High School Senior's Questions about IP
I received an impressive inquiry from a high school senior: "I am contacting you to ask if I can interview you for my senior project paper, which is a persuasive paper about why copyrights are invalid and impractical. I will have between 5-10 questions regarding intellectual property for you to answer." I said sure; and she sent on her questions, which were:
1. What would you say is the most powerful argument against copyrights and patents?
2. What would you respond with to someone who argues that resources do not have to be finite or scarce in order to be allocated as property?
3. How would you respond to Lysander Spooner's argument that property is wealth that is owned, and wealth includes ideas since they can be manifested into tangible wealth?
4. What about the argument that people own their minds, so they own the mental products?
5. Some anti-IP people believe in a right to first sell. Would you say that the original creators should have a right to sell the creation first? Why or why not?
6. What would you respond to someone who claims that if there were copies all around, the original inventor wouldn't get as much profit as he should have?
My replies are below.
Question 1. What would you say is the most powerful argument against copyrights and patents?
As I elaborate in In Defense of Napster and Against the Second Homesteading Rule and Against Intellectual Property (both available at http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications.php), humans need to use scarce or "rivalrous" resources -- for example, tangible things like land or food or clothing -- to survive. The nature of these things is that only one person can use or control the resource. Thus, there is a possibility of conflict over the use of these things. For people to live peacefully and productively in the world, we need to be able to find ways to use scarce resources without fighting over them. This means that each scarce good--each thing that might be the subject of conflict--is assigned one unique owner, someone with the exclusive right to control that resource. The rules for determining who is the owner have to be objective, fair, and just, in order to be generally accepted and serve the function of reducing conflict. It is for this reason that ownership is thus assigned to the person with the best claim to the thing in question--the most objective "link" to it. This is the libertarian-Lockean idea of "first use"--whoever first possesses or uses a thing--that is, establishes objective property "borders" with respect to the resource--is the owner. Any other rule is non-objective or arbitrary. For example, if the first user did not have the best claim to the resource, then whatever rule you use to assign property rights, property is not secure because some latecomer could just take it from the current owner. So any property assignment rule at all presupposes the first-user idea--the idea that an earlier user, ceteris paribus, has a better claim than any other user. Which implies the first user -- the homesteader -- has the best claim of all. Any other rule in effect violates the notion that latecomers have an inferior claim to earlier users. For example, a thief who steals property is in effect a latecomer. And mere verbal decree is not sufficient either, for one or two reasons: first, because (with respect to unowned resources), it's not an objective use of the thing; it does not establish any visible link; and any number of people could make such a claim, in contradistinction to first possession, which can only be done by one person, and which is objective and visible; and second, because (with respect to already owned resources) this amounts to theft, or a latecomer ethic.
Now, given this understanding, we can see that any just and peaceful and prosperous society requires the assignment of ownership rights in scarce resources in accordance with the libertarian homesteading or "first use" principle. Now ideas -- creative works protected by copyright or inventive designs or recipes or processes of patent law -- are not scarce resources. Any number of people can have a copy of a song; or can use the same method or design, with their own bodies and property. To assign rights in such things--called "ideal objects"--means setting up enforceable claims in these intangible things--but force is a tangible, real thing that can only be applied to other real (scarce) things. In other words, because ideas are scarce, assigning rights in ideas necessarily is accomplished by assigning ownership rights in scarce resources. So, for example, the holder of a copyright to a novel has a partial ownership right over the bodies and tangible property of everyone else in the jurisdiction, because he can stop them from using their bodies or property in a certain way. The owner of the patent for a mousetrap can stop you from using your own body and wood and metal to make a mousetrap having a similar design to his patented design. But as we have seen above, recognizing such rights contradicts the only just and objective property assignment rule, since it overrides the ownership rights already established in already-owned things. I homestead property, and own it; then someone else acquires some rights to control my property merely by a decree of the state, in effect, merely by their thinking of a way to use their own property, which is not "first use" of the resources they now claim ownership of.
So, in short, the problem with patent and copyright is that it amounts to theft of rights to scarce resources.
Question 2. What would you respond with to someone who argues that resources do not have to be finite or scarce in order to be allocated as property?
Assigning rights to non-scarce things necessarily infringes on rights to scarce things, since IP rights are enforced with force, real force, in the real world, against real things. For example, the copyright holder can force the "infringer" to pay money to him; or can get an injunction forcing him to stop using his body and (scarce) property in a certain way. Assigning rights to non-scarce things acts much like inflation of the money supply does: the more you do it, the more you dilute and reduce the value of real property (money).
Question 3. How would you respond to Lysander Spooner's argument that property is wealth that is owned, and wealth includes ideas since they can be manifested into tangible wealth?
Wealth is too nebulous a term to be used here and is unnecessary. It appears to mean value; but as Hoppe and Rothbard show, value is not ownable or owned. The owner of property has no property right in the object's value, since its value lies in how others' appraise it. (Hoppe argues this in his TSC, as I note in my Against IP article, at text at note 79.) See also Rothbard's explanation for why there are no rights to one's reputation--because a reputation is what others believe about you, and you don't own their minds or opinions. (I think this is in Ethics of Liberty.)
Question 4. What about the argument that people own their minds, so they own the mental products?
This line of reasoning is based on the confusing notion that creation is an independent source of property rights. This error is similar to the confused idea that we own things we mix our labor with because we "own" our labor. We own -- have the right to control -- various scarce resources, such as our bodies and other scarce resources we homestead or acquire from previous homesteaders. We do not own "labor"; labor is just an action, an activity of the body. To be sure, when one first uses unowned property, and thereby homesteads it, he is engaging in a type of "labor"; but we do not need to rely on the confusing metaphor that we "own" our labor. By working to emborder or possess an unowned resource, one thereby establishes a visible link with the property, thus establishing a better claim than any latecomer, i.e. ownership. This chain of reasoning does not imply or rest on the idea that we "own" our labor.
As for creation, it is often maintained that one can acquire ownership of things by either finding (homesteading), contract (acquiring it from a previous owner), or by creating the thing. But this is confused: creation is not an independent source of ownership. In fact, a bit of reflection shows that it is neither necessary nor sufficient. If you own a resource and re-shape it into some new, more useful, more valuable configuration (say, you "create" a mousetrap using your wood and metal; or you "create" a statue by carving up your hunk of marble), then you own the resulting "creation" simply because you were already the owner of the material that constitutes it. So it is not necessary to think of creation as a "source" of ownership rights. Likewise, if you carve a statue into someone else's property, then you do not own the resulting statue; rather, the owner of the marble is entitled to have his marble back, and perhaps damages for trespass. So creation is not sufficient for ownership either.
In fact, the only legitimate ways of acquiring title to a given scarce resource is to either homestead it from its unowned state, or to contractually acquire it from someone who already owns it and who can trace his title back to an original act of homesteading. This fully exhausts all ways of coming to own scarce things. This is because matter cannot be created by man, but only rearranged.
Now let me note one other thing. Rothbard explains in Ethics of Liberty why there is not really an independent right to free speech; there are only property rights. There is no "right" to free speech that gives you the right to speak on others' property--you must have the consent of the owner. And if you own property, you can do whatever you want on it, including speak--not because you have a "right to free speech" but because you can do whatever you want with your own property so long as you do not invade others' property rights.
So back to your question: we do not own the mental products of our mind for several reasons. First, owning one's body, just as owning property gives you in effect a (derivative) right to speak on it, allows you to use it to do useful things, such as come up with ideas, or even sell your services, or labor. There is no need to engage in the confusing fiction or metaphor that you "own" your labor, or you "own" the "products" of your mind. Second, "products of the mind" is far too vague of a concept. It is so broad that if property rights were granted in them, they would swamp and override all real rights in real things. And finally, if the products of your mind are scarce, you presumably own them because they result from reworking material you already owned (if not, as in the stolen marble example, you do not own it at all, but someone else does). And if they are not scarce, they are not the subject of property, since granting property in them is impossible, and can only be accomplished by eroding property rights in others' things.
