises and Rothbard!
I hope you finally understand that "property" (something that can be legally owned) and "ownership" (full control of services that can be derived from a good) - are not synonyms and that there is no contradiction between my definitions of each.
Copyright comes straight from ownership, as it was defined by Mises. If you fully control services that can derive from your good - then you have a right to contractually determine the price for those services (uses), or to restrict unwanted use, with or without contract.
This is so simple that even you understand it (that's why you philosophize about nothing). Now do yourself a favor and stop with substance abuse, which probably made you blab like that.
Published: February 27, 2007 4:17 PM
Peter
It should be clear that if Rothbard intended for contracts involving future transfers of title (rather than "mere promises") to be voidable at will then this passage would be meaningless. What use would a performance bond be if the bondee could simply walk away, owing nothing?
He can't - he has to put the other party back in the position they would have been in had the contract never been made. The theater owner is presumably going to expend some time and money advertising the fact that the performer is going to appear, etc.; the performance bond is just an agreement on the value of "putting him back in the position he would have been in had the contract never been made" (which is not to say that breaking the contract - failing to appear, in this case - shouldn't/won't have repercussions on the performer's reputation...)
Published: February 27, 2007 5:51 PM
Jesse
Peter, what you are describing is the "expectation" theory of contracts, which Rothbard specifically rejected. Thus the last sentence: "If, then, the theater owners fail to require a performance bond as part of the agreement, then they must suffer the consequences." I.e. if the contract does not specify a performance bond -- an enforceable transfer of title to property -- then the theatre owner has no other recourse; the performer has no obligation to "[put] him back in the position he would have been in had the contract never been made".
In any event, your argument would imply that the paragraph I quoted was pointless, since a payment would have been required whether the performance bond was included in the contract or not. Why, then, did Rothbard write that paragraph? It seems to me that he wrote that paragraph because his theory of contracts did not include any implied payment for non-performance, the "putting back" you refer to, and thus an explicit performance bond was required in the contract to achieve the same effect.
Published: February 27, 2007 6:34 PM
Sasha Radeta
Both of you are completely ignorant.
Future transfers of title ARE NOTHING BUT MERE PROMISSES according to Rothbard. If there was no actual transfer of good or service by either side (by satisfaction of some condition of that transfer) - then failure to respect contract does not involve theft.
ON THE OTHER HAND - copyright violations ALWAYS involve title transfer, because violators use some restricted service with specified cost (and they must pay for it)... violators simply satisfy some condition for that transfer of damages that they agreed upon.
It is not a coincidence that Rothbard defended copyright, as a natural extension of his contract and ownership rights theory.
Published: February 27, 2007 8:15 PM
Sione Vatu
Jesse
Yes, I know what you mean. He's not straight that Sasha.
I originally thought that if I could get to the fundamentals of his position, then it would be possible to see whether a reasonable argument to the pro-IP position could be attempted. Then that could be tested (validated). Didn't happen. Once you get beyond a certain point with him there is nothing but circularities, name calling and misrepresentation. Degenerate stuff really.
BTW did you notice how anyone who challenges him is a socialist or a communist or has mental problems or takes drugs or is a fool or writes nothing but rubbish etc. etc. etc. etc. Seems a weak way to explain his position but perhaps that's how thing's are done where he comes from. Not very convincing really. Still I have to admit enjoying the irony of his position. All hail the copyright communist!
Cheers!
Sione
Published: February 28, 2007 1:30 AM
Dan Coleman
Sione wrote:
"BTW did you notice how anyone who challenges him is a socialist or a communist or has mental problems or takes drugs or is a fool or writes nothing but rubbish etc."
Don't forget teenager. :)
I, like you, thought that a trip to the fundamentals of Sasha's position might prove fruitful. What I failed to realize is that, like most internet conversations, the level of dialogue and interaction with Sasha is about equivalent to having a political "debate" on the O'Reilly Factor. There's no interest in exploring an idea with honest philosophical rigour; it's simply one person waiting for the other to finish so that they can have their turn.
Of course, the next time an IP thread starts, Sasha and Person will waltz in and claim immediate victory based on past discussions, leading others to challenge such a claim, and the process will repeat. I got caught this time, but I've learned my lesson.
Published: February 28, 2007 7:37 AM
Scott D
Honestly, I'd like to bring some real insight to light on the subject. "Intellectual property" is a very slippery subject indeed. I'm particularly intrigued by the application of marginal utility theory to ideas and knowledge (throwing aside entertainment for the moment), since first exposure to knowledge can be quite useful, but exposure to the same knowledge a second time will have no or greatly reduced utility. However, that same piece of knowledge will have its full potential utility once more when it is given to someone else, while not reducing in any way its utility to the first person.
I think that a rigorous comparison of ideas to goods and services will also yield some interesting results. It is my hypothesis that ideas have a lot more in common with services than they do with goods, and this perspective really shifts around some of the assumptions being made about ownership and contractual obligation.
As for Sasha, while I respect that he really wants to see his system work, I agree with Sione that he needs to go to the fundamentals and develop a cogent theory before hitting us in the face with his idea repeatedly. This is not a trivial point, as he seems to believe, but a necessary step toward overcoming the objections raised on this board.
Published: February 28, 2007 10:36 AM
greg
Sione, Jesse, Peter, Cosmin, et al,...
I more or less agree with everything you've written except for the part where you took Sasha seriously.
Scott D> ...he needs to go to the fundamentals and develop a cogent theory... This is not a trivial point, ... but a necessary step toward overcoming the objections raised on this board.
It hasn't happened for so long that the only reasonable prediction is that it won't happen. You're right -- it is hardly trivial.
Published: February 28, 2007 11:47 AM
Sascha Radetta
More useless blabbing, completely unrelated to our topic. And these creatures think that they will sound smarter when they use philosophizing, and expressions like "philosophical rigour."
It is interesting that these "philosophically rigorous" comedians are completely ignorant and don't know that:
- terms "property" and "ownership" are not synonyms,
- trespass does not occur only when your property is transformed,
- you cannot invalidate a contract after you satisfy some of its conditions (or you take someone else's good or service, and then decide that you don't want to pay for it),
- term "price" is not synonymous with value,
- economic scarcity occurs when shorage (and potential conflict) exists if we set the prices to zero...
----
People who oppose copyright have a serious problem: they must deny ownership rights. And "ownership" is defined as: full control of services that can be derived from a good.
That means that we can contractually determine prices of certain uses of our property, or to restrict unwanted use. That's all. There's no need for your verbal diarrheas and philosophizing. Rothbard settled this "debate" in just few sentences. Copyright contracts are enforceable - and tort system would protect us from non-contractual (third-party) unauthorized use and its consequences.
Published: February 28, 2007 1:08 PM
Jesse
Just reload the script to work around "Sascha"'s inventive respelling of his/her name. No real trouble.
This is why the forum should have real user accounts and ratings, BTW. Name-based filtering is merely a stopgap measure. Every forum has its share of troublemakers and trolls; without proper filtering constructive discussion rapidly devolves into meaningless babble.
Published: February 28, 2007 1:26 PM
Sasa Radetha
Jesse,
You are probably the only patient here, who needs a computer software to protect him from truth and legitimate questions. It is fun when I bypass your ridiculous measures and still reach you.
---
You still didn't explain: if you say that trespass occurs only when property is "transformed" - do you advocate the "right" of people to move into other people's homes?
If you say that you can ignore the price (specified in your contract) for certain kind of product use - can you also ignore the agreed price for any kind of service that someone provides to you? It is clear that anti-copyright crowd advocates theft, by allowing unrestricted and free ownership (full control of derivable services) of someone else's property.
Published: February 28, 2007 3:04 PM
Scott D
Sasha:
You just lost any semblance of rationality and are behaving like a child. I will choose to ignore you in the future.
Thanks for the suggestion, Jesse.
Published: February 28, 2007 3:29 PM
Sasa R.
In other words, Scott D will not act like a child if he installs a computer software that would remove unpleasant questions. If there were even 20 of you on this thread, the truth would still prevail: copyright comes directly from property rights.
Go, hide now... And thanks for the suggestion Jesse. You're like a force of natural selection that attracts other challenged commies and exposes them.
Published: February 28, 2007 3:39 PM
Sione Vatu
Scott
Re your post regarding application of marginal utility theory to ideas and knowledge
That's interesting. Can you elaborate on the ideas of your post? I'd like to learn more.
Talofa!
Sione
Published: March 1, 2007 12:26 AM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, I'm still not persuaded with your answers. I think the following scenario will help put it into words:
Imagine that Smith buys your dance DVD and enjoys it. Dance-Man goes to Smith's house and asks 'Seen any cool dances lately?' and Smith shows him by dancing. Dance-Man likes the dance, and he goes on and presents his concert, making money, etc.
In what way is Dance-Man liable for anything? "Tort" can't be the first answer, as tort presupposes trespass. And in what way has Dance-Man trespassed? He never used the DVD in question. In what way does his use of that idea surpass a simple use of an idea (as it must in order to qualify for trespass on property)?
Further, if we forget the questions above for a moment and assume that your claims are justified, let's suppose that Dance-Man alters the dance for his concert. At what point does Dance-Man's dance not count as trespass? If he alters 2 moves? What if he does all the moves but presents them out of order? What if he alters half of it and splices / alters the other half? What are the principles of trespass here?
Published: March 1, 2007 8:24 AM
Sasha Radeta
Dan,
First you say: "I'm not persuaded with your answers"... but then you completely change a scenario - to one that I only indirectly covered.
If you are not satisfied with my previous answers, please, go back to our original example in which there is an unauthorized use of Smith's DVD (trespass) and explain what your disagreement is.
Instead - you totally switched from our discussion form trespass and tort to something that is a breach of contract. Good contract will state that any replication or reenactment of DVD's content will cost you a certain amount of damages... And don't say again that this is a claim of ownership over content - because it isn't. Here we only talk about contractual conditions (the purchaser’s actions when it comes to use of that DVD) that would entitle the seller to certain amount of damages.
[On the other hand, if a person who accepted not to replicate DVD's content in any form refuses to admit that he ever showed dance moves to your Dance-Man (and Dance-Man is unable to present this as his defense), the court is likely to rule that he did use that DVD without authorization. Before you use any information for commercial purposes, you better figure out its origin and whether you may be accused of unauthorized use of someone's property (like CD, DVD, book, or whatever else).]
As far as your question about modification of content goes, let's use a simpler example: what happens when I remix a song from someone else's CD, without author's permission? Well, I used his CD without authorization, didn't I? So it's still counts as a trespass. Only if completely change the song, the court may decide that you could have reached that music composition independently - and you are perfectly fine.
[If we apply this to your Dance-Man example, you will se that modifications to content are irrelevant - if you still can connect it to the original work that comes from breach of contract/trespass].
Published: March 1, 2007 11:01 AM
Dan Coleman
Sasha,
Just to clear this first:
"First you say: "I'm not persuaded with your answers"... but then you completely change a scenario - to one that I only indirectly covered.
If you are not satisfied with my previous answers, please, go back to our original example in which there is an unauthorized use of Smith's DVD (trespass) and explain what your disagreement is."
I'm not looking for ad hoc answers to a variety to problems; I'm looking for underlying principles. It shouldn't be surprising when the variables change so that we can see what persists through such change.
"Good contract will state that any replication or reenactment of DVD's content will cost you a certain amount of damages. . ."
(Which is why this system seems as unworkable as mass labor unions and cartels, monopolies, etc. in a free market. The content of books, DVDs, physical objects et. al. -- in short, ideas -- permeate society. Firms insisting that no person may utter the plot of a movie or novel, describe the scenes or characters of a play, explain how something works, etc. will not get far in the market, if they try to make good on those claims. Who will buy a DVD knowing that they may be liable for millions should they share the plot of the movie with someone else?)
Practical considerations aside, however, the 'modification' question does bring in an interesting consequence. Let's say that car makers, for example, would sell their cars with these same contracts not to replicate the content of their invention, etc.
Most innovation in businesses and technology build off of previous innovations or inventions. With these kinds of contracts, capable of roping 3rd parties into legal action (through tort), Ford can sue Toyota for making a car using an improved version of Ford's suspension system. The courts, predisposed to declare someone guilty unless they can show a separate "invention" of the concept, will have to grant Ford all kinds of damage money because Toyota assumed 'full use' of Ford's cars without Ford's permission.
It seems as though we have effectively created patents. Just make sure you have a detailed 'copyright' contract from the first day of sales, and any replication or innovation within the industry can easily be targeted for tort and trespass.
At any rate, I'm still not seeing a compelling reason to involve 3rd parties to something they never agreed to. Smith could be sued for giving "viewing rights" or "knowledge of the content rights" to Dance-Man -- I suppose the cost of a DVD -- but can you show me how Dance-Man is liable for anything here?
Your argument seems to be that if Dance-Man has knowledge of those ideas, he must have gotten them from the DVD (unless he can prove otherwise), therefore he trespassed on what normally requires a contract.
Before that becomes persuasive, we need to know if Smith was contractually allowed to share any content of the DVD with anyone else. According to your copyright contract theory would he be restricted from sharing any content with anyone else?
That is to say, if Smith is legally permitted to show the DVD to others (say, his family), I don't see how Dance-Man could be roped into this.
Published: March 1, 2007 12:13 PM
Sasha Radeta
DAN SAID:
-----
"I'm not looking for ad hoc answers to a variety to problems; I'm looking for underlying principles. It shouldn't be surprising when the variables change so that we can see what persists through such change."
-----
There's your error.
You completely change a scenario and go from a tort issue - to the issue in which you have a breach of contract.. and than you ask: "how is this a tort". Well, of course it isn't a tort, when we have a breach of contract. You are trying to equate two completely different legal scenarios, in order to prove something we all know: contractual breach is not equal to tort.
The only underlying principle is that trespass is not allowed. If you have a difficulty in recognizing trespass in a particular contractual breach, I'll be happy to point it out.
As far as your comment about "impracticality" of copyright goes, you are wrong: people currently often buy limited use of other people's property. Most of them are honest people who don't intend to earn money by using other people's property without their authorization. But I'm not surprised that you try to insinuate negative market outcome of copyright: it is so common for people to turn to utilitarianism, when legal principles are not on their side. But if we both agree that markets should be free to decide - your entire argument in that direction is useless - and we should only focus on potential illegality of copyright and not to pretend that you know its market outcome.
As far as patents go: BINGO! You just reached Rothbard's conclusion: patents are bad insofar as they go above copyright protection (without preventing independent discoveries). You may be inspired by previous invention, but you cannot use someone else's property without authorization (trespass), in order to build your "modification" for commercial purposes.
Finally, you try to confuse two different scenarios once again. If you purchased the personal use of your DVD, if contract does not say anything about it - you can sell that limited right to other people - or to give it out for free to your friends, family, whomever. In that case, if they use that DVD without the owner's authorization, they will be responsible for trespass...
However, if you breach your contract by replicating or reenacting that DVD's content - that has nothing to do with any third party (Dance-Man in your example). The person who breached the contract will be solely responsible. That's why you don't see "how Dance-Man could be roped into this" - but that does not mean that you invalidated any of my arguments. You only confirmed them.
Published: March 1, 2007 12:51 PM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, you write:
"You may be inspired by previous invention, but you cannot use someone else's property without authorization (trespass), in order to build your "modification" for commercial purposes."
Yes, and -- as we have seen -- your standards of "using someone else's property" contractually extends to content (even though they do not own the content and ideas themselves).
According to this line of thought, it seems, if Toyota is to come up with a suspension system, they can't emulate Ford's suspension system. Assuming Ford's cars came first, they can take Toyota to court and make the claim that Toyota trespassed to make their property, and win millions in the process.
Ford has an effective patent over suspension systems, as long as they sold their cars with strict contracts from day one.
"Finally, you try to confuse two different scenarios once again. If you purchased the personal use of your DVD, if contract does not say anything about it - you can sell that limited right to other people - or to give it out for free to your friends, family, whomever. In that case, if they use that DVD without the owner's authorization, they will be responsible for trespass..."
Only if the contract between Sasha and Smith stipulates that he can show, sell, or give out the DVD to others only on the condition that he will do so only after they sign a contract similar to the one made between Sasha and Smith. Otherwise, there are no contractual claims over Dance-Man.
"However, if you breach your contract by replicating or reenacting that DVD's content - that has nothing to do with any third party (Dance-Man in your example). The person who breached the contract will be solely responsible. That's why you don't see "how Dance-Man could be roped into this" - but that does not mean that you invalidated any of my arguments. You only confirmed them."
I believe what I confirmed was that Dance-Man indeed has nothing to do with the breach of contract. The person who breached the contract (Smith) will be solely responsible. Therefore, Dance-Man's concert proceeds are his, and he can't be sued for damages, etc., as he has violated no contract.
Published: March 1, 2007 1:07 PM
Sasha Radeta
DAN SAID:
----
" Yes, and -- as we have seen -- your standards of "using someone else's property" contractually extends to content (even though they do not own the content and ideas themselves).
----
That's incorrect sir! I never claimed such nonsense, as I clearly stated that Dance-Man DOES NOT commit any trespass or contractual breach in your last example (in which he only observes the reenactment of DVD's content). In such scenario it would be Smith (purchaser bound to contract) who would be responsible to pay all damages (he is responsible to pay for full ownership over DVD's uses).
Once again, you only confirmed my arguments.
