Intellectual Property: Why Jefferson Was Wrong
Draft paper by G.E. Morton, Intellectual Property: Why Jefferson Was Wrong (RTF version). Wow, someone's actually defending IP lately. Brave guy. Oh well, I guess it's useful to keep a few of these around, if only for historical purposes. (He criticizes yours truly heavily.)
Comments (125)
Person
Hm, looks like a lot of the same arguments I make, except that you actually read his stuff.
Published: September 21, 2007 5:01 PM
Kevin B
You crack me up, Person.
Kinsella should put some of your comments on mugs and sell them in the store. XD
Published: September 21, 2007 5:15 PM
John Duncan
Yeah, it's so hard to find anyone defending intellectual property. Especially since corporations aren't allowed to use the courts to enforce patents, and record companies gave up attacking their customers. Before this paper, I thought all those guys had just packed up their books and gone home!
Published: September 21, 2007 7:27 PM
IMHO
I had no idea that libertarians have such a low opinion of the arts that they would steal the rights to someone's work and claim it for themselves. It's almost socialist in nature.
If you ever want to eliminate the National Endowment of the Arts, then allow artists to maintain control over the rights to their work. This way they might stand half a chance of covering their costs (only the most famous artists really come out ahead). To do otherwise will encourage the perpetuation of the NEA.
If you don't want to pay for original works of art, then create your own!!!
Published: September 22, 2007 7:03 AM
Hunden
To deny intellectual property is to deny freedom of contract or at least the enforcement of valid ones : since I may ask for conditions in exchange for information, if the exchange takes place and you don't respct your commitments, you are a fraud.
The question is then whether you will be punished as such or go scot-free.
If you may break such commitments with impunity, then freedom of contract is no less threatened than by Rothbard's 100 percent reserve requirement.
Published: September 22, 2007 7:23 AM
banker
But "IMHO",
you are copying the past 1000 years of prior art with regards to your use of the English language. I think these words which comprise the English language are works of art. How eloquently the "s" curves the the dots dot the "i"'s, it is amazing that people don't pay royalties the the British soveriegn.
Maybe, perhaps, if I could at will delete specific points of my memory at will I might be sympathetic towards an artistic patent.
Published: September 22, 2007 7:27 AM
Joseph Huang
Where is this copyright contract that I have signed? What does it say?
Copyright imposed by the state is not a contract, any more than doing drugs is a crime.
Does the creator of a work get to have partial ownership over all other people's property? The theft is in the other direction.
Published: September 22, 2007 7:52 AM
Joseph Huang
If you don't want to pay taxes, then create your own state!
Published: September 22, 2007 7:57 AM
George Gaskell
To deny intellectual property is to deny freedom of contract or at least the enforcement of valid ones : since I may ask for conditions in exchange for information, if the exchange takes place and you don't respct your commitments, you are a fraud.
Joseph Huang already hit the nail on the head. If what now passes for copyright protection were to be confined to the scope of protection afforded by ordinary contracts, there would be no problem.
The impetus behind statist copyright legislation is that ordinary contracts don't provide the fat subsidies and cushy protectionism that copyright does. That's why copyright was created in the first place.
So, yes, please -- let's go back to a fully contract-based regime.
Published: September 22, 2007 9:54 AM
IMHO
Banker,
Denying an artist the right to protect their work is to deny them their right to earn a living and in the end would inhibit the process of creativity. The majority of artists barely make up the cost of materials--forget about the time invested.
Continue down this path and you'll be decorating your walls with pages from the Magazine Section of your Sunday paper.
Published: September 22, 2007 11:16 AM
Curt Howland
Emotional assertion without support. Of course most "artists" do it because they enjoy it, not because of monetary rewards. That's the same with lots of things.
It's also because they're not all that good.
Here's a hint: Without government-granted monopoly copyright enforcement, I could put three circles in a triangle, one larger than the other two. Right now, my doing so is a _crime_ because Disney Corp owns the "rights" to three circles in that configuration.
However, copyright does nothing about making good art. In this age of photographs, one might think (if one thought emotionally without any logical support) that painting would not be profitable at all. Yet, good artists are constantly making good money selling paintings. Even those paintings called "classics" that have millions of photographs of them circulating at no cost continue, when available, to sell at high prices.
That's because a copy is a _copy_, it is not an original. It has less relative value, and every good artist knows this.
That's why musicians make the bulk of their money (as compared to the record companies) by touring and selling concert tickets.
If you want to cry "thief", then please demonstrate what was stolen. Prove harm, claim damages, especially in a libertarian legal system. You see, a libertarian "system" doesn't require a statute to make something illegal and therefore prosecutable. All you have to do is demonstrate harm.
So much easier and cheaper than having a copyright/patent mess, and keeping yet another layer of lawyers gainfully employed doing nothing.
Published: September 22, 2007 12:02 PM
Artisan
banker
"1000 years of prior art with regards to your use of the English language. I think these words which comprise the English language are works of art"
It seems you're talking to the walls, but not to human beings with brains.
Your understanding (despising) of art, reducing it to "a concept" like that of most wannabe IP critics (including Dr. Kinsella between the lines), can hardly be an inspiration for a refined culture, be it libertarian.
Published: September 22, 2007 1:14 PM
Jean Paul
Art isn't more important than justice, pro-IP dudes.
If you are correct in your claims that achieving justice will squeeze out any possibility of art - a totally ridiculous claim, but for argument's sake lets allow the possibility - then I really have to say, "tough luck for art". Justice MUST come first. To allow otherwise is insane.
P.S., I speak as an artist and a lover of art, so don't bother with the fallacious line of protest that I don't understand or care.
Published: September 22, 2007 2:12 PM
Jean Paul
AngelicCreatorCat: "Listen to this song I made!"
AbominableCopyCat: "That's awesome, I love it!"
HeroicArtisanCat: "SIR you will relinquish control of the tune immediately or my bullet will relinquish it for you, COMPLY"
JusticeCat:
Published: September 22, 2007 2:19 PM
Jean Paul
(Justice cat should be rolling in his shallow grave but it got HTML formatted out)
Published: September 22, 2007 2:21 PM
Paul Grad
Words are the common property of all who understand a language, perhaps the only valid communistically-owned assets. Artists who claim copyright to their writings are really misappropriating the property of those who long ago invented the words, and the current users of those words who inherited these assests. All the artist has done is to arrange these assests in a certain pattern. To claim he owns the words, or his arrangement of them, is obviously invalid. The same applies to visual images captured from nature, arrangements of colors, and musical notes. The artist has appropriated these commonly owned assets, arranged them in a certain form, and then claims he "owns" these assets. A beautiful fiction which illustrates that artists are as much free-market capitalists as silver traders. However, the idea of society leasing the use of these assets at zero cost, due to the originality of the arranger, to the arranger for a fixed time seems just.
The practical problem with current copyright on writing, photography/film, and music is that it goes on way too long. The fact that a hobo can't stand out on the street and play a few Stones or Dylan songs that came out 20 years ago on his guitar to earn some income is absurd, as is the fact that a artistic film made donkey's years ago can't be shown to a non-profit group of aesthetes for critical discussion. We can read and discuss Tom Sawyer in public; we can't watch and discuss Dr. Strangelove.
Published: September 22, 2007 2:38 PM
David C
I hate to bust peoples bubble, but copyrights and patents violate property rights.
Logically patent and copyrights are no different than slavery. They basically presume a right to control peoples choices, and then presume that right is a property because that restriction can be traded like a property. With slavery, it was the "right" to control peoples labor, with copyright and patent, it is the "right" to control how they use information at their disposal, or the "right" to control how people use inventions or ideas. Patents, in particular are even more violent than slavery. Like how they were used to violate peoples right to use air-bags and anti-lock brakes for 20 years, and how they violated peoples right to use their know how to create a generic medication for AIDS in African nations.
Here, in the "owners" mind it doesn't matter that people own their brain, time, and resources, nor does it matter that people act in a way that is not coercive of fraudulent in the slightest. This should be reason enough to show that they are not the friends of liberty that they pretend to be.
These "rights" are a perversion of normal property rights. A property right is not a right to restrict the behavior of others, but a right to not be restricted in how you use a justly acquired resource by 3rd parties. In the securing of exclusive resources, restriction of others may be unavoidable, but in the coercive exclusion of others regarding non exclusive resources that are already out there, it is unforgivable.
Published: September 22, 2007 2:51 PM
Jean Paul
Yes David, very good point: "A property right is not a right to restrict the behavior of others, but a right to not be restricted in how you use a justly acquired resource"
That's a great way to view property - free from restriction. Let the IP babies have their bottle with this clarified definition of property.
I had it wrong all along. IP rocks! It's like, the safest, most uninfringable property ever. There's no way to damage it, steal it, or in any way restrict your use of your IP, short of destroying your brain with a shovel or a bullet to the head.... And with all the technology around for storing and copying in a thousand different formats, your IP is safer than ever.
You're pretty much guaranteed that no matter what anyone else does, short of physically smashing your brains out, you'll never be restricted in your use of your IP. Seriously, IP is pretty awesome dudes.
So all you IP-haters out there, don't worry, you can now hoard up all the IP you like and peacefully go about your business without worrying about what other people are doing, and best of all you don't need to ever attack them with violent hateful spiteful aggression, because the magic of IP is that no one can ever take it away from you.
So just relax baby.
Published: September 22, 2007 3:28 PM
IMHO
Curt,
You've demonstrated that you haven't a clue about the marketing of art. And because you haven't a clue, you wouldn't even know if you'd done any harm."
Published: September 23, 2007 12:51 AM
ktibuk
Here we go again.
First of all you anti IP socialist need to come up with a homesteading theory that makes sense.
Then you may talk about IP.
You people dont know the first thing about PROPERTY how could you talk about an extension of it.
And yes John Duncan, it is very had to find people who defend free market capitalism. It always was.
Published: September 23, 2007 7:54 AM
David Bratton
ktibuk: First of all you anti IP socialist need to come up with a homesteading theory that makes sense.
Why does being anti IP make one socialist? Socialism is not about free stuff. Socialism is about central planning.
Published: September 23, 2007 12:25 PM
Jean Paul
ktibuk, what's YOUR homesteading principle then?
Published: September 23, 2007 2:12 PM
ktibuk
"Why does being anti IP make one socialist? Socialism is not about free stuff. Socialism is about central planning."
Socialism is about attacking private propety. Central planning is just a natural extension of this.
All IP socialist claim that all IP that is created by man can not be privately owned and it can only be owned by society.
We are not talking about nature given free goods here. All IP is the fruit of some ones labor. You wrote a novel, you created it but it doesnt belong to you claim the IP socialist. It is societys.
Now you tell me what socialism is about.
Published: September 23, 2007 3:02 PM
ktibuk
"ktibuk, what's YOUR homesteading principle then?"
Read Rothbard a little. Much better than reading Kinsella. Believe me.
Published: September 23, 2007 3:03 PM
David C
ktibuk, "All IP socialist claim that all IP that is created by man can not be privately owned and it can only be owned by society"
I didn't claim that. I own my copy, you own your copy. By saying that I can't do what I want with my copy, you are violating my (intellectual) property rights. You are engaging in socialism and attacking my property rights by engaging in the central planing of how people use information at their disposal.
