Intellectual Terrorism Stopped by Police
The wicked French teen had translated and posted Harry Potter.
The Bailout Reader
Blog Archives
Last Knight Live Blogs
Betrayal Live Blog
Recent Comments
Inside Links
Students
Journals
Outside Links
- Against Monopoly
- The Austrian Forum
- Acton Blog
- Adam Smith Institute Blog
- AntiWar.com
- Austrian Addiction
- Austrian Economists Blog
- BK Marcus
- BusinessPundit
- Cafe Hayek
- Division of Labor
- EconLog
- EconomicsRoundtable
- FFF
- Fragmented Obsessions
- FreedomTalks
- GeneCallahan
- HayekBlog
- Huebert
- Independent Institute Blog
- JaneGalt
- HNN Liberty & Power Blog
- Karen De Coster
- Stephan Kinsella
- LibertyGuys
- LewRockwell.Com Blog
- MarginalRev
- Organizations & Markets
- Ponder This
- Reason
- Roderick Long
- George Reisman
- Samizdata
- Stefan Karlsson
- Sybil's Star
- Truck & Barter
- VoluntaryXchange
- Wendy McElroy
Comments (32)
His own hand-crafted translation is not considered a derivative work?
Insanity.
IP is nothing short of insanity.
Published: August 9, 2007 11:21 AM
What's insane is regarding this act as normal.
I dont know about jailing as a punishment, I think he should pay severe damages, but what he did is a crime.
Published: August 9, 2007 11:30 AM
It's a tricky subject. I don't know what the rules regarding translations are, and what constraints there might be on publishing independent translations.
Published: August 9, 2007 12:01 PM
How ironic is it that this took place in the hometown of the most important austrian economics meeting of Europe...
http://www.ies-europe.org/viewEvent.php?menu_id=2&article_id=176
Published: August 9, 2007 12:20 PM
"How ironic is it that this took place in the hometown of the most important austrian economics meeting of Europe..."
Why is it ironic, who amongst the prominant Austrian economists deny IP?
Published: August 9, 2007 12:29 PM
Mises questioned the efficacy of IP in Human Action, he didn't deny it, but he sure didn't affirm it either. I don't have a copy handy, I'll have to paraphrase, but he discusses the fact that a genius will produce anyway, so the IP incentive just gives you LOTS of Danielle Steele.
Published: August 9, 2007 12:43 PM
ktibuk: "What's insane is regarding this act as normal."
I suppose it was insane to translate another book, the Bible, into other languages and share it, too.
I wonder if the Gideons are at all concerned that one day the "rightful" heir(s) to the IP will want some sort of payment for all those books they hand out.
Published: August 9, 2007 1:14 PM
ktibuk: "What's insane is regarding this act as normal."
Looks to me like this guy did what he pleased with his property, just as any rightful owner might... you know, by not damaging / destroying / denying the use of anyone else's person or property in any way...
Looks like he's a non-criminal with respect to the only law that matters: the non-aggression axiom.
There's a million crimes being committed here, but this guy's actions aren't among them.
Published: August 9, 2007 1:39 PM
"Looks to me like this guy did what he pleased with his property, just as any rightful owner might..."
But it wasn't his property, see. He leased it on certain conditions.
What he bought was not the total rights that comes with the exchange of property titles.
If the author or the publisher had "sold" the book, the way you assume a sale takes place, she would have done so for like maybe a billion dollars not 10-20 dollars, then the buyer would do whatever he pleases, and putting it on the internet could be one of them.
When you buy a book, or a movie or a music cd or software for 10-20 dollars you dont buy them. You merely lease them on certain conditions.
Just like buying a house and renting a house. You can't rent a house and act as if you own it. That is why you dont need a couple of hundered thousand dollars to live under a roof.
It isn't that complicated.
Published: August 9, 2007 5:46 PM
"Looks like he's a non-criminal with respect to the only law that matters: the non-aggression axiom."
He has agressed against property just like someone who frauds someone else.
The publisher or the author wouldn't agree to what he did. This is the same thing as threatening the owner to do something he doesnt want to do. Thus a form of agression.
Published: August 9, 2007 5:48 PM
"I suppose it was insane to translate another book, the Bible, into other languages and share it, too."
I am an atheist so I dont really care about the translation of the Bible. I guess the supposed owner, the almighty, wouldn't mind since the bible is basically a propaganda piece. I dont know who the gideons are so I wont comment.