Question 5. Some anti-IP people believe in a right to first sell. Would you say that the original creators should have a right to sell the creation first? Why or why not?
I believe you may be referring to the doctrine of common law copyright. As a practical matter, if you have an idea or manuscript, you can use this to leverage payment to reveal it. But if you are foolish enough to let the information become public, it is too late to do this. As Benjamin Tucker noted: "You want your invention to yourself? Then keep it to yourself." (see on this Wendy McElroy, Copyright and Patent in Liberty).
Question 6. What would you respond to someone who claims that if there were copies all around, the original inventor wouldn't get as much profit as he should have?
Austrian economics teaches us that values are subjective, and that the only way to determine an objective price is on the market. See on this Rothbard's Utility and Welfare Economics, e.g. The only way to know how much profit someone "should" make is to see what people are willing to pay them for. Part of the market is the need to incur costs of exclusion. If you don't put a lock on your business, people will steal it. If drive in movie theaters didn't incur the cost of putting little speakers for each car, then people would free ride by watching it from outside. To decide whether a given endeavor is worthwhile, one must take all costs into account, including costs of exclusion. The more creative find ways to exclude that have a low enough cost and that exclude a sufficient number of free riders so that the business can be profitable. For those entrepreneurial plans that have too high a cost, they should not be engaged in. So we see people finding ways to profit from their ideas, given the free rider problem--so rock bands give away their music for free (it plays on the radio, e.g.) so they develop fans who will pay to see them play live in concert (but even here, there are costs of exclusion--the ticket selling and enforcement mechanism, say). Or television shows are broadcast for free and paid for by advertisting. And so on.
Comments (55)
Assigning rights to non-scarce things necessarily infringes on rights to scarce things, since IP rights are enforced with force, real force, in the real world, against real things. For example, the copyright holder can force the "infringer" to pay money to him; or can get an injunction forcing him to stop using his body and (scarce) property in a certain way. Assigning rights to non-scarce things acts much like inflation of the money supply does: the more you do it, the more you dilute and reduce the value of real property (money).
Anti-IP arguments are usually founded on the idea that property should only include scarce goods. Why is this so? I quote from Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella:
In other words, outside the Garden of Even, humans face a serious problem which has the potential to lead to serious conflicts: scarcity. The solution is property rights for scarce goods. That makes it "possible to avoid otherwise inescapable and unresolvable conflict," according to Hoppe.
Those who favor no IP rights then proceed to point out that ideas are not scarce (in the sense that the term has been applied to scarce goods). Thus, the "inescapable and unresolvable conflict" that occurs with regard to scarce, tangible goods does not apply to ideas. So, the argument then goes, of what use are IP rights except as unjust monopoly privileges?
However, this argument leaves out an important fact. There is another problem, in addition to the scarcity problem, that humans outside the Garden of Eden face:
The justification for property rights for tangible goods lies in the fact that they solve a problem humans face. Humans require tangible property rights in order to solve the scarcity problem. Likewise, intellectual property solves another problem humans face: humans require intellectual property rights in order to solve the expenditure problem describes above.
Your thoughts?
Published: December 7, 2007 10:37 AM
Wow. I'm speechless. You spent more time addressing the questions of a high school senior, when she could have read them off your website, and which you have addressed several times before, than you spent reading the idea I (a college graduate) sent you, which would have allowed you to stop making the hand-waving rationalizations you make regarding the issue in question 6, and actually contributed to the discussion.
If this isn't proof you ignore people who don't stroke your ego, I don't know what is.
Stephan_Kinsella, if you really believe in your position, let me send me comments on your reply to this high schooler.
Published: December 7, 2007 11:05 AM
Assuming the paper will be read by a government school teacher, a simply "yes" or "no" would have sufficed.
Or, preface every comment with, "In a fair, just, and equitable society, property rights are defined ad hoc by the collective -- the state -- to benefit all."
Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)
Published: December 7, 2007 11:51 AM
Gabriel,
Since you quote Mises, then I'll quote back Rothbard's reply to this concern:
Published: December 7, 2007 12:11 PM
Gabriel: In addition to Gil Guillory's response, there is the issue that it is not "IP" itself that is needed for production -- since all "IP" that has ever been discovered or created is superabundant -- but rather the labor of creating new "IP" suited to the requirements of the particular good being produced. Labor, including the creation of "IP", is an expenditure of time and effort and attains a price on the market without any monopoly.
Technically Mises was correct in what he wrote, but I do not believe the conditions he describes would ever occur in an unencumbered market. The production of any good for which there is a demand necessarily commands a positive price. Perhaps not enough of a price to justify producing it -- all sorts of potential goods lack sufficient demand to offset their cost -- but a positive price nonetheless.
In any event, even if it were not economically efficient, the preservation of any monopoly contrary to the market in the face of viable competition would require the aggressive threat and use of force. Luckily market efficiency and the non-aggression principle are not in conflict, but if they were I, for one, would choose to adhere to the non-aggression principle regardless of any inefficiencies that might result.
Published: December 7, 2007 12:28 PM
Rothbard's reply demolishes the infant-industry argument, but it does not affect Mises' argument (that I quoted above). In Rothbard's scenario, consumers would have more satisfaction in the absence of the tariffs protecting the "infant-industry," i.e. building up that industry wastes resources.
However, Mises was careful enough to construct a scenario in which this criticism would not apply. Note that "The public would not derive any advantage from the absence of monopoly prices for f. It would, on the contrary, miss the satisfaction it could derive from the acquisition of g." In other words, given Mises' scenario, consumers are better off with intellectual property than without it. Whereas tariffs to protect "infant-industries" necessarily cause consumers to be less satisfied than they otherwise would have been, it is the exact opposite with intellectual property in Mises' scenario.
Goods are scarce objects....by definition. Scarce objects for which there is a monetary demand will of course have a market price. However, this is irrelevant to Mises' argument. Note that in his scenario, f is not a "good", but merely a "complementary factor." If f is not scarce, then there will be no market price for f, despite the fact that producing/discovering/researching f may require expenditure. That is Mises' scenario.
"Aggressive use of force" is initiating force against a person or a person's property. Thus, arguing that enforcing IP is "aggressive use of force" assumes that IP is, in fact, not legitimate property. The argument assumes what it tries to prove. If, instead, you assume that IP is legitimate property, then infringing IP becomes "aggressive use of force."
Published: December 7, 2007 12:49 PM
Gabriel said most of what I would. Let's hope that unlike with me, you guys actually read what he posted.
I wanted to add that if we're going to talk about the economic implications of IP or lack thereof, Mises's own calculation argument becomes relevant. Before an intellectual work exists, someone must decide whether to allocate scarce resources to it. Since its existence would be a good thing, we can say that that knowledge is a good.
Following right along Mises's argument, how does one evaluate, after the fact, whether the resources applied to the production of the intellectual work, were a better use of them, than applying them elsewhere, *if there are no market prices in that good*? It would seem that an implication of the calculation argument is that resources allocated to intellectual works are suboptimal.
Certainly, physical property can allow market prices in individual units of the good, but *not* in the right to use the idea itself, which has independent value, for separate reasons. Lack of IP is functionally equivalent to price cap of $0 on that good.
Would it be a "bad thing" (however defined) if lumber had a price cap of $0? After all, some people would still produce lumber, right?
(I tried to make the same point on the mailing list, and didn't get any substantive responses.)
Published: December 7, 2007 1:06 PM
Gabriel: Point one: My point was that the "complementary factory" is the labor, not the "IP", and that labor has a non-zero price. Since the "complementary factory" has a non-zero price Mises's argument does not apply.
Point two: that was not an argument, but rather a statement. You are right that I am arguing from the position that "IP" is not property, but I was not also trying to prove that at the time, and thus it was not a circular argument. Anyway, if "enforcing IP" is synonymous with "maintaining a monopoly" then "IP" cannot be property; property rights are not monopolies.
Published: December 7, 2007 1:07 PM
Person: "Before an intellectual work exists, someone must decide whether to allocate scarce resources to it."