Published: September 23, 2007 4:17 PM
Ian Stewart
IMHO, the only reason you feel the way you do about this subject is because IP laws act as a subsidy for inefficient production methods of purely creative art. And if today's "refined culture" that you and your compatriots are defending disappeared, I can't say I would be all that perturbed, myself. Creativity is an essential human activity, but IP law has bloated and centralized the creative industries to the point that they're now a burden on society.
ktibuk, how do you homestead a non-scarce resource? Ideas are not scarce, and the economic cost of copying an idea is practically nil and getting lower all the time. And if this completely illogical "homesteading of ideas" is necessary to maintain human creativity (which it isn't), explain the success of the open-source software movement. Sure, most OSS licenses build on current IP law, but the methodology has spread to the point that even the pro-IP-industry shills the Gartner Group are predicting that 80% of all commercially-used software will contain open-source code by 2011. The sharing of ideas and their implementations benefits everybody, and this methodology is becoming dominant in a market where the rules are rigged in favor of IP.
You all can write me off as a socialist, but I'll write you off as self-interested protectionists with an inadequate understanding of the nature of property. Fair?
Published: September 23, 2007 4:28 PM
Artisan
Ian Stewart, you haven't read that Morton piece "Why Jefferson Was Wrong", have you?
"And if today's refined culture that you and your compatriots are defending disappeared, I can't say I would be all that perturbed, myself"
How do you know what kind of refined culture I'm defending? Still you are already happy to see it vanish? Maybe there's not much left to perturb in your mind indeed.
What you are preaching here Ian, sounds like yet another brutal socialist "cultural revolution"... or a justification for it. You can't mean it seriously.
Published: September 23, 2007 4:52 PM
ktibuk
"I didn't claim that. I own my copy, you own your copy."
A copy of what?
"You are engaging in socialism and attacking my property rights by engaging in the central planing of how people use information at their disposal."
How do you figure the poperty is yours? It isn't. You leased it on certain conditions.
Also socialism isnt about attacking some specific property.
It is about a general attack on the right, which you do.
When I say you dont own that Harry Potter novel I am not claiming nobody can own it. I am claiming YOU dont own it.
Thus you come out as the socialist.
Published: September 23, 2007 4:55 PM
ktibuk
And Ian,
I dont care about open source at all. An owner can give away his property for free. Tangible property are being given away for free all the time.
The problem is when you deny him that basic property right, the exclusive right of making decision about what to do with the propety.
Homesteading isnt about dividing the spoils of natue. It is about producing, altering the natural state by purposeful and intellectual input by humans. And whoever does it owns it.
If it was just about dividing up the pie, than maybe the only important thing would be scarcity.
Published: September 23, 2007 5:02 PM
David Bratton
"Socialism is about attacking private propety. Central planning is just a natural extension of this."
So what do socialists do with the private property after they've attacked it? Socialism is central planning.
"All IP socialist claim that all IP that is created by man can not be privately owned and it can only be owned by society."
I don't know what an "IP socialist" is, and I haven't seen anyone on this thread claiming that IP needs to be owned by society. Community ownership is a concept in very bad odor among austrians and libertarians.
The real issue, for libertarians, is whether someone has the right to tell someone else what they can and can't do with their own property. If I own the paper and I own the ink, why can't I print whatever I want. I'm not stealing anything that belongs to you. I'm just doing what I please with what belongs to me.
"We are not talking about nature given free goods here. All IP is the fruit of some ones labor. You wrote a novel, you created it but it doesnt belong to you claim the IP socialist. It is societys."
If it was written by you and someone else claims it was written by him then he is a lier and will become known as such.
What you really object to is the loss of income that would result from the loss of the monopoly privilege to print and sell the book. But that income is derived from the invasion of other people's property rights. You can only get that income by controlling my paper and my ink, which you do not own.
Published: September 23, 2007 5:13 PM
ktibuk
David can't you understand that copying a copyrighted material is agression against property?
The crime is in the copying process. Maybe you haven't done the copying but if you are using the copy then what you are doing is the same as using stolen propety.
Nothing has to be lost or gained, for agression against propety to happen.
It is the act of agression that is important. Not the value, or the physical property of the property that is in question.
Dont agress towards me and my propety and then try to rationalize what you did really didnt hurt me and it is ok.
Socialist claim private propety doesnt exist and everything is societys so some central planning is necesarry for societys property.
IP socialists like yourself claim the same thing, only for IP and thankfully leave tangible property alone.
Published: September 23, 2007 5:37 PM
David Bratton
"Nothing has to be lost or gained, for agression against propety to happen."
This is the root of your misunderstanding. If there has been no loss and no gain the you mind your business and I'll mind mine.
"IP socialists like yourself claim the same thing, only for IP and thankfully leave tangible property alone."
Do you find that you win a lot of converts to your position by name calling?
Published: September 23, 2007 5:41 PM
Joseph Huang
ktibuk, your copyright socialism needs to stop.
The state imposes copyright, and copyright in its current form requires the state to exist. If you are for copyright in its current form, you are for copyright socialism and are a statist.
There is nothing wrong with a much weaker form of voluntary contracts for much limited copyright. But it is impossible by definition for there to be a universally-imposed copyright without the state.
Rothbard did not call people against copyright socialists. But you sure are one.
Published: September 23, 2007 6:42 PM
Jean Paul
ktibuk says: "Nothing has to be lost or gained, for agression against propety to happen."
Ktibuk, I agree. Regardless of subjective gain or loss, property merely has to be intruded upon. Aggression is simply trespass, nothing more, nothing less. And I'm gonna use it to take you apart. Watch carefully.
Everyone trespasses on everyone else by breathing, speaking to each other, deflecting light into each other's eyes, etc.
Trespass can be to an owner's benefit or loss, but either way it is still TRESPASS.
The owner who is trespassed against may ignore the trespass, or he may seek restitution using no more aggression that was used or threatened in the trespass.
Here's a goofy but I think informative example: Let's say a trespass is made by speaking into a person's ears "good morning" in a pleasant tone of voice. The owner of the ears, were he the most sour and miserly of propertarian curmudgeons, may rightfully respond to the offensive trespass with the full fury of - a greeting in return! Nothing more!
So you see that benign trespasses happen all the time, being completely unavoidable, and because the allowable punishment is so feeble, these things just become commonly accepted by society. Sometimes the trespass results in a loss (gagging on a foul odor, listening to a screaming child on the crowded bus, being confronted by the truth about your beloved IP, etc.) and sometimes the trespass is a win (hearing a song you like on the radio, seeing a pretty girl, smelling your neighbors' lilacs in the spring, etc.)... but whether a gain or a loss, that does not change the absolute fact that these ARE trespasses if the owner so declares.
So how does this relate to IP?
When I get exposed to 'your' idea, it is first and foremost a trespass against me, put into motion by your actions, with your property crucial in the chain of causation.
Consider: when YOUR car rolls down a hill and hits mine, it's an accident of course, but because it's your car, it's your trespass, and you are responsible for amends. I may be angry, or in the end I may be happy about it because insurance overpays me or something, but "Nothing has to be lost or gained, for agression against propety to happen." Either way it's still YOUR trespass, and you are strictly obligated to me; I am under NO obligation to you.
Similarly: If YOUR dog gets loose and bites my leg, through no aggression of my own, that may still be an accident, but because it's your dog, you are responsible. I may be very badly hurt, or I may be secretly be happy because I get some time off work, but "Nothing has to be lost or gained, for agression against propety to happen." Either way it's still YOUR trespass, and you are strictly obligated to me; I am under NO obligation to you.
Finally: If your IP gets loose (the buggers are harder to control than a dog, I can assure you) and impinges into my brain, then because it's YOUR IP (see ktibuk, oh you poor pro-IP baby, that which you so greedily covet is your undoing), you are responsible. Whether it gives me a headache or whether I burn it to CD and give it to all my friends, "Nothing has to be lost or gained, for agression against propety to happen." Either way, as first aggressor ktibuk, it's still YOUR trespass, and you are strictly obligated to me; I am under NO obligation to you.
So when YOUR IP aggresses into my brain ktibuk, that's really the end of the road for you and your protests. You should have kept your treacherous IP on a tighter leash.
Published: September 23, 2007 7:06 PM
David C
ktibuk, A copy of what?
I dunno? That song you wrote that I found on the internet?
How do you figure the property is yours? It isn't. You leased it on certain conditions.
I didn't sign any lease, I downloaded it and now I poses it. It is my property, my information, it could be in my head, or on a disk, or on a tape that I own, but it is my property to do with what I please like any other property of mine.
---continued ---
ktibuk, "David can't you understand that copying a copyrighted material is agression against property?"
But it isn't. There is no fraud, no coercion, no trespass, no intrusion into your space, no violation of contract or agreement made by me. However, coercing what I can do with information at my disposal in my space is very coercive and controlling, and intrusive, and trespassing, and asserting that the information that I poses is your's even though I copied it fair and square is fraud. It is also a form of socialism because it presumes a social master planin of what people are "allowed" to do with certain types of their property.
Intellectual property is not the right to tell others what to do with information that they posess, that is the lie that has been pushed on us. Instead it is the right of individuals to do what they wish with information in their mind or at their disposal. When you tell me what I can do with my copy, you're violating my intellectual property!
Published: September 23, 2007 7:15 PM
ktibuk
"When I get exposed to 'your' idea, it is first and foremost a trespass against me, put into motion by your actions, with your property crucial in the chain of causation."
Ae you kidding me?
We are talking about copyrighted materials here.
When you get into the theatre with a handycam tucked in your arms and tape the thing and copy it and sell it, the movie studios are the ones commiting tresspass?
When you buy a cd, rip it and copy it and put it online for everyone to enjoy it you are the victim of trespass?
Jean Paul it is very common to go to absurd places when you try to rationalize a contradictory position but yours is going too far.
And you people, have you even followed the link and read the thing that was posted here?
It demolishes every word you believe about IP and has a lot more than I can say in these comment boxes.
You still repeat the things you have memorized about scarcity and thats about it.
Published: September 23, 2007 7:17 PM
ktibuk
Anyone who thinks he has a right to someone elses fruit of labor is a socialist.
This is not name calling, just stating a fact.
If you dont think you claim to have right to someone elses creation, check you position again.
And dont let me distract you. Go make the jump and read `Intellectual Property: Why Jefferson Was Wrong`
Published: September 23, 2007 7:27 PM
Joseph Huang
I'll assume all his arguments are correct.
Now he has no defense against me saying I own all air.
How about I own the concept of creating wheels? I own the concept of creating computers?
Surely "intellectual property" must last forever or not be property at all. The author must be for perpetual copyright to be intellectually consistent.
The argument is refuted by simple reductio ad absurdum.
Published: September 23, 2007 7:47 PM
Joseph Huang
Yes, you are a socialist when you make property out of non-property. You are a socialist when you call for the state to impose artificial scarcity. You are a socialist when you think that the state rightfully determines what property is and isn't.
Published: September 23, 2007 7:50 PM
Joseph Huang
In fact, the argument is an ideal case for statism. The state owns all air, thus the state gets to boss everyone around, after all, everyone is using the air. Allowing people to use air for free would not be good for the state.
Published: September 23, 2007 7:57 PM
Joseph Huang
And how about this: I own the concept of making new inventions. Now you have to pay me every time you make a new invention, otherwise I would be losing out on revenue.
Published: September 23, 2007 7:58 PM
ktibuk
Joseph Huang,
You got me. I really haven't heard your very insightful argument before. A very original thinking on your part.