Also Marx and Engels wouldn't have mind the communist manifesto being translated and spread either, and not just because they were socialist and didnt believe in property rights too.
Published: August 9, 2007 5:53 PM
ktibuk,
IP rights have nothing to do with contractual agreements to restrictions of use of physical property, as you persistently assert.
IP rights claim that non-tangible "goods" may be owned.
Don't come to us saying that we're merely leasing the physical items, because we aren't. We own the physical items, but are told by the law that we cannot copy the book because that would be theft non-physical "intellectual property."
If you wanted to actually lease your books to people under special conditions, then nobody here would give a damn. That has nothing to do with the IP argument.
Published: August 9, 2007 6:34 PM
Ok so you guys created a boogey man called IP, dressed him up, hung him and now you are throwing rocks.
I dont really care what you call it.
The author of the book Harry Potter leases the books. Ok?
She doesnt sell you the paper and ink. She leases it for life on the condition that you wont let anyone copy it and you wont copy it also.
If the movie you watched said, "you dont own the disc, this dvd or whats on it, you may only watch it at your home" would your actions be any different from now?
Would you be willing to pay some lesser amount? Would the wording affect your decision regarding that movie relative to now?
Or the song?
It is just wording I am changing and all your witch hunt comes to an end. And for people who have common sense this is all implied in the copyright customs. Everybody is aware of but you guys and some thieves.
Well grounded theory you have, very well grounded.
Published: August 9, 2007 7:48 PM
ktibuk, I can agree with your argument, which could also be described as that the sale of a book is really entry into a contract that allows the book purchaser certain rights, while reserving others to the author/publisher. Fine.
The question that remains is how entangled should the state be if the book purchaser violates the contract - does the author/publisher have merely private rights of action and can use state judicial machinery to sue for damages or an injunction, or must/should the state be involved by pursuing criminal sanctions for a breach of contract? We do have criminal sanctions for theft of physical property - when should similar sanctions, as opposed to merely private measures, apply violations of other private rights?
Published: August 10, 2007 12:21 AM
OK if i put up a big sign that says "congratulations, you owe me a million dollars and you aren't allowed to drink orange juice anymore" what happens is there is this unspoken contract that you agreed to by looking at my sign. And while you continue to look at my sign thinking "hah, what an idiot that jean paul is with his idiotic sign... of course i don't owe him a million dollars, now lets have some of that delicious orange juice," you are actually in violation of your un-agreed-to contract and you owe me a million dollars. Don't worry, the pigs are en-route to beat some justice into you.
PS ktibuk you owe me a million dollars.
Published: August 10, 2007 1:48 AM
I am an anarchist TokyoTom, I believe state is organized crime.
Jeap Paul, please. You are embarrassing yourself.
Published: August 10, 2007 2:58 AM
Seriously ktibuk?
If your recourse is "unspoken un-agreed-to contract as decreed by the first announcer" then which 'anarchist' is really embarrasing himself?
Published: August 10, 2007 10:25 AM
Jean Paul are you seriously claiming the "generic copyright clause" is unknown to anybody or it is arbitrary just like you weird example?
Everybody knows what they're doing when buying a book, a movie, song etc.
Even in software you don't "buy" but "license" and have you ever read an End User License Agreement?
Nobody is claiming the implied contract is some detached fantasy you keep claiming, the publisher don't ask for strange things. It is implied in the name even, it is called a copyright for gods sake.
And if everybook had "this is leased property you can only read it yourself but you don't own the damn paper and ink" written in it, do you think anything would change regarding the industry? Do you really think customers would think differently regardin Harry Potter, or their demands would change?
In every theatre it seems theatre owners are using posters to puncuate that when you buy a ticket you only get into a contract regarding watching the movie and you can not tape it.
But even this explicity bothers you people as evident in Tucker's previous post.
You want the producers to surrender their products entirely to society, you want the creators of Intellectual Property to be slaves of society.
And then you get offended when I call you socialists.
Published: August 10, 2007 10:58 AM
ktibuk,
So, someone may read Harry Potter aloud to themself at Starbucks, I think it's a safe assumption that while they may have agreed not to use the book to make copies, they didn't agree *not* to read it aloud to themselves.
Person B overhears the story of Harry Potter. He has not entered into agreement with regard to the property. Therefore he may do what he wishes with the new information in his head. Agreed?
Published: August 10, 2007 1:28 PM
Kavin B we are talking about principles here please stop trying find loop holes.