Of course, all purposeful work requires intellectual effort. Even shoveling snow from a driveway requires intellectual effort.
"Certainly, physical property can allow market prices in individual units of the good, but *not* in the right to use the idea itself, which has independent value, for separate reasons."
The cost of the intellectual effort necessary for the processing of physical property is factored into the price of the physical property.
Intellectual effort is a cost and is taken into account when pricing physical products and services. Ideas are not separate from physical objects and cannot be priced separately. Also, keep in mind that the price of goods and services *must be agreed to* beforehand.
Published: December 7, 2007 1:49 PM
Does this mean, Mr. Kinsella et al, that during the coming Revolution one could expect a storming of the US Patent Office a la Bastille 1789?
Published: December 7, 2007 1:59 PM
Kevin_B: "The cost of the intellectual effort necessary for the processing of physical property is factored into the price of the physical property."
No, it isn't. It can't be. Proof: In the absence of IP, someone can copy the information and sell it cheaper, without having to amortize the cost of producing the intellectual work. If that intellectual work is factored into the price of the copy, that implies that the intellectual effort is correctly priced at $0.
This contradicts what we know: that many intellectual works do have value.
"Ideas are not separate from physical objects and cannot be priced separately."
You don't have to be a dualist to see why that's wrong. For one thing, they currently *are* priced separately in all jurisdictions that recognize IP. Second, even abstracting from property rights issues, it's logically possible for me to want:
-the informational content of an invention, but not a working copy
-a working copy, but not the informational content (i.e. not care how it works)
"Also, keep in mind that the price of goods and services *must be agreed to* beforehand."
Yes, and what prices people agree to depends on what the prevailing legal regime is.
Published: December 7, 2007 2:04 PM
Kevin B: "Also, keep in mind that the price of goods and services *must be agreed to* beforehand."
What I mean by this is that even if ideas were separate from physical objects and able to be priced separately, one could still not force others to agree to the price after the fact of transfer. Patent rules of any sort would have to be agreed to beforehand. Personally, I don't believe that most people would agree to abide by patent rules anywhere near what we have in the US today, if at all.
Published: December 7, 2007 2:13 PM
Mr. Kinsella,
How would you apply scarcity and property rights to the digital medium?
I agree that to some extent that ideas cannot be divorced from the tangible, physical object that is a person's private property. And to enforce an artist's IP over someone's private property is tantamount to theft. But I find myself unwilling to agree with the concept that a resource must be scarce for it have a unique owner.
I guess my question really is: are digital files property of anyone?
Published: December 7, 2007 2:25 PM
Person: "Yes, and what prices people agree to depends on what the prevailing legal regime is."
"Rights" and prices can be forced upon people by "legal regimes," but that does not make them proper.
Person: "No, it isn't. It can't be. Proof: In the absence of IP, someone can copy the information and sell it cheaper, without having to amortize the cost of producing the intellectual work."
If you water your lawn, you should take into account that others may see you and may imitate your actions upon their own lawns. There is intellectual work being performed by you, and it IS PRICED. You care for your lawn despite the fact that you lose the opportunity to have some other people pay you to care for their lawns as well.
Kevin B "Ideas are not separate from physical objects and cannot be priced separately."
Person: "-the informational content of an invention, but not a working copy"
You cannot gain the "informational content" of anything without a physical presence. How exactly do you expect to aquire information apart from the physical, and how do you plan to store it, hmmm?
"-a working copy, but not the informational content (i.e. not care how it works)"
A working copy contains "informational content" whether you want it or not. ;P
Published: December 7, 2007 2:34 PM
Kevin_B: ""Rights" and prices can be forced upon people by "legal regimes," but that does not make them proper."
Yes, and you can say the same thing about physical property rights, thus making your original argument here (remember it?) circular.
"If you water your lawn, you should take into account that others may see you and may imitate your actions upon their own lawns. There is intellectual work being performed by you, and it IS PRICED."
No, it isn't. The value that others place on learning how to water is not reflected in the recompense you received for watering your lawn. To the extent that that preference was not reflected in any price, there is an efficiency of the type detailed by Mises. It is very small in this case, but major intellectual work projects can have very significant ones -- what if someone doesn't get the right price signal to push him into developing synthwater and neural charging stations?
"You cannot gain the "informational content" of anything without a physical presence. How exactly do you expect to aquire information apart from the physical, and how do you plan to store it, hmmm?"
It's called "blueprints", genius. (To give one example.)
"A working copy contains "informational content" whether you want it or not."
Yes, but regarding the original statement, I could *want* e.g. a lawnmower that can't be reverse engineered. The value of having a lawnmower is independent of the value of being able to figure out how it works.
Published: December 7, 2007 2:51 PM
Kevin B: "Ideas are not separate from physical objects and cannot be priced separately...You cannot gain the 'informational content' of anything without a physical presence."
Person: 'It's called "blueprints", genius. (To give one example.)'
LOL, blueprints have a physical presence. Try harder to give even one example.
---
Kevin B: "A working copy contains "informational content" whether you want it or not."
Person: "Yes, but regarding the original statement, I could *want* e.g. a lawnmower that can't be reverse engineered."
I don't see how such a lawnmower would be devoid of informational content. Perhaps the only thing that you can communicate to us here as being devoid of informational content would be "". Unfortunately, even that could be seen as something containing information. ;P
Published: December 7, 2007 3:01 PM
Kevin_B: '"Rights" and prices can be forced upon people by "legal regimes," but that does not make them proper.'
Person: "Yes, and you can say the same thing about physical property rights, thus making your original argument here (remember it?) circular."
I was actually referring to physical property "rights." To be specific, slavery.
I stand by my original statement.
Published: December 7, 2007 3:04 PM
Kevin_B:
"blueprints have a physical presence."
I didn't claim blueprints had a physical presence, only that they're not a "working copy". Do you even remember my original claim? It was: 'the informational content of an invention, but not a working copy'
"I don't see how such a lawnmower would be devoid of informational content."
It wouldn't. This was a hypothetical: it's *possible* to want a lawnmower, while attaching no value to the knowledge you'd need to make one yourself.
"I was actually referring to physical property "rights." To be specific, slavery."
Well, that's nice. But you still missed the point that *all* physical property rights, not just slavery, "can force agreements on others". Keep the attention span up.
Okay, anyone want to respond, who's not just going to lob softballs?
Published: December 7, 2007 3:12 PM
You can't have a discussion with Person. S/he has proven incapable of understanding the libertarian property rights logic against IP, refuses to acknowledge the widespread practical economic costs of IP, and stubbornly maintains that there is some sort of economic necessity for IP (at least in his/her wishy-washy theoretical world) because of the benefits it supposedly somehow bestows upon society.
Published: December 7, 2007 3:55 PM
Person,
Your original claim was in response to my statement that ideas are not separate from physical objects and cannot be priced separately.
You replied that you could want an idea separate from physical objects.
My answer to that was, basically, that you can want in one hand and shit in the other. Which one weighs more?
Somehow you think that blueprints are a way to eat your cake and have it, too. Well, sorry, but blueprints add nothing to your argument.
So you "want: -the informational content of an invention, but not a working copy"
So what? How does that refute my point that "Ideas are not separate from physical objects and cannot be priced separately."? Blueprints? Please.
----
"it's *possible* to want a lawnmower, while attaching no value to the knowledge you'd need to make one yourself"
And how is THAT an argument to my statement that "Ideas are not separate from physical objects and cannot be priced separately."?
'But you still missed the point that *all* physical property rights, not just slavery, "can force agreements on others".'
Wait. Are you suggesting that rightful liberty is not unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others?
Published: December 7, 2007 4:01 PM
Stephan mentions that IP is like inflation. I'd like to add that, both being government intervention in the market society, they both lead down the road of more and more intervention. While inflation often leads the goverment to inflate more, as well as introduce price controls, the introduction of IP leads to more and more IP. People want to defend themselves against others and so they try to copyright and patent everything they can, which seems to lead to IP office qualifying for IP "protection" and increasingly ridiculous lawsuits for IP infringement.