As far as patent goes, Toyota simply cannot lawfully use Ford's property (invention) in order to create a good for sale. In your example, Ford did not agree on such use of its property - as they only allowed personal, non-commercial use of its product. That was Rothbard's position: only "independent discovery" could be Toyota's defense in your scenario, if they can show such evidence - but they will have a hard time with that.
Published: March 1, 2007 2:21 PM
Scott D
To Sione:
I'm still working on it. Maybe I'll have time tomorrow to put something coherent on paper. The way I'm looking at this is in terms of the marginal utility of knowledge/information/ideas vs. their marginal cost of production. Maybe this approach will even shed some light on the issue of scarcity (or lack thereof). We'll see.
Published: March 2, 2007 1:20 AM
Sasha Radeta
----
Maybe I'll have time tomorrow to put something coherent on paper.... Maybe this approach will even shed some light on the issue of scarcity (or lack thereof). We'll see.
----
Scott D is attempting to write something coherent?
Even when he tried to introduce his idea, Scott made several errors that should not happen to a community college freshman. Since I had to explain definition and origin of scarcity, the fact that some folks here are clueless about the very concept of marginal utility and price formation of goods (inputs in particular) does not even surprise me.
So go ahead Scott: explain how our repeated use of a same unit pertains to our marginal utility when it comes to price formation - and please elaborate on your statement that "same piece of knowledge will have its full potential utility once more when it is GIVEN to someone else, while not reducing in any way its utility to the first person..." I'm sure you will enlighten us about this strange concept of giving something with lower utility, when we can trade it for goods we desire (something with higher utility).
I'm not going to give him any hints... I'll just enjoy when he slips on one more basic concept.
Regards.
Published: March 2, 2007 4:08 AM
Scott D
Sasha,
My decision to ignore you stems from the fact that you have shown yourself to be uncivil, in particular by reacting to criticism with insults and by baiting your opponents. I had hoped you might respect that decision and ignore me in turn, yet you persist.
I am fully capable of respecting the opinions and yes, the intelligence, of someone with whom I disagree. I regard debate as a venue in which the parties try to persuade one another to their position, rather than a battle to see who can most effectively attack and humiliate the other.
We are all human beings. Sometimes emotions get the better of us and we write statements that are inflammatory (I believe that I once said you had "gone off the deep end" with regard to gene patents, about which I feel quite strongly), but when rational discourse gets pushed aside in favor of personal attacks, learning stops.
So, I'm appealing to you, Sasha, to modify the tone of your posts and return to a higher standard of debate. I think that this is not an unreasonable request and is to your benefit as well as mine and others. If you are unwilling to do that, then I will simply go back to ignoring the content of your posts and will cease to direct any comments whatsoever your way.
Published: March 2, 2007 9:42 AM
Sasha Radeta
Scott D,
I know real reasons why you pretend that you ignore me (it has to do with you pride and hurt ego), but that’s not important at all. More importantly, you decided to ignore Sione Vatu (since you didn't write that promised paper about "marginal utility), stems from the fact that you are unfamiliar with basic economics concepts.
I don't understand why people who never studied economics are so fascinated about it and they insist on preaching about it. If you want us to return to a higher standard of debate, please learn how prices are formed - before you announce your discussion about that topic. Once you satisfy that prerequisite, you will be able to recognize what "marginal utility" refers to and how prices of final goods and inputs are formed, relative to marginal utility of BUYERS / marginal productivity.
Regards.
Published: March 2, 2007 6:37 PM
Scott D
Asked and answered, apparently. So be it. And that bit of knowledge you seem to think I don't possess is called the law of (diminishing) returns.
Goodbye forever, Sascha. I'll enjoy the distinct pleasure of not reading your inevitable followup post.
Published: March 2, 2007 10:12 PM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, I think this last example might lead us to the heart of the matter. I do acknowledge that some form of copyright could be enforced contractually on the free market. A DVD producer may sell his DVD to Smith on the condition that Smith will not replicate its content for commercial purposes.
Now, as I have said before, I would find it problematic if the terms of such contracts are 'forced' onto a third party (in this case, Dance-Man), even though he never agreed to them.
Likewise, I would also have problems if Dance-Man were to be prosecuted based on the DVD producer's ownership of the content. (Neither of these two objections are new, I'm just trying to make things clear).
Now, we have been proceeding -- or, at least, it seemed to me that we were proceeding -- under the assumption that Smith may replicate the DVD's content legally as long as such replication wasn't commercial. For example, Smith could tell a friend about the dance, make a copy of the DVD for his own keeping (in case the other is damaged), Smith could show a friend what that dance is like, show family members the DVD, etc. There are near infinite non-commercial "replications" that I could imagine, since "replicate" can mean almost anything connected with the DVD's content.
So, if we assume that Smith has legally shared the content of the dance with Dance-Man, it seems as though the DVD producer's case against both Smith and Dance-Man has become fruitless. Dance-Man, who has never seen the DVD, cannot be prosecuted because he's neither (a) agreed to any contractual stipulations with the DVD producer regarding content, and (b) he has not committed trespass of person or property in putting on his concert. It appears as though you have agreed to this, but have stated that Smith instead would be prosecuted.
My objection to this is two-fold. On the one hand, if it was legal for Smith to make non-commercial replication of the DVD in the first place, then there are no grounds for prosecuting him, as he has done nothing wrong. Dance-Man's actions cannot be the starting point for the prosecution of Smith. Smith lawfully communicated the DVD's content to Dance-Man, and obviously Smith is absolved from any future actions of Dance-Man's. This is analogous to free speech, since Smith might advocate violence -- advocacy falling under free speech rights -- and if Dance-Man later commits that violence, Smith cannot be prosecuted for it. To prosecute Smith as a causal agent of Dance-Man's actions is to deny the free will of Dance-Man. So much for the case against Smith if non-commercial sharing of the DVD's content is legal.
If, on the other hand, the contractual agreement of copyright states that Smith may make no replication of any of the DVD's content, commercial or non-commercial, and that any such replication makes the DVD user liable for the cost of "full use" (an exorbitant amount), this also seems problematic.
This would mean that, in principle, *any* person who has ever shared any content of any DVD or book under copyright -- whether plot, a joke, a description of a kind of character, etc. -- would be liable to prosecution for violation of copyright law. In practice, no one would be safe from rather exorbitant suits. DVD and book publishers could take people to courts for any kind of reference to a DVD's content, and walk away with millions of dollars without too much trouble.
Now, I actually agree with you that theoretically such contractual arrangements are possible in the free market. (After all, I cannot stop Smith from agreeing to such terms should he want to). Further, it does seem unlikely that companies would prosecute those who make non-commercial replications. However, publishing companies making these arrangements could at any time enforce their contracts, and it seems obvious to me that those companies insisting on such copyright agreements would not last in the free market. There would arise plenty of other companies, not demanding the ability to sue almost anyone in exchange for the use of their products. Those buying such DVDs and books would also enjoy the ability to own what they buy.
There are many other advantages that make me think companies demanding Sasha's version of copyright could not exist long on the free market, but I don't want to get bogged down in such a debate because I think it is premature. Think back to Smith once again, who has only shared the DVD's content with Dance-Man.
According to how you are envisioning copyright, was that sharing of content (showing Dance-Man the dance) legal or illegal according to the copyright contract? If it was legal, how do you avoid the difficulty that I raised above?
Further, suppose that the DVD does not use speech at all but is merely the dance. If Smith shares verbally the content (that is, describes it rather than dances it), is that considered replication of content. If so, was such sharing legal or illegal? If it was legal, how do you avoid the difficulty that I raised above?
Finally, I wanted to address our side-thought on the likeness of copyrights (as you describe) them and patents:
"As far as patent goes, Toyota simply cannot lawfully use Ford's property (invention) in order to create a good for sale. In your example, Ford did not agree on such use of its property - as they only allowed personal, non-commercial use of its product. That was Rothbard's position: only "independent discovery" could be Toyota's defense in your scenario, if they can show such evidence - but they will have a hard time with that."
I have two problems with this. First, it is clear that Ford cannot own an invention itself. When we say that they own an "invention", what we mean is the physical property that they have in front of them, not the idea itself (that is, the unique configuration of matter).
Secondly, in court it is not up to Toyota to prove their innocence. They are presumed innocent until shown guilty. In other words, Ford must show that Toyota didn't "happen to see" Ford's invention -- say, by studying commercials, or seeing people drive the cars on streets, looking under a parked car on a road, etc. In other words, it seems to me that you have legal proceeding backwards in this case.
Published: March 3, 2007 1:07 PM
Sione Vatu
Sasha
Your behaviour is beneath you. You are acting the degenerate.
Perhaps you should consider that the one with the hurt ego and damaged pride is you! Look at that incredible outburst of temper, the tantrum, the attention seeking with the implicit demand for attention... Ah yes, all must agree with what Sassha (or whatever the name is lately) has written.
Well, no, Sasha, you're dead wrong again. You can't force people to read what you write and agree. They have minds of their own. Fact is, many people find your formulations weak and many find your polemics, name calling and repetitive assertion unconvincing. You've been told why several times already.
Losing your temper and behaving like an immature juvenile (and a spoilt one at that) will not assist you promoting your cause- it just alienates your audience. It will not cover over the gaps in your position. It will not correct the errors. Nor will it convince anyone that you know what you are writing about.
Final point. This is something for you to think about. When I was much younger I joined a rugby team. One of the coaches told all we players that we should play to win, we should play according to the rules and we should respect the members of the opposing team. For a start, if they failed to show up for the game we would have no-one to play. Further, if we did not respect them as players there was no point in playing them at all. To win would be pointless and to lose would be a disgrace. More important would be that there could be no enjoyment in such a game. We could not enjoy the match, we could not improve our play, nor could we learn anything new.
In the game of rugby, I learned that sometimes the other guys are better on the day. They may win against us. Sometime we would win against them but those other guys still scored several tries (they could on occasion beat our defense with their abilities) and some of those tries were pretty well done. That was acknowledged and lessons learnt. That's how we became better at the rugby until we eventually won the All-Islands. If the others were useless, nothing could have been gained by playing them and the championship would not have been worth the effort to attain.
You have been involved in promoting a certain set of ideas for some time now. In that time you have corresponded at great length with several (many) contributors to the VMI blog. You'd do well to understand that the vast majority of the people who come here are well above average when it comes to intelligence and exercise of intellectual abilities. They are careful when dealing with ideas and WILL examine them critically. Should you promote ideas on the VMI blog you can expect them to be evaluated and critiqued. You should expect that objections and challenges may be raised. Some of them you may not have proper answers to. In that case acknowledge the problem and go away and deal with it.
If you intend to continue with disparaging remarks directed against anyone who dares challenge your ideas, then you should consider that the time may have come for you to vacate and go elsewhere. There is no point in arguing with those whose intellectual capacity you do not respect, for if you establish your "win" you have "won" little or nothing (everyone is an inferior fool or has a "problem" anyway) and when you "lose" you have lost everything- it's a disgrace! Perhaps that is the source of the bad temper, piss and bad manners...
Sione
Published: March 3, 2007 1:11 PM
Sasha Radeta
Sione, you spent so much time and energy without saying anything about our topic.
Don't be so upset with me - it is Scott D who is ignoring you (we're still waiting on that promised paper)...
All I said is that people who don't even know what marginal utility theory refers to (and think that marginal utility of producers determine all prices) - love to preach about economics. There's no need for you to get upset.
------
Dan,
Once again, I don't care about your predictions about the market success of contractual copyrights. The fact that today we are willing to purchase copyrighted items (and that sellers can choose not to pursue copyrights if they think that will increase their success) - says enough. If we can agree that markets should be free to choose, than we can put your "supernatural" abilities aside, and focus on issues of legality. So you finally agree that copyright contracts are enforceable, but now you try to create situations in which they would not apply.
I never claimed that a contract should be forced onto a third party, and I also never claimed that a person can own "content" per se.
I also never presumed that any replications of DVD would be allowed in a typical copyright contract. Every unauthorized replication is commercial, since it replaces legally purchased copy (even a mass-producer of pirate copies can claim he wanted to give them for free, but that does not reduce his breach of contract or injury to the author). That does not mean that publishers would spend resources trying to find one or two copies that someone makes for their friends.
That does not mean that you would be prosecuted when you lend a DVD to your friends and family, as you tried to insinuate. It just means that they would not be legally allowed to make reproductions or reenactments of the content (based on contractual conditions, not some fictional "content-ownership"). Is that so difficult to do - not to make unauthorized copies??? And if any authorized user (unintentional trespasser) gets familiar with the content of my DVD, that's absolutely fine - as long as their actions don't aggravate their trespass to tort.
Verbal description of content is not allowed, if your contract prohibits you from sharing that content. If your contract does not state that, you're absolutely free to do it.
As far as your objection to copyright-alternative to current patents goes, it fails on both parts:
- I never claimed that when someone owns "invention" this refers to "idea ownership." So that's nothing but dishonesty on your part. If someone owns invention (and this invention is a physical property, because no other kind can exist) - the owner should have a property right to make free-market contracts, in which he could charge as much as he wants for restricted types of use, like replications... or he can use tort system when a third party, outside of contract, uses his property without authorization (trespasses).
- I never said that someone is guilty until proven innocent, as your statements imply. In your example, Toyota would be innocent, until the court (faced with available evidence) would find this company guilty. Ford would try to convince jury that the engine in question is their property, replicated without any authorization, providing the evidence that they exclusively produced such engine (without allowing co-ownership production rights to someone else). Toyota would have to show purchase agreement with Ford that allowed them to use this engine in any way they wanted (like a shoplifter asked to show a receipt for merchandise with which he is caught) – or to show their evidence that they produced this engine independently without any contact with Ford…. Or they could defend themselves with silence. The court would decide.
Regards.
Published: March 3, 2007 3:21 PM
Sione Vatu
Sasha
I went off topic a little since you haven't addressed it for some time now. Anyway, your hissy fits and immature behaviour have made you a topic of discussion. There have been some devastating off-thread comments resulting from your displays...
What I offerred you was some advice Sasha. That was because you had a temper tantrum and lost control of yourself. Get a grip mate. We wouldn't like you to have another meltdown.
Sione
Published: March 4, 2007 11:56 AM
Sasha Radeta
BORING... and off-topic again.
Published: March 4, 2007 12:09 PM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, I thought that your reply was interesting for a number of reasons. Below are (as usual) your thoughts with my replies:
"Once again, I don't care about your predictions about the market success of contractual copyrights. The fact that today we are willing to purchase copyrighted items (and that sellers can choose not to pursue copyrights if they think that will increase their success) - says enough. If we can agree that markets should be free to choose,"
I am also willing to pay taxes, adhere to government regulations, patronize banks that use fiat currency often counterfeited, purchase goods that have been patented, etc. This says nothing about the viability of these things on the market. You are right that we seem to agree that people should be free to choose.
"So you finally agree that copyright contracts are enforceable, but now you try to create situations in which they would not apply."
There's no 'finally' about it. Keeping copyright within its natural, narrow limits as a contract makes it enforceable on the free market. The reason that it appears as though I'm shifting my beliefs is as follows: It seems to me that you keep oscillating between a proper view of free-market copyrights and a view that either (a)compels non-involved third parties unwillingly into the deal through coercion, invalidating the 'free market' aspect of it, or (b) makes the copyrights highly unrealistic (though, again, theoretically possible: like free-market monopolies, cartels, labor unions, guilds, etc.)
The consistency that you will find in my views, I believe, is that I have always claimed that a contract cannot be forced onto a third party, and I also have always claimed that a person cannot own "content" perse.
On to the example of Smith, Dance-Man, and the DVD producer. You write:
"I also never presumed that any replications of DVD would be allowed in a typical copyright contract."
I see. I think what this entails is that every possible act of 'replication,' from sharing the plot of a work, to using a unique 8-10 word turn of phrase that was catchy, to describing a single character, or any other piece of 'casual conversation' is as illegal as copying the book or DVD itself. Interesting.
"Every unauthorized replication is commercial, since it replaces legally purchased copy (even a mass-producer of pirate copies can claim he wanted to give them for free, but that does not reduce his breach of contract or injury to the author)."
No idea can 'replace' a physical thing or another idea. Content is not scarce: everyone in the world could think the same thought without having 'more' or 'less' of it. Therefore, your reasoning that this makes every unauthorized replication 'commercial' is invalidated. Perhaps there is another reason for thinking that all replications are commercial, but this can't be one. (It would be helpful in the future if you would distinguish between immaterial replications (such as ideas and thoughts) and physical replications (such as a copied DVD disc).)
"That does not mean that publishers would spend resources trying to find one or two copies that someone makes for their friends."
While this is probably true (and I agree), it is irrelevant.
"That does not mean that you would be prosecuted when you lend a DVD to your friends and family, as you tried to insinuate. It just means that they would not be legally allowed to make reproductions or reenactments of the content (based on contractual conditions, not some fictional "content-ownership")."
Sasha, this is precisely where we have included 3rd parties into a contract that they never agreed to. You say that it is illegal for Smith to purchase the DVD and watch it with his wife (I'll assume she wasn't with him when he bought it, and so didn't agree to any contract). Your consolation is that Smith's wife is not likely to be punished for having seen the DVD: fair enough (though it sounds fishy to me).
Now, however, you are saying that she is not legally allowed to make reproductions or reenactments of the content. When did she become obligated to honor a contract that she never agreed to?
"Is that so difficult to do - not to make unauthorized copies??? And if any authorized user (unintentional trespasser) gets familiar with the content of my DVD, that's absolutely fine - as long as their actions don't aggravate their trespass to tort."
