IP = right to profits. Nothing more and nothing less.
IP is the manifestation on creativity of an underlying Marxist theme: the labor theory of value.
What if I discover/invent something but others market it first? What if they market it better?
Am I not entitled to profits for my discovery or invention?
Answering yes to the last question is what lies at the core of so called Intellectual Property.
Well, one does not have a guarantee in any other activity, so why in invention? Shouldn't that area too be subjected to the rigors of the free market? But of course, I say.
1.- What if another copies my machine?
Learn marketing and keep improving, as we all do in other areas.
2.- What if another uses my brand?
Learn marketing and keep your standards, or you will destroy the brand no law could keep live anyway if you mess up.
3.- What if another plays my tune?
You learned how to walk or talk from others (gestures instead of notes), in very specific cultural combinations too. Be a good musician. Nobody confused a Beethoven or a Mozart with a second-rate musician in any age. The best do better.
Yes, patents, trademark and copyright: the three ugly faces of the labor theory of creativity.
Comments (152)
Jay D
I am mostly convinced against patents, and I think copyright law could be improved, but I still think there is a place for copyright IP.
I do not own a high volume printing press, but a neighbor does. I have an idea for a book, and it would be mutually beneficial for me to enter into business with my neighbor to produce this book, but without IP, I cannot enter into any kind of enforcible contract.
The contract could say: "I agree to tell you my story if you agree to print it and sell it. We will then share the profits."
I would have no right to enter into that contract, and the press operator would have no reason not to ignore that contract and after I tell him my story, he could ignore me print the book and keep all the profits. I don't own that particular arrangement of letters in the alphabet any more than I own the Moon. You can't enter into a contract about something you don't own, can you?
Since I can't trust the printing press operator, I will keep my idea secret until I can buy a printing press of my own, so I can hurry up and print and sell copies of the book in the short time before that same neighbor can get his hands on the book, duplicate the arrangement of letters, and sell it.
Without copyright IP, there can be no division of labor. Each author also has to be a printing press operator to get the product out quickly.
It's not so much that I'm entitled to profits for my labor, but rather, why should I bother laboring if I see no profit in it. Creative IP won't get produced.
Where am I wrong?
Published: January 3, 2008 10:06 AM
Jay D
I am mostly convinced against patents, and I think copyright law could be improved, but I still think there is a place for copyright IP.
I do not own a high volume printing press, but a neighbor does. I have an idea for a book, and it would be mutually beneficial for me to enter into business with my neighbor to produce this book, but without IP, I cannot enter into any kind of enforcible contract.
The contract could say: "I agree to tell you my story if you agree to print it and sell it. We will then share the profits."
I would have no right to enter into that contract, and the press operator would have no reason not to ignore that contract and after I tell him my story, he could ignore me print the book and keep all the profits. I don't own that particular arrangement of letters in the alphabet any more than I own the Moon. You can't enter into a contract about something you don't own, can you?
Since I can't trust the printing press operator, I will keep my idea secret until I can buy a printing press of my own, so I can hurry up and print and sell copies of the book in the short time before that same neighbor can get his hands on the book, duplicate the arrangement of letters, and sell it.
Without copyright IP, there can be no division of labor. Each author also has to be a printing press operator to get the product out quickly.
It's not so much that I'm entitled to profits for my labor, but rather, why should I bother laboring if I see no profit in it. Creative IP won't get produced.
Where am I wrong?
Published: January 3, 2008 10:06 AM
Manuel Lora
IP is entrepreneurial welfare.
Published: January 3, 2008 10:07 AM
Inquisitor
Whence does it follow that such a contract is not enforceable? You can simply decline to sell the right to copy your product. Whence it follows that anyone copying it will be in violation of this contract, and must provide compensation and cease their activities. Arguably something similar to IP could be replicated by means of contract.
Published: January 3, 2008 10:09 AM
Juan Fernando C.
Jay:
Of course there is and there would be division of labor. We all know the recipe for bread, perhaps the recipe to even better bread than we usually buy at the bakery, but still we do not all become bakers. Division of labor is a feature of life, not of intervened markets.
Published: January 3, 2008 10:11 AM
Reformed Republican
Jay D,
Your neighbor has a printing press. Does he have a reputation for printing people's stuff without paying them for it? Then find someone else with a reputation for paying people for their stories.
Published: January 3, 2008 10:13 AM
Jay D
Reformed Republican: Does he have a reputation for printing people's stuff without paying them for it?
Look at how you phrased it. "People's stuff." Possesive. The underlying assumption is that the writer owns what he wrote and it would be a strike against the printer's reputation to print it without payment. There is an underlying assumption of Intellectual Property even if there are no mechanisms for legal protection for that property.
Other forms of transactions have contratual protections without relying soley on reputation.
Published: January 3, 2008 10:29 AM
David Bratton
Patents have been around longer than marxism. I think it would be more accurate to call IP a manifestation of mercantilism, or perhaps even a vestige of aristocratic privilege. I don't think it can reasonably be called marxism though. And I don't think it qualifies as a derivative of the labor theory of value either since IP prices are not related to the time or quantity of effort required to invent something.
Published: January 3, 2008 10:35 AM
David Bratton
Jay D: Other forms of transactions have contratual protections without relying soley on reputation
Look at how you phrased it. "Contractual." If you have a contract with the printer and he breaks it then the contract is your legitimate basis for action against him, not IP.
Published: January 3, 2008 10:42 AM
Juan Fernando C.
Well, when I say "Marxist theme" it does not require Marx on the scene, actually. I think a lot of mercantilist themes are what we *now* can identify with Marxism, even if they precede its appearance.