Published: December 7, 2007 4:18 PM
*lead the IP office to qualify more things for IP "protection"*
Published: December 7, 2007 4:19 PM
"So what? How does that refute my point that "Ideas are not separate from physical objects and cannot be priced separately."? Blueprints? Please."
Do you not understand how it's possible to have the informational content of an invention but not a working copy of the invention itself? If you don't there's not much point in talking to you anymore, since you should work on learning that shoe-tying thing.
"And how is THAT an argument to my statement that "Ideas are not separate from physical objects and cannot be priced separately."?"
Because we can see how there's a price someone would pay for a lawnmower *without* reverse engineering rights, and a price he'd pay *with* engineering rights, showing how the good of the product, and the good of its informational content are conceptually distinct and valued for different reasons.
Because of your short attention span I will remind you were that the relevance of that point is that Mises's calculation argument implies that either:
-The wrong amount of scarce resources will be applied toward production of intellectual works (inventions, designs, etc.) in the absence of IP.
OR
-Intellectual works are always worth nothing, because that is the price markets would place on them in the absence of IP.
"Wait. Are you suggesting that rightful liberty is not unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others?"
I'm saying you're incapable of making an argument without assuming your conclusion. Let's go over this one more time:
you: IP is invalid because ideas and products containing them are separate.
me: An idea, and a physical product embodying it, are distinct.
you: No, because you can't sell them separately.
me: In the right legal regime you can.
you: But that doesn't mean the legal regime is proper.
me: It doesn't mean the legal regime you prefer is proper either.
you: Yes it does, because IP isn't justified.
me: *falls out of chair*
Published: December 7, 2007 5:20 PM
Brent: "You can't have a discussion with Person."
Yes you can, just approach with an open mind and think clearly.
"S/he has proven incapable of understanding the libertarian property rights logic against IP,"
No, I understand the claims; they're just wrong. (That doesn't make the conclusion wrong, of course.)
"refuses to acknowledge the widespread practical economic costs of IP,"
I have always acknowledged the costs; my point is that there are corresponding costs to the "physical property rights system" and to not having IP, and these need to be properly recognized.
"and stubbornly maintains that there is some sort of economic necessity for IP (at least in his/her wishy-washy theoretical world) because of the benefits it supposedly somehow bestows upon society. "
I have maintained that I am not convinced that a world without IP would be better than the current one, for the same reasons that a world in which profits are taxed at 100% would not be better than the current one.
Published: December 7, 2007 5:24 PM
I work in the pharmaceuticals industry.
So I spend a billion dollars I prove that a chemical that has a material value of pennies can cure cancer and then when I try to sell it I am told I do not "own" the chemical. So tell me why anyone in this libertarian model invest in pharmaceutical research?
Published: December 7, 2007 6:47 PM
I want to know, how exactly having the state or any other agency arbitrarily decreeing a certain price for an idea 'solves' the calculation argument, when ideas are not even scarce (ie capable of being goods.)
Further, the 'this can be said of physical property rights too!' argument is nonsense. Applied to actually scarce goods, property rights are indispensable. Person has yet to give me his justification for property rights.
Published: December 7, 2007 7:27 PM
Person: "Do you not understand how it's possible to have the informational content of an invention but not a working copy of the invention itself?"
Working copy, yes. Some physical embodiment, no. Ideas are not separate from the physical realm. That is what I said. Do you understand?
Person: "Because we can see how there's a price someone would pay for a lawnmower *without* reverse engineering rights, and a price he'd pay *with*..."
Slowly..You cannot separate ideas from the physical world. Purchasing a reverse engineering right is NOT purchasing an idea. It is purchasing a physical property right to perform. You cannot separate the cigar from the cigar.
Published: December 7, 2007 7:39 PM
Hopefully one of these times you fall out of your chair, you'll get some sense knocked into you. ;P
Published: December 7, 2007 7:43 PM
Perhaps nobody would. Or it would be undertaken by non profits. Either way, so what? How is it right to make taxpayers subsidize (through IP enforcement costs) their millions of dollars in industry profit?
Published: December 7, 2007 9:12 PM
I lurk on Mises on occasion and have really been trying to understand both sides of the rather convoluted debate on IP. I just read the related article, but I still have a few blunt questions that I am hoping someone on the anti-IP side can provide an extremely concise answer in the "Yes./No./Maybe." format.
1) Do those who object to the legal protection -- or even just the voluntary, private recognition by others -- of uniquely created ideas or uniquely developed processes only recognize physical objects themselves, not any of the intangible information encoded somehow on those physical objects (ex. writing), as potential personal property?
2) If yes, does that mean that people (such as the authors or publishers of books) have no defensible right of ownership to their own uniquely developed or presented intangible ideas even when those ideas are the result of great personal investment?
3) Hypothetically speaking, should I be able to start an animation studio that produces animated shows featuring the Simpsons, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Sponge Bob Squarepants with the artists and/or studios owning those characters having no moral (versus legal) grounds for complaint?
Like another individual alluded to earlier, let's say that an individual was to pour their personal resources (time, money, energy, mental abilities, and physical property) into developing a unique widget design, an original process of some kind, an art object, or even a written work.
Barring the originator generously forfeiting their personal claims on that design, process, art, or writings as an act of good will, I cannot see how others can morally justify "swooping in" afterwards and duplicating that design, process, art, or writings with neither the explicit permission of its originator nor some form of pre-negotiated compensation even in the total absence of any governmental recognition of those ownership rights (i.e., trademarks, copyrights, and patents). The very idea is offensive to the conscience.
It is like someone claiming that the latter individuals have just as much right to the fruits of another's labor (profits, acclaim, usage, etc.) as the laborer himself/herself. If the government does not have a moral right to either the tangible or intangible fruits of our labor, why should any other private individual or business?
That is not to say that the legal defense and/or regulation of IP cannot be grossly abused on occasion, resulting in unnecessary lawsuits and the like used to punish competitors (or less connected individuals) in lieu of honest marketplace competition. There will always be dishonest individuals who abuse any system ever created by humanity. I am not defending those situations at all.
I just think that there is a happy medium that can be achieved without resorting to either extreme, no IP recognized whatsoever or every single word and deed as legally-defensible IP ripe for lawsuits. And, if I have misinterpreted or misrepresented any of the arguments of others on this issue, I apologize in advance as that was not my intent.
Published: December 7, 2007 11:48 PM
'Tis interesting as to wonder why an Industrial Revolution didn't at other places in millennia prior to the 1700s? History has shown that there have been clever inventors who had indeed invented that which could have kicked off an Industrial Revolution in ancient times yet didn't. On the other hand, why as I.P. is recognised are technological innovations going through the roof? History seems to show without I.P. people stick tenaciously to trade secrets and hidden codes to hide their ideas and invention and technological progress slows to a minimal pace.
Published: December 8, 2007 12:35 AM
I think one large misunderstanding about patent and copyright is that they do not create the market for invention/creation. Instead, all they do is force the market to center around invention/creation controls instead invention/creation services.
It reminds me of printer manufactures that subsidize the printer, but make up the difference with expensive ink cartridges. While technically speaking it works and incentives production as long as people don't figure out how to put ink in manually. Forcing people to buy their ink only is not a right outside of them signing a contract.
The same is true with copyright and patent. In some cases it may have the effect of subsidizing worthy creations, but charging for the "information/copying" rather than the services behind it is like charging for the cartridges instead of charging for the printer (R&D/services). It may be useful in many cases, but is not a right.
Will the market be different without patent and copyright? Sure. But will it be bad, will invention and creation dry up. Hell no. Did R&D dry up and shrivel away, and did engineers and high tech companies get harmed when IBM and Intel lost their big interface and lawsuits? No, instead the PC industry had a nuclear explosion in business and commerce. Did musicians, artists, and writers wither away with the massive unrestricted copying on the internet. No, instead all of those areas have flourished and grown. When Linux was licensed in a way to mimic the effect of being copyright free, did it disincentivse everybody and wither away - no instead it feeds a multi billion dollar industry which does private R&D for profit.