It is "difficult" for you to insist that Smith's wife can be prosecuted based on a contract that she never agreed to. Let's say that Smith buys a DVD and watches it with his wife. Smith's wife goes on to share the dance ideas with Dance-Man, who puts on the concert. At most, it seems to me, your version of the free-market copyright could demand from Smith or Smith's wife the cost of 'owning' (renting?) a DVD for viewing. E.g., they could sue Smith's wife for having viewed something she did not 'own' or 'rent'; or they could sue Smith for breaching contract to show his wife the DVD.
No action of Smith's wife breached a contract -- she had no association with the DVD company. The only action of Smith's that breached contract was allowing his wife to watch the DVD. (If indeed that was illegal, although, again, it's hard to imagine that DVD companies will insist that only paying clients under contract can view any given DVD: no friends, no family members, no wives allowed). As it stands, there is a disconnect between what you assert companies will be able to do -- that is, sue unaffiliated 3rd parties for the 'full cost of ownership' -- and what the contracts that you have outlined will allow. Do you see the discrepancy?
"Verbal description of content is not allowed, if your contract prohibits you from sharing that content. If your contract does not state that, you're absolutely free to do it."
Therefore, Smith could watch the DVD and describe the dance to Dance-Man, who could put on his show and make pots of cash. And, all of this could proceed without threat of a lawsuit or protection of content. It seems like any company interested in an effective protection of their content will have to make rather elaborate contracts banning any kind of recounting, description, replication, allusion, or re-enactment of the ideas in the book or DVD. The idea that I can tell my wife about the book I just read and what I think about it is dangerous to the book-maker's protection of content.
Now, as for the side case with Toyota and Ford slugging it out over the car suspension design:
"I never claimed that when someone owns "invention" this refers to "idea ownership."
Good, then I was misled when you referred to their owning an invention. My apologies.
"So that's nothing but dishonesty on your part."
Now, now. Dishonesty requires knowledge of intent, which you can't know about me (and, for the record, there was no dishonesty on my part).
"If someone owns invention (and this invention is a physical property, because no other kind can exist) - the owner should have a property right to make free-market contracts, in which he could charge as much as he wants for restricted types of use, like replications... or he can use tort system when a third party, outside of contract, uses his property without authorization (trespasses)."
In my example, Toyota never bought a car from Ford, and so they are under no contract; therefore, they fall into the latter category that you provide. Now, the interesting thing about cars is that they are consistently put on public display by their nature. Like T-Shirts, it is impossible to own and use one without others 'happening to see it.' So, Toyota will always be able to make a convincing case that they have simply observed Ford's cars in action or when parked, figured out how the suspension system was working, improved on the ideas that they abstracted from viewing Ford cars, and made commercial their own version of car suspension. I guess they aren't as vulnerable to suit under your system as I had previously thought.
"I never said that someone is guilty until proven innocent, as your statements imply."
I implied that they seemed to be guilty until proven innocent because you made (what appeared to me to be) a similar allusion: "That was Rothbard's position: only "independent discovery" could be Toyota's defense in your scenario, if they can show such evidence - but they will have a hard time with that."
It seems like a much more difficult case for Ford, in my opinion. Ford will have to show that Toyota didn't "happen to see" the car-part in action. They will also have to show that Toyota didn't simply have an 'informant,' or, someone who owned a Ford and conveyed its content to the Toyota company. If the latter scenario is true, then Ford would have to search out and prosecute the informant, and could not hold Toyota responsible for information that they happened to hear.
Published: March 5, 2007 8:17 AM
Sasha Radeta
Dan,
Your reference to taxation and inflation completely missed the point. You're forgetting that copyright holder is free not to exercise his rights, even in today's nationalized system. And they are also free to produce shareware - yet many of them choose not to do it. BUT THAT'S NOT EVEN MY ARGUMENT: if we agree that markets are free to choose - than stop with your attempts to preach what's better for all of us and focus on legality of copyright contracts and tort when it comes to unauthorized reproduction.
DAN SAID:
"It seems to me that you keep oscillating between a proper view of free-market copyrights and a view that either (a)compels non-involved third parties unwillingly into the deal through coercion, invalidating the 'free market' aspect of it, or (b) makes the copyrights highly unrealistic"
The only consistency that I find in your replies is that they are mostly based on baseless accusation. Even when you concede to my arguments, you are trying to be “more catholic than Pope." I never advocated forcing contracts onto a third party - so that's a lie. Also, there is nothing unrealistic about tort, as well as contracts that mimic something we purchase today.
DAN SAID:
"Sasha, this is precisely where we have included 3rd parties into a contract that they never agreed to. You say that it is illegal for Smith to purchase the DVD and watch it with his wife (I'll assume she wasn't with him when he bought it, and so didn't agree to any contract). Your consolation is that Smith's wife is not likely to be punished for having seen the DVD: fair enough (though it sounds fishy to me)."
That's because you are dishonest. All I said is that unintentional trespassers would not be prosecuted. But they cannot aggravate that trespass to tort without any consequences. So I never claimed that contract can be forced onto a third party.
The rest you wrote is similar in nature and it doesn't even deserve any of my time. I will shift to your patent discussion...
DAN SAID:
"Like T-Shirts, it is impossible to own and use one without others 'happening to see it. 'So, Toyota will always be able to make a convincing case that they have simply observed Ford's cars in action or when parked, figured out how the suspension system was working, improved on the ideas that they abstracted from viewing Ford cars, and made commercial their own version of car suspension. I guess they aren't as vulnerable to suit under your system as I had previously thought."
First of all, who said that T-shirts are patentable/copyrightable? If you can copy something after observing it public, you never commit any trespass, and of course you never had any contract to breach. I was saying that from the beginning of our debates...
Unfortunately for you, the complex car engines cannot be copied with simple observation of some parked car. If you can convince jury that you were able to figure it out like that - than you deserve to violate someone's patent as a reward for accomplishing something that's impossible.
It seems like a much more difficult case for Ford, in my opinion. Ford will have to show that Toyota didn't "happen to see" the car-part in action. hey will also have to show that Toyota didn't simply have an 'informant,' or, someone who owned a Ford and conveyed its content to the Toyota company.
Don't be silly. Ford doesn’t have to mention any "informants” (who might have signed a contract on behalf of Toyota - it is Toyota who will have to produce this "informant to court in its own defense - and than Ford will sue him).
Ford will simply state that they never authorized Toyota to dissect their car and study its functions. If Toyota can prove it was able to figure out these functions by observing car's body - that's independent discovery. If they can't show any authorization like that, they look like a guy who gets caught with a car that's reported as stolen, and who can't find any receipt for that car - while other side provides evidence that that particular car is his property.
Published: March 5, 2007 10:16 AM
Dan Coleman
It looks as though I expanded too quickly. Let's bring into focus onto what I thought was the main point (the rest can be discussed afterward; e.g. copyrights now not reflecting how a free market might function due to special coercive priviledges; the Ford-Toyota fiasco; etc.)
Sasha, you write: "All I said is that unintentional trespassers would not be prosecuted. But they cannot aggravate that trespass to tort without any consequences. So I never claimed that contract can be forced onto a third party."
Now, you had previously written: "That does not mean that you would be prosecuted when you lend a DVD to your friends and family, as you tried to insinuate. It just means that they would not be legally allowed to make reproductions or reenactments of the content (based on contractual conditions, not some fictional "content-ownership")"
There are 2 claims here that seem contradictory to me. On the one hand, you say that 3rd parties cannot have contracts forced onto them; on the other hand, you state that 3rd parties will be legally bound by contractual obligations.
I missed the part where the 3rd party (in our example, Smith's wife) agreed to these contractual conditions. How else are these 3rd parties, in our example friends, family, etc., subject to such 'contractual conditions', if these contracts are not being forced on them?
You claim: "All I said is that unintentional trespassers would not be prosecuted. But they cannot aggravate that trespass to tort without any consequences."
Take the following example. Let's say that Smith buys a DVD and watches it with his wife. Smith's wife goes on to share the dance ideas with Dance-Man, who puts on the concert.
If the DVD company decides to sue Mrs. Smith for her actions, based on what contractual obligations does Smith's wife undergo prosecution?
It may be that the answer has to do with 'assuming full ownership', as you have often said. But this avoids the issue. For, until contractual stipulations regulate her behavior more specifically, she can only be prosecuted for physical trespass itself; that is to say, the 'cost' of 'renting' or 'owning' a DVD.
Note that content and idea restrictions must come from contracts, as they are not inherent to physical things themselves. (I.e. there will only be N number of apples in the world at any given time, but content and ideas can only be restricted through voluntary arrangements, as they are non-scarce in nature). Therefore, any claim that ideas and content have suffered trespass will be contractual in nature, and not based on property per se.
However, since Mrs. Smith is under no contractual obligations with DVD corp., it is impossible for them to sue based on contractual agreements. Therefore, they can sue all they want for the trespass of physical property, but they will never have a case for a lawsuit based on 'full ownership'. They cannot do so, for such a lawsuit presupposes either (1) a contractual stipulation or (2) something inherent in the DVD that makes the use of its ideas in itself a trespass.
(1) is clearly not the case, and (2) must also be false, since contracts must be used to restrict idea-use in the first place.
Published: March 5, 2007 11:15 AM
Sione Vatu
Dan
Interesting points.
But be careful. Sasha is shifting his position bit by bit again. He does that frequently.
For example, notice how he had trouble with the Toyota/Ford suspension example, so he changed it over from suspension to engine design. Now instead of discussing an easily observable suspension system you are going to have to argue about the hidden internals of an internal combustion engine instead. Still do-able but more difficult.
Changing position without acknowledgement is one of his tactics. Deceptive indeed! He needs to have his feet held to the fire or he'll just wriggle away from what he originally asserted when it suits his purpose!
Anyway, you have already made a strong case.
Sione
Published: March 5, 2007 11:38 AM
Dan Coleman
Sione, thanks.
I noticed the suspension / engine shift, but I didn't want to further investigate it because it seemed like a rabbit trail to me. It starts another debate over publicly observable and privately distributed 'content,' and rather than arguing about this I really want to focus on what I think is the linchpin of Sasha's copyright.
I'm no expert in Austrian economics or libertarian ethics, but one of the benefits of these threads is that it forces me to go read a lot of source material. I read Kinsella's paper 'against IP' and have searched through different sources in Rothbard (the Mises Institute's daily articles are also great). I also appreciate when others chip in, including your posts above, Jesse's, Scott D's, Sasha's, etc. Getting all of the ideas out there is a 'first step,' sifting between wheat and chaff is something else indeed.
Thanks again for the kind words.
Daniel
Published: March 5, 2007 11:57 AM
Sasha Radeta
Dan,
Your posts are interesting to Sione - not because they have valid arguments (they do not), but because they are filled with dishonest misinterpretations of my statements.
First of all, I never used "suspension" example (i don't know much about cars and I can't call you a liar for saying that you can copy someone's revolutionary suspension by just looking at it), but I always consistently stated that you cannot copyright/patent something that everyone can simply observe in public. Copyright can only be about situations in which you breach a contract or commit tort.
The fact that you stopped with nonsensical Toyota-Ford example is encouraging, just like the fact that you accepted copyright contracts as enforceable. Now let me focus on your previous posting:
--=-
Yes - I said that copyright contracts cannot be forced onto a third party!
And yes - I claimed that it would be unlawful for some third party (outside of any contract with me) to simply replicate my DVD!
Is this a contradiction? It's really not, if you know anything about basic common law definitions.
The reason why third party is not legally allowed to do unauthorized replication of my DVD is that this constitutes a trespass! As you know, we're talking about a tort case here, not a contractual breach.
The reason why you can't make free DVD copies for them, or to reenact my content for free - is the fact that your contracts stipulates specific damages that you have to pay.
So there's no contradiction there. Even though I make a lapse in writing (when I put "they" in my statement you quoted, I wanted to refer to legal purchasers, not their friends and family), I repeated this point so many times that any "misunderstanding" on your part can come out of malice.
You asked
"Let's say that Smith buys a DVD and watches it with his wife. Smith's wife goes on to share the dance ideas with Dance-Man, who puts on the concert.
If the DVD Company decides to sue Mrs. Smith for her actions, based on what contractual obligations does Smith's wife undergo prosecution?"
As I said before, Mrs. Smith is legally nothing but an unintentional trespasser when she watches that DVD. She used DVD without authorization - and that's a trespass. PERIOD! But if she aggravates that trespass with her actions - so they result in financial injury to DVD Company - she will be sued for tort. She is fine as long as she does not use her trespass to make a millionaire out of some Dance-Man, without paying a dime to the author.
Mrs. Smith's trespass has nothing to do with "content ownership" as you keep insinuating.
Published: March 5, 2007 1:03 PM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, you are begging the question with your answers.
In our particular scenario, your basic claim is that 3rd parties (that is, not under contract) may not describe the DVD's content to other people. I object to this, saying that they cannot be restricted from doing so, since the action is not a physical trespass and it also can't be considered a breach of contract. In short, there is no trespass whatsoever.
Now, you agree that there are no contractual violations involved, so it is clear that a 3rd party describing content must be committing some form of physical trespass on your property.
I have provided reasons for why a 3rd party describing content is not a physical trespass. Namely, it seems clear to me that content and ideas are non-scarce, non-rivalrous, and non-ownable. When Mrs. Smith describes to Dance-Man the content of the DVD, she in no way uses the DVD itself, but rather 'looks up' the ideas in her brain to share them. The same thing is true for any and all ideas that 'happen to arrive' insomeone's mind.
It is for this reason that all 'content' violations are based in contract law. Different people thinking of the content or ideas that your property communicates in no way damages or diminish your physical property. Therefore, any claim that a 3rd party's description of content is trespass must be contractual in nature, and not based on property perse.
Your answer to this objection, given in your latest post, is: "The reason why third party is not legally allowed to do unauthorized replication of my DVD is that this constitutes a trespass! As you know, we're talking about a tort case here, not a contractual breach." This is the equivalent of saying "nuh uh!"
Why don't you stop your raw appeal to "talking about a tort case" for just one moment, describe exactly what it is that you have in mind, and show me how this solves the problems that I've raised. Some tort law protects property, some tort laws are tyrannical in nature. Certainly a broad appeal to tort law will not suffice as explaining your position -- unless there is nothing more to it.
Anyway, we can quickly get to the point if you solve the problem that I've raised. A good start would be to show me how a 3rd party describing content is in itself a physical trespass. (Hint: the answer probably shouldn't be "because it is!" or "tort law says that it is!")
You are missing an important piece of your argument, Sasha. What is it that is inherent to the dance DVD, which makes the use of its ideas alone in itself a trespass?
Published: March 6, 2007 8:11 AM
Sasha Radeta
DAN SAID:
"In our particular scenario, your basic claim is that 3rd parties (that is, not under contract) may not describe the DVD's content to other people....A good start would be to show me how a 3rd party describing content is in itself a physical trespass."
Dan, don't misinterpret my statements! That's not nice.
It seems like the only way you can create a good reply - is by making up statements I never made, and then you pretend like you "got me". That's weird.
As I explained, if 3rd party USES A DVD WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION - we have an unintentional trespass (use without the owner's authorization is a trespass, whether you like it or not). However, a party does not owe any damages for unintentional trespass, without any injury. HOWEVER - if the third party uses that trespass to create a financial injury to the owner (like in your Dance-Man example) - the original trespass is aggravated to tort.
Published: March 6, 2007 7:37 PM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, I was replying to this: "[Sasha]: The reason why third party is not legally allowed to do unauthorized replication of my DVD is that this constitutes a trespass!"
We agreed earlier that verbal description is, in fact, replication. Mrs. Smith (the 3rd party) describing the dance DVD to Dance-Man, then, is replication.
So does this seem unfair as a summary of your position: "Your basic claim is that 3rd parties (that is, not under contract) may not describe the DVD's content to other people?" It seems like a weak case upon which to dismiss the rest of the post.
At any rate, you write: "if the third party uses that trespass to create a financial injury to the owner (like in your Dance-Man example) - the original trespass is aggravated to tort."
OK, but this doesn't apply to our context. Remember the scenario: Smith buys a DVD from DVD-corp and watches it with his wife. Mrs. Smith tells Dance-Man about the cool dance she saw. Dance-Man puts on the concert and makes money. DVD-corp is mad and wants to sue.
You say that DVD-corp could sue a 3rd party that caused financial damage. But this would clearly preclude Mrs. Smith, since she cannot be held liable for the actions of Dance-Man, no matter what she *says* to him. (Remember, making advocacy criminal is an abridgement of the freedom of speech). Unless that which Mrs. Smith shared with Dance-Man was property, DVD-corp has no case.
Further, they are not able to sue Dance-Man -- the concert dancer -- since he never made use of the DVD. He is under no contract, and he has made no use of the DVD. DVD-corp has no case.
So I guess DVD-corp won't be collecting on its copyright, after all.
Published: March 6, 2007 8:35 PM
Sasha Radeta
You're beyond any help.
If you say that a third party is using (viewing, or physically replicating) MY DVD, without MY authorization - that is a trespass. That is the ONLY trespass in all of our examples.
I never said that the act in which that person "talks" to other person is a trespass.
All I said is that unintentional trespass will be judged based on the injury it results in. Actions of Mrs. Smith aggravated her (unintentional) trespass into tort of financial injury. She could have avoid that tort - and no one is preventing her freedom of speech.