Except I dont defend patents. I accept independent discovery and I accept the burden of proof being on the accuser.
You may come up with simple concepts and ideas independently.
But you can not come up with that Harry Potter novel or that song or that software indepently and you dont even try to argue that you did.
Only in arguments the wheel, and simple concepts are brought up. But when it comes to enjoying that song or movie you found online and downloaded you just enjoy it guilt free.
But that doesnt mean you are not commiting a crime.
And also, giving absurd examples doesnt automatically grant you a victory in a debate. I think you misunderstood what reductio ad absurdum is. The concept is pretty sound, you are the one being absurd.
Published: September 23, 2007 8:00 PM
David C
"Anyone who thinks he has a right to someone elses fruit of labor is a socialist. "
Well, I think I have a right to the fruit of Thomas Jefferson's labor. They worked their asses off and their lives to secure my liberties, and I think I have a right to enjoy those liberties. Including the right to copy information that comes my way freely.
"it is very common to go to absurd places when you try to rationalize a contradictory position"
Agreed, it must be very difficult for you.
Published: September 23, 2007 8:07 PM
Joseph Huang
You have no objective measure of what can be created independently. If I run a random letter generator long enough, it must produce Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.
And how long is long enough? Is 1 letter? Or 2 letters? Or 3 letters?
A for loop is a simple concept. Recursion is a simple concept. Using letters to type is a simple concept. How do you determine what is simple and what is complex? Surely simple and complex is along a continuum, and not a binary concept. And separate programmers can come up with the same program independently. It's called "hello world". Surely all programs must be property, or none must be.
You engage in personal and emotional attack, rather than logical argument.
Published: September 23, 2007 8:12 PM
Joseph Huang
If you think the using the word "if" does not violate anyone's property rights, then how can you think that using the words of Harry Potter violates someone's property?
You cannot say my examples are wrong because they are absurd, my examples necessarily follow from the argument. You must say the examples prove that the argument is wrong. This is reductio ad absurdum.
Published: September 23, 2007 8:15 PM
IMHO
ktibuk,
It's nice to know that there is someone else here who gets it. Thanks.
Published: September 24, 2007 12:18 AM
Stephan Kinsella
Ktibuk: "Except I dont defend patents. I accept independent discovery and I accept the burden of proof being on the accuser."
I get really tired of the IP advocates doing this little dance. First, they defend the existing IP system on its own terms, at least directly, or by attacking those who critique the existing IP system. Then, when you corner them on it by pointing out clear injustices that they are evidently supporting, by supporting IP, they say they do NOT favor the modern IP system, as ktibuk does here: "I do not favor patents." Then what the hell do you favor, Ktibuk? Some kind of invention-protecting system where an independent inventor has a defense against infringement, apparently, and the "burden of proof" is on the accuse. Well the burden of proof is already on the infringer, Ktibuk, so what are you talking about? The burden of proof is not the issue; it's what has to be proved; and the standard of proof (clear and convincing; preponderance). You can't evade the need to delimit the substance of the right you apparently favor by talking about the burden of proof; the substantive contours of the right inform what burden has to be proved.=
As for giving inventors an indendent inventor exception--this is just an ad hoc patch on a creaky system that you can't define or enumerate. You are opposed to the critics of patent; but when injustices of patent are pointed out, you retreat and say you are not in favor of IP. What are you in favor of, then? Exactly? You have no idea. You are just in favor of--something. Some amorphous legal blob that protects inventions--but it's not patent!
Published: September 24, 2007 7:45 AM
George Gaskell
What are you in favor of, then? Exactly? You have no idea. You are just in favor of--something.
My guess is that he's in favor of his writing a book or song or program or painting a picture someday and selling it for lots more money then he otherwise would in the absence of copyright. His blind emotion driven by a sense of moral outrage over the idea of someone somewhere copying something seems like an issue that hits close to home, at least in his make-believe life.
You have never addressed this core problem, ktibuk: your enforcement of a copyright infringes on my right to use my ink, my paper, my camera, my videotape, my microphone, my electronic circuitry, etc., all of which I owned outright, and had full use of, before you claimed to own ALL uses of this property to make recordings with them that resemble your special, supposedly-protected use. Just because of your use of your property, you now claim to own a piece of my property, and me as well (since, under your scheme, I can't even use my own vocal cords in your special pattern without your permission).
By the way, "artists would make less money if it weren't for IP" isn't a legitimate argument. The IRS would take in less money if there were no federal taxes, but that's not an argument that addresses the justification for taxes.
Published: September 24, 2007 9:17 AM
ktibuk
"I get really tired of the [capitalism] advocates doing this little dance. First, they defend the existing [capitalist] ssytem on its own terms, at least directly, or by attacking those who critique the existing [capitalist] system. Then, when you corner them on it by pointing out clear injustices that they are evidently supporting, by supporting [capitalism], they say they do NOT favor the modern [capitalist] system, as ktibuk does here: "I do not favor corporate subsidies." Then what the hell do you favor, Ktibuk?"
And you wonder when I use the word socialist. I have seen this type of arguments before. And the firs conering part of it is a lie. I have never defended the existing IP system or the mixed economy in my life. But attacking straw man is easier I guess.
What I favor is simple.
Everyone owns what he produces. Everyone has a right to the fuit of his labor.
Homesteading isnt about stubmbling around randomly and claiming property. It is about extending "the you", purposefully and intellectually to things around you and making it property.
You think property is only about natural scarcity. Because you think the most important thing is dividing up the existing nature given wealth. Similar to socialist, disregarding of the poduction but eager on sharing the spoils.
You dont have a right to Jeffersons poducts as one socialist above claimed. It is a privilage I envy since I am not American. You or society doesnt have a claim on the individuals products.
Is it that hard to understand?
Published: September 24, 2007 11:07 AM
Artisan
Dr Kinsella
“I get really tired of the IP advocates doing this little dance.”
You, Dr. Kinsella ? getting tired of fighting IP ? Excuse my question but, are you a snob?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Kinsella
“they defend the existing IP system on its own terms but…., they say they do NOT favor the modern IP system, as ktibuk does here: "I do not favor patents”.
Flawed argument. There are two different structural definitions of “IP”, even in "its own terms". One may be just while the other not. Curious that you pretend not to know these differences Dr. Kinsella, as you mention them emphatically at the beginning of your essay from 2001. Rothbard mentions them too. I must say on this occasion that you have also quite some guts (on paper) to quote Rothbard as an IP opponent.
So here is to cure your amnesia, and rehabilitate Ktibuk whose opinion and arguments are both good and more civic than most of his opponents on this forum:
Major “IP” distinction in all legislation:
Copyright: relates to a unique creative expression
Patent: relates to an original functional device
Again, one may be just while the other not. There's only a vague and flawed common ground for both concepts.
Opponents should be satisfied to see at least one half of their assertions comforted by Ktibuk, in fact… or at least honestly question why someone sees a difference of justice in both definitions… But NO, it is enough that the mere words “intellectual property” stick to them, like a red drapery is enough to make the bull furious...
What also puzzles me is that the just development of Mr. Morton, the subject of this post concerning Jefferson, sparks not one sensible reaction yet. Not worth it? Yeah sure! The question is only: why?
Somebody was mentioning "blind emotions" already before.
Published: September 24, 2007 11:24 AM
ktibuk
"You have never addressed this core problem, ktibuk: your enforcement of a copyright infringes on my right to use my ink, my paper, my camera, my videotape, my microphone, my electronic circuitry, etc., all of which I owned outright, and had full use of, before you claimed to own ALL uses of this property to make recordings with them that resemble your special, supposedly-protected use. Just because of your use of your property, you now claim to own a piece of my property, and me as well (since, under your scheme, I can't even use my own vocal cords in your special pattern without your permission)."
When you download and watch a movie you are claimin either you are the one that created that movie (which you dont) or you claim the wishes of the poducers don't concern you.
We are talking about a specific movie that was created by some people here not just some random use of electronics.
You don have a right to download and watch that movie.
If you agreed to license it from the owners then you are a contract breaker, and agressor.
If you found it after someone else broke the contract you are still committing trespass and agression since you know the movie is not nature given or abondened.
Is it this hard to either pay and enjoy someone elses creation or mind your own business?
Do you need to leech of off people?
Published: September 24, 2007 11:27 AM
Jean Paul
ktibuk says: "Everyone owns what he produces. Everyone has a right to the fuit of his labor."
Everyone does own what they produce. So long as physical property is respected, both the physical and non-physical that you produce are yours for as long as you choose to keep them.
Everyone does have a right to enjoy what they produce. Of course this is implied when you say "everyone owns what they produce", but it doesn't hurt to state the redundant fact. Physical property rights guarantee your right to enjoy what you own. None may oppose your enjoyment of your property.
So ktibuk, we are in perfect agreement here. In fact I suspect not a person on this site would disagree with the above claims.
So, remind me again what the hell we need IP for? Physical property rights guarantee all the unrestricted enjoyment you could ever desire.
The only thing IP gives you is the mean-spirited ability to invade other people's property, and destroy their enjoyment of their property. Just because you don't want them to.
You're not satisfied with enjoying your property. You're not satisfied if others respect your property and allow you to enjoy it. For some reason, you want to deny others the use of their property.
It's difficult to understand such a jealous, spiteful position.
Published: September 24, 2007 11:46 AM
Jean Paul
Artisan,
Just because 'the legislation' separates copyrights and patents, doesn't make them separate in nature. They are not. And what the hell does the state have to say about it anyway? They get everything wrong; turning to the state as an authority undermines your case rather than strengthening it.
The natural law of the world is that anyone can do what he likes, so long as he doesn't interfere with the free choice of others. At the most basic level, this means you own yourself. You own the knowledge that your senses consume, and you may act freely on that knowledge.
Copyright law says there is some knowledge that you may not act freely on. This is contrary to self ownership.
Patent law says there is some knowledge that you may not act freely on. This is contrary to self ownership.
They're the same thing, and they violate natural law at the most basic level.
This is not complicated.
Published: September 24, 2007 11:55 AM
Artisan
Jean Paul, I have a serious question for you, which will prevent us to always stay at superficial level discussing those things:
Have you ever heard of Rothbard?
Yet another question:
Have you read the article about Jefferson which is the subject of this post?
Nothing in your posts suggests you did. Homesteading you don't know either. Still I will take the time to answer your claim that copyright and patent are not distinctive in nature.
Even though Rothbard is rather vague about many aspects of IP, he writes in the "Ethics of Liberty, Chap 16":
"By the nature of things, some products (e.g.,
books, paintings) are easier to prove to be unique products of individual minds than others (e.g., mousetraps)".
Do you deny that Jean Paul?
Published: September 24, 2007 12:31 PM
IMHO
Artisan,
There is an additional problem here regarding the arts. For the most part, people do not think very highly of artists. In the past, those who expressed to me that the arts were unnecessary and expendable were generally Neo-Cons. But now I see that this attitude exists among libertarians as well.
People frequently do not respect those things which they do not value, and won't make much of an effort to protect the rights of those individuals who produced those things.
If there's any doubt of that, then why have there been so many comments from people regarding the elimination of the arts?
Published: September 24, 2007 1:10 PM
Stephan Kinsella
ktibuk:
This is an inapt analogy. Supporters of capitalism do not support any particular feature or institution of capitalism. Instead, what they support is the abolution of all laws that aggress against private property.