I am sure some lawyer could make a bullet proof contract (including reading aloud in public) and put it in the first page of the book if needed. Copyright for books have a long custom so they dont do this. Also there isn't a broad challange to the copyright thats why nobody really bothers putting extensive contracts in the books.
But go ahead an read a EULA for a software, you will see what kind of contract they can write. They make you accept it before you install it. You dont like it dont install it. You dont like the contract dont buy the book.
That simple.
Published: August 10, 2007 1:39 PM
ktibuk,
I think it is important to point out that while you say that restrictions on use of products are agreed to by the purchasers, or in other words if I sell you an axe on the condition that you don't make copies, such an agreement not to make copies cannot be forced onto non-consenting third-parties who observe your use of the axe.
Because physical property rights fail to transfer the physical property of third-parties against their will, IP rights are invented, claiming ownership of non-physical stuff. That way, not only are you prevented from copying the axe, but non-parties to our agreement are as well, allowing me to confiscate the physical property (the minds) of the third-parties.
If it was really all about agreements to restrictions on use of physical property as you claim, then nobody would be clamoring for IP rights. Can't you see that you are saying that their are intellectual property rights, but you are basing all of your arguments on physical property rights?
Published: August 10, 2007 1:48 PM
"Can't you see that you are saying that their are intellectual property rights, but you are basing all of your arguments on physical property rights?"
Or rather that you are arguing for intellectual property rights, but you are basing all of your arguments on physical property rights.
Published: August 10, 2007 1:50 PM
"Or rather that you are arguing for intellectual property rights, but you are basing all of your arguments on physical property rights."
No I am not.
When you realize there is a differance between a Harry Potter novel and a blank notebook, you will see that.
We are not talking about just the paper and ink.
There is something there, that is created and valued by others that makes the difference and that is called IP:
Using tangible objects is just a way, I might just as well make a contract with you not tell others the story I tell you, without using paper and ink and theoritacally you would be bound by it.
Enforcement is another thing
Published: August 10, 2007 2:43 PM
ktibuk: "There is something there, that is created and valued by others that makes the difference and that is called IP"
no, that is called physical property. There is no such thing as intangible property. Intangible property is imaginary, in terms you would understand - like heaven. The Bible doesn't create the Christian heaven. Nothing is made when you read the stories. What physically (really) happens, is that current tangible property, your mental property, is altered. Nothing else - nothing - is created. There is no IP, only P, and that P is tangible and already covered by physical property rights.
Published: August 10, 2007 4:03 PM
What is true is already so.
Owning up to it doesn't make it worse.
Not being open about it doesn't make it go away.
And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with.
Anything untrue isn't there to be lived.
People can stand what is true,
for they are already enduring it.
-- Eugene Gendlin
Published: August 10, 2007 4:47 PM
ktibuk,
I'm thinking of a number between one and ten. What is the number?
Published: August 10, 2007 5:07 PM
ktibuk,
You can tell me what the number is and be unable to prove it, or you can tell me what the number I'm thinking of actually is and be able to prove it.
You may not believe in god, but it sure sounds like you have faith in IP.
Published: August 10, 2007 5:31 PM
Ktibuk, again you are not defending IP rights as they currently exist. What you are defending is contractually-derived IP, which is an entirely different matter. IP rights go far beyond this.
Published: August 10, 2007 6:34 PM
ktibuk - regarding my example with the sign and the owing a million dollars - the details of the contract don't matter. It doesn't matter whether the contract is some contrived nonsense, or whether some well understood standard contract is communicated with some kind of shorthand such as the circled-C symbol.
The point is that, SEEING the sign is not equivalent to AGREEING to the contract indicated on it.
SEEING the circled-C is not equivalent to AGREEING to be bound by copyright.
Anyways, it sounds like the only point you are arguing here is that "copyright is an understood standard contract like any other, and parties to a contract should be bound by the contract."
AGREE ABSOLUTELY.
Your problem is, you think everyone in the universe suddenly and automatically becomes party to this 'standard copyright contract' when some author creates an 'original work'.
That is absolutely not the case.
Published: August 10, 2007 7:46 PM
ktibuk, here is my 'standing contract with the world'. There's no fancy symbol for it, so I'll have to spell it out for you, but being the anarchist that you are, I trust you will find it otherwise perfectly agreeable.