Imagine that you unintentionally trespass onto my property and you accidentally observe my trade secret. Your trespass may result in serious tort - but that does not mean that your acts of "observing" and "communicating" are also trespass. You will only be judged on your original unauthorized presence on my property - and its consequences.
The same goes for my example in which I park my car in front of your garage, preventing you from driving your car to work, or hospital (in case of an emergency). That trespass will cause more serious injury - than a simple parking fee.
DVD will be collecting its copyright, after all. Unfortunately for you - you proved nothing with your recent posts.
Published: March 6, 2007 9:22 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Sasha [in reply to Dan]:
How ironic you would say this. My comments as follows are for the benefit of any sane and serious readers, not Sasha, who is obviously a child beyond the reach of reason.
Do you mean the wife, or Dance-Man? Neither is "using the DVD without" anyone's "authorization". The wife watched it with permission. When she told later Dance-man about the dance she had seen, she was not at that point "using" any DVD, much less without authorization. Rather, she was simply relaying information to Dance-man.To highlight this, imagine that Smith rents the DVD from DVD-corp for one day. Under the terms of the rental agreement he is permitted to view it for home personal non-commercial use, and not to copy it. This he does, with his wife.
He then returns the DVD back to DVD-corp, which then destroys that DVD when it gets too scratched. A month later, the wife tells Dance-man about the dance. Now. When she does this she is not "using" the DVD; it no longer even exists. And even if you argue she is breaching contract by telling someone else about the dance moves she saw, Dance-man is clearly not "using the DVD" or even breaching any contract, nor inducing any tort. He is just learning something by listening.
There is no conceivable tort, law, regulation, whatever, in any just country that could give DVD-corp a cause of action against Dance-man. To maintain this is sheer ignorance, phantasy, or lunacy. And to acknowledge that there is no cause of action is to realize that cases like this prevent there from being any contractual semblance of copyright law.
Published: March 6, 2007 10:19 PM
Sasha Radeta
Dr. Kinsella,
If the third party (the wife in Dan's example) uses DVD without any authorization from the author - I believe it is called a "trespass" (unauthorized use). DUH!
But let's turn to your example now Dr. Kinsella.
You say: what if the DVD gets destroyed before any third party (outside of contract) gets to see it?...
You forget that there is a contract between the DVD's owner and the purchaser (Mr. Smith). And as I said before: if his contract stipulates that he will pay some damages if he decides to share or reenact the content of DVD - he will have to pay it! He basically fulfilled the conditions of his contract, which entitle the owner for some specified damages.
That's copyright in free-market action, as Rothbard described it.
Oh, wait! I already covered such silly scenario. I answered it, like three days ago, but Dr. Kinsella perhaps didn't read carefully. That's all right! No harm done.
-----
PS
I never claimed that this "Dance-Man" would be sued if he didn't commit a trespass or breach of contract! To insinuate statements that I never made would be "sheer ignorance, phantasy, or lunacy" (to quote Dr. Kinsella). No offense to anyone.
Published: March 7, 2007 12:53 AM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, you are rightly distinguishing between Mrs. Smith and Mr. Smith. Now you need to distinguish between Mrs. Smith and Dance-Man. In both of your examples of tort that you use as analogies to Mrs. Smith and Dance-Man, you have one person simultaneously committing trespass and causing financial injury. Thus, I pull my car on to your property, and I cause you to be late.
The relevant disanalogy here is that Mrs. Smith causes no financial injury, unless you are willing to say that an advocate using speech can be blamed for someone else's actions. She has nothing to do with Dance-Man's concerts (perhaps she even has personal objections to them).
If DVD-corp is hell bent on getting their money back, they may sue her for the 'trespass' of watching the DVD -- I'd assume that's the price of a copy, etc. -- but no more. I suppose in our example they could also sue Mr. Smith for showing Mrs. Smith the DVD, but they will hardly be able to show how that home-based, non-commercial viewing warrants the "full use" damages that you want to see paid.
The objections that I've raised still seem to stand. The last time that I raised them, you answered: "All I said is that unintentional trespass will be judged based on the injury it results in. Actions of Mrs. Smith aggravated her (unintentional) trespass into tort of financial injury. She could have avoid that tort - and no one is preventing her freedom of speech."
In other words, I objected to the claim that her sharing content with Dance-Man caused financial injury or were a physical trespass, and I provided my reasons for thinking that. You answered with 'yes, it is', but failed to explain why that is so. It would help if you were to refrain from using bald assertions as if they are sufficient to explain your position, because as it stands there are many unanswered problems with / objections to it.
Published: March 7, 2007 7:12 AM
Stephan Kinsella
Sasha,
But she did not use it without authorization. She used it--watched it--with permission.
Later on, she revealed to Dance-man facts she learned while engaged in this authorized activity. At most, her revealing this info to Dance-man is a breach of her contract with dance-man, i.e. an action that gives rise to a merely contractual obligation to pay money damages to DVD-corp.
But Dance-Man's performing the dance steps or telling others does not commit any tort or breach any contract.
No; all that is is a contractual transfer of title of money owned by Mrs. Smith to DVD-corp. this is handled solely by the title transfer theory of contract and has nothing to do with contractual copyright, which requires that we somehow ensnare third parties, namely DVD man.
Your "if" here shows you are being disingenuous. Do you say that in this case that DVD-corp may recover damagges from Dance-man or not? Yes or no, Sasha? If the answer is yes--then you will reveal you have a bizarre, unfounded theory. If you say no, then you are admitting a huge exception that will be the thing that kills contractual copyright. Whcih is it, Sasha?
Published: March 7, 2007 7:30 AM
Dan Coleman
Stephan,
Believe it or not, Sasha's claim is that Mrs. Smith is an unauthorized viewer! His basic notion of free-market copyright is that only the purchaser of a DVD has 'viewing rights' -- they don't even own the physical DVD that they buy. Mr. Smith, legally, is not supposed to watch the DVD with his wife. He's not even allowed to describe the basic plot / premise to her!
Nevertheless, I don't think that even this bizarre arrangement solves Sasha's basic dillema in trying to enforce copyright.
Even if Mrs. Smith has committed physical trespass by 'using' the DVD she did not buy 'viewing rights' for, there is no case for tort based on her sharing the content with Dance-Man. She incurs no financial damage to DVD-corp with sharing (which is shown clearly by the fact that she makes no money off of the sharing). Dance-Man does his own thing, and even according to Sasha his actions are not trespass, tort, etc.
That Mrs. Smith never uses the physical property of DVD-corp in sharing content with Dance-Man is clearly shown by your example, where the DVD is destroyed days before the content and ideas are shared. Since Mrs. Smith is never under contract, and since she herself causes no financial 'damage,' my contention is that the most she can be sued for is that one-time unauthorized viewing -- the price of an 'admission' to the show, so to speak.
Even then, I'd be willing to bet that DVD-corp would have to take up the case with Mr. Smith, and not Mrs. Smith, but that's more of a side-issue.
Published: March 7, 2007 7:56 AM
Sasha Radeta
Dr. Kinsella said:
"But she did not use it without authorization. She used it--watched it--with permission.">
There's that wrong premise! If Mrs. Smith did not have a contract that stipulates terms of use of the DVD company's property - she used it without authorization - and that's a trespass.
And Rothbard's notion on copyright, when it comes to third party (outside of contract), was based on tort. Contractual copyright only applies to two sides in contract.
So once again - Mrs. Smith’s use of DVD Company's property (for which Mr. Smith purchased limited use) - is a trespass. Due to her actions with that Dance-Man, her trespass carries significant financial damage.
To answer your question: in this particular scenario, it would be Mrs. Smith who would be sued - not Dnace-Man.
----
Dan,
Look at my answer to Dr. Kinsella. There is nothing bizarre in it. It is your total unfamiliarity (to put it in kind terms) with basic legal terms that is almost bizarre. If actions caused by trespass result in financial injury - the trespasser (unauthorized user) will be responsible for it.
Your "simultaneous" injury/trespass requirement is absurd. Put it to the test with my trade secret example. You can also seee that in my "parking example, the time of trespass is not simultaneous with all the consequences of such action.
Published: March 7, 2007 8:53 AM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, you write:
"If actions caused by trespass result in financial injury - the trespasser (unauthorized user) will be responsible for it."
DVD-corp doesn't sue "trespass", they sue people: individuals. "Trespass" causes no actions, people are the causal agents. Therefore, it is up to you to show how Mrs. Smith caused DVD-corp financial damage.
It is this misunderstanding that has you writing: "Your "simultaneous" injury/trespass requirement is absurd. Put it to the test with my trade secret example. You can also seee that in my "parking example, the time of trespass is not simultaneous with all the consequences of such action."
I had no "simultaneous" requirement. I am not interested in the time in which actions take place, I am interested in who does them.
All that I require is that you show me how Mrs. Smith caused financial damage. You continue to assert / assume that she has, and I have objected, saying that Dance-Man causes the "damage" and Mrs. Smith cannot be blamed for it. Is it that difficult to show how she is to blame for trespass or tort due to Dance-Man's actions?
Published: March 7, 2007 9:20 AM
Dan Coleman
I see that I did use the word 'simultaneous' in my post above. Although in the context it works, it is misleading as it suggests that all trespass / tort should be simultaneous, which was not my intent. Replace the word "simultaneous" with "both", and it should read like this:
"In both of your examples of tort that you use as analogies to Mrs. Smith and Dance-Man, you have one person both (a) committing trespass and (b) causing financial injury. Thus, I pull my car on to your property, and I cause you to be late."
Hopefully, that helps make it clear that I'm getting at the "who" of the scenario, not the "when".
Cheers.
Published: March 7, 2007 9:27 AM
Stephan Kinsella
Dan:
This is ridiculous and flies in the face of common terms associated with DVD sales and rentals -- the renter/buyer is authorized to use it for standard non-commercial personal use, which includes viewing by other family members.
But it is utterly irrelevant, since again, at most, the wife here is a "trespasser" and thus has gained information as a result of this trespass. This still does not have anything whatsoever to do with Dance-Man's use of the information that Mrs. Smith tells him. Consider this example: Burglar B breaks into A's house, and discovers a secret stash of gold. A is really a millionaire, though all his neighbors thoght he was not. B tells A's neighbor C about this. Now, C knows that A is a millionaire. Now, since information is not property, C is free to act on this information--for example, he might start being nicer to A to ingratiate himself to this neighbor-millionaire. Etc. there is no conceivable just cause of action that A has against C or other third parties to keep them from "using" this information, even though the reason they learned it was because of a trespass by B.
Yes; and as noted above, even if Mrs. Smith commits an actionable wrong by revealing the information to Dance-Man, Dance-Man is not liable at all.
Right. That's why I putthe example that way.
Sasha:
Why is it the wrong premise? Where did you get the idea that a DVD rental only gives the individual renter the right to view it? This is just counter to standard reality.
Whatever. The point is: whether Mrs. Smith is breaching a contract by telling Dance-Man about the dance, or whether it's part of a tort Mrs. Smith committed, is utterly irrelevant: for Dance-Man himself has neither committed a tort against Mrs. Smith nor DVD-corp nor Mr. SMith, nor has Dance Man breached any contract with anyone. There is no conceivable just cause of action that DVD-Corp has against Dance-Man for using the information he has about the dance, whether Mrs. Smith had a contract or not.
Sasha, if you disagree with this, please explain exactly why without further obfuscation.
I disagree that it is trespass because the purchase by Mr. Smith would typically include the rihgt to let others view it for personal home use. But even if you were right, all this shows is that Mrs. Smith owes money damages to DVD-corp by virtue of revealing information about the dance to Dance-Man. It does NOT mean that Dance-Man is liable to ANYONE. Surely you see this.
If Dance man is not liable, then that means he can now reproduced his own DVD with the dance-steps on it, thus undercutting the "contratual copyright" of DVD-corp. Third parties who buy the DVD from Dance-man are not violating anyone's rights either.
The same reasoning could be applied to inventions and other copyright-type works like songs, movies, books, etc.
Published: March 7, 2007 9:32 AM
Dan Coleman
Stephan, you and I are in agreement that Sasha's free market copyright system in no way resembles standard reality.
His system of people going to Best Buy and "renting" DVDs from Time Warner, Dreamworks, or whoever, makes no sense to me as a practical matter.
However, the reason I'm granting Sasha these 'house rules' in our debate is that I think his system is inconsistent even if we make all of the assumptions necessary to put his copyright scheme in place.
As you point out, certainly he is not arguing from what currently *is* (since when I buy a DVD nowadays I actually own the bloody thing, and my family members are free to watch, for example). But I contend that his system is as theoretically flawed as it is removed from how things currently function.
Published: March 7, 2007 9:45 AM
Jesse
We would seem to have once again arrived at a point where Sasha's argument depends entirely upon treating replication as a form of trespass. In response I quote my earlier post:
"[I]t should be clear by now that the replication itself is not trespass. The term 'use' is rather sloppy in terms of property rights; not all things that can be called 'uses' are rivalrous, and thus not all 'uses' are exclusive to the property owner. A better term would be 'transformation' -- altering some aspect of the property (it's shape, physical makeup, location, etc.). Divergent transformations of property are always rivalrous, because the property can only be in one state at a time. All transformations are 'uses', but not all 'uses' are transformations. Copying, for example, does not involve transforming the property, and is non-rivalrous. Another example: Say my neighbor has a fence on the border between our two properties. He ownes [sic] the fence, but in the winter the fence helps to keep the snow off my driveway. I'm 'using' the fence -- benefiting from its presence -- but I'm not transforming it. Consequently my 'use' isn't a trespass against his property rights."
Replication per se has no physical affect on the item being replicated (e.g. the DVD in Sasha's example). Ergo, it cannot constitute trespass against any property rights in the DVD, even if one assumes that the person replicating the information content of the DVD is not the owner thereof. The existance of any contract is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a trespass has taken place. One party to the contract (Mr. Smith) may indeed owe money to the other party in accordance with a previous voluntary transfer of title (a contract), but that has nothing to do with trespass or tort and can place no obligation on anyone not party to the contract.
Furthermore, without trespass there is no tort, regardless of any "loss of potential profit" that may be claimed. Loss of potential profit in the absence of aggression (trespass) is merely another way of saying "competition." Competition per se cannot be the basis for a tort claim; one must show both losses and the trespass(es) which led to them.
Sasha has no case.
Published: March 7, 2007 10:42 AM
Sasha Radeta
Jesse,
You are the person who claimed that trespass occurs only when property is "transformed." In other words, you believe that people should be free to dwell on other people's property. You are a declared communist who doesn't deserve any response on the Austrian blog.
Published: March 7, 2007 11:13 AM
Sasha Radeta
Dan,
Don't be ridiculous. If Mrs. Smith uses my DVD, without my authorization - she will responsible for the trespass and any injuries that are caused to me - as a consequence of that trespass.
So she is both: a) trespassing; b) using this trespass to cause my financial injury (like a person who trespasses against my property in order to see my trade secret and spread it around).
Again, your responses prove to be absurd and completely useless for an intelligent discussion.
Published: March 7, 2007 11:14 AM
Sasha Radeta
Dr Kinsella says:
"Why is it the wrong premise? Where did you get the idea that a DVD rental only gives the individual renter the right to view it? This is just counter to standard reality.
EXCUSE ME SIR!?!?! Are you serious!?!!
If Mr. Smith signs a contract which allows him a personal use of my DVD - that contract cannot extend to any third party. Any third party who uses my product without my authorization is a trespasser (intentional or unintentional) - and that's the fact. You cannot do anything about it.
And why do you repeat the same question over and over? Under your particular scenario, in which Mrs. Smith USES MY PROPERTY WITHOUT MY AUTHORIZATION (trespasses, under any definition of that term), Dance-Man or anyone else who receive information from her is NOT legally responsible for any tort or anything else.
Published: March 7, 2007 11:15 AM
Sasha Radeta
DR KINSELLA SAID:
-----
If Dance man is not liable, then that means he can now reproduced his own DVD with the dance-steps on it, thus undercutting the "contratual copyright" of DVD-corp."
YOU MUST BE JOKING!?!
Well at least you, as a copyright expert, should know that once Mrs. Smith pays for co-ownership of that DVD (large amount of money that legal publishers normally pay), which she illegally assumed - plus punitive damages - she becomes entitled to distribute as many copies as she likes. She becomes a legal co-owner of that item, and DVD's author gets properly compensated, as if he sold co-ownership rights to any legal publisher (plus the amount in punitive damages, which according to Rothbard should equal the amount of the original injury - so double the amount).
Published: March 7, 2007 11:23 AM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, you write:
"If Mrs. Smith uses my DVD, without my authorization - she will responsible for the trespass and any injuries that are caused to me - as a consequence of that trespass."
Which is why I keep asking you to show how it is that Mrs. Smith causes DVD-corp injuries. The reality is that she never does, since telling Dance-Man about the dances does no financial harm to DVD-corp.
This is problematic to your position, since Dance-Man will go on to make lots of money off of the content of the dance DVD. So, you are relying on blaming Mrs. Smith for Dance-Man's actions in an attempt to solve the tension.
It is telling that your only response to this problem has been (a) personal attacks and (b) a re-statement of your assertions.
Published: March 7, 2007 11:27 AM
iceberg
Sascha,
Please describe to me in plain, and simple words exactly the actions performed by Mrs. Smith when she made the unauthorized "use" of the DVD which constitutes trespass in your opinion.