Right; and you won't say exactly what you DO support--probably because you have no idea. What a convenient amorphous blob to defend.
You are obviously utterly clueless about patent law; if you were not, you would realize that if you mean "what he produces" to include ideas, then there are numerous insoluble problems here, precisely because you are now trying to define property around non-scarce resources, things that now have no clear boundary or description. And you would have to say all ideas are now owned in perpetuity, right? No 17 year limit as in patent law, or 75 year as in copyright. It's infinite! Wow.
Some know-nothing here said it's easy to identify something like a "song" b/c it's just a string of digits. This is ridiculous; every advocate of IP wants to protect no only the literal copying of a pattern of information; he also wants to protect things that are "similar enough" to it; if I make a movie Titanic II as a sequel to Titanic I there is almost no similarity in the bit pattern, but there's still a copyright violation as a derivative work.
Wow, man, sounds heavy, man, like, where do "you" like, begin and end, man. Pass the reefer.
Artisan:
You, Dr. Kinsella ? getting tired of fighting IP ? Excuse my question but, are you a snob?
It's an irrelevant question. Plus, I don't deign to answer mere peons.
Flawed argument. There are two different structural definitions of “IP”, even in "its own terms". One may be just while the other not. Curious that you pretend not to know these differences Dr. Kinsella, as you mention them emphatically at the beginning of your essay from 2001. Rothbard mentions them too. I must say on this occasion that you have also quite some guts (on paper) to quote Rothbard as an IP opponent.
Anyone who thinks you can use "copyright" to defend "inventions" is simply ignorant. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Theoretically, I suppose; however, it so happens that both types of IP fall afoul of the same objections. In any event, even if copyright could be justified, and not patent, you are left with no way to protect "inventions" since they are no the subject of copyright. Duh.
ktibuk:
We are talking about a specific movie that was created by some people here not just some random use of electronics.
You don have a right to download and watch that movie.
If you agreed to license it from the owners then you are a contract breaker, and agressor.
If you found it after someone else broke the contract you are still committing trespass and agression since you know the movie is not nature given or abondened.
This is your mistake. While a contract may apply as between two parties with privity, it does not apply to third parties, precisely because movies are mere patterns of bits and not property.
Let's take a clearer, real-world example. Suppose I have never seen the movie Star Wars, but by immersion in this culture I am generally aware of the names of the characters and the main plot. I decide to make a movie called, "The Further Adventures of Han Solo: The Kinsella Chronicles". Now, under current copyright, this is prohibited even though (a) I never had access to any copy of Star Wars; and (b) I am not copying it; and (c) my new movie is not even similar to the original's plot etc. However, it is a "derivative work" and therefore I can be sued. Presumably you IP amateurs are in favor of this (but who knows, since all we knwo is you are in favor of some IP system--but "not patent"--and you are appraently opposed to any hole we can poke in it, leaving whatever remnant I have no idea).
Artisan:
Uh, right. This is why you can't use copyright to cover inventions, half-wit.
Published: September 24, 2007 1:27 PM
Jean Paul
Artisan,
Rothbard is a man, not a god, and his conclusions are subject to reasoned debate. Most of his conclusions hold up because he was an incredibly gifted thinker. But we all make mistakes, and Rothbard's pro-IP position is one of his few mistakes. He tries, but fails, to justify it.
As for your quote, I agree that the unique creative output of an individual mind can often be attributed to that mind. Whether a mousetrap or a painting, the mark of individual expression is always present. The degree of individual expression varies (e.g. one may produce a completely derivative painting, or an incredibly inspired mousetrap), but it is purely a subjective valuation whether there is any MERIT in the creation.
I do not deny the above facts, but I fail to see how any of it compels other owners to restrict their use of their property in deference to a latecomer inventor.
I know very well several proposals for homesteading, and I reject some aspects and accept others. There's a difference between understanding a position, and accepting the position as true. BECAUSE I understand homesteading, I declare it inadequate.
Regarding the article, I'm getting through it, more out of curiosity than anything else, because its conclusion contradicts self-ownership, and no amount of argumentation is gonna reverse that.
I believe in self ownership, therefore I don't believe in IP. You believe in IP, therefore you don't believe in self ownership. If you're ok with that, well, it's just a difference in values and there's nothing to discuss really.
Published: September 24, 2007 2:00 PM
Scott D
So far, I'm not much impressed with the article:
This is only one of many bits of fallacious thinking committed in this article. I picked this one because it is part of a longer argument aimed against Kinsella. His concept of scarcity is seriously off here. The scarcity of manufactured goods is determined, in part, by the scarcity of the inputs that are consumed in production. This is why gold rings generally fetch a much higher price than silver rings. This is why more efficient production methods eventually lead to lower prices, all else being equal.
To state that manufactured goods are potentially infinitely abundant (and hence compare to IP) is, well, stupid. It is also characteristic of the disjointed thinking that IP requires to justify.
Published: September 24, 2007 2:04 PM
Jean Paul
From the article: "[making copies] jeopardizes the ability of the owner ... to realize the benefits otherwise derivable from [the copied property]."
...and not just making copies! I can totally jeapordize the benefits from your railroad when I hand out free fusion-powered jetpacks.
Of course the benefits being mourned here are not benefits accruing to the owner's free use of his property (the owner's free use of his railroad is completely unharmed by my jetpack giveaway, he may continue to enjoy his property however he chooses).
The benefits in question are the potential benefits arising out of trade with other willful economic actors. These actors are not owned, nor are their voluntary future decisions - decisions they may freely postpone, in case something better comes along. Thus the potential benefits dependent on these two critical ingredients are also unowned. These benefits are purely speculative; they don't exist until they've been realized. This is the risk and responsibility that any entrepreneur assumes.
Thus no REAL damages may be claimed - not against the copier, nor against the jetpack philanthropist, nor against any other free actor operating within the confines of self ownership, physical property, and voluntary contract.
Published: September 24, 2007 2:33 PM
ktibuk
"Let's take a clearer, real-world example. Suppose I have never seen the movie Star Wars, but by immersion in this culture I am generally aware of the names of the characters and the main plot. I decide to make a movie called, "The Further Adventures of Han Solo: The Kinsella Chronicles". Now, under current copyright, this is prohibited even though (a) I never had access to any copy of Star Wars; and (b) I am not copying it; and (c) my new movie is not even similar to the original's plot etc. However, it is a "derivative work" and therefore I can be sued. Presumably you IP amateurs are in favor of this (but who knows, since all we knwo is you are in favor of some IP system--but "not patent"--and you are appraently opposed to any hole we can poke in it, leaving whatever remnant I have no idea)."
Is this the real world example? Really?
The real world example isn't the one where you hide a handycam in your trenchcoat and tape the movie Star Wars secretly then go home and make copies of it. Then go to your steeet corner and sell them?
What planet are you living on?
Published: September 24, 2007 2:36 PM
Jean Paul
"It is equally clear, however, that the preferred software for the most common tasks, and the music, movies, etc., most favored by consumers, are virtually all commercial."
It is also very clear that the preferred income of the mugger is not the honest day's labor, but that which is stolen from the innocent. That the violence of IP has allowed some producers to reap the rewards of artificial scarcity, their hands are as bloodied as the mugger.
The ends (really high-quality, expensive-to-produce software, movies, books, songs, you name it) do not justify the means (violent intervention in the peaceful lives of supposed IP infringers).
This article is fallacy after fallacy.
Don't worry Artisan, I'll get through 'em all for you though.
Published: September 24, 2007 2:41 PM
ktibuk
Once again.
Patents are unjust not because IP is unjust.
Patents disregard the fact that idependent discovery is possible.
I invented some process. If you do it yourself independently it is fine with me. After all it is also the fruit of your labor.
But what you are advocating is sitting on your ass and enjoy the fruit of my labor.
What you advocating is parasitism.
Published: September 24, 2007 2:42 PM
Jean Paul
ktibuk says: "The real world example isn't the one where you hide a handycam in your trenchcoat and tape the movie Star Wars secretly then go home and make copies of it. Then go to your steeet corner and sell them?"
If you rephrased this, you could introduce a breach of contract here, but you didn't actually specify that, and since contracts have to be explicitly and voluntarily agreed to, I'm sure you wouldn't have just ASSUMED there was a contract in place. You would certainly have specified if there was one. So taken at face value then, yeah this seems ok. Nobody hurt anybody else... nobody violated their contract... seems ok to me.
I guess the conclusion we can draw is that, whenever there's no contract, there's no problem.
Care to rephrase in the contract case and then we can dismantle that one too?
Published: September 24, 2007 2:47 PM
ktibuk
"It is also very clear that the preferred income of the mugger is not the honest day's labor, but that which is stolen from the innocent. That the violence of IP has allowed some producers to reap the rewards of artificial scarcity, their hands are as bloodied as the mugger."
Did you read the paper that was linked?
Every poduct is artifically scarce. They are scarce because the producers want it to be. It is the same thing with IP.
Who are you to condemn the producers because they restrict their production?
Published: September 24, 2007 2:47 PM
Robert M.
Here's my take on the issue:
I think copyright laws are absolutely ridiculous. This is just another area the government has no place in.
That being said, I do respect the work that goes into making IP, and think it should be protected. I think the best way to do this is contracts. "You agree to pay me this amount...and I'll allow you to use my product in this way." This way, the original "copier" breaks the contract and can be held liable, and the innocent people that benefit from the copy are not harmed.
On an unrelated subject:
Jean Paul: Consider: when YOUR car rolls down a hill and hits mine, it's an accident of course, but because it's your car, it's your trespass, and you are responsible for amends. I may be angry, or in the end I may be happy about it because insurance overpays me or something, but "Nothing has to be lost or gained, for agression against propety to happen." Either way it's still YOUR trespass, and you are strictly obligated to me; I am under NO obligation to you."
I'm not sure that I am liable for this. As long as I wasn't negligent, then I don't see how you can hold me accountable for something that I didn't do, just because it's my property.
Published: September 24, 2007 2:48 PM
Jean Paul
In reply to Robert M:
With ownership comes responsibility.
If you accidentally swing your arm, smashing my nose with your elbow, "just an accident" won't cut it. Within the domain residing wholly under your control (i.e. your property), events were set in motion by your rightful and willful action, which irrevocably damaged my property.
In the case of the car, your decision to park it uphill of mine, yet leave it imperfectly secured, is the final exercise of your will before you walked away. Being your property, no one else is permitted to act to secure it, so the events which follow are the irrevocable consequence of YOUR willful acts alone. When the brakes fail and it rolls back into my car, "Just an accident" doesn't cut it.
Otherwise you could jump blindly off a roof and blame gravity for my broken bones when you land on me.
Or you could pull the trigger and say, "it wasn't ME who shot you; it was the chemicals that propelled the bullet that are to blame."
When you set the stage with you stuff, and let entropy do the rest... well, if you want to keep claiming it's your stuff, then you're to blame.
Your property is an extension of you. Accident or not, you are responsible for the harm caused by your actions - which includes your actions of arranging your stuff then leaving it subject to the laws of physics.
Published: September 24, 2007 3:36 PM
Jean Paul
ktibuk says: "Every poduct is artifically scarce. They are scarce because the producers want it to be. It is the same thing with IP."
Scott D already refuted this.
Do we need any more concise evidence that IP is insanity?
Published: September 24, 2007 3:54 PM
Artisan
"Uh, right. This is why you can't use copyright to cover inventions, half-wit."