Copyright and Patent don't work as property logically, don't physically, don't match predictions and expectations in real world practice, must be global because they are impossible to impose locally, and seem to require a lot of active coercion and government intervention to operate. They act a lot more like a deception than a genuine property.
Published: December 8, 2007 12:37 AM
Chad,
I'm probably one of the few individuals here who is not anti-IP, but I'm sure that you will have a number of them show up later today to answer your questions.
The idea of someone benefitting from the fruits of someone else's labors (the "what's yours is mine" theory) is to me collectivist in nature.
I think that many people have little or no respect for the arts, believe that the arts are totally unnecessary and have therefore decided that nothing the artist creates is worth protecting. They prefer to remain oblivious to the time, money and effort that goes into the creation of art.
The animosity is further aggravated by NEA grants, which, IMHO should not exist. Taxpayer money should not be used to support the arts. I consider government grants another example of the "what's yours is mine" theory. Any literature I receive regarding government grants is promptly thrown away.
BTW, Chad. Don't lurk. Post. I could some help here. :)
Published: December 8, 2007 7:35 AM
Chad, if you're asking whether anti-IP individuals believe a company should be able to contractually (or otherwise) restrict reproduction of its product, then the answer is yes. They definitely have this right.
Published: December 8, 2007 11:26 AM
Chad: "1) Do those who object to the legal protection -- or even just the voluntary, private recognition by others -- of uniquely created ideas or uniquely developed processes only recognize physical objects themselves, not any of the intangible information encoded somehow on those physical objects (ex. writing), as potential personal property?"
There's no such thing as a "uniquely created idea" or "uniquely developed processes". You didn't crate every word you used in your post. You COPIED them. And look! I copied them too! And there's no limit to how many times anybody can copy them without diminishing anybodys' use of them. And absolutely every copyright claim mixes ideas that were not created by the copyright claimant in their copyright claims. Only physical objects can have lines of ownership drawn upon them. Copyright infringes and trespasses on the real physical property of others by prohibiting the manner in which the real physical property of others may be shaped.
Chad: "2) If yes, does that mean that people (such as the authors or publishers of books) have no defensible right of ownership to their own uniquely developed or presented intangible ideas even when those ideas are the result of great personal investment?"
They don't have any "uniquely developed or presented intangible ideas" in the first place. They copy the ideas of others on innumerable fundamental levels. If I decide to do a fireworks show I can't go around gouging out the eyes of others who don't want to pay for what they can see displayed in the sky. That's violence. Nor can I force them to pay. Nor can I force them to stay indoors and not look at my content until the show is over. Everyone has "great personal investment" in their own ideas. That's subjectively valued.
Chad: "3) Hypothetically speaking, should I be able to start an animation studio that produces animated shows featuring the Simpsons, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Sponge Bob Squarepants with the artists and/or studios owning those characters having no moral (versus legal) grounds for complaint?"
You've already imagined "the Simpsons, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Sponge Bob Squarepants" in your head. You just copied "trademarks" and any ideas of content those imaginations of those "trademarks" may invoke. And all those people COPIED the idea of animated cartoons from others, with no compensation. They're copycats, plain and simple, no matter what arbitrary convoluted justification you may invent to pretend delineation of where one idea begins and another idea ends. There's nothing anyone can do to prevent someone imagining Sponge Bob Squarepants just got sliced in half by a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle's sword. You gonna use violence to prevent those thoughts? Use violence to prevent sharing of those thoughts? Use violence to prevent selling of those thoughts?
Chad: "let's say that an individual was to pour their personal resources (time, money, energy, mental abilities, and physical property) into developing a unique widget design, an original process of some kind, an art object, or even a written work."
Let's say an individual was to get financing or paid in advance for developing a unique widget design, an original process of some kind, an art object, or even a written work. "Problem" solved.
Chad: "Barring the originator generously forfeiting their personal claims on that design, process, art, or writings as an act of good will, I cannot see how others can morally justify "swooping in" afterwards and duplicating that design, process, art, or writings with neither the explicit permission of its originator nor some form of pre-negotiated compensation even in the total absence of any governmental recognition of those ownership rights (i.e., trademarks, copyrights, and patents). The very idea is offensive to the conscience."
Well those creators already "swooped in" on the ideas of others with no justification problems whatsoever. If you have a problem with that, then why are you using words you didn't create in posts? If IP proponents have a problem with that they should stop talking and remain in silence. Whoops, I guess they'd be copying monks who lived in silence. And if they committed suicide, they'd still be copying the actions and ideas of others. It is IMPOSSIBLE to not copy the ideas and actions of others are many levels that canot be cleanly delineated. That's why government monopoly protection of imaginary property is an utter absurdity.
Chad: "It is like someone claiming that the latter individuals have just as much right to the fruits of another's labor (profits, acclaim, usage, etc.) as the laborer himself/herself. If the government does not have a moral right to either the tangible or intangible fruits of our labor, why should any other private individual or business?"
There's no claim of a "moral right to either the tangible or intangible fruits of our labor" in an anti-imaginary property position. If you act, people can observe your action with their senses. You have no claim to what actions they do or do not do with their personal private property.
Chad: "That is not to say that the legal defense and/or regulation of IP cannot be grossly abused on occasion"
If I claim you can't possess doors or windows on any of your property without you paying my extortion claims, that's violent abuse. ALL claims of copyright are violent abuse.
Chad: "I just think that there is a happy medium that can be achieved without resorting to either extreme"
Well, you haven't demonstrated that "happy medium" and nor will you ever be able to.
If physical goods could be duplicated as easily as ideas, prohibiting that would be violently sentencing and forcing others into poverty. What more do you really need to say? Anybody and everyone could have every house, car, food, medicine, and all other physical manifestations of all goods whenever they wanted. What would be wrong with that? Everyone would have their own physical copy of whatever property existed to use how they pleased.
Published: December 8, 2007 1:27 PM
I'm gonna jump in as part of the "as yet undecided" crowd...
I've presented the following a number of times on IP-related discussions, but I have yet to receive any meaningful feedback. Hopefully somebody here will jump on it. Even a smack-down would be fine, so long as it's well thought out. ;)
Most books, music CDs, and computer software include an End-User License Agreement (EULA) or other agreement that places limitations upon the product's use. Does purchasing and using these items not constitute a voluntary contract between the purchaser and originator? Would the enforcement of these contracts not be sufficient to prevent the use of "IP" in a manner in which its creator would prefer that it not be used? Would IP laws be necessary in that case?
I don't believe that IP is necessary in order to foster creation and invention. In fact, I think that in most cases it's merely a mechanism for legitimizing labor-intensive activities that may otherwise be entirely unprofitable. In any case, the voluntary contract between creator and consumer should be sufficient to protect the creator's interests, whatever they may be.
Published: December 8, 2007 2:02 PM
Wow. I'm speechless. ... I tried to make the same point on the mailing list, and didn't get any substantive responses.
Gee, I wonder why.
I'm just spitballing here, but the reception Person enjoys might have something to do with his seemingly-limitless arrogance and smug sense of self-importance, demonstrated frequently but no more clearly than in this very thread, revealing an egotism so exaggerated that it borders on megalomania.
Either that or his frosty reception might be explained by his lack of concision, his convolution, his engineer's sense of eloquence, his evasiveness, or his habits of playing the martyr and arguing in bad faith.
Yes, I just can't imagine why on earth high schoolers the world over are not beating a path to Person's door to supplicate him for a tiny morsel of his infinite wisdom.
Published: December 8, 2007 2:52 PM
TLWP wrote
--
'Tis interesting as to wonder why an Industrial Revolution didn't at other places in millennia prior to the 1700s?
[...]
History seems to show without I.P. people stick tenaciously to trade secrets and hidden codes to hide their ideas and invention and technological progress slows to a minimal pace.
--
Yeah, no no kidding TLWP, the cognitive dissonance is so thick in this thread that you could cut it with a patented Ginsu 2000.