Published: March 7, 2007 11:28 AM
Sasha Radeta
Iceberg:
She used MY DVD, without MY authorization. Unauthorized use of one's property constitutes trespass.
====
Dan,
Mrs. Smith unauthorized use of my DVD (she assumed full ownership and shared content with Dance-Man) resulted in loss of my earnings (financial tort) - because she was legally required to pay a large amount of money to be able to do that (her husband signed a contract, which stipulates a large amount of damages in case he does something like that). She owes me money.
Published: March 7, 2007 11:37 AM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, you write: ". . .because she was legally required to pay a large amount of money to be able to do that (her husband signed a contract, which stipulates a large amount of damages in case he does something like that). She owes me money."
Mrs. Smith was under no such legal requirement because she was not under contract. That's precisely why there is a contract for those kinds of damages in the first place. If you take 7 apples out of my refridgerator, I can ask for 7 apples back.
In the case of ideas, no such physical scarcity exists, which is why there are contracts to prevent that kind of use. Since Mrs. Smith was not under any such contract, DVD-corp can only sue her for physical trespass.
Therefore, the claim: "Mrs. Smith['s] unauthorized use of my DVD (she assumed full ownership and shared content with Dance-Man) resulted in loss of my earnings (financial tort) -" is invalidated.
Published: March 7, 2007 11:46 AM
Sasha Radeta
Dan,
I never said that she Mrs. Smith was under contractual requirement.
Mrs. Smith assumed full ownership rights of a DVD, which are normally purchased by publishers (not just limited use, which prevents her husband to do what she did with Dance-man)... So she owes the money this full-use...
7 apples for 7 apples! You didn't invalidate anything... your persistent failed attempts are really amusing.
Regards.
Published: March 7, 2007 11:51 AM
Sasha Radeta
Correction: she owes the money FOR this co-ownership...
Published: March 7, 2007 11:54 AM
Sasha Radeta
In case Mrs. Smith argues about the amount of damages she is required to pay, she can be referred to the market price of those rights she illegally assumed (that's why you got confused when I mentioned her husband and how much he has to pay to legalize the same kind of action).
Published: March 7, 2007 11:56 AM
Dan Coleman
Sasha,
Though you've never made the claim itself, your "assumed full ownership rights" is a nice way of saying that the ideas and content of a DVD somehow belong to DVD-corp.
DVD-corp can sue for her physical trespass but only that. Any full-fledged suit over 'assuming full ownership rights' will not have a case, for such a lawsuit presupposes either (1) a contractual stipulation that has been broken, or (2) something inherent in the DVD that makes the use of its ideas in itself a trespass.
Unless your claims about "assuming full ownership" are rooted in something else, the lawsuit is rendered invalid, and does not apply to Mrs. Smith.
Published: March 7, 2007 11:58 AM
Sasha Radeta
No Dan,
Going back to insane notion of "idea and content ownership" is a nice way for you to continue arguing in a debate you lost and which ended a long time ago.
Mrs. Smith assumed full-ownership of my DVD - and that's what she owes. She did not stop with limited use that her husband paid for - she went further into commercial rights that normally cost large amount of money to obtain (but she wants them for free).
ANYWAY,
Even if you (incorrectly) believe that Mrs. Smith did not assume full-ownership of that DVD, you are not able to negate that her trespass (unauthorized use) created a financial tort of my lost earnings from business with Dance-Men of this world. Even your intuition should tell you that you're wrong.
Published: March 7, 2007 12:11 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Sasha:
YOU MUST BE JOKING!?!
Uh, no, dude.
You are talking utter nonsense. It is amazing to me that someone so utterly ignorant and confused about the law and libertarian legal theory should be so outspoken and confident of her views. I guess this is the naughts--amateur punks getting full of themselves and spouting verbose nonsense for all to see.
Let's say I grant you your bizarre factual and normative premises: that DVD-corp only temporarily loans Mr. Smith the DVD and only authorizes him to use it. That Mrs. Smith is not authorized to use it; that her walking by the room where Mr. Smith is (legitimately) watching it, and seeing some dance images on the TV is a "use" by Mrs. Smith of the DVD; that she is now liable to DVD-corp for damages, and that if she reveals the information she illegitimately and tortiously obtained to Dance-man, she incurs further liability to DVD-corp. -- okay? All of these are dubious assumptions, but let's grant them.
Now, you seem to be saying that if she is sued and pays damages to DVD-corp, she becomes a co-owner of the DVD and therefore entitled to distribute copies. Where do I begin. She would not become a co-owner. Are you nuts? Why would DVD-corp allow her to do this? They would seek damages from her as a result of her tort. They do not have to agree to let her be a co-owner as part of this settlemetn. You are just daft.
And even if they did, so what? What does this have to do with whether Dance-Man himself can make his own DVD with the dance moves shown? Dance-Man never committed a tort against nor breached a contract with Mrs. Smith, Mr. Smith, nor DVD-corp. He never even saw the original DVD.
Now, I assume you agree that neither Mr., nor Mrs. Smith, nor DVD-corp, has any cause of action against Dance-Man. Am I correct? If so, I rest my case. If you dance around or dodge this question again, I will simply deem you to have agreed. So this is the default, Sasha: unless you explicitly and expressly state that you believe one of these parties has a cause of action against Dance-man, that you have agreed that they do not. I have to take this kind of action here because of your evasiveness, slipperiness, and disingenuity.
Published: March 7, 2007 12:17 PM
Dan Coleman
Sasha, you write: "She did not stop with limited use that her husband paid for - she went further into commercial rights that normally cost large amount of money to obtain (but she wants them for free)."
You can't trespass on 'what would have otherwise been.' You can only trespass on someone's person or property.
It seems that the "commercial rights" that you mention denote the ability to replicate content. Yes, "normally" this costs a large amount of money to obtain via contract, and in these contractual agreements prices and damages are stipulated with clients.
Mrs. Smith, however, wasn't under contract. The case is restricted to her trespass upon physical property, not what her "damages" would have been had she been under contract.
This is something you have yet to show, how her 'trespassing' actions went beyond the simple watching of the DVD and extend to her replication of the ideas in the DVD.
"Even if you (incorrectly) believe that Mrs. Smith did not assume full-ownership of that DVD, you are not able to negate that her trespass (unauthorized use) created a financial tort of my lost earnings from business with Dance-Men of this world."
When it comes to idea replication, no action of hers trespassed on DVD-corp's property. Her telling Dance-Man the ideas (which you haven't shown to be trespass yet) may or may not have cost you business. For all you know Dance-Man may have never been interested in your trade secret.
Whatever the case may be, it is clear that you are certainly not free to claim that Dance-Man's would-have-been money was in any sense your property, and that, therefore, Mrs. Smith owes you that sum.
"Even your intuition should tell you that you're wrong."
You know, I was just thinking the same thing. . .
Published: March 7, 2007 12:37 PM
Sasha Radeta
WOW Dr. Kinsella...
All those sharp words and you actually said almost nothing true or relevant.
I never "danced around" your question about liability of Dance-Man. I actually answered it twice- DANCE-MAN WOULD NOT BE LIABLE IF HE WAS NOT THE PARTY WHO USED SOMEONE ELSE'S DVD WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION... Do you get it now??? In first couple examples we assumed that he was the one who borrowed someone else's DVD, but now we switched to DVD.
The fact that you did not see my straight responses only shows that you reply to my postings without actually reading them.
Now back to Mrs. Smith's scenario (to correct your unintentional errors):
- DVD Corp. does not temporarily loan their property to Smith. He only purchases the limited use of it, based on his contract.
- According to the libertarianism and common sense, the contract does not extend to the third party - so Mrs. Smith is committing unintentional trespass when she uses that DVD at home, but she would NOT owe any damages if that's the end of story.
- Once Mrs. Smith uses that trespass to create a financial injury to DVD Corp., she is committing a tort! So even you, Dr. Kinsella, admit this fact (DO YOU HEAR THIS DAN!)
Now, Dr. Kinsella argues: DVD corp. would sue for the momentary financial damages (based on market outcome) - and not for the co-ownership rights that Mrs. Smith assumed for free.
Why would a DVD company "be crazy" to sue for co-ownership instead? They would not be crazy at all! Dr Kinsella forgets that the amount of current financial injury caused by Mrs. Smith's may be small and that the amount necessary to obtain co-ownership rights is huge - and plus the punitive damages could even double this amount!
So instead of taking a small amount of damages that occurred until the present time (and being unable to estimate future damages) - DVD. corp would choose to demand much larger sum of money for the injury that cannot be reversed anyway (YOU CANNOT ERASE DANCE-MAN'S MIND, or minds of people like him)...
Dr. Kinsella - that was some lazy thinking on your part! But thanks for confirming my point in front of Dan: Mrs. Smith would be responsible for tort!
Published: March 7, 2007 12:38 PM
Sasha Radeta
Dan,
Your pseudo-arguments are past-tense.
Even Dr. Kinsella confirmed that under our scenario, Mrs. Smith is responsible for a tort of financial injury to the DVD company. We only differed regarding the type of the injury she caused and what would be a smarter action for the DVD Company - but I hope I clarified this completely.
Mrs. Smith trespassed against real physical property (used the DVD without owner's authorization) - and this trespass resulted in a serious financial injury. Go back to our example with trespass which results in your discovery of my trade secret (which would legally cost you millions of dollars to obtain). Your trespass in that scenario causes large injury - but I never have to claim that your act of "communicating" my trade secret was a trespass. Your trespass occurred earlier and you will pay for its consequences.
Bye-bye miss American pie...
Published: March 7, 2007 12:46 PM
Sasha Radeta
DR Kinsella said:
" They would seek damages from her as a result of her tort. They do not have to agree to let her be a co-owner as part of this settlemetn.
And even if they did, so what
SO NOTHING!
You just proved my point. Just try to convince Dan about this - and you finished a job for me :-))
Published: March 7, 2007 12:49 PM
Sasha Radeta
DR Kinsella said:
"They would seek damages from her as a result of her tort. They do not have to agree to let her be a co-owner as part of this settlemetn.
And even if they did, so what"
SO NOTHING!
You just proved my point. Just try to convince Dan about this - and you finished a job for me :-))
Published: March 7, 2007 12:51 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Sasha:
Good. I am glad to see you have dropped your mystical nonsense about being able to use some bizarre tort-contract hybrid to ensnare third parties.
If this is now your position, in contradistinction to your dozens of previous posts on other threads where you did maintain the third party would be liable, then you really have no views that are that controversial. You are simply claiming that people can be liable if they breach a contract; and that it can be a tort to use someone else's property without their consent. The rest is just details. Yawwnn.
So I take it you now admit that you disagree with Rothbard here:
Notice here that Rothbard says Black, the third party here (analogous to Dance-Man) is liable here even though he never had a contract with Brown or Green, and even though he didn't use the object.
So which is it, Sasha? Do you retract your earlier statement that you agree w/ Rothbard on this and that Rothbard is correct; or do you weasel back and say you agree w/ Rothbard even though you just stated your agreement with a contrary view?
Fancy that.
Irrelevant; a distinction without a different for this example. Whether Smith owns "limited rights in" the DVD or is a borrower of it, it's basically the same thing.
Not true at all. If I break in your house and steal nothing, and leave, having disturbed nothing, it's not the case that I have no liability, as would be implied by the legal principles you are stumbling around here trying to articulate and develop.
I don't admit it; you are dishonest. I only granted this for sake of argument; elsewhere I said all your assumptions were dubious.
You are a complete idiot. Why would a record company want to license its rights to some random stranger?
Yes, and every person who might use my DVD without my permission is a billionaire that I can get any conceivable amount of damages out of, eh? How convenient.
Sure, they want say $10M from Mrs. Smith. I'm sure she has that in gold in her mattress.
Actually, I think she would not be: I believe in any real world (like, oh, I don't know, the one we happen to live in) the implied contract between seller and buyer of the DVD would permit it to be shown to others, for personal use; and moreover, it would *not* have onerous and ridiculous provisions like "and you must get all such third parties to first sign onto a contract with us"--this would just be unworkable.
Posted by Sasha Radeta at March 7, 2007 12:38 PM
Dan,
Your pseudo-arguments are past-tense.
Even Dr. Kinsella confirmed that under our scenario, Mrs. Smith is responsible for a tort of financial injury to the DVD company. We only differed regarding the type of the injury she caused and what would be a smarter action for the DVD Company - but I hope I clarified this completely.
Mrs. Smith trespassed against real physical property (used the DVD without owner's authorization) - and this trespass resulted in a serious financial injury. Go back to our example with trespass which results in your discovery of my trade secret (which would legally cost you millions of dollars to obtain). Your trespass in that scenario causes large injury - but I never have to claim that your act of "communicating" my trade secret was a trespass. Your trespass occurred earlier and you will pay for its consequences.
Bye-bye miss American pie...
Posted by Sasha Radeta at March 7, 2007 12:46 PM
DR Kinsella said:
" They would seek damages from her as a result of her tort. They do not have to agree to let her be a co-owner as part of this settlemetn.
And even if they did, so what
SO NOTHING!
You just proved my point. Just try to convince Dan about this - and you finished a job for me :-))
Published: March 7, 2007 1:22 PM
Cosmin
Sasha, you are confused as to the number of "illegal" actions has Mrs Smith done. Let's clear the confusion by enumerating them.
1. Watched the DVD. (You claim this is trespass, even though fair use allows Mr Smith to authorize Mrs Smith to watch with him. Still, for the sake of argument, we'll grant you tresspass here.)
2. There was no second illegal action from Mrs Smith.
You claim that he telling Dance-Man the routine is illegal, since the contract doesn't allow replication. You forget she never signed a contract.
You then claim she assumed full-ownership. No she didn't. She communicated an idea in her brain. We are still free to communicate ideas in your world, are we not?
She's free to comunicate ideas, but not this one, perhaps? Why not this one? Because she acquired it through "tresspass"? The idea is her own, irrespective as to the method of acquisition. The only "illegal act" still remains the original "tresspass".
Has she aggravated the trespass to tort? That implies a second illegal action, which is missing.
Now, Dance-Man does his concert. Did he tresspass? No.
Did he financially injure the DVD company? Yes, insofar there is now competition as to where people go to learn dance-moves.
Did he aggravate Mrs Smith's trespass to tort? She's not responsible for his actions.
So how is Mrs Smith liable for anything other than the original "trespass", which you have already said isn't prosecuted by the company.
Published: March 7, 2007 1:39 PM
Dan Coleman
Thanks, Cosmin. Clear as a bell.
Published: March 7, 2007 2:11 PM
iceberg
Sascha,
But that's not what I asked you, and certainly I don't disagree that unauthorized usage is considered trespass.
My question is, and always was, how do you define the word "use", and how it applies to Mrs. Smith's actions, as I have a very difficult time to imagine that observation can be said to be an actionable "use" of property.
As a follow-up question; if you say that mere observation can be considered trespass, can the owner of a film sue unauthorized viewers of an outdoor movie screen, who have not trespassed onto the theater property?
Published: March 7, 2007 2:26 PM
Sasha Radeta
Iceberg,
Go back to definition of ownership provided by Ludwig von Mises. You own something if you can control the services that can be derived from some good. The "use" of a book or a DVD is consisted of watching its content. You cannot say that the only use of a DVD is "cold weaponry" (although it can also be used like that).
Published: March 7, 2007 3:13 PM
Sasha Radeta
Dan,
Cosmin is as clear as a mud. I never claimed that Dance-Man would be liable in your Mrs. Smith's example - so the second of his post was completely irrelevant.
Now when it comes to the first part, he claims that "fair use" allows Mrs. Smith to use DVD Company's property.
HOLD ON! Are you guys insane? Do you now claim that contract regarding terms of use between Mr. Smith and DVD Company can include a third party - outside of the contract? You guys used me accused me of such insane notion, and now you adopted it.
Again - If Mrs. Smith uses DVD without any restrictions, she assumed its full ownership. Even if you guys don't see it - Dr. Kinsella admitted it:
Mrs. Smith's unauthorized use (trespass) resulted in financial injury to a DVD company!
You still don't understand this point: Mrs. Smith would be liable - just like someone who enters my property and spies on my trade secret would be liable... It's not their act of "communicating" that constitutes the trespass - but their act of unauthorized use of my property, with all of its consequences (you cannot lawfully obtain something for free during a trespass - that would legally cost you large sums of money.
Published: March 7, 2007 3:14 PM
Sasha Radeta
Dr. Kinsella,
Although somewhat entertaining, your last posting did not have almost anything worthy of a response. Allow me to illustrate this conclusion...
YOU SAID:
"Good. I am glad to see you have dropped your mystical nonsense about being able to use some bizarre tort-contract hybrid to ensnare third parties.
I DID NOT DROP ANYTHING. No matter how hard for you is to understand this simple point: if a trhird party uses MY property without MY authorization (including unauthorized copies of somebody else, that according to the contract with that person now belong to me) - this person is committing a TRESPASS and it may be liable for TORT if I sustain some financial injuries.
...
OR WHEN YOU SAID THIS:
"You are a complete idiot. Why would a record company want to license its rights to some random stranger?"
I am not going to describe your mental abilities - but you keep missing a simple point:
- If some random stranger already assumed those rights - he created an irreversible damage to the DVD company. If DVD company asked only for the amount of injuries they sustained up to the present moment - that would be totally idiotic, since they would not be able to estimate or recover any future injuries. The best thing they can do is to ask for the money for those expensive rights this stranger assumed, plus double the damages.