------------------------------------------------
Kinsella, please, watch the style. Children may be reading. Who exactly are you trying to impress with that kind of language? (I can't believe you were a student of HH Hoppe. Doesn't he care for a different way to express things ?).
What are you trying to say with this half-drafted answer anyway Mr. Kinsella? I can only guess: something like this summarized idea from Jean Paul: " Whether a mousetrap or a painting, the mark of individual expression is always present."?
My, that rather bold view of fine arts may convince a few chosen disciples, but not the man on the street, to be sure.
Try the following situation: suppress copyright and patent laws. Go figure why an original Picasso is still worth some millions, while the original blueprint for viagra is worth peanuts "on the free market". And then you'll see why there's a structural difference between the so-called "marks of individual expression" relative to functional devices and the ones relative to artistic creations.
Published: September 24, 2007 3:57 PM
Jean Paul
Artisan, do you suppose a copy of the piccaso would a) fetch millions on the market itself, or b) reduce the market value of the original?
If you answered c) utility is irrelevant to questions of justice, and it doesn't matter how the market values or devalues property, there is never an excuse for aggression - congrats! THIS is the correct answer.
Published: September 24, 2007 4:07 PM
Artisan
Jean Paul calm down, please: the "utilitarian" dismissal of my Picasso example has only little to do with the essentially different natures of patent and copyright. There is no utilitarian justification of copyright in it. Never mind.
But because you conceded Rothbard to be so "talented", despite him failing to justify IP in your eyes... let me add the following quote concerning the "unthinkable" immateriality of property, this government enforced scarcity, which is Kinsella's and your main argument for dismissing copyright.
Published: September 24, 2007 4:33 PM
Artisan
Rothbard, in Man, economy and State, Chap. 10:
“Many writers have objected that brand names and trade-marks, generally considered as part of the free market, really constitute grants of special privilege by the State. No other firm can “compete” with Hershey chocolates by producing its own product and calling it Hershey chocolates.
This argument, however, completely misconceives the nature of liberty and of property. Every individual in the free society has a right to ownership of his own self and to the exclusive use of his own property. Included in his property is his name, the linguistic label which is uniquely his and is identified with him. A name is an essential part of a man’s identity and therefore of his property. To say that he is a “monopolist”
over his name is saying no more than that he is a “monopolist” over his own will …”
--------------------
Do the arguments of "many writers" here sound familiar to the IP opponents? He’s even talking about a name being property. So he didn’t notice names are immaterial! UN-SCARCE! Rothbard might not be so "gifted" after all thus?
But why does Kinsella keep mentioning him as an IP opponent puzzles me though!
Published: September 24, 2007 4:47 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Artisan:
You amateurs are trying to argue that patent is invalid, yet "Rothbardian-copyright" is not, and could instead be used to protect "inventions". It can't. Copyright covers and original expression of ideas, not the underlying idea itself. And if you mean by it only some kind of "copying agreement", the agreement can only bind parties to it, not third parties.
Okay, so you ARE for patent laws. One never knows with you people. Getting you to state what your views are is like trying to herd cats.
Artisan:
“Many writers have objected that brand names and trade-marks, generally considered as part of the free market, really constitute grants of special privilege by the State. No other firm can “compete” with Hershey chocolates by producing its own product and calling it Hershey chocolates.
This argument, however, completely misconceives the nature of liberty and of property. Every individual in the free society has a right to ownership of his own self and to the exclusive use of his own property. Included in his property is his name, the linguistic label which is uniquely his and is identified with him. A name is an essential part of a man’s identity and therefore of his property. To say that he is a “monopolist”
over his name is saying no more than that he is a “monopolist” over his own will …”
I covered in detail in my publications (Against Intellectual Property; and Reply to Van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer; available at www.StephanKinsella.com) why trademark is not the same as or as problematic as copyright and patent.
He's being uncareful here; it's not his property.
He simply made a mistake, as he did with his confused notion that one could use "copyright" to protect an "invention" like a mousetrap; and in his confusing argument that third parties can be bound by such agreements--this argument is circular (and mistaken) since it rests on his hidden assumption that you can own ideas. Of course, you cannot (as I bet Rothbard woudl agree).
Published: September 24, 2007 4:57 PM
Jean Paul
Artisan, I'm not actually sure what point you were making about Picasso, so I made the comment that occured to me - my point is all valuations are always subjective, so you can't say "copyright is for IP that the market values, and patents are for IP that the market doesn't, so copyright is ok and patents aren't" - which I THINK is in the neighborhood of what you are suggesting?
The market can't tell you what justice is. The market is subjective and changes its mind. Justice is self evident, universal, and eternal - either a discoverable law of nature, or it doesn't exist.
I do NOT subscribe to the social model of justice that says rights are granted by society - which seems to be the central thesis of the article. It's plain false.
Justice and morality do not exist because society calls them into being, any more than math and science are called into being by society. Society is either on the right track or the wrong track in discovering and recognizing the true, just, and natural laws of morality and justice.
Core to this, and incontrovertible, is the axiom of self-ownership. If you can find a way to make IP compatible with self-ownership, we have no argument. Contractual IP (a brutal abuse of language, but whatever) is one way that I and others in the anti-IP camp are perfectly fine with - but this is apparently unacceptable to yourself, ktibuk, IMHO, and others in the pro-IP camp.
I don't really know what else to tell you man.
(Much to everyone's dismay, I'm sure I'll think of something.)
Published: September 24, 2007 5:01 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Scott D:
To state that manufactured goods are potentially infinitely abundant (and hence compare to IP) is, well, stupid. It is also characteristic of the disjointed thinking that IP requires to justify.
I think the article is pretty bad. First, he has no positive theory of or justification for what property is. Second, he uses a ridiculous example, that of the movie theater, and argues that in some situations its seats are non-rivalrous. Nonsense. If the owner of the theater wants to keep out people who have not paid, even though he has a bunch of empty seats left, for whatever reason, then the seats ARE rivalrous: freeloader wants to use it; the owner wants him not to use it. So of course there is a conflict. And the owner, as owner, gets to decide. This is simple.
Published: September 24, 2007 5:02 PM
Jean Paul
On the whole trademark thing - the only possible crime involved in a trademark 'infringement' is one of fraud, as has been touched upon by others in this thread.
Fraud is a matter of deliberate deception in a contract situation. Wearing a fake Armani suit is not fraud; blatantly lying to people in casual conversation about the authenticity of your suit is not fraud; but testifying within the bounds of a contract that your fake suit is genuine, or making any other deliberate lie, IS fraud.
There's nothing special about trademarks, personal names, etc. - they are just pictures and letters and sounds, until and unless it comes down to a matter of disclosure within the scope of a contract. The only obligation is then to communicate honestly.
You may honestly say, "I shall sell you this guitar, having the markings of gibson on it, for one hundred dollars" and remain silent thereafter, with no fraud being committed.
The use of some picture, color, words, or anything else is not fraud until and unless the specific requirement of "deliberate deception in contract disclosure" is met.
Thus trademark law is in the same boat as the other flavors of IP - same magic kool aid, different bucket - a social convention contrary to natural law, demanding that sovereign individuals comply within their rightful borders where no obligation can exist, and enforecd wrongfully under threat of violence.
Published: September 24, 2007 5:26 PM
Gigaplex
Pro-IP people must believe that ideas are scarce in order for their argument to work out. I'd like to point out the well known fact that a severe lack of ideas will lead a person to accept statist principles ;)
Published: September 25, 2007 12:13 AM
Jean Paul
hee hee
Published: September 25, 2007 12:23 AM
TLWP Sam
Actually I'd say good ideas and inventions are quite rare. I think it's strange the way some people seem to imply just because someone patents something they get a automatically plump income stream. I'm sure S. Kinsella could inform us of the percentage of patents filed that actually go on to make money. But the question that bugs me (and probably ktibuk and IMHO) is those who would seek patents and copyrights should instead just essentially give away their ideas and inventions? Such as the bloke who invented Coca-Cola? That such things become gifts to humanity? Where if you make money on it then it's a bonus but not a primary purpose?
Published: September 25, 2007 1:26 AM
ktibuk
"Second, he uses a ridiculous example, that of the movie theater, and argues that in some situations its seats are non-rivalrous. Nonsense. If the owner of the theater wants to keep out people who have not paid, even though he has a bunch of empty seats left, for whatever reason, then the seats ARE rivalrous: freeloader wants to use it; the owner wants him not to use it. So of course there is a conflict. And the owner, as owner, gets to decide. This is simple."
But is an artifical conflict created by the owner not a natural one. If he didn't keep people out by force then there wouldnt be a conflict.
But he is an asshole so eventhough he wouldnt lose nothing he keeps the freeloaders. By the help of the state I might add.
Because on the free market he couldn't have done that. Restrict the freeloader when there are empty seats available. Right?
And how is this different than copyrighting a movie itself?
Published: September 25, 2007 3:13 AM
ktibuk
"This is only one of many bits of fallacious thinking committed in this article. I picked this one because it is part of a longer argument aimed against Kinsella. His concept of scarcity is seriously off here. The scarcity of manufactured goods is determined, in part, by the scarcity of the inputs that are consumed in production. This is why gold rings generally fetch a much higher price than silver rings. This is why more efficient production methods eventually lead to lower prices, all else being equal.
To state that manufactured goods are potentially infinitely abundant (and hence compare to IP) is, well, stupid. It is also characteristic of the disjointed thinking that IP requires to justify."
There is only one scarce resource and that is TIME.
Creation of tangible goods as well as IP are restricted by only time.
Thus you can not have everyhing in infinite amounts, theoretically.
But economic scarcity is something else.
Many tanginble property can be made free and some with much lower prices if the producers wouldn't knowingly restrict production.
Especially now that humans have some much capital (saved time) and technology (also in a way saved time), they can produce many tangible poducts in effect that those goods would be free goods.
I am not saying every good but some goods.
Also in IP you cant produce 1000 different original movies with no effort and time, you only can copy one original movie that takes, thousands of people, months, and many technologies to produce.
But there can be no PRODUCED free goods in a free society, because producers aren't stupid. An artificial scarcity will be in existence.
If you want the producers to give up their rights on their production, you are in effect saying that society owns the producers.
Published: September 25, 2007 3:32 AM
Artisan
Dr. Kinsella:
Theoretically, I suppose copyright and patent are different. However, it so happens that both types of IP fall afoul of the same objections. In any event, even if copyright could be justified, and not patent, you are left with no way to protect "inventions" since they are no the subject of copyright. Duh."
------------------------------------------------
No Mr. Kinsella, you're mixing it up.
When it reads "I do not favor patent" I don't see what's so confusing. I do not favor the protection of so-called "inventions" means exactly the same by the way.
There's a necessary philosophical justification of copyright considering free will. Nothing more and nothing less.
The concept of protecting invention is only an awkward super-copyright that attempts to draw permanent individual ties where there are none: between a man and a function. That's NOT free will.
I don’t know: did my agreement with Morton confuse you perhaps? It concerns so far only his dismissal of the "material" aspect of property as mentioned in his introduction. He rightly attacks the only ground for you to refute both copyright and patent as a "whole". But patent is to be refuted on other grounds than immateriality in fact.
You are very prompt to dismiss all thoughts of Rothbard like the protection of identity (only drafted, with some confusion too, I agree) concerning IP, while you seem to value his writing otherwise... too bad in this case they are still important ties.