TLWP you've placed your finger on an uncomfortable issue for most libs. How could it be that the 'good' social engineering (e.g. IP and other things that help make me rich!) is a hell of a lot like the 'bad' social engineering (any government policy advocated by people who aren't Austrian economists).
How do we justify stuff like intellectual property, limited liability corps, strong banking and capital markets regulation but stay true to good libertarian principles of minimalist government?? Quite a conundrum
Well, in short, you don't. If you want to be a real libertarian go live on a homestead by yourself and raise cabbages.
If you want to live in 21st century conditions then my advice is to suck it up and stop talking about 'theft' and 'slavery'
Published: December 8, 2007 8:26 PM
? Huh ?
Published: December 8, 2007 9:19 PM
For you, Nick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Published: December 8, 2007 10:15 PM
I thought most people argue in dichotomies. If you argue for one way yet admit there are many other possibilities it dilutes the point of arguing for one way in the beginning. But then I'm sure most people like to argue in false dichomtomies too.
Published: December 9, 2007 12:36 AM
--
For you, Nick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
--
altus there's no false dilemma here, but a genuine dilemma among mises blog readers, if you would take the time to read the preceding thread. The dilemma is about how to reconcile true libertarian principles of non-interference in economic activity, with the needs of the market economy (strong government interference to create IP)
The answer to that dilemma is not to cook up convoluted arguments for certain types of nanny state intervention but to toss out much of the foundations of Austrian economics and libertarianism. This philosophy is rooted in a 18th century agrarian economy and not usable in the modern market economy.
Published: December 9, 2007 12:10 PM
Nick, why would we want to justify any of those things you mentioned? Are you a troll? It seems so. Of course, feel free to trot out archaic statist nonsense. I don't mind. It's your time you're wasting, troll.
Published: December 9, 2007 7:33 PM
Ron: "Most books, music CDs, and computer software include an End-User License Agreement (EULA) or other agreement that places limitations upon the product's use. Does purchasing and using these items not constitute a voluntary contract between the purchaser and originator?"
No, it does not constitute a valid contract any more than somebody selling your real property without your consent constitutes a valid contract. Those EULA claims are mixing in ideas created by others with ideas they themselves may have created. However, you can't validly sell your house along with your next door neighbor's house.
Published: December 10, 2007 8:38 AM
Rtr, thanks for the reply.
I don't think your analogy of selling my house along with my neighbor's house is valid in this case. It implies that I believe I have some right to someone else's property just because it's there. This is certainly not the case, nor do I agree with the "mixing of ideas" precept, for the simple reason that there is a chain of voluntary contract extending back to the point of origin, or nearly enough to that point to be valid.
A music CD certainly contains "ideas" created by an individual or group of individuals. The creator(s) have contracted with a CD producer voluntarily. This contract grants the CD producer the right to dictate the terms of its contract with the consumer. By the same token, a piece of software contains the "ideas" of many individuals, each of whom have contracted with a software company in some manner that grants the company certain rights to govern the use of those ideas by the consumer.
You're arguing against any concept of originality in the realm of ideas, which I can't dispute. Every idea naturally builds upon a previous idea, whether it be one's own idea or that of another. As a woodworker, I can't very well take credit for the creation of all the tools and techniques that go into crafting a piece of furniture from raw lumber, nor can I take credit for growing and milling the tree(s) required to produce the lumber. Does this mean that I am not the rightful owner of the final product? No, of course not...there is a chain of legitimate, voluntary exchange (or contract) that makes me the owner of the final product of my hands.
Obviously, ideas are not the same as lumber and power tools...they do not exist as physical, tangible items that can be purchased. Only the items produced by those ideas can be traded on the market. Even if it's just a piece of paper or a collection of ones and zeros describing the idea, as long as there is a chain of voluntary contract still holds. Barring any chain of contract, however, could we not say that ideas are free for the taking? A musician can't take credit for everything that goes into writing a piece of music or performing it in a studio to be recorded. Someone else came up with the common method of music notation, and most likely someone else came up with the design for the instrument(s) being used to make the sounds. When the musician bought the guitar (or whatever), there was no contract between the musician and the guitar manufacturer dictating its use, nor is there any "owner" of traditional music notation. Likewise, there was no EULA included with my table saw stating that I agree not to use it to make a profit. Had there been such a thing, I would likely have bought a different saw. The musician and the woodworker are therefore free to mix their labor with those items and produce something useful (in terms of market demand) which they are then free to dispose of in whatever manner they please.
As was pointed out earlier, there is no such thing as an "original idea" when carried to its logical conclusion. So ideas, in this regard, are basically capital goods. The only things we can take credit for are the things we produce by mixing our labor with (legitimately gained) capital goods. If you're saying that no idea is ever legitimately gained, then you invalidate the entire concept of contracts in general. Nobody owns anything becomes somebody owned some part of it at some point in the past.
Even if I at one time owned the land on which my neighbor's house was built I still have no claim to their house if I don't own the land now; however, if the purchaser of the land had executed a contract with me saying that I was the owner of any improvements made thereupon, then I would have a legitimate claim to the house. This is the nature of voluntary contract.
Published: December 10, 2007 10:46 AM
One concluding remark...
I guess my previous remarks put me on the Anti-IP side of the debate, and I'm good with that. IP laws in general seek to insert a de facto contract where none exists, or to alter an existing voluntary contract, both of which infringe upon the liberty of one party or the other. They are, therefore, illegitimate and incompatible with freedom and free markets.
So there.
Published: December 10, 2007 10:52 AM
Ron, The point is you can't make contracts on property that you don't own. Music mixed with public domain word lyrics can't be validly contracted. Neither can music that copies common blues chord progressions. You can certainly sell whatever music you make that is represented on actual physical property. You just can't make a contract preventing copying when you don't completely exclusively own the ideas that are mixed with your production. And note that a contract is a COPY of the idea of a contract, certainly not invented and created by the latest person to write a contract.
There is no "chain of voluntary contract extending back to the point of origin". Merely by trading you are COPYING the idea of trade first created by someone else. And that's the point, all creative production is BUNDLING COPIES of ideas created by others. And that is not exclusively ownable by someone. It would be absolutely absurd for someone to pretend they are selling you a physical cd disc along with the exclusive rights to use of the English language. There are no exclusive rights to use of the English language. Anyone who mixes their creative content with use the English language is voiding their claim of exclusive creative production. Therefore, contracts made upon mixed ideas not exclusively created are invalid. You are attempting to sell not *just* your portion of exclusively created content but also trying to sell the COPIED mixed portion of non-exclusively created content along with it. Not only is it a hypocritical stance arguing against copying whilst simultaneously copying, but it's as absurd as attempting to sell someone exclusive rights to breath air.
Ron: "You're arguing against any concept of originality in the realm of ideas, which I can't dispute. Every idea naturally builds upon a previous idea, whether it be one's own idea or that of another."
It's not just "building upon", it's COPYING the idea foundations. You cannot validly contract thought control. Minds and property are irrevocably shaped and influenced by the expression of ideas. You can't yell in a public square whilst demanding others shut their ears until they pay you. Yet that's exactly what copyright is attempting to enforce.
Ron: "If you're saying that no idea is ever legitimately gained, then you invalidate the entire concept of contracts in general. Nobody owns anything becomes somebody owned some part of it at some point in the past."
Contract itself is far less valid than most people believe, but that's a different topic. You mix your labor of breathing with the air, but you don't therefore own the air. And nor can you validly contract with someone to not breath air, or not copy your breathing of air. It's by its nature not capable of exclusive ownership, and therefore not capable of valid contract. However, you can certainly put air in a scuba tank and sell a scuba tank of air, and validly contract to receive a scuba tank of air. Just as you can validly put ideas on a physical piece of property, such as a concert performance on exclusive private property, or a music recording on physical cd. However, you can never validly contract the non-copying of any ideas. Even if you could, the second person to contract the non-copying of any ideas would be COPYING the first person who invented that contract. And that would be a violation of free trade resulting in the abject poverty of completely isolated non-trading individuals.