It will be like they found another publisher, who paid them double the amount! You just don't get it.
BUT DR. KINSELLA HAS A RESPONSE PREPARED! HE SAYS:
"Yes, and every person who might use my DVD without my permission is a billionaire that I can get any conceivable amount of damages out of, eh? How convenient."
What a strange statement from someone who just called me an "idiot"... I just hope that you are still joking. Homeless people cause physical and property injuries all the time - do you actually suggest that they should be excused for their liability???
By the way, we both know that the most serious trespassers would be millionaires who professionally create unauthorized replications. But anyway, your comment was absurd.
PS
BTW, you misunderstood Rothbard. He never claimed that a third party is bound by the contract - he claims that Brown took something that does not belong to him (trespass and tort again). He came to his conclusion probably from the definition of ownership that was laid down by Mises. If you own some good - you have a right to control the services that can be derived from it. In such a strict sense, replicating a good is one of those services that belong strictly to the owner. I have a more strict view of where the unauthorized use (trespass) starts when it comes to something like mousetrap - but my basic principles are identical to Rothbard's and we would probably agree 100% when it comes to DVDs and books.
Published: March 7, 2007 3:16 PM
iceberg
Sascha,
Once again, you have avoided my question. Now that's two strikes.
I'll give you one more shot before I dismiss you as a dishonest nuisance.
Published: March 7, 2007 3:55 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Sasha:
I DID NOT DROP ANYTHING. No matter how hard for you is to understand this simple point: if a trhird party uses MY property without MY authorization (including unauthorized copies of somebody else, that according to the contract with that person now belong to me) - this person is committing a TRESPASS and it may be liable for TORT if I sustain some financial injuries.
The question here is Dance-man. Is he a "third party" or a "fourth party" to you?
Look: just because damages are based on harm to come, does not mean the plaintiff must become a co-owner with a defendant. What a moronic assumption. Stop playing lawyer, please. You are just embarrassing yourself, as you are talking out of your rear end.
Wow, how great, that your average consumer-trespasser is sitting on millions of dollars, ready to make publisher-plaintiffs rich.
No, but you don't make the homeless person co-owner of your copyrights in exchange for a worthless claim against his assets.
In the example R gave, he holds Black liable. Black IS THE THIRD PARTY. Black did not have a contract with anyone. Black did not commit trespass or any other kind of tort, as he didn't use anyone's property without their consent. Yet Rothard holds him responsible; and you have endorsed it. This is indeed holding the third party liable. Yet now you say you don't believe in holding the third party liable. You are nothing but a confused mishmash of gibberish.
Notice here that Rothbard says Black, the third party here (analogous to Dance-Man) is liable here even though he never had a contract with Brown or Green, and even though he didn't use the object.
Here we have a good example of the danger of sloppy language and equivocation. The user does not have the exclusive right to "replicate" his property if the replication can be done by a third party without physical possession and use of the object. In many cases all that is needed is awareness or information. For example the first pre-human to move out of the caves and build a log cabin--other cavemen nearby are of course aware of this. Why can't they "replicate" what they see--i.e., build their own log cabins?
Of course, they can; they did not "use" the first log cabin by seeing it and being aware of it.
I knew you would pull this slippery cr*p. Now you are trying to endorse the idea once again that third parties *are* liable even if they didn't trespass, even if they have no contract--in the very same thread where you indignantly denied you held this view. Your turns and twists and spins are truly breathtaking--are you an ice-skater, Sasha?
Published: March 7, 2007 3:58 PM
Sasha Radeta
Iceberg,
First you asked me:
"Please describe to me in plain, and simple words exactly the actions performed by Mrs. Smith when she made the unauthorized "use" of the DVD which constitutes trespass in your opinion."
I answered to this quite clearly: I said that her unauthorized viewing of DVD's content constitutes trespass.
----
Then you completely changed your mind about what you want to ask me. Now you wanted to know what the word "use" means!?! You asked me:
"My question is, and always was, how do you define the word "use", and how it applies to Mrs. Smith's actions"
So you completely change the question to even more idiotic one. But I assumed that you knew that the word "use" means: "to put into service."
- That's why I explained: You own something if you can control the services that can be derived from some good. The "use" of a book or a DVD is consisted of watching its content. You cannot say that the only use of a DVD is "cold weaponry" (although it can also be used like that).
Quite honestly, I don't care if you call me a "nuisance". I already dismissed you as a seriously disturbed individual who doesn't even know what he just asked.
Published: March 7, 2007 5:00 PM
Sasha Radeta
Dr Kinsella,
I already answered you question regarding a Dance-Man. If Mrs. Smith is the person who committed a trespass - Dance-Man is NOT A PARTY in the whole controversy. Come on! You can understand this.
DR KINSELLA SAYS:
“Just because damages are based on harm to come, does not mean the plaintiff must become a co-owner with a defendant. What a moronic assumption.”
I TOTALLY AGREE! What a moronic assumption - and someone who created this false assumption is a total moron. Unfortunately for you - I never said that plaintiff “must” become a legal co-owner with the defendant. They don’t have to even sue anyone - no one is forcing them!
All I said is that the defendant de facto assumed co-ownership and that his actions are irreversible. In order to get maximum amount of damages - the plaintiff should demand the payment for such expensive use of their property - plus to seek the punitive damages.
If the company only sued for financial injury based on speculated market damages, they would perhaps get much less - and they would not be able to estimate any future damages… Now that would be moronic on their part.
DR KINSELLA SAID:
“No, but you don't make the homeless person co-owner of your copyrights in exchange for a worthless claim against his assets.”
What a ridiculous attempt of making baseless analogy! If a homeless person steals my horse, kills it, and then eats it - he will owe me for that horse - plus punitive damages (in the same amount, according to Rothbardian principles). To excuse his actions just because he’s poor would be completely idiotic. Mrs. Smith’s actions would not be excused, regardless of her assets.
DR. KINSELLA SAID:
In the example R gave, he holds Black liable. Black IS THE THIRD PARTY. Black did not have a contract with anyone. Black did not commit trespass or any other kind of tort, as he didn't use anyone's property without their consent. Yet Rothard holds him responsible;
Again, according to Rothbard - Black is responsible for using something that was not his right of use (we call this trespass). Rothbard never called him a contract-breaker! His view is that Black committed a trespass. According to Rothbard, Brown is the owner of a mousetrap. According to the definition of ownership provided by Mises - ownership rights allow you a full control of services (or we can say uses) that can be derived from that object. According to Rothbard - the acts of observing and replicating some object are services that can be derived from that object - and Black allowed those services to himself, without owner‘s authorization.
Anyone could figure out that I didn’t follow Rothbard’s notion of “use” in this particular example, but otherwise we hold exactly the same principles which prove that copyright would exist even in a perfectly free market (which you were unable to disprove, while finally admitting that DVD company would have a tort case against a third-party trespasser like Mrs. Smith - or against someone who breaks their contractual terms of use). Also, I would agree with Rothbard 100% when it comes to DVDs and books, because in those cases “observing” is the normal method of “use” of those goods. Unauthorized (‘third party”) viewers are trespassers.
PS
I am not doing any twisting like an ice-skater… It’s just your imagination, which I find rather troubling (and you should too).
Published: March 7, 2007 5:04 PM
Cosmin
Sasha, you said:
"Now when it comes to the first part, he claims that "fair use" allows Mrs. Smith to use DVD Company's property.
HOLD ON! Are you guys insane? Do you now claim that contract regarding terms of use between Mr. Smith and DVD Company can include a third party - outside of the contract? You guys used me accused me of such insane notion, and now you adopted it."
Fair use as I used it is exactly what is being applied right now (for what that's worth). You're dismissing fair use provisions of copyright as we have it, all the while speaking for copyrights. Weird.
Also, you would have to include some fair use provisions in your version of copyrights, whether you like it or not. Any clause that would force Mr. Smith to kick his wife out of the room when he decides to watch his DVD is invalid. More than that, Mrs Smith would be entitled to watch that DVD even when MR Smith is not home. She's a free person in her own home and can use any object that is in her or her husband's property.
How that happens is that one does not need a contract to state what action is allowed in one's own home. Thus, she isn't a third party included in the contract. A contract would be however necessary to restrict her use of the DVD, and she has not agreed to it.
Who's insane now?
Published: March 7, 2007 5:28 PM
Sasha Radeta
Cosmin, you are.
You forget that I'm not talking about our current nationalized copyright system, which is not based on free-market contracts.
Mrs. Smith cannot be included in her husband's contract. You cannot include a "third party" into a contract and call it a "fair use".
What currently nationalized so-called "copyright" calls fair use - would be covered differently in pure free-market system. As I said before, the unintentional trespass (unauthorized use) by your wife (or Mrs. Smith in our example) would not be prosecuted. So Mr. Smith would not have to kick out his wife as you absurdly state.
Published: March 7, 2007 5:41 PM
Sasha Radeta
Only if Mrs. Smith uses her (unintentional) trespass to cause a financial injury to the owner of the DVD - this would constitute a tort.
Published: March 7, 2007 5:44 PM
Cosmin
I see that you only read half of a text before responding. ADD much?
To quote myself:
"How that happens is that one does not need a contract to state what action is allowed in one's own home. Thus, she isn't a third party included in the contract. A contract would be however necessary to restrict her use of the DVD, and she has not agreed to it."
Also, you keep saying unintentional tresspass would not be prosecuted. Isn't it absurd to create laws that are unprosecutable? Or is the tresspass prosecutable at the owner's discretion? Creating a law that will be selectively enforced... That's the way to freedom!
Published: March 7, 2007 5:59 PM
Stephan Kinsella
sasha:
You say this; but later you endorse Rothbard's comments about Black and the mousetrap, implying that the third party is liable.
Your error is in thinking that learning something is trespass, since it is a "use" of the object that embodies or displays the information or pattern learned.
By this insane theory, when I gaze at my neighbor's beautiful rose garden across the street, or at the mural he paints on the front of his garage, I am "using" it--and if i don't have permission, I'm a trespasser. And if I photograph that painting and reprint it and sell it then I am liable to him for damages.
Your theory is utterly bizarre, unlibertarian, incoherent, amateur, and confused.
Maybe; but this does not imply granting this trespasser any kind of *right* to do this, much less becoming a partner with the plaintiff going forward.
Please don't pretend like you have a clue as to what yo uare talking about. I know it's tempting for cocksure college physics majors to think they can deduce all of what law should be, a la Descartes, but this is false.
Published: March 7, 2007 7:14 PM
Sasha Radeta
Cosmin,
I usually don't respond to statements that are so absurd like the one you quoted.
You obviously don't know that valid contracts are not regulating behavior of sides outside of contract - even if their lives are "touched" by you on daily basis. Do you even comprehend how insane your statement was? Probably not.
There DOES NOT have to be a contract - that will state that some darn strangers are not allowed to use my property! And if they use it unintentionally - not to use their trespass to cause my injury.
Can please stop with such a low quality of postings.
Published: March 7, 2007 9:34 PM
Sasha Radeta
Dr. Kinsella
You must have confused me with Rothbard (thanks for the compliment). He claimed that Black in mousetrap example was liable. But don’t worry too much…. I expect even more confusion from you .
After admitting the enforceability of copyright contracts, you finally conceded that a third party can be liable for tort if there is an unauthorized use of one's property - but it is more important to you to prove that Rothbard was wrong... I don’t understand such obsession.
I explained where differ from Rothbard’s view of unauthorized use in his mousetrap example - but I also explained why his conclusion comes straight from definition of ownership that was formulated by Mises. According to that definition, any service (use) that you can derive from a good belongs to the author. To Rothbard, this means that the entire replication process (one of the services) belongs to the author, regardless of where you observed the good. To me - an observation of mousetrap does not qualify as its “use” - even if you do it for the sake of replication - but I understand where Rothbard is coming from and I agree with all of his basic ideas, which proved that contractual copyright would exist in a free market (and even you had to confirm enforceability of these contracts, as well as tort applications when it comes to a third party unauthorized use)..
In spite of your repetition (which forced me to repeat my same old answers), you did not disprove anything I said - and more than likely that will not change. Regardless of mousetrap example, viewing of the DVD content is its normal use. Same goes for books or trade secrets. Unauthorized viewing (use of the derived service) of such goods by a “third party” constitutes a trespass - and that has nothing to do with contract law.
Published: March 7, 2007 10:07 PM
Sasha Radeta
Poor Cosmin wrote:
-----
"Also, you keep saying unintentional tresspass would not be prosecuted. Isn't it absurd to create laws that are unprosecutable? Or is the tresspass prosecutable at the owner's discretion? Creating a law that will be selectively enforced... That's the way to freedom!"
------
Dude, we're not talking about laws of the state. We're talking about the common law. Of course that you can select whether or not you can press charges against someone - but if you want to win the tort case there has to be some injury.
In case of unintentional trespass when someone uses his friend's or household member's DVD (without using this trespass for material gains of you or someone else), there is no real injury that will create a judicial controversy. Furthermore, unintentional trespass cannot yield any punitive sanctions. Therefore, unintentional trespasses happen all the time - but they will not be prosecuted if they don't result in tort.
Published: March 7, 2007 10:20 PM
Cosmin
"There DOES NOT have to be a contract - that will state that some darn strangers are not allowed to use my property!"
So it's your property, then, is it? The DVD is the original company's property, you mean?
If so, Mrs Smith will call the company to come lift it everytime she wants to dust the DVD shelf. Failing that, she will lift the DVD herself, but bill the company for the service. (You know her rate will be in the 1000000$/hour.) Also, she can charge rent for the storage space provided. After all, you can't leave your property on someone else's property. You can't park your car in your neighbour's garage (even if you let him look at it). You can't leave your winter coat in his closet.
Perhaps you mean that the content of the DVD is the company's property. That they licensed only Mr Smith to see it, so Mrs Smith's viewing would be trespass. That, however, implies ownership of an idea and you're straying from common law there.
Published: March 8, 2007 1:12 AM
Cosmin
I said this:
"You can't park your car in your neighbour's garage"
What am I talking about? The car isn't even yours. You've only gotten the license to use it. You can't pop the hood to observe the engine or suspensions, to understand its inner workings.
Damn it!
On the plus side, it's the car company's responsibility to have the car working, in order to satisfy the use your contract entitles you to. Hurray!
However, make sure you don't give a ride to anyone working for a rival car company. Anyone else's trespass would be tolerated, but theirs causes financial injuries.
Dammit!
Still, don't worry about all these unpleasantries. Pop in a CD and go for a drive. Make sure to tell your significant other that she can't listen to the music, though. If she keeps trespassing all the time, she may be viewed as a multiple offender. Granted, one offense might not warrant prosecution, but habitual criminal behaviour must be curbed. Especially if she starts humming in public.
Published: March 8, 2007 1:42 AM
iceberg
Sascha,
My first question asked you to spell out what actions constitute the "use" of the DVD. Your irrelevant reply was that "Mrs. Smith used the DVD without authorization"
Strike one.
The second time I asked you to clearly explain what you mean by "use" and once again, your irrelevant reply was a boilerplate quote of Mises of what defines ownership, and not what it means to use something that constitutes trespass, because not every imagined use for an object qualifies as trespass, in converse to every trespass being considered an unauthorized use.
Strike two.
Your last song and dance still has not answered how observation can be considered a use that constitutes trespass (in the case where one has is under no contractual duty to refrain from observation, i.e., Mrs. Smith).
Strike three; you're out. This conversation can no longer serve any purpose-- goodbye.
Published: March 8, 2007 8:42 AM
Sasha Radeta
Cosmin,
Your last two messages are even more absurd and stupid (I didn't think you would manage to accomplish something like that).
DVD dusting by Mrs. Smith does not create any injury to DVD Company. On the other hand, taking their DVD and making a million unauthorized copies would create such injury.
You can't park your car in you neighbor's garrage - if you don't have his permission - because that would be a trespass! That was my whole point that you missed when you mentioned your stupid example with car.
If you purchased personal use of someone else's vehicle, you can drive it, pop the hood and dissect it, wreck it - do whatever your contract permits you to do (everything you are allowed to do now)! Your contract, however, will not allow you to freely reproduce that same vehicle (if you own a car company). For majority of sane people - this is not a problem whatsoever. When we purchase limited use of a vehicle, most of us don't do it in order to start our own manufacturing of that same vehicle.
When it comes to your neighbor, whatever goes for other car companies - goes for your neighbor as well. He can observe your vehicle as much as he wants, but he cannot lawfully use it without authorization - and turn that trespass into a financial injury. I don't know if you live in a mental institution, but most of my neighbors can live with the fact that they can't make money by reproducing someone else's vehicle or helping some rival company to that.
Published: March 8, 2007 8:56 AM
Sasha Radeta
Iceberg,
I explained what Mrs. Smith's "use" constituted a trespass on many occasions. I repeated the same point dozens of time. If you didn't have a mental capacity to notice them or understand them - that's not my problem. DVD viewing is its normal USE (service that can be derived from it) - and according to Mises all these services belong to the rightful owner (definition of ownership).
By the way, you were not even capable to remember what you asked (you changed the question after my first answer, which everyone can see from my quotes). I already dismissed you as a seriously disturbed individual who doesn't even know what he just asked, so there is no need to repeat good-byes.