You see, I defy you, or other IP opponents to make a better definition than he does of Homesteading ( devoid of the "Lokean Proviso"), where the property would strictly be "material".
Energy is not "material". Please tell how you allocate energy resources (radio waves, sun rays,...)in your libertarian society "to justly avoid" conflicts.
To say property is strictly material… implies to refute homesteading, and to refute most of Rothbard. Sure he's no God, but he still is the inspiration of this forum.
Published: September 25, 2007 4:05 AM
Stephan Kinsella
TLWP Sam:
Well, only a small percentage, but that goes up a bit if you count patents that are used defensively to ward off expensive lawsuits.
f you don't want others to use it, you should keep it to youIrself, but once you pour it out there (publicly distribute) - the informaiton is everyones to use and you have no right to control how they use it. Or as Wendy McElroy said, "Perhaps the essence of Tucker's approach to intellectual property was best expressed when he exclaimed: "You want your invention to yourself? Then keep it to yourself.""
ktibuk:
But is an artifical conflict created by the owner not a natural one. If he didn't keep people out by force then there wouldnt be a conflict.
So? It does not matter why there is a conflict, only that there is a conflict. Once there is a conflict, the question is: who has better title to the resource in question? Obviously, it is the owner--the first user.
He does lose something if he lets people in for free--he loses the fee he could charge, or setting up a reputation for only allowing people in if they pay, or not having to clean up after as many people, or whatever. It's asinine to say it's the power of the state involved here. I have a house w/ a large living room and a large TV. If I only want to let 2 friends over to watch the LSU football game, I am not using the power of the state to keep out others who could otherwise fill the extra seats "for free".
He owns the seats. He can do what he wants with them.
By my refusing to let you use one of MY seats, I don't invade your property rights. If I assert a claim over a "movie," I do.
Artisan:
------------------------------------------------
No Mr. Kinsella, you're mixing it up.
When it reads "I do not favor patent" I don't see what's so confusing. I do not favor the protection of so-called "inventions" means exactly the same by the way.
Yet you and other IP socialists here do favor the use of some nebulous form of IP to protect inventions. You all cheer on rothbard's idea of "copyright" as he applies it to a MOUSETRAP--an INVENTION, HELLOOOOO.
I have no idea what you are jabbering about.
Kayyyy... so now you are AGAINST the use of "copyright" to protect "inventions". Tell it to ktibuk.
I'm not quite sure you are speaking English.
I never said "material," but rather "scarce" or "rivalrous," and such resources do have a physical aspect, of course. IT is you people who all want to enforce your pet rights with the use of -- wait for it-- MATERIAL, PHYSICAL, TANGIBLE FORCE. If you people think "things" don't have to be "physical" to be "real," why not enforce your little pet IP rights using something other than physical force applied against physical objects owned by a physical-body-bearing owner? But no. You know that if you want a REAL enforcement of rights, you need to use REAL force against REAL things. When the rubber hits the road, you acknowledge our side. But then you want to have it both ways.
Anyway, Rothbard of course recognized how important scarcity is to property. He only had a couple of confused deviations, mainly his copyright idea, which was not well thought out. As for reputation, Rothbard was clearly against a right to a reputation, and all libel/slander laws, so you are just wrong ti imply he thought reputation was "property"; he was speaking only loosely or metaphorically when he wrote that.
Published: September 25, 2007 8:00 AM
Scott D
"There is only one scarce resource and that is TIME."
That statement might be profound in a gee-whiz kinda sense, but it is not economics. In fact, it sounds an awful lot like the Labor Theory of Value.
"Many tanginble property can be made free and some with much lower prices if the producers wouldn't knowingly restrict production."
Weren't you the one calling people socialists earlier? Prices are a function of supply and demand. If a producer just arbitrarily decides to send production through the roof, it would require more labor and more purchases of the scarce goods needed for production. This would drive up the cost of those goods (and labor as well), forcing the producer to raise prices, cut production, or go broke. In short, it is unsustainable and therefore irrelevant.
In fact, even reproducing IP has some cost in time and resources, but it is very small and getting smaller all the time. Even so, that time and resources need not be expended on the creator of IP, but by anyone who comes into possession of it. No other good behaves in this way.
Published: September 25, 2007 8:02 AM
Curt Howland
Paul Grad wrote: "The practical problem with current copyright on writing, photography/film, and music is that it goes on way too long."
I disagree only in that the absurdities to which copyright and patent have been driven have made the problems associated with copyright and patent too obvious to ignore.
If copyright/patent had remained limited in scope and duration, it would be difficult to argue against them simply because the abuses inherent in grants of monopoly would also have been far more limited.
Scott D wrote: "No other good behaves in this way."
I have to ask, so what? Really. Let's say that all IP monopoly grants vanished tomorrow. The only people who would produce "art" would be those who love to do so, rather than those who expect to make lots of money.
Those who come up with "art" that is personal, that is performed for example, would still make money at it, since even in this age of recording performance is still rewarded and I see no reason for that to change.
Is that a bad thing?
I'm writing this on a Linux computer, software that is completely free to copy at will. Yet people still work on it, still produce and maintain it.
Art continues even without IP. Those who say it would/could not are not looking around them.
Published: September 25, 2007 9:30 AM
Robert M.
Jean Paul: I'm still going to have to disagree with you about the whole car rolling down the hill thing. If it was secured imperfectly(forgot to put the parking brake on), then that is called negligence, but if the parking break fails on a nearly new car, that is not negligence and you should not be held liable. Your analogy to hitting someone with your arm is laughable because that is an affirmative action and a reasonable person checks who is around them while swinging their arms. Failure to do so is certainly negligence. However, a reasonable person expects that when they put on their parking brake, it will hold their car. Therefore, they should not be held liable for any damage from a rolling car.
I do agree with you about contractual IP though. That is the only just way for the system to work, AND it benefits everyone(not that that matters).
Published: September 25, 2007 10:03 AM
Robert M.
Aren't we all glad that someone didn't "keep it to themselve" the drugs that keep us alive and healthy, the cars we drive every day, everything that you didn't invent yourself? Come on people, by doing away with patents you'll be doing away innovation. Not unlike socialism, you'd be removing the incentive to produce. Yes, everyone is going to point to open source to refute my argument. What did you anti-patent people argue before open source. But I've said it before, and I'll always say it. Writing code is extremely different than creating a drug.
Published: September 25, 2007 10:37 AM
Stephan Kinsella
Robert M: "Aren't we all glad that someone didn't "keep it to themselve" the drugs that keep us alive and healthy, the cars we drive every day, everything that you didn't invent yourself?"
Why would a pharmaceutical company not sell its drugs?
"Come on people, by doing away with patents you'll be doing away innovation."
This is flat out false. No one in the world argues you'll "do away with" innovation. The most you can argue is that there will be *less* innovation. Let's say it's 30% less. How do you know the costs of the patent system are less than the value of this extra 30%?
Published: September 25, 2007 11:03 AM
Jean Paul
Roger M says: "...but if the parking break fails on a nearly new car, that is not negligence and you should not be held liable."
I am sympathetic to wanting a back-door out of responsibility for 'random chance', but making the distinction between "I actively caused this event" and "I actively set the stage, but later this event randomly happened, completely uncaused by me or anyone else", is too subjective - in fact I would say that this is a false distinction which can never be drawn.
Actions and outcomes are always connected by a causal (inertial) chain. When you willfully act, you adjust the inertia of the universe. Whether a consequent inertial result occurs a moment thereafter (e.g.: swing arm; smash face) or days later (e.g.: perch bottle precariously on edge of tall building; wind eventually knocks it over; flying shards of glass injure passersby below), responsibility must fall to the last willful actor to set the causal chain in motion.
Thus the reasonable person DOES presume that his parking brake will hold the car safely in place - on this we agree - but he then willfully acts on that presumption, and in doing so accepts whatever consequences may arise.
Consider that no one else was able to make the risk assessment for him, nor compel the disposition of his property. He made the educated and reasonable choice that "these actions of mine will lead to no trespass against others". If he is wrong, why does he get the excuse, "well I didn't think that would happen"?
Rather, I would say: his stuff, his choice, his responsibility.
If a trespasser was the last to touch your stuff, he may be shown to be liable. If an associate of yours (friend, tennant, etc.) was the last to touch it, then either he or you may be liable, depending on the conditions of the association. But if you were the last one to touch your stuff, as is generally the case, then you're liable. You cannot lay the blame on entropy. Ownership is responsibility.
Of course depending on the circumstances, there are various ways to discharge your liability.
You may invoke insurance.
Or you may turn around and demand the automaker bail you out, and on a new car that's what the warranty should do.
But suppose it's a caveat emptor situation and you bought the thing as-is, with no further strings attached, no insurance in place, nothing.
At this point, perhaps charity can assist you.
Otherwise, there is no one left to step in on your behalf, and your liability remains yours alone to meet.
Ultimately, it means in a free society, you just gotta be really really careful, and make sure you're covered for disasters. I don't think there's anything too distateful about that?
----
Yeah, last point, this all sounds nice in theory; but is of course problematic in practice, as in all matters of law, because circumstances are invariably clouded. Sorting this out is the proper role of courts and juries, as voluntarily agreed to by claimants. But as a universal principle of justice, I think everything here holds up well.
Published: September 25, 2007 1:17 PM
Robert M.
Why do you call me Roger?
Published: September 25, 2007 1:36 PM
ktibuk
If there is a movie theatre with a capacity of 1000 people in a town that is populated by 500 people, then there is no economic scarcity regarding theatre seats.
There is no natural rivalry, there is no natural conflict.
Conflict arises only because someone creates it artificially.
Just as someone creates artificial scarcity by, lets say DRM technology or by copyright contract.
Of course you may, digg a tunnel, get into the theatre without "the conflict creators" knowledge, and he wouldnt lose a thing.
So you may say, since there is no scarcity regarding theatre seats and nobody loses anything if someone stops you by artificially creating scarcity he is kind a robbing you. He needlesly creates artificial scarcity and makes money by the coercion of the state.
If you are a socialist that is.
Published: September 25, 2007 2:04 PM
Jesse
Robert M. and Jean Paul:
Under common law there is precedence to cover situations similar to that which you described. If I remember correctly, all trespass (including accidental) is subject to restitution for actual damages, but if the damage was truly accidental the other party cannot practice retribution. As an intentional act any retribution would be qualitatively different from the accidental damage, and thus out of proportion to the offense. On the other hand, if the damage was intentional -- which probably includes negligence -- then the party at fault is open to both restitution and proportional retribution.
Either way the owner is responsible for the effect its property has on the property of others. A claim of ownership includes the presumption of control over -- and thus responsibility for -- the property's behavior.
Robert M.: There's another poster around here who goes by the username of Roger M. As your name is quite similar I'm sure Jean Paul simply misread the attribution.
Published: September 25, 2007 2:10 PM
Kevin B
ktibuk,
DRM technology and copyright contract cannot create scarcity of the imaginary. Jesus.
Published: September 25, 2007 2:20 PM
Stephan Kinsella
kitbook:
This is ridiculous. Who cares if there is scarcity "regarding theatre seats"? The question is who gets to control entrance to the building. Since a freeloader and the proprietor can't both get their way, THERE IS RIVALROUSNESS HERE. Done.
Naturally.
Who cares?
Funny way to look at it, but there is nothing wrong w/ DRM or copyright "contracts"; neither one will get you anything like copyright however.