But usually creative artists are full of massively inflated egos, and they are conveniently deaf, blind, and dumb to the innumerable ways in which they have copied the ideas of others. And clearly their production benefits from copying the ideas of others. And clearly all who copy benefit from copying. And clearly there is always more to copy then an individual person can truly uniquely produce, thus meaning wealth increases exponentially from unlimited copying for absolutely every person. It's an epistemological impossibility to not copy others (even the idea of exclusively owned pieces of property are copies of other exclusively owned pieces of property); therefore, contracts against copying are invalid.
Published: December 10, 2007 2:40 PM
rtr, good posts. What happened? :S
Published: December 10, 2007 4:42 PM
rtr,
How far shall we carry this logic?
rtr: "It's an epistemological impossibility to not copy others (even the idea of exclusively owned pieces of property are copies of other exclusively owned pieces of property); therefore, contracts against copying are invalid."
We can agree that any activity or creation involves 3 basic elements: ideas, materials, and labor. Your premise is that ideas cannot be owned because they're simply copies of other peoples' ideas, and that nothing that is not produced from wholly-owned "ingredients" cannot be owned; therefore, contracting against any human activity or creation is illegitimate.
Logically, then, ownership of anything is invalid, and nothing un-owned can rightfully be sold or otherwise transferred. There are no property rights, and no individual has any claim to the fruits of his or her labor. By this reasoning all goods are "public goods". In fact, we are not even the owners of our bodies or lives, as our birth was brought about by our parents' act of copying the idea of intercourse.
It's an interesting premise, and one that I can't entirely dispute.
My question to you, then, is at what point, if ever, does ownership become legitimate? What is an individual's labor worth if he or she must simply render up whatever has been created on the premise of incomplete originality?
Published: December 10, 2007 6:55 PM
OMG rtr, i thought the line in Third Rock from the Sun was considered by most people a joke. ("This author is a plagarist! Have you all not heard of 'The Dictionary'!"). I starting to think the term 'I.P. Socialist' is a reasonable term.
Published: December 10, 2007 7:42 PM
Good questions Ron.
Ron: "Your premise is that ideas cannot be owned because they're simply copies of other peoples' ideas, and that nothing that is not produced from wholly-owned "ingredients" cannot be owned; therefore, contracting against any human activity or creation is illegitimate."
Ideas are more like recipes and not physical "ingredients". But even the development and sale of recipes can occur in a free market with no prohibitions against copying and improving upon recipes.
Ideas are at least IN PART bundled copies of other peoples' ideas. But ideas are not necessarily static. Advancement and progress certainly occur in the arts and sciences.
Ron: "Logically, then, ownership of anything is invalid, and nothing un-owned can rightfully be sold or otherwise transferred. There are no property rights, and no individual has any claim to the fruits of his or her labor. By this reasoning all goods are "public goods". In fact, we are not even the owners of our bodies or lives, as our birth was brought about by our parents' act of copying the idea of intercourse."
No, just the ideas element cannot be owned or validly contracted because that portion of creative production cannot be exclusively delineated. Human bodies are exclusively delineated. Two people cannot occupy the exact same space at the exact same time. Property can be exclusively delineated. And because humans act, they own their actions (they can choose to not act in specific manners), they own themselves. But just any old acting is copying any old acting by someone else. Only claims of IP ownership can trespass on the actions and real physical property of others by preventing actions from being copied, which would be preventing others from existing. Thus, ideas alone do not constitute valid property claims.
Ron: "My question to you, then, is at what point, if ever, does ownership become legitimate? What is an individual's labor worth if he or she must simply render up whatever has been created on the premise of incomplete originality?"
An individual's labor is worth whatever someone else will voluntarily trade for the performance of that labor, or what that person themself subjectively values the output obtained from mixing their labor with their property. When you solely trade real physical tangible objects you don't bundle the real physical tangible objects owned by others in the trade. Since ideas cannot ever be entirely exclusively created and owned, they cannot be owned. But labor and materials can certainly be exclusively used, shaped, and produced. Division of labor trade increases net wealth of society. And unlimited copying of ideas also increases net wealth of society. That's why common public domain languages are created and evolve. Everybody benefits from this. It's not a "sad" thing. The fruits of labor are massively increased exactly by copying ideas created by others. Market signals are sent precisely by this method. All DEMAND signals a wanted copying of SUPPLY. A marginal unit of supply is a copy of another marginal unit of supply. A "gold rush" is a whole bunch of people copying each other in the mining of gold. This can occur with simultaneous respect for persons and property, even though two people cannot both possess the exact same marginal unit of gold. There are no marginal units of ideas. They are omnipresent and unlimited wherever they are thought. And there's no a priori prohibition against voluntary compensation either in advance or after the production of creative works. There are innumerable compensation models for all creative work, from subscriptions to fame to private performance to advertising subsidized to voluntary patronage. A mises.org site or wikipedia could evolve to compete with and undercut every private pharmaceutical company research and development budget.
And if physical material goods and scarce labor could theoretically be copied as easily as ideas, preventing that from occurring would be actively causing a net poorer society to exist. If copying was not justified only one single person could rightfully exist, as all others would be copying that person on some fundamental level. Ideas are just incidental information without boundaries or limits, no more remarkable than that charity and scholarships can exist in a free market. Attempting to assign ownership boundaries on ideas is just infringing and trespassing on the real property and real right to act of other persons. For society to exist, copying must occur. But copying alone is not sufficient for society to exist. There must also be voluntary exchange, and by definition of voluntary exchange, exclusively owned property and persons. That's the only way somebody can occupy an exclusive Point A and non-violent (not resulting in a Hobbesian war of all against all) movement to and fro from different points can occur.
Isn't it silly to declare if you invent and say a word, such as "pwn", nobody can hear, see, comprehend or repeat that word? It can't be controlled, except haphazardly by violence alone. In sum, ideas themselves are just not applicable to the process of ownership.
Published: December 10, 2007 8:52 PM
Thanks for the well thought out responses, rtr.
rtr: "No, just the ideas element cannot be owned or validly contracted because that portion of creative production cannot be exclusively delineated."
Okay, I can accept that...I think. I'll have to chew on it a little more to solidify my stance on it, but for now we'll take it as true and move on.
You alluded earlier to the media itself...the CD:
rtr: "You can certainly sell whatever music you make that is represented on actual physical property."
If an artist has mixed his or her labor with something intangible (music notation, blues chords, language, et. al.) and used it to create something tangible, i.e. a CD, then sells that CD to a consumer, does the artist have a right to dictate the use of the CD itself? Can the creator and consumer validly enter into a voluntary agreement which restricts the consumer's ability to use the CD in a particular manner, specifically, to prohibit the consumer from accessing the CD with software that copies the information onto some other media?
You're absolutely right that you can't prevent someone within earshot from hearing music that's being played loudly, though there has been legislation proposed in some states to do just that. (See: This report for an example of how patently ludicrous this has become. Pay particular attention to the reference to "The Sonny Bono Act" on page 3). However, the owner of a concert venue can restrict patrons from using recording devices inside the venue to copy the performance.
The point is that there are property rights, beside those that are arbitrarily created by government on ideas, that can serve to protect the interests of the creator. I don't disagree with you that most artists are egotistical and have no grasp of others' contributions to their own work. I also don't necessarily believe that reproducing someone else's ideas constitutes a violation of that person's rights. I'm just wondering if the fact that you can't claim exclusive ownership of an idea is even relevant to the IP discussion.
And yeah...I know all that stuff about labor, subjective value, free exchange, etc., and the benefits they provide. This is primarily an exercise meant to challenge my own assumptions and logically solidify my position on the subject. Sometimes playing the devil's advocate is the best way to go about doing that. ;-)
Published: December 11, 2007 12:41 PM
Ron: "If an artist has mixed his or her labor with something intangible (music notation, blues chords, language, et. al.) and used it to create something tangible, i.e. a CD, then sells that CD to a consumer, does the artist have a right to dictate the use of the CD itself?"