Published: March 8, 2007 9:03 AM
Fred Mann
For the record, observing a signal transmitted from a DVD can not in any way be considered a trespass or "unauthorized use" (unless, perhaps it was viewed after trespassing on physical private property). The DVD broadcast/transmission is not scarce. It can be viewed simultaneously by every person on earth on a billion TV screens until the end of time. Only the physical DVD is scarce. Transmissions in general are not ownable. The fact that a DVD was designed to transmit a fixed signal is irrelevant. Just because something is designed to transmit, doen't mean you own the transmission itself, because again, it is not scarce. If you own a radio transmitter, you do not own the signal that it transmits -- whether or not Mises seems to say so. You just own the transmitter. Owning the physical transmitter (or DVD) means you control when and how it is put into service. In the case of a DVD, you control the "play", "stop", "fast forward", etc. functions. This is the extent of the use of the PHYSICAL property. You CAN attempt to limit access to the transmission, but once the transmission has been lawfully viewed by a third party, there can be no stipulation as to how the information gleaned can be used. Again, the transmission is not the property of anyone, so the observation of a transmission by a third party can not be considered "unintentional trespass" or "unauthorized use" (or "authorized" for that matter). No trespass = no tort = no free-market copyright scheme.
Published: March 12, 2007 10:52 AM
Sasha Radeta
Fred,
You are still confused about some basic economics terms.
If viewing of DVD was not scarce, people would not pay money to get it (demand is not restricted to the ownership of a physical good). Again, you don't understand that services are scarce and that's why we would have shortages for these services if we imposed a price ceiling at zero.
Go back to Mises's definition of ownership:
- Ownership implies the control over services that can be derived from a good - and those services are scarce. If you own a DVD, you get to control who will participate in its use (services).
Even if you still deny that definition of ownership - free market copyright could still exist on different basis (purchasers would have more restrictions and responsibility and it would be them who would have a tort case against third party if they cause them breach of contract) - but that's an unnecessary hypothesis. Your notion of scarcity and ownership is wrong.
Regards.
Published: March 12, 2007 1:01 PM
Francisco Torres
If viewing of DVD was not scarce, people would not pay money to get it (demand is not restricted to the ownership of a physical good).
People do not pay for the DVD because the view is scarce. They buy it because their TIME is scarce, and the DVD is a convenient format to view that which could be viewed at another time, either broadcasted, exhibited, performed, read, or even whistled but at inconvienient hours, from the standpoint of the viewer/listener.
Consider for example that, today, people prefer to buy a DVD with a movie, than physically going to a movie theather to see the same movie. The reason is NOT because the viewing of the DVD itself is scarce but because people value their time MORE than the moviegoing experience - you can view the DVD as many times as you want. It is the TIME that becomes the thing valued here, Sasha, and not the actual 1s and 0s burned on the DVD.
Published: March 12, 2007 3:30 PM
greg
NSK> Your [Sasha's] theory is utterly bizarre, unlibertarian, incoherent, amateur, and confused.
You had him at bizarre.
Published: March 12, 2007 6:33 PM
Sasha Radeta
Greg,
Of course that communists thing that private property rights are "bizarre."
------
Francisco,
You already proved that you are unfamiliar with the very definition of scarcity, so there is no need to show your complete ignorance.
Available services derivable from DVD are scarce - because demand would exceed supply when there is no price to ration who will actually get to view it (rationing role of price is one of the first lesions in economics).
You are also confusing the determinants of demand, such as the price of substitutes (the total price, including opportunity cost of time) - with the issue of scarcity which is actually caused by that demand (at some supply level).
Please, take at least the introduction to microeconomics at college, before you even dare to talk about these elementary topics.
Published: March 12, 2007 7:01 PM
Sasha Radeta
Scarcity is caused by the ongoing imbalance between the people's wants and needs (demand) and the resources available to meet those wants and needs (supply).
You cannot say that only one part - of only one determinant of demand - is causing this scarcity. If we had unlimited supply of DVDs, there would be no scarcity in this market, even if demand increased enormously (if the watching of DVDs became a matter of life and death).
It is no coincidence that people who are so unfamiliar with basic economics are the loudest in attacks against copyrights.
Published: March 12, 2007 7:19 PM
Cosmin
Sasha, take some basic reading and reading comprehension classes!
"DVD dusting by Mrs. Smith does not create any injury to DVD Company."
I never said it did.
What I did say is that the DVD Company is tresspassing inside Mrs. Smith's house. That trespass is aggravated to injury when Mrs Smith has to deploy extra effort in the course of her daily activities in order to navigate by this foreign impediment.
"You can't park your car in you neighbor's garrage - if you don't have his permission - because that would be a trespass!"
You can't park your DVD in Mrs Smith's house - if you don't have her permission - because that would be trespass!
"If you purchased personal use of someone else's vehicle, you can drive it, pop the hood and dissect it, wreck it - do whatever your contract permits you to do (everything you are allowed to do now)!"
So now your position is that one may dissect and thus observe the inner workings of an object he has purchased. Isn't that contrary to what you were saying about pharmaceuticals?
"Your contract, however, will not allow you to freely reproduce that same vehicle (if you own a car company)."
So the contract can deny you your most basic unalienable right to use knowledge from your brain, even when acquired lawfully (you said allowed to dissect), just so you don't create competition for the original manufacturer?
"When we purchase limited use of a vehicle, most of us don't do it in order to start our own manufacturing of that same vehicle."
We would if it were easy. If I run out of paperclips, I can bend a few wires. I'll know how, because I've observed existing paperclips (that I hadn't even bought).
If I decide to start making chairs, it will be totally based on the knowledge I've acquired observing the chairs I've already purchased.
Etc.
Published: March 12, 2007 8:36 PM
Sasha Radeta
Poor Cosmin, I actually missed how insane your original posting was (I didn't want to spend my time on someone in your condition).
You just showed that economic ignorance is not the only reason why SOME people are so loud in opposition to copyright. Some of them, like you, are suffering from serious disability, combined with delusions and hallucinations.
Have I ever claimed that this statement [""DVD dusting by Mrs. Smith does not create any injury to DVD Company."] was your? That statement was my explanation on why Mrs. Smith's dusting and unintentional personal use (trespass) does not create any tort - but commercial endeavors with Dance-Man do create such tort.
-----
Then your examples become so idiotic that they are not even worthy of a joke at their expense. It's just sad.
You said: "You can't park your DVD in Mrs Smith's house - if you don't have her permission - because that would be trespass!"
Unfortunately for you poor Cosmin - DVD company did not enter Mr. Smith's property - nor "park" any DVD without owner's authorization. Mr. Smith voluntarily picked the DVD and brought it to the house. That DVD did not create any pollution and when properly used it does not create any injuries, so there are no product-defects issues).
You also asked: "So now your position is that one may dissect and thus observe the inner workings of an object he has purchased. Isn't that contrary to what you were saying about pharmaceuticals?"
You hallucinate again. I say that anyone can also dissect and observe chemical composition of medications - but if you decide to make replications of such product, you must pay the price that was specified in your contract (stipulated damages). There is no such thing as "unalienable right to use [any] knowledge" in order to commit a breach of contract or tort. If you received someone's good under condition that you will pay certain amount of damages if you replicate it - that's the price you voluntarily paid.
But why do I even waste time on someone who thinks that a voluntary purchase of DVD is analogous to someone's physical invasion of your property (my garage example). Find some help dude.
Published: March 12, 2007 9:25 PM
Cosmin
Sasha, try using your brain whilst reading.
"Mr. Smith voluntarily picked the DVD and brought it to the house."
Sure, but it's Mrs. Smith's house. So everything you just worte was a waste.
"But why do I even waste time on someone who thinks that a voluntary purchase of DVD is analogous to someone's physical invasion of your property"
Mrs Smith didn't purchase the DVD. Mr. Smith did.
Published: March 12, 2007 9:41 PM
Sasha Radeta
Ha ha ha...
Cosmin tells me to use my brain. O tempora, o mores!
It's not Mrs. Smith's house - it's their co-owned house - what now you poor child?
But even if we change a scenario to one in which Mr. Smith purchases DVD, while LEGALLY living in someone else's house (paying rent) - DVD company did not trespass against that property (it did not use that house without authorization)... You are clueless about terms like "trespass," "injury..."
I hope you're just drunk and not permanently like this
Published: March 12, 2007 9:53 PM
Cosmin
"But even if we change a scenario to one in which Mr. Smith purchases DVD, while LEGALLY living in someone else's house (paying rent) - DVD company did not trespass against that property (it did not use that house without authorization)..."
How did it not trespass? It uses that house as storage space for its property without the owner's authorization. Is there another definition of trespass you've dreamed up?
In fact, we didn't even have to change the scenario. Let's go back to where Mr. and Mrs Smith are co-owners in the house. If neither of them had bought the DVD, it's presence in their house would clearly constitute trespass by the DVD company.
However, Mr Smith did buy the DVD, so his claim for trespass is null. But is Mrs Smith's claim of trespass also invalidated? I don't think Mr Smith's purchasing contract can enforce on Mrs Smith the obligation to authorize the presence of DVD company's property.
Mr Smith not being the owner of the DVD, he is not empowered to demand that Mrs Smith authorize the presence of the DVD on the premises. Only the DVD company can do that.
What happens then is that Mrs Smith drops claims for trespass only under the condition that the DVD company reciprocates and drops claims of trespass against her for using the DVD in question.
Published: March 12, 2007 10:17 PM
Cosmin
Also, you said:
"I hope you're just drunk and not permanently like this"
What if I am permanently drunk?
Published: March 12, 2007 10:18 PM
Cosmin
"If neither of them had bought the DVD, it's presence in their house would clearly constitute trespass by the DVD company."
Should read: ... ITS presence...
Published: March 12, 2007 10:24 PM
Sasha Radeta
Poor Cosmin...
If Mr. Smith is a tenant in someone else's apartment, his lease allows him to bring anything legally obtained into that apartment.
But even if Mr. Smith is a guest somewhere - if he brings a DVD into that apartment - it is not the DVD company that committed any trespass. In order for you to claim that they used someone's apartment for their storage purposes, you must prove that they stored it there. If someone steals or even rents your property - and then stores it somewhere without owners consent (trespasses) - that's NOT going to be your trespass (you don't even need a storage service for that item, since you rented it).
Plus, there is no injury to homeowner, so you it is obviously that you are drunk. Try to sober up - just for the heck of it - and then come back here.
Regards.
Published: March 12, 2007 10:40 PM
Sasha Radeta
Anyway,
if the apartment owner does not take any steps to remove unwanted property of someone else (instead she takes care of it by dusting) - there can be no injury for storage costs - even for the actual trespasser who placed that item there. It was obviously there with the owner's consent.
Go to sleep now :) Enough jokes from you for tonight.
Published: March 12, 2007 10:45 PM
Cosmin
Can you even read English, man?
"instead she takes care of it by dusting"
She's dusting the DVD shelf. She would have dusted that even if that DVD was not there. It's presence is an obstacle she must navigate around.
"If Mr. Smith is a tenant in someone else's apartment, his lease allows him to bring anything legally obtained into that apartment."
I figured you'd try to turn this into a discussion on renter's rights as soon as I let your first "paying-rent" blurb slide. However I don't see how that is in any way related to our current discussion.
"But even if Mr. Smith is a guest somewhere - if he brings a DVD into that apartment - it is not the DVD company that committed any trespass."
Wait a minute. I find a DVD i didn't buy in my house. I didn't put it in my house, so I naturally assume that it is lost. I decide to find its owner and return it to him. Are you saying the owner that I have to return it to is NOT the DVD company?
Mr Smith, being merely licensed to use the DVD, has no say in where the DVD can be stored. The DVD company has that priviledge and responsibility and has to clear storage with all the owners of the property where the DVD will be placed. It must also accomodate Mr Smith's usage rights by either shipping it to him in a timely fashion everytime he wants to use the DVD, or clear its storage rights with all those involved.
What you're saying is that Mr Smith can somehow extend the absolution of trespass of the DVD to all other owners involved, but oddly cannot extend the reciprocal absolution of trespass to the same owners when they become users. That's why you're just not making sense.
"... so you it is obviously that you are drunk."
That is a weird turn of phrase. It actually looks like that phrase was constructed by - dare I say it? - a drunk person!
Published: March 12, 2007 11:32 PM
Sasha Radeta
Can you read any language you poor guy?
If Mrs. Smith navigates around DVD while dusting - without any attempt to throw it out, she cannot claim that anyone owes her any compensation for that "complicated" dusting (idiocy) or for any storage fee. She did not take a reasonable action to prevent this from occurring.
As far as rent rights go - of course that you didn't understand how this relates to our topic. You are perhaps "differently able." Under contract, renter is allowed to keep lawfully obtained items in that place of rent - otherwise, all his furniture and clothes could be thrown out by a landlord whenever he feels like it.
Finally, if someone placed a stolen property in your house - you are not going to have any trespass and let alone any tort claim against the victim of theft. That theft victim did not store anything - so he does not owe any storage – plus, that person did not force you to store anything. The owner may choose to reward you for your action.... But that has nothing to do with our example.
I wish you a quick recovery.
Published: March 13, 2007 12:14 AM
Sasha Radeta
An owner of a stolen vehicle does not owe damages for thief's actions - whether it's a body injury with that stolen car - or a simple storage fee.
Cosmin's spam has nothing to do with our topic. He is probably still confused after the rebuttal of his theses that a "DVD company parked its DVD in Mrs. Smith's house" and his failure to find a single inconsistency in my free-market copyright theory.
Published: March 13, 2007 12:34 AM
Cosmin
"If Mrs. Smith navigates around DVD while dusting"
I didn't say Mrs Smith navigates around the DVD. I said that she is forced to do so by the DVD's presence.
First, she takes the step of contacting the owner of the DVD (the DVD company) and tells them to remove their property that is trespassing on her property. A reasonable action.
The company comes and takes the DVD.
Mr. Smith then calls the DVD company because he wants to make use of his right to use the DVD, as per his purchasing contract.
The DVD company ships him the DVD in less than 2 minutes.
When he's finished watching the DVD, Mrs Smith calls the DVD company again, so that they remove their trespassing property from the premises.
The DVD company doesn't have the manpower to continually do these operations, and satisfy both Mr Smith and Mrs Smith. They leave the DVD there. They are now trespassing against Mrs Smith. A mere trespass. No big deal, right? She decides not to prosecute.
Mrs Smith then decides to dust the bookshelf. As she isn't the DVD company's slave, she doesn't have to move their property. She calls the company, so that they lift the DVD, while she dusts the bookshelf.
They send someone over and he does as asked.
The following day, she decides to rearrange her living room. She calls the company again. This time, they refuse to comply. The trespass has been aggravated to tort.
What are the damages? Well, the value of Mrs Smith's labor is subjective. She decides that her labour is worth a million times that of those working for the DVD company. There being demand for the labor of moving the DVD, as long as she's the only one available to do the job, she can really set her own salary.
In order to avoid this situation, the company has to have someone on call, for everytime Mrs Smith wants the DVD moved. This way, they can avoid having to pay tort damage based on her exhorbitant hourly rates.
Does the example illustrated above seem contrived? Of course it does. But that's just because the original premise that you posited (that the purchaser doesn't own the DVD he purchased) is incredibly stupid.
Good night!
Published: March 13, 2007 1:03 AM
Francisco Torres
You already proved that you are unfamiliar with the very definition of scarcity, so there is no need to show your complete ignorance.
I a familiar with your penchant for using strange definitions to suit your needs. Scarcity is defined as something you find a posteriori, by placing some thing at price zero - duh.
Available services derivable from DVD are scarce - because demand would exceed supply when there is no price to ration who will actually get to view it (rationing role of price is one of the first lesions in economics).
Sir, you are indulging in intellectual dishonesy - now you are invoking "derivable" services - what is a "derivable" service? The issue is the viewing of an event, and a person using that viewing for his or her benefit. A person bought a DVD with information on it. Is the DVD scarce? Yes, because the materials themselves are finite. Is the information contained in it scarce, even by your definition (price zero) - NO, because the information can be copied and reproduced ad infinitum, in a computer, or downloaded from the net - you could ALWAYS meet demand.
So what is the issue? You have been trying to run a roundabout to prove what is unprovable - that a "work of art" or information is "scarce" and thus subject to the protection that private property is afforded. This is preposterous - ideas cannot be homesteaded
Please, take at least the introduction to microeconomics at college, before you even dare to talk about these elementary topics.
I would advise you to be more humble, because the way down can be steep. This discussion has been held on a philosophical level, based on aprioristic principles and logic - you, sir, have been trying to add mathematical-neoclassical (aka B.S.) definitions in order to muddle the waters, the usual ploy of someone not willing to debate in an honest way.
You are also confusing the determinants of demand, such as the price of substitutes (the total price, including opportunity cost of time) - with the issue of scarcity which is actually caused by that demand (at some supply level).
Sasha, I am not confusing anything - you were the one that mentioned the viewing of a DVD is "scarce", thus people pay for the DVD - you beg the question, again and again and again. What is veing viewed is the information reproduced by a DVD machine, but the viewing (the information) is NOT scarce - you can download a movie or the damned dance steps from the Internet as many times as you want - the price IS ALREADY ZERO!
This is not the reason why people buy DVDs. It is not the viewing which is scarce. Your runabout to "prove" that IP is property is not reasonable. Your ploy to prove that a person that copies dance steps is indulging in theft is illogical. Every time you try to prove this you end up begging the question.
Published: March 13, 2007 1:06 AM
Cosmin
Observe how he also avoided responding to this:
""When we purchase limited use of a vehicle, most of us don't do it in order to start our own manufacturing of that same vehicle."