Except the right to control a scarce resource. I guess you could drug a sleeping woman, rape her, and then if she knows no better the next morning, she wasn't raped. She wasn't using her body, after all, she was just dreaming!
Funny. If you don't let someone in your house you are robbing them. Now who's the socialist?!
Published: September 25, 2007 2:59 PM
Robert M.
Kevin Bacon? If so, that'd be cool. But anyway, how is it imaginary? I'm pretty sure Tremors was a real movie.
I'm going to have to agree with ktibuk here. I see nothing wrong with contractual copyrights (forebearance is a form of consideration). DRM is just a safeguard that ensures that you follow the agreement (or contract). While inconvenient, there is nothing immoral about it.
Published: September 25, 2007 3:08 PM
Robert M.
Stephan, I think that you misquoted ktibuk, he said:
So you may say, since there is no scarcity regarding theatre seats and nobody loses anything if someone stops you by artificially creating scarcity he is kind a robbing you. He needlesly creates artificial scarcity and makes money by the coercion of the state.
If you are a socialist that is.
You missed that last part; accidental I'm sure. So you really agree with that paragraph.
I must say that I agree with you Stephan. I support copyright contracts, but find copyright laws redundant and unconscionable .
Published: September 25, 2007 3:20 PM
ktibuk
Oh man, this is frustrating but I will give another try.
A movie poducer wouldnt want you to copy his movie without his consent just as a theate owner wouldnt want you to digg a tunnel and get into the theate without his consent.
In the movie poducers case, you claim since there is no natural scarcity, no natural rivalry the movie can not be a property. Your only argument is the sacarcity argument.
In the theatre example, there is also no natural scarcity no rivalry. Everyone in town can get into the theatre and no one would be left out.
You claim the theatre owner can legitimately shut the doors and leave the people who do not want to pay outside, eventhough there is still room in the theatre. Thus creating artificial scarcity and artificial rivalry is ok in this case.
But you claim a movie producer can not do the same. You claim movie producer can not legitimately create artificial scarcity.
It is true in theatres case both sides can not get their way. Also in movie producers case they can not get their way. The owner doesnt want the movie to be copied, and the copier obviously wants to copy it.
If movie can not be property because it is not scarce and if scarcity is the only preequisite of property then it follows that once any thing becomes economically non scarce, like a high capacity theatre, it ceases to be property.
If the theatre has a capacity of 100 in a 500 population town it can be property because the only reason for property rights is to solve conflict, and since there will be conflict when supply is 100 seats (scarce) there will be a need for property rights theory and an owner.
But if the theatre has 1000 seats then there is no longer a need for a theory of property rights that solves conflicts, since there would be none, thus no need for property.
In your logic it is not important who built the theatre at what cost. The important thing is conflict resolution.
Are we getting closer to you dream Stephan? To a future where everything is so abundant that there is no conflict and we dont need property rights at all. Maybe we are already there but some capitalists arent producing as much as they can? What do you say comrade?
Published: September 25, 2007 4:08 PM
Kevin B
Robert M,
Not Bacon. Sorry to disappoint you. :)
My argument is not against contractual copyrights. I am merely pointing out that while ktibuk claims that IP is made scarce through DRM and copyright contract, he is clearly wrong, unless he is defining IP as physical property, which I do not believe he is.
Take my movie, Tremors. ;)
In my movie, I fight aliens that travel under the ground and eat people. When I signed my contract not to distribute copies of the movie I starred in, were the aliens who eat people made more or less scarce? Right.
If I am wrong about ktibuk, and he is defining IP as physical property (as in the form of brain cells), then he really is wasting his breath, for NOBODY here will argue that brain cells cannot be owned. Furthermore, that isn't what Kinsella is talking about when he writes "IP." Such a waste of effort that would be.
So, just so we're clear, copyright contracts are all fine and dandy, but they do not apply to non-participant third-parties...and they do not create artificial scarcity of the imaginary. ;)
Published: September 25, 2007 4:09 PM
ktibuk
Kevin B,
All Ip, although abstract in original form, is transfered through and kept on pyhsical substance. Whether it be sound waves, light rays, paper, optical disc or what not.
We had this argument before and according to your logic, there is nothing that seperates "Human Action" from "random markings made with ink". And when people pay more for a novel than a blank notebook they are frauded because they pay extra for somethıng that doesnt exıst.
But we all know that is absurd.
Although IP is transmitted or kept on physical matter it in fact exists on its own.
And it seems to me denying the existence of IP is the last line of defense in a contradictory and absurd theory.
Published: September 25, 2007 4:21 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Ktibuk:
I reject the "just as". It does not matter what people "want". If a question of a conflict arises, it's a conflict over the use of some thing over which conflict is possible. I.e., a rivalrous resource. When there is such a conflict, civilized people favor assigning title to one person, and the assignment rule that is favored by libertarians is the first-use (homesteading) rule.
If Owner and Freeloader both have a contrary use in mind for the theater building or a seat within it--Owner says "no entrance unless you pay"; Freeloader says, "I get in for free since it costs you nothing since it's not 'economically rivalrous'"--then we have to determine which of them, if either, has the better claim to that scarce resource. It happens to be the owner.
If you claim to "own" a movie, in any meaningful sense, so that there can be a conflict, since conflict can only be over scarce resources, then it means the movie "owner" is asserting some ownership claim in the property someone else has. For example, Movie "Owner" asserts a right to tell Homeowner that Homeowner cannot operate his own DVD in a certain way; or that Homeowner cannot make a new movie "based on" (too similar to?) the plot of the first movie. So here we have conflict: it is conflict over the property of Homeowner. Who wins? The Homeowner.
No, I claim that b/c it is not property, asserting and enforcing a claim in it has to be enforced against other, real, property, and that property is already owned, so your enforcement action undermines it.
Published: September 25, 2007 4:36 PM
Kevin B
ktibuk,
I never said that paying more for a novel than a blank notebook is fraud. There is a difference between a novel and a blank notebook, and the value of that difference is up to you.
I was pretty sure that you were saying that there is more to IP than the physical, and I'm glad to see you repeat it. I wish I could convince you that, although you may have some ideas in your head, unicorns do not actually exist. They cannot be your property because they are non-existent. The concept of unicorns can be no more your property than it is a cell in your head.
Nothing really exists that doesn't physically exist. If you don't believe me, then I have a bridge in Heaven to sell you.
Published: September 25, 2007 4:45 PM
Artisan
Dr. Kinsella:
I never said "material," but rather "scarce" or "rivalrous," and such resources do have a physical aspect, of course.
------------------------------------------------------
Sure, sun rays for instance, have “a physical aspect”. (Not any more than any original artistic pattern has: to have a physical aspect is the condition for copyright, you tend to forget)
But you doubt the fact though that imitating the unique art work pattern deprives the original author from any “physical” resource.
Ask yourself this: how am I depriving you of anything if I build next to you on my property for instance, another facility that casts a shadow on your solar panel say, for only one hour a day?
Traditional flawed “scarcity” argument used by IP opponents go like this to demonstrate I don’t “steal” anything:
Do you own the sun? Are there less sun rays when I remove that facility than there were before I cast that shadow? You can’t count the missing rays, because sun rays are not scarce! So nobody took nothing from you!
(Does that sound like familiar logic, Mr. Kinsella? Doesn't sound like homesteading though.)
Other flawed arguments that can’t cope with homesteading are:
Do you own the material that A used to build the actual facility which temporarily blocks the sun rays from reaching B? No? Thus there is no property infringement!?
Published: September 25, 2007 4:47 PM
ktibuk
"If Owner and Freeloader both have a contrary use in mind for the theater building or a seat within it--Owner says "no entrance unless you pay"; Freeloader says, "I get in for free since it costs you nothing since it's not 'economically rivalrous'"--then we have to determine which of them, if either, has the better claim to that scarce resource. It happens to be the owner."
What contrary use? They can use the theatre at the same time without a problem. Only that one of the guys wants to exclude the other.
And No. According to your theory we don't need to determine anything yet, since there is no scarcity. No ones use stops some others use.
According to your theory:
We dont even have an owner established since we havent established who owns if anybody owns anything yet.
First there must be some resource that isn't enough to satisfy everyones needs at the same time for the process of assigning poperty rights to begin. But in this case there is a resource that satisfies everyones needs, the 1000 seat capacity theatre.
One guy says
"Hey I built the damn thing. This thing isnt nature given or appeared magically one night. It has my blood and sweat in it. I can use it however I want."
But you say
"Who cares if you built it or not. Property rights are only here to solve conflicts. Since there is no conflict, since everyone can satisfy their need at the same time without stepping on each others toes, this good is non rivalrous, non scarce, thus free."
Cant you really see the absurdity here? Are you that stubborn to see that you have problem?
Published: September 25, 2007 6:06 PM
ktibuk
"I never said that paying more for a novel than a blank notebook is fraud."
You implied it. Since there is no IP the two are infact the same. Thus paying more to one and less to anothe must be fraud.
"If you don't believe me, then I have a bridge in Heaven to sell you."
Even in this sentence you imply fraud. You imply that I am so naive that you can sell me something that doesnt exist, thus fraud me by taking advantage of my stupidity.
And actually you can sell me a story about a magical bridge to heaven. If it is a good story that is. Although I doubt you could be that creative. If you were able create IP you wouldnt be here saying that it doesnt exist.
Published: September 25, 2007 6:13 PM
Stephan Kinsella
kitbook:
What contrary use? They can use the theatre at the same time without a problem. Only that one of the guys wants to exclude the other.
Boy, some people just have a poor imagination. To get into the theater, you have to walk through the "front door" past a "ticket puncher" guy. Owner does not want Freeloader using his entrance; Freeloader wants to use it. See the conflict, or do you need to get a new prescription?
There's a conflict.
Sure it does. The owner wants to keep the seat open, unfilled. The freeloader wants to sit in it. that's a conflict.
Are ye daft? Of course, the theater owner already owns it. He homesteaded the land and built the theater.
Did you say "blah blah blah"? Because it sure sounded like it.
No, it doesn't, not if the owner doesn't let them use the property. Duh!
Published: September 25, 2007 9:29 PM
ktibuk
Kinsella,
Thanks to your last post I am now sure that you are not mentally capable of handling a theory like property rights. Of course users can decide on their own.
I am done.
Published: September 26, 2007 4:06 AM
RWW
Yes, some of us have a hard time with the cognitive dissonance of "intellectual property."
Published: September 26, 2007 9:28 AM
Kevin B
ktibuk,
There are physical differences between the book and the blank paper. Whatever IP is, it doesn't cover that - and that is what I'm selling.
"You imply that I am so naive that you can sell me something that doesnt exist..."
The bridge in Heaven is abstract - just as your IP is.
The bridge in Heaven is as real as your definition of IP. That's my point. You say it would be fraud for me to take your money for the bridge. In that case, selling any IP in the purely abstract sense would count as fraud.
"...able create IP..."
IP cannot be created. Telling a story about a magical bridge won't make it exist.
Published: September 26, 2007 1:20 PM
ktibuk
If
A Novels price = Blank notebook price + The price of ink
then
you are right.
But it isnt is it?
And if there is a difference in price, according to your logic it is paid for something that doesnt even exist.
Why cant you accept the obvious, that there is something there. It is created, valued, exchanged and not physical.
I am starting to think all of you are dellusional in different ways.