No, a "sale" is a trade, which implies ownership of A has been exchanged for ownership of B. But suppose the artist "rents" the use of the cd. Then I suppose so (depending upon the restrictions), but that would be rather pointless, because the artist doesn't have the right to dictate the use of all property that is not the CD itself (even if somebody originally agrees to this they can change their mind at any time), and only so long as the artist remains the owner of the cd.
Ron: "Can the creator and consumer validly enter into a voluntary agreement which restricts the consumer's ability to use the CD in a particular manner, specifically, to prohibit the consumer from accessing the CD with software that copies the information onto some other media?"
Yes they can. Or no they cannot. Those are the only two possible answers. And that's completely dependent on continuing present tense agreement to the terms of the contract. But the agreement cannot be enforced beyond what has been exchanged at the moment of the agreement, because agreements can be canceled at any time for whatever reason, just like divorce. So I think my preliminary answer has to be "no". There's no such thing as a binding contract, in so far as "contract" refers specifically to future action. The artist would have to require that a penalty be deposited in advance, which would just effectively be raising the price of the cd by the penalty amount, which would just be effectively paying for the right to violate the terms of the contract. Either way, a cd with restrictions is likely to be less valuable to the purchaser of the cd than that cd without restrictions, so the artist is only doing himself a disservice by lacing his product with restrictions. Trade is still only going to occur if that which is received is valued more than that which is given away in exchange. And I'd imagine giving away your rights to act as a complete person and giving away your rights to fully use your other property would be pretty expensive (which is why artists and creative content distributors seek government subsidies in the form of mandated ex post civil forfeiture penalties for "copyright infringement").
But the really interesting economic demonstrations proceeding from the "intellectual property" debate are going to be the epistemological ramifications it has on contract theory, which at the moment, is a cesspool of CONTRAdiCTions. It might be the whole idea of contracts exists *only* because of
government force (in that case complete trades would occur much more often in a free market in the absence of pretend contract), and that contracts are often causing poverty in the future
tense for some party of the contract (think Katrina home insurance), as future subjective
valuations change (as opposed to present tense trade always increasing mutual profit), and massively skewing prices for goods that are connected with contracts, such as houses and cars.
It's something I have to think about. There's absolutely no government force needed for any voluntary trade whatsoever, because that which is received is valued more than that which is given away in exchange. Thus, it seems contradictory that third party force and regulation should be required in the realm of voluntary contracts. But I have to think about how and if such things as insurance (and there' *still* risk insurance companies can fail) and derivative contracts would evolve in a free market from solely present tense trade events, and not from regulatory force ensuring compliance from past terms into the future. There are free market institutions that suggest contracts aren't natural free market occurrences, such as margin requirements, banks holding title to property purchased with loans until the loan is repaid, default insurance, deposits, credit ratings, etc. I've already found plenty of big fundamental errors in the field of economics, so it wouldn't surprise me to find many many more. But that would be a *big* add to my demonstration collection, showing contract evolving from something such as government justification to conscript mercenaries and serfs into continued service.
It seems to me if contracts were declared universally unenforceable alternate replacement mechanisms would evolve to hedge risk, and high risk activities, such as building expensive homes on California hillsides at risk of fire, would be far less subsidized. Well, that's a completely different topic ...
Published: December 11, 2007 8:35 PM
rtr: "No, a "sale" is a trade, which implies ownership of A has been exchanged for ownership of B."
Well, yeah, that's what I meant. Suppose, though, that the ability to copy the CD was part of what the consumer traded for the CD, in addition to whatever other remunerations were rendered. The consumer still has to decide if those things combined were of greater subjective value than the CD itself. If he/she feels that $12 + "don't copy the CD" is worth less than the CD, then there is a trade, otherwise there is not.
Let's suppose for a second that the RIAA suddenly pulls its head out of its arse and decides to quit fighting this frivolous battle, and as a result the price of non-copyrighted CDs jumps to $30. This puts a more tangible "price" on the hassle-free ability to copy the CD. I wonder how the market would respond.
This has got me thinking about other goods, and about how the issue of copying only applies to things that are easily copied. Copying a piece of handmade furniture requires nearly as much effort as creating the item itself, so it's really a non-issue. Even when a piece made by a well-known artisan is copied, the copy itself often sells for much less than the original, even though the copy may be of the same quality, so there are natural market mechanisms that generally grant higher value to "originals". I wonder if the same would hold true of CDs and software without IP laws.
This reinforces my viewpoint that IP laws are a method of legitimizing activities that would otherwise not be nearly so profitable.
Published: December 12, 2007 5:09 PM
Ron: "Suppose, though, that the ability to copy the CD was part of what the consumer traded for the CD, in addition to whatever other remunerations were rendered. The consumer still has to decide if those things combined were of greater subjective value than the CD itself. If he/she feels that $12 + "don't copy the CD" is worth less than the CD, then there is a trade, otherwise there is not."
Absolutely correct. That is why the trade occurs. But that which is received being valued more than that which is given away in exchange only definitively applies to the present tense moment in which the exchange occurs. It is an epistemological impossibility though for it to be known what uses or actions create value in the future.
But promises, contracts, just like "IP", are intangible non-goods. That doesn't mean they can't have positive subjective value. Observe fiat currency being willingly picked up from the ground. Contractual restrictions applying to future actions are not market optimal transactions in the future, and they only exist to the extent they do because of government thug interference in the market place, threatening and executing violence if necessary to enforce past terms that may not be creating mutual positive value in the future tense. Just perusing the "contract" entry on wikipedia shows that "contract" is no where on par a free market institution the way private property is. Contract is always an erosion of private property, a limitation upon full ownership of property. It's full of examples of compulsion, which by definition is not willingly occurring nor creating mutual positive wealth the way trade does.
Ron: "This has got me thinking about other goods, and about how the issue of copying only applies to things that are easily copied. Copying a piece of handmade furniture requires nearly as much effort as creating the item itself, so it's really a non-issue. Even when a piece made by a well-known artisan is copied, the copy itself often sells for much less than the original, even though the copy may be of the same quality, so there are natural market mechanisms that generally grant higher value to "originals"."
Very true. Fame, reputation, and brand name recognition certainly have vastly varying positive subjective value. But it's not quite a "non-issue" as it effects scarcity and substitute goods, such as artificially labeled "knock off" or "counterfeit" goods.
Ron: "I wonder if the same would hold true of CDs and software without IP laws."
It already does to an extent. There's lots of memorabilia that sells for big money, such as the hand written lyrics of John Lennon's "Imagine" some guy keeps in his safe. Artists can certainly supplement their incomes by giving their bigger fans more value in limited edition exclusives. And concert tickets have different price tiers, the closer or further way from stage the seats are located. IP just permits people to be lazy, to profit from creating artificial scarcity. But such do socialists prefer everyone to have an equal slice of the pie even if that equal slice is much smaller than what the smallest slice would be in a free market pie. But ironically IP is being used to create unequal slices of pie that are much smaller than what the what the equal slices of pie would be in a free market society with respect to ideas (there's absolutely no physical scarcity).
Ron: "This reinforces my viewpoint that IP laws are a method of legitimizing activities that would otherwise not be nearly so profitable."
Compulsion is not voluntary nor legitimizing. It's merely restricting trade and causing society to be net poorer, less efficient, and more technologically stunted than it otherwise would be. Property, mine, yours, his, hers, is a mutual copied understanding. Without copying there can be no supply and demand, no trade, no action. Copying is absolutely necessary for society and a free market to exist. Copying is precisely the method by which wealth is mass created in a free market, as the very word "marginal" implies "exact copy". But new subjective value is also created by differentiation, and famous creative artists have vast advantages (by definition being very limited famous supplies of creative artist individuals) to create extra subjective value from applying those advantages to otherwise bland marginal unit commodities, with appearances, dedications, and autographs for instance. Thus, all creative artists will be maximizing profit precisely by maximizing fame (increasing and maximizing demand), and they will be maximizing fame precisely by diminishing arbitrary artificial barriers to the spreading of their fame, such as IP.
Published: December 12, 2007 8:02 PM