We would if it were easy. If I run out of paperclips, I can bend a few wires. I'll know how, because I've observed existing paperclips (that I hadn't even bought).
If I decide to start making chairs, it will be totally based on the knowledge I've acquired observing the chairs I've already purchased.
Etc."
Why is replicating cars different than replicating a wheel, or chair, or whatever?
When called upon it, he usually makes a comment to the sort that a particular argument is beneath him, so he doesn't have to respond. That is crap. All arguments deserve response. Weak arguments are only easier to respond to.
Published: March 13, 2007 1:15 AM
Sasha Radeta
Cosmin,
you poor unintentional comedian :-)
DVD company is not responsible for storage of DVD that someone else places on Mrs. Smith's property (and furthermore Mrs. Smith can throw it out - the end). But even if we talk about something larger than a DVD - imagine if every owner of stolen or rented merchandise was responsible for storage costs that someone else causes. That's insane! Person who STORED the merchandise is responsible for STORAGE costs. It is people who cause trespass, not the items.
You ask: "Why is replicating cars different than replicating a wheel, or chair, or whatever?
This particular comment is really beneath me - but I answered it so many times before: you cannot prove that someone replicated your particular wheel, so proving the breach of contract or tort would be impossible - on the other hand, it would be easy to prove that I replicated Audi A6, if I start producing cars identical to them. There's is nothing mystical about the original works of authorship and copyright: they are just easier to prove in court.
Someone asked me: what if I get caught on tape admitting that I replicated your particular wheel (for which we had an absurd copyright agreement...) Well, that's an admission of contractual breech, and I would be forced to pay damages. But such situation is unrealistic and absurd.
------
Francisco, poor Francisco,
I am not invoking any "mathematical-neoclassical" definitions. Consult Mises institute for a definition of scarcity. You actually thought that only one determinant of demand (actually one part of it) is causing scarcity - which is ludicrous.
If you had any contact with basic economics, you would know that the ongoing imbalance between demand and supply is called SCARCITY and this condition is causing price formation. In other words, if we forced markets to abolish prices in some communism - we would have widespread shortages. It is the role of market prices to ration who gets goods and services (unlike socialism, in which government takes this role for some part or totally).
Services that can be derived from a particular good are scarce, because the supply of these goods is finite - while people's wants and needs are virtually infinite. If you had intro to economics, you would know this. If you don’t know what "derivable" means, consult the dictionary. I know that you are unfamiliar with business world, but the supply of useful business ideas (recorded on some hardware) is scarce - because the demand for such information exceeds available supply. The owners of XXX pay-sites use contractual agreements to create limited supply of their porn videos, just so they don't get into a situation in which there is no scarcity for their services (and they make no money). The same goes for inventors....
They all have property right to create contractual copyrights because that right comes from the very definition of ownership. If you own a particular good, you can demand the terms in which your good can be used by others.
You asked: "you can download a movie or the damned dance steps from the Internet as many times as you want - the price IS ALREADY ZERO!
The price is not a zero if the owner of a website demands you to pay for its view - and he also demands that you accept the terms of use which will prevent you from replication and distribution of that material. In this way, we have situation in which the supply of content is not unlimited and demand exceeds it. Capitalist often take measures to restrict the market supply and you can't blame them for this. But I know you have problems with property rights - just like anyone who is clueless about the basic economics.
Regards.
Published: March 13, 2007 11:04 AM
Cosmin
"and furthermore Mrs. Smith can throw it out - the end"
It's only the end until Mr Smith wants to watch the DVD again. That's when the DVD company must re-ship it to him to satisfy his usage rights stipulated in the contract.
"imagine if every owner of stolen or rented merchandise was responsible for storage costs that someone else causes."
If the owner is not responsable for storage, then he can have no claim of trespass against his product when it is being used. Are you saying an item can be stored without the owner's authorization, but can't be used without same?
I use the gas pump at the gas station sometimes. Can I store it in my garage when I'm not using it, without the gas station owner's permission?
Published: March 13, 2007 11:50 AM
Sasha Radeta
Cosmin,
Stop embarrassing yourself.
DVD company did not force its entry into Mrs. Smith's home and it did not store anything there. It does not need to reship anything if its not responsible for product damage. Your cognition is seriously impaired.
And again - you are clueless about the definition of trespass. While DVD company is not responsible for any trespass when a person steals or rents their merchandise and stores it somewhere (they are not doing any use of someone else's property) - the DO have a claim when someone uses their product without authorization.
If you steal someone's gas pump - that's a straight theft. Are you out of your mind?
Published: March 13, 2007 1:31 PM
Dan Coleman
I haven't checked this thread in a week or so but I see that we're in the same place. Sasha claims that ideas can't be owned, that content is in fact scarce because people charge money for it, and that lawsuits based on 3rd party replication of content are somehow based in property rights. . .even though content can't be owned.
Oh well. I can't tell what's most fascinating about this thread: seeing all of the different holes poked in Sasha's theory, watching as he has nothing new to say (excepting personal attacks, which will undoubtedly be his response to this), or the fact that Sasha can't quit. He just can't. I'm willing to bet that he'll have the last post in this thread.
There's no need to respond to this, Sasha, although I'm positive that you will. It won't matter to me either way, of course, since I won't read, much less respond to, anything else that you say in this thread. Cheers!
Published: March 13, 2007 1:42 PM
Sasha Radeta
I know that Dan will not read anything I write, since I get him frustrated so much. I simply drive him crazy. Dan is showing different type of copyright hater: one that lies without any feeling of shame, knowing that he will not convince anyone.
I didn’t say that: “content is scarce because people charge money for it”
I said that services that can be derived from a good (controlled by their owners) are scarce because there is an ongoing imbalance between demand for these services - and supply of these goods. Market prices emerge when the owners try to ration this demand and decide who will get their good’s services.
PS
Of course that third party copycats can get sued, if they trespassed in order to make such copies (used my property without my authorization).
Published: March 13, 2007 2:05 PM
Francisco Torres
I am not invoking any "mathematical-neoclassical" definitions. Consult Mises institute for a definition of scarcity. You actually thought that only one determinant of demand (actually one part of it) is causing scarcity - which is ludicrous.
Uh, no. YOU are applying a concept on ONE part - the information. You commit the fallacy of composition, implicit in your comment about the "Available services derivable (???) from [a] DVD". That comment is irrelevant to the issue at hand, if one person copying dance steps he or she saw is commiting Tort, or in the case of a person copying a DVD into his computer, is he or she commiting a tort. You are just trying to make a runabout to the illogical concept of IP by applying the scarcity concept on something that is NOT scarce.
If you had any contact with basic economics, you would know that the ongoing imbalance between demand and supply is called SCARCITY and this condition is causing price formation.
Sir, I have made clear that the concept is not beyond me. What I find absurd is your application of the concept to Ideas (you have many times, in a very dishonest fashion, tried to distance yourself from the copyright concept, when your very arguments demand that copyright be a valid concept, which is not).
In other words, if we forced markets to abolish prices in some communism - we would have widespread shortages.
Again, sir, this is not beyond me. That is not the issue. It is your application of the concept, to convert that which is NOT scarce into something that IS scarce, in order to support your contention that a person copying something he or she SAW is commiting tort, that I find objectionable and incorrect. It does not matter how many times you call me an ignorant, the fact that your argument begs the question has not changed.
Services that can be derived from a particular good are scarce, because the supply of these goods is finite - while people's wants and needs are virtually infinite.
Irrelevant. The issue are not the services "surrounding" an idea. The issue is the information itself and if using that information for my benefit constitutes a tort. You have argued that the very action of "seeing" the information without consent is a tort (!), even when no property has been taken or exchanged - ideas are NOT property, because they are NOT goods (they are non rivalrous, cannot be homesteaded. You cannot place a fence arround them once they are in people's minds or media.)
If you don’t know what "derivable" means, consult the dictionary.
No, what I say is that you are now flying off a tangent by bringing that up. These derived services are IRRELEVANT to the issue. If you want to argue that copyrights are importat to protect the profitability of these services, then you would be honest in doing so. You would also be arguing in favor of monopolistic competition and protectionism.
What is the issue? Person A copied some dance steps and charged money to show them or is making money using them. Another person, B, alledging that the dance steps belong to him, and that
A has commited a tort. Does he have a case?
No, because A did not take anything from B. Even if A saw the dance steps in a DVD that he rented, it does not mean that A commited a tort - the image in itself is NOT property - you cannot build a fence around an idea that is already made public. And once made public, it can be spawned as many times as people like, which ipso fact invalidates the concept of scarcity that you are trying to (mis)apply.
I know that you are unfamiliar with business world,
You must be omniscient. Not humble, that is for sure, but omniscient, to assert such a thing.
but the supply of useful business ideas (recorded on some hardware) is scarce - because the demand for such information exceeds available supply.
That is false. This is what I have been talking about since the begining, and yet you said you were against the idea of copyrights, remember? Business ideas, whatever they may be, are NOT scarce, for the simple reason that they can be copied - if they can be recorded, then they can be reproduced, ad infinitum. What you are doing is confusing the uniqueness of the originator of an idea with the "scarcity" of the idea, but that is preposterous - it is not like there are a few clever people in this world and that only they could come up with ideas.
The owners of XXX pay-sites use contractual agreements to create limited supply of their porn videos, just so they don't get into a situation in which there is no scarcity for their services (and they make no money).
You just described artificial scarcity - again, information is not scarce. And porn sites do not create a limited supply of their videos - they would carry a certain variety of videos, Sasha, which is NOT the same thing. A video can be downloaded and copied as many times as you want. The porn sites do not make money by simply supplying porn videos - anybody can do that. They make their money by making it convenient to their customers. Also, the profitability is not insured by copyrights - that is naivette of the unicorn-sighting kind. They make the money because they keep offering an ever changing variety of photos and videos, not because their videos are "scarce".
They all have property right to create contractual copyrights [here we go again - FT] because that right comes from the very definition of ownership. If you own a particular good, you can demand the terms in which your good can be used by others.
Ideas are NOT goods. They are non-rivalrous, nor can they be homesteaded. Who is being confused here, Sasha?
The price is not a zero if the owner of a website demands you to pay for its view - and he also demands that you accept the terms of use which will prevent you from replication and distribution of that material.
Big "if". And if he does not, then it IS zero, right? What happened to demand outstripping supply? Because I can download a video, copy it zillion times, and distribute it to my pals. Am I making money? Maybe not. But here is the thing, Sasha - YOU confuse PROFIT, with MONETARY profit.
In this way, we have situation in which the supply of content is not unlimited and demand exceeds it.
In what way? If I agree to terms? And what happens if I not? Would that create a shortage? Of course not, Sasha! You are treating the idea originator as the scarce resource! But we are talking about here is one idea that already EXISTS, and THAT can be copied over and over and over - supply indeed can meet demand.
Capitalist often take measures to restrict the market supply and you can't blame them for this.
I can - if they use your phony arguments to ask Papa-government to squelch the competition. That is what copyrights do, in actuallity.
But I know you have problems with property rights - just like anyone who is clueless about the basic economics.
Don't flatter yourself, you are not that clever. And get this: I have absolutely NO qualms with property rights, when property is something I can HOLD and HAVE and not one else can. Ideas are not like that - they can spawn in people's minds ad infinitum. What you just did was to treat THE ORIGINATOR of the idea as a scarce resource, somebody that should enjoy some kind of special treatment over property rights of others so as to avoid competition.
You also commit the very childish fallacy of the false dichotomy - assuming that anybody not in favor of copyrights MUST BE against property rights per se.
Published: March 13, 2007 3:57 PM
Sasha Radeta
Francisco,
That's too much talk about nothing.
You cannot escape from the fact that you demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of definition of scarcity and what it implies. You tried to deny that scarcity is nothing but an ongoing imbalance between demand and supply for services that can be derived from those goods (we demand only those goods that can be "used" / put into SERVICE). But I hope that we corrected your errors.
When it comes to issue of copyright - you miss the application of ownership and scarcity. If own something - you have a right to control services that can be derived from a good. As an owner, you can control who can use your DVD and under which condition they can enjoy those services ("terms of use" determine the price/damages for commercial use or replication). Unauthorized use of a DVD by a third party is a trespass by definition.
Every scarcity for man-made product is "artificial." It is caused by both demand and supply. Scarcity of diamonds could be much smaller to almost non-existent, if its producers wanted to exploit much more and advertise less (so much that demand only comes from industrial use). On the other hand, if producers were not able to control supply and influence demand (play with scarcity) - many producers would not have profit incentive to serve us with many wonderful inventions and other goods. That's what communists don't get.
Published: March 13, 2007 4:20 PM
greg
"I didn’t say that" -- Sasha Radeta
"I didn't say that! You said that! Did I say that? I didn't say that! I think that's so funny that you think I said that! You can't prove I said that. That isn't what I said. You said that, not me. I didn't say that!" -- Nathan Thurm
You're looking more and more like a cartoon character.
Published: March 13, 2007 6:20 PM
Sasha Radeta
Greg,
Thanks. Your "intelligent" comment about my denial of statements I never made (common tactic of some copyright statements) says enough about you. You look more and more like someone who has nothing to say about our topic.
Published: March 13, 2007 6:25 PM
Sasha Radeta
In spite of all misunderstandings of basic economics (the inability to understand that scarcity is also caused by seller's manipulation of supply - and not just by only one determinant of demand), Francisco actually raised a valid point:
- can we tolerate an artificial scarcity that is caused by contractual restrictions (private property rights)?
The answer is: yes! We must uphold property rights in all of their applications, or the entire market system would crumble and fall. If we accept the principle that private property rights can be invalidated if they restrict supply (cause more scarcity), soon enough you will have people who will say that any intentional restriction of supply of goods and services is invalid (claiming it is "artificially" creating hunger and poverty) - and you will have a nationalization of the entire economy. As the result, you would actually have less supply, because the profit incentive of producers would disappear. That’s deja vu for those of us who grew-up in socialism.
PS
Find me an anarcho-communist or any left libertarian who supports copyright! There is no one? What a surprise.
Published: March 13, 2007 6:57 PM
Fred Mann
Nathan Thurm!!!
Yes!!
"I know that! It's so funny you think I wouldn't know that!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLBQxk72NY
(Not the best Nathan Thurm specimen, but still pretty funny. I have a better version, but apparently I don't own my copy.)
Anyway ....
Published: March 14, 2007 11:45 AM
Fred Mann
Sasha writes:
"Go back to Mises's definition of ownership:
- Ownership implies the control over services that can be derived from a good - and those services are scarce. If you own a DVD, you get to control who will participate in its use (services)."
I can see why you like this vague definition of ownership. But let me help you out. Using this definition, you could avoid all this hassle and simply claim ownership of ideas themselves, which is what you really want to do. After all, we own our brains, and ideas are "services" that can be derived from our brains. In fact, you might say that this is the main function, or "normal use", of the brain. -- i.e. ideas are one of the main products of our brains. And since we own our brains, we own the product of cognition -- we own ideas.
Of course any ACCURATE definition of "ownership", "property", or "scarcity" MUST include a reference to rivalrousness.
Published: March 14, 2007 12:29 PM
Sasha Radeta
That's not a "vague" definition of ownership. It is precise and exactly describes what ownership is. Ownership of ideas does not exist (although you dream about someone saying such nonsense, so that you finally can refute someone advocating copyright). You can only own physical goods - and that ownership means that you can control who uses your product (you control services that can be derived from your good).
Use your brain however you want, but if I don't have any contract with you - you can't use my product. On the other hand, if we form a contract when it comes to your use of my work of original authorship, I will make sure we have a copyright agreement that will make any replication very expensive for you.
Regards.
Published: March 14, 2007 6:31 PM
Sasha Radeta
By saying that scarcity is an ongoing imbalance between people' wants and needs and the ability to satisfy those needs (demand exceeding supply and price ceiling) - we actually imply ravenousness, but some people are not intelligent enough to understand it.
Published: March 14, 2007 6:34 PM
Sasha Radeta
Correction: "we actually imply rivalrousness".
If demand was equal or smaller than supply - there would be no rivalry and no basis for price formation. But such conditions do not exist for useful services that can be derived from scarce goods. That's why owner's can contractually restrict the use (services) of their scarce goods and charge money - but socialists do not see the big picture and can't deal with this.
Published: March 14, 2007 9:48 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Sasha: "That's not a "vague" definition of ownership. It is precise and exactly describes what ownership is. Ownership of ideas does not exist (although you dream about someone saying such nonsense, so that you finally can refute someone advocating copyright). You can only own physical goods - and that ownership means that you can control who uses your product (you control services that can be derived from your good)."
you control services that can be derived from your good -- wow, interesting. This right to control services "derived from" one's goods seems to have a lot of potential applications! Why, we might even build up a form of copyright and patent law out of it!
Published: March 14, 2007 10:11 PM
Sasha Radeta
Mises's definition comes from the fact that the owner has sovereign right to "use" his property. And the verb "use" means "to put into service."
Regardless of our potential disagreements on what constitutes "use" (or "services" derived from property) - we should all agree that the owner should have a right to fully control all of them.
This control should include the right to regulate the use of his product based terms of contracts (market exchanges) with other individuals....
- OR the right to restrict third parties from use of his product - and to demand damages for all injuries that result from such use.
Common law is enough. Private property rights would survive and do well even without state's formation of artificial branches of law.
Published: March 14, 2007 10:36 PM