Some of you are stuck on scarcity needlesly as proven above, some of you deny the existence of IP outright and some of you are real socialists who thing people owe you these novels, songs and movies.
Published: September 26, 2007 2:07 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Kitbook wrote, "First there must be some resource that isn't enough to satisfy everyones needs at the same time for the process of assigning poperty rights to begin."
Actually, all you need is conflict over a given resource in order to need to assign a property right. Clearly, if Owner doesn't want Freeloader entering the theater, and the Freeloader insists on it, there is a conflict over this resource. In fact, that's why I define "scarcity" in terms of conflict. Anything you can conflict over is a scarce resource for purposes of property right. Your "economic scarcity" concepts are utterly irrelevant. Gotcha.
Published: September 26, 2007 2:19 PM
Kevin B
Holy cow, ktibuk.
If you use a certain amount of ink to draw the letter "A" on paper and use the same amount of ink to draw the letter "B" on another paper, that doesn't make them the same.
Where are you sitting? There is a computer screen in front of you, right? Well, if take apart your monitor and arrange the parts in a different pattern, will it be worth the same amount of money?
A computer screen is physically different from a pile of parts. A novel is physically different from a pile of paper and ink.
A pile of parts + "IP" = a pile of parts
A pile of parts + labor = computer screen
Published: September 26, 2007 2:27 PM
Scott
ktibuk,
Put a photo of an expensive car or beautiful woman on the cover of that notebook. Won't it most likely sell for more? Is that because of it's IP-ness or because people subjectively value the presence of an image on their notebook?
People often subjectively value a notebook that contains letters arranged according to patterns that are meaningful to them more than a notebook with random letters. This realization does not help to advance a theory for why a particular arrangement of letters should be perceived as property. That many people subjectively value the item is demonstrable, but we cannot infer from that observation alone that the pattern itself is property.
Published: September 26, 2007 2:33 PM
Artisan
Don't worry Ktibuk, you really don't need to persuade Dr. Kinsella or others here so hard from the ethics of copyright.
The old guard is probably never going to amend its views.
Nevertheless, for good or bad reasons, copyright is now accepted and felt as being right to some extent, by the vast majority of people.
So if this blog doesn't do a better job convincing even the well informed defenders of free market, how is it going to ever educate a whole population into "artistic socialism ...er sorry, non-property" while promoting free market ?
Someone who reads Rothbard and other very prominent free market thinkers, eventually understands that copyright has a good justification in every human society. The opposite conclusion is very unlikely.
If nothing changes IP opponents will thus always just be bunch of eccentrics whose understanding of artistic matters, the philosophy of free will, and free market is relatively inconsistent...
Published: September 26, 2007 3:20 PM
ktibuk
"Actually, all you need is conflict over a given resource in order to need to assign a property right. Clearly, if Owner doesn't want Freeloader [copying the movie], and the Freeloader insists on it, there is a conflict over this resource. In fact, that's why I define "scarcity" in terms of conflict. Anything you can conflict over is a scarce resource for purposes of property right. Your "economic scarcity" concepts are utterly irrelevant. Gotcha."
When people espectin IP say this, you claim the owner (or whatever you call it) ceates artificial scarcity arbitrarily by force and you deny the lgeitimacy of IP.
But when it comes to the theatre example all of a sudden that aspect is not important anymore.
You wote "In fact, that's why I define "scarcity" in terms of conflict."
If conflict defines scarcity then IP is scarce because clearly there is conflict between the creators and the copiers.
Theatre example is deliberatly given as an example where there is abundant, non scarce tangible resoruce and the resource can satisfy everyones need as a consumer.
But in this example you insist there is scarcity where there is none and concede there must be an owner.
Thus you contradict yourself.
Got me how?
Published: September 26, 2007 3:57 PM
ktibuk
Ok Kevin B,
So you can see the diffeence between random computer parts and the computer itself.
See that difference is called IP when it is deliberatly thought of by man.
It is valued, therefore created and exchanged (and sometimes stolen).
Published: September 26, 2007 4:06 PM
ktibuk
Artisan,
By now I know I can not persuade irrationally stubborn people I argue here.
But there is a unwarranted crusade, mainly by Kinsella, on this site.
As if this position is endorsed by Austrian Economics or Libetarianism.
No prominant Austrian economist or libertarian thinker endorses Kinsellas position but the illusion created by him is just the opposite.
Therefore I debate these once in a while.
It also sharpenes your thinking which is a good thing, no?
Published: September 26, 2007 4:13 PM
Curt Howland
Wow. Book with words is fraud. Get real, please. If the book with words is priced so that _you_ think it's fraud, then don't buy it.
I assure you, you're not alone. I've seen lots of books that I do not believe are worth the price, and not once have I been forced to buy them, even in an environment of coercive IP. Without that coercive IP, there is even less chance of being forced to buy them, so the argument that over-priced books are fraud simply reinforces the arguments against coercive IP.
What surprises me is that casual violation of private property is being used by the _pro_IP argumentors while trying to say how IP enforces property rights. Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. If the movie maker "owns" the movie, then you must also admit that the theater owner "owns" the theater.
You also ignore the fact that performance is one of the ways even the _anti_IP folks have presented (ok, I presented it the last time) as a money-making venue regardless of coercive IP laws. So using a theater as an example undermines your argument still further.
As Kinsella points out, coercive IP tries to tell an individual what they may or may not do with their own property. That is the objection to coercive IP. Answer that objection, please, if you can.
Published: September 26, 2007 4:14 PM
Scott D
I wanted to address the movie theater problem. The argument goes something like this:
A theater owner builds a theater with 1000 seats in it in a town with only 500 people. Because there are more seats than there are people, the seats are not a naturally scarce resource. The only thing that makes them scarce is that the theater owner chooses to sell seats above the price that some moviegoers will pay. This proves that property rights can exist in non-scarce goods.
There are a number of problems with the implicit and explicit assumptions here, but I’ll go to the heart of the matter. The theater is the scarce resource, not the seats. The theater owner owns the theater, not seats in a theater. Viewing each seat as separate property and an economic good unto itself is distorting your thinking.
We might just as well note that a theater with only 200 seats has standing room for another 400 if we really cram them in there, but aren't we just being silly at that point?
Published: September 26, 2007 5:03 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Artisan:
The old guard is probably never going to amend its views.
Old guard? ha! The "old guard" is the conventional pro-patent view. Rand, etc.
Kitbook:
When people espectin IP say this, you claim the owner (or whatever you call it) ceates artificial scarcity arbitrarily by force and you deny the lgeitimacy of IP.
What?
The owner of the scarce resource of the theater is not creating artificial scarcity. He is not invading the property righs of the Freeloader. But if you assert an IP right then you do invade the property rights of others, b/c you assert a right to control their bodies and property.
Sure: if an "innovator" or "creator" wants to control someone else's body to "assert" his "IP rights," sure, there is a conflict--over the other person's body and property. So then the question is: how do we resolve the conflict? Who gets to control the other person's body and property? I.e., who is the *owner* of the other persons' body or property? Libertarians say it is that person himself. You want to say that it's the innovator, who by thinking of a way to use his own property, now has an ownership claim on the bodies and property of others. This is socialism/theft.
No, it can't satisfy the "consumers" AND satisfy the owner, b/c the owner does NOT want them in there, and the freeloaders DO want in. So there's a conflict--there's scarcity. So, who wins this battle? The owner, dude.
Published: September 26, 2007 5:18 PM
Kevin B
A pattern cannot be called "IP", but perhaps perhaps as much as "I", since a pattern cannot be property. Let me explain:
What you call a pattern is a specific arrangement of physical property. Now think about it.. Without the property, the pattern is nothing, that is to say - it doesn't exist Take away the physical property, and you have nothing. You have an idea of an arrangement of parts to make a computer in your mind. Take the physical aspect, the mind, out of the equation, and you are left with nothing. There is no more existence to it than the physical.
See? So how does this work:
I own computer parts. I then arrange them in a specific pattern. IP is created. Where? I don't see it. I see the computer parts that I own. The pattern, you say? The pattern is the computer parts. I already owned the parts. Apart from the parts, how can I own anything more than nothing?
Published: September 26, 2007 7:29 PM
Kevin B
Replace the words "computer parts" with "brain cells" and you should be able to see how silly it is to say that there is anything more to an idea than the brain cells it takes to make it. As if something apart from the brain cells is created on arrangement. Hilarious.
Published: September 26, 2007 7:41 PM
Stephan Kinsella
kitbook:
Uh, well, let's see--Hoppe and Block both support my argument 100%, and I would say they are two of the most prominent Austrians around, and certainly two of the most prominent and faithful Rothbardians. I think if Rothbard were alive he'd agree too. My article on this won the (first) O.P. Alford award at the Mises Institute. So why do you lie and say no one endorses it?
Published: September 26, 2007 8:03 PM
Peter
And No. According to your theory we don't need to determine anything yet, since there is no scarcity. No ones use stops some others use.
You're mistaken - there is a conflict over the use of the property; the one person's choice of how to use it prevents the other from using in his chosen way (i.e., the "freeloader" would prevent the "owner" from keeping it empty; the owner would prevent the freeloader from sitting in it). Therefore there is scarcity. And hence property.
In the counterargument, there is indeed no scarcity: the homeowner's use of his DVD player doesn't affect the movie-producer's use of his DVD player in any way, nor vice versa.
One guy says
"Hey I built the damn thing. This thing isnt nature given or appeared magically one night. It has my blood and sweat in it. I can use it however I want."
But you say
"Who cares if you built it or not. Property rights are only here to solve conflicts. Since there is no conflict, since everyone can satisfy their need at the same time without stepping on each others toes, this good is non rivalrous, non scarce, thus free."
And indeed the argument you attribute to Stephan (though it is not even close to anything Stephan is actually saying here, AIUI; but I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse) has some merit. It's not "because it has [his] blood and sweat in it" that the theater belongs to the first fellow, but because he already owned it even before he built it: he owned the land on which it was built, the bricks and steel out of which it was built, and so on - and he didn't own those things because he (God-like) created the land, or because he made the bricks and mined and smelted the steel, etc.; somebody else did things!
Published: September 26, 2007 11:48 PM
Artisan
Kinsella:
Hoppe supports my argument 100%.
-----------------------------------
Funny he never directly wrote a line about IP in that sense though, don't you think? Perhaps you're only confused, and he just likes you for other reason?
Kinsella:
I think if Rothbard were alive he'd agree too.
-----------------------------------------------
You must be joking? After you've been writing this: "He only had a couple of confused deviations, mainly his copyright idea, which was not well thought out."
Your conception of the scarcity of resource, Mr Kinsella is incompatible with the broader free market concept of homesteading energy resources. Face it, ... or don't.
Published: September 27, 2007 8:30 AM
Stephan Kinsella
Artisan:
Artisan, you are just ignorant. Why do people spout off on things they are obviously ignorant about? Hoppe himself named my paper and loved it. He was the one who nominated it for best libertarian article over the past 2 years. Block participated in this too and has recommended my piece dozens of times. And yes, I think that if the two foremost Rothbardians, Block and Hoppe, agree with my piece, Rothbard probably would have too.
Published: September 27, 2007 10:06 AM
Kevin B
Every day new structures are built that capture sunlight that otherwise would have reached others' properties.
Do we own every star in the universe that casts its light upon us?
Published: September 27, 2007 12:51 PM