...the punitive consequence for your trespass (of which this should be considered fair and ample warning) will be that I can do what I want with 'your' (by this point also my) ideas.
Published: August 10, 2007 8:09 PM
ktibuk,
Most people do not appreciate the time and expense (not to mention the angst) that can go into the creation of music, a book, a painting, a piece of sculpture, etc.
The duplication and sale of someone else's original creation without their permission is theft. People don't seem to understand that the money lost to piracy forces the artist to raise his/her prices in order to compensate for the theft. If they are unable to sufficiently compensate for the loss, then they simply stop creating.
As for the distribution of the Bible. In that instance, the desired compensation was not monetary; it was the conversion of people to Christianity.
Published: September 4, 2007 1:07 PM
I speak as an artist and a creator in my own right - software, furniture, pictures, words, music, all of it. As it happens, almost every kind of IP that is currently recognized - including trademarks! - I have at one time or another created. In fact, my name is on a couple patents - shamefully and regrettably, but so it stands. This is not to brag nor paint myself as hypocrite, but just to state the simple fact.
Believe me, Artistry is one of the highest values I hold. And I do understand, more fully with every new challenge, the experience and process of creation. I would go so far as to say the ultimate purpose of human existence is the pursuit of artistic creation and expression, in whatever form that may be - as the RECREATION / CONSUMPTION activity that it is. So when I discuss this topic, I speak both from principle and from personal experience creating, with plenty of firsthand hours logged in the sickening realm of IP.
So, that said, let's consider IMHO's comment.
All actions lead to certain externalities, positive and negative. I need go no further than the laws of physics to prove this, but everyday examples abound. Operating a gas engine, talking to a friend, baking cookies, turning the lights on, planting tomatoes in your yard, painting your house blue, breathing, standing still in one place and holding your breath and trying your hardest to do absolutely nothing - these things all involve externalities, i.e. trespasses big and small against the property of others.
Note that because of:
- positive valuation of many externalities, and
- prevailing social norms of tolerance, and
- prohibitive enforcement costs, and
- the freedom to "respond in kind" to agression,
- etc.,
... because of these effects, an anarchist society finds its actors generally turning a blind eye to trivial or favorable externalities. But they remain trespasses nontheless. The party who commits the trespass is responsible for the results of that aggression. And when your out of control, virally expansive ideas trespass onto me (in most cases a positive externality), then either you as 'owner', or nobody, but certainly not me, is compelled by some kind of responsibility.
An inherent feature of libertarianism is the reduction of negative externalities (objectionable trespasses) - by placing responsibility for the consequences of an action with the actor alone, and empowering all actors to work togehter in a rule-of-law framework toward the goal of internalizing the consequences from action that are objectionable to others.
Note that IP does the opposite - THE EXACT OPPOSITE. Its laughable. Instead of binding actors to control their output of externalities, or in any case accept what consequences may come, it instead binds everyone else to tolerate the externality, while at the same time abstain from the enjoyment of the externality (if positive), and in general requires everyone to obey elaborate protocols of deference. Under IP, every creative act is simultaneously an act of domination over others' existing property.
The libertarian artist / creator is entitled to the pride, the thrill, the sheer pleasure of creation, and the pleasure of sharing their creations with others. They are also welcome to work within the libertarian rules of private property (most fundamental of which is individual self ownership, which alone is incompatible with IP, so the discussion really should end there), to profit in other ways too. For example, by performing music in a privately owned hall and charging admission.
But the libertarian artist / creator is not entitled to a market tailor-made to their creations, as established at the point of a gun. If a suitable market is unsustainable under a private property regime, then the Libertarian artist had better not quit his day job.
The result? Of course fewer resources will be directed into the creation 'industry'. For example, we'd probably lose the flood of generic big-industry 'creation' that happens purely because there are government-created monopoly profits on offer. And who will be sad to see that go?
Then again, since life in Libertopia is less expensive, less demanding, and less desperate, with far more leisure time and far more leisure options available for far cheaper, artists won't be feeling the same desperate pressure to whore themsleves out to consumerist industry to survive.
As a principled creator who loves the ups and downs of the creative process, who wishes he could spend all his time in creative pursuits, who puts tremendous care into his creations and takes great pride in them, who loves to share his creations with others, and who indeed loves to profit in all ways possible from his creations, I will firmly and loudly insist as I have all along: IP is an obstacle to all genuine creative efforts - not any kind of aid.
Published: September 4, 2007 4:21 PM