And of course it's mercantilism but the philosophical root, I insist, is a "right to profit from effort", which is even more important that labor-cost accounting for Marxism.
Besides, we can call something socialdemocratic or mercantilist, and we use the former more, but historically we should be using the latter, right? It's a choice of terms to underscore something. In this case, "effort must lead to profit".
Published: January 3, 2008 10:43 AM
Jay D
Juan Fernando C.,
That is why I am mostly convinced against patents. Bread takes raw materials as well as labor to produce. Also, the loaf of bread itself is the product. The loaf itself has to be quality controlled to ensure customer satisfaction.
A book is different. The quality of the physical book plays some role in the final product, but the physical book itself is not the product. No one would buy the book if the pages were blank.
The physical book is not the product, the words are, and the words can be reproduced nearly effortlessly.
To me, patents are different than copyright.
Published: January 3, 2008 10:46 AM
Jay D
David Bratton: Look at how you phrased it. "Contractual." If you have a contract with the printer and he breaks it then the contract is your legitimate basis for action against him, not IP.
Maybe I misunderstand a world without Intellectual Property. What kind of binding contract could I enter into regarding something that is not my property? What if I signed a contract with you saying that you can have mining rights to the Moon, provided you give me 20% of the profits? That's not a valid contract because I don't own the Moon. Why is it any more valid to have a contract that says you can have printing rights to a particular arrangement of letters if you give me 20% of the profits? I don't own that arrangement of letters any more than I own the moon.
Published: January 3, 2008 10:56 AM
Juan Fernando C.
I hear you, Jay.
Still, creating anything (entrepreneurial know how, sales methods, etc) does not give you or me the "right" to protect it from benchmarking or copies from other minds. The greatest books were written before copyright, so I see no utilitarian case either.
Published: January 3, 2008 10:56 AM
Inquisitor
Jay, I've answered your question already; all you need to is retain the right to copy, i.e. not sell full ownership of the item.
Published: January 3, 2008 11:05 AM
MBrown
IP is "Internet Protocol".
Sorry, but as a computer geek, when I hear IP, Internet Protocol is what I think of (TCP/IP, etc).
Published: January 3, 2008 11:07 AM
Person
Amateur. You knew I would do this:
******
NEO-LOCKEAN property is the manifestation on creativity of an underlying Marxist theme: the labor theory of value.
What if I BUILD A FACTORY but others USE it first? What if they MANAGE it better?
Am I not entitled to profits for my FUNDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACTORY?
Answering yes to the last question is what lies at the core of so called LOCKEAN property.
Well, one does not have a guarantee in any other activity, so why in A FACTORY? Shouldn't that area too be subjected to the rigors of the free market? But of course, I say.
1.- What if another USES my FACTORY?
Learn HOW TO BETTER HOLD ON TO A FACTORY YOU FUNDED and keep improving, as we all do in other areas.
Yes, PROPERTY RIGHTS IN STUFF YOU'RE NOT USING: the ugly face of the labor theory of PRODUCTION.
(Sorry for the caps, I would have bolded, but if you use any html at all, it screws us the preview function.)
*******
Now I can kind of see Stephan's beef with people who don't bury themselves in citation. (Though he does need to admit the possibility that an idea is genuinely new...)
Published: January 3, 2008 11:09 AM
Juan Fernando C.
Person is confusing the underlying institutions for a market (which may have a market origin and can have it in all cases) with *market dynamics*. His method of paraphrasing is just boring and fruitless, as usual.
Published: January 3, 2008 11:12 AM
ed
In response to the neighbor and the printing press.
Firstly, you do not own the story any more than anybody else and any more than anyone owns Santa Claus. However, we can assume that you have not told the story to anyone or published it elsewhere. Basically you can set up a contract with the publisher to print the book for you. You are an established writer? He can buy the opportunity to get your draft of the book, lets say for $500,000. You shop around and can get other different offers and take the best one. However, you (and the publisher) don't have a right to the story. And once its published, anyone can copy it in any format. Just like Santa Claus. You aren't an established auther you say? You can purchase the time and services of the publisher, say for $500,000 for 500,000 copies of the book plus his distribution and marketing ability. What, you don't have $500,000? Too bad, convince a bank to loan you the money. Or publish the book on the internet for free and make money in other ways. Be creative. But don't look to the government to enforce your ownership of a story. That is the current IP system.
Its funny that some of the most popular images and stories are not protected. Think how much money is made off the image of Santa Claus. Or the story of Jesus. Or singing Happy Birthday. Think how much richer the nation and world is that these things aren't copyrited.
Regarding the recipe and the bread. The recipe is not ownable. The bread you make from ingrediants you own is property. Side note: Lets say you make the bread at a neighbors house with his ingrediants. The bread is his property even though you made it. Of course there is probably an understood implicit contract there, but you get the idea.
Published: January 3, 2008 11:22 AM
Person
Juan_Fernando_C.: The point is, your arguments apply equally well in dismissing the importance of the property rights Austrians favor. For example, someone who believes in possession-type property rights (you must occupy and use something to continue owning it) could apply your exact same arguments against property rights that allow someone to own a factory he doesn't work in.
Think about it.
Published: January 3, 2008 11:26 AM
Inquisitor
"What if I BUILD A FACTORY but others USE it first? What if they MANAGE it better?"
This is sheer nonsense. By building the factory on the land, you have made first use of it. It is therefore owned. Come back when you have a real argument.
Published: January 3, 2008 11:30 AM
Juan Fernando C.
I don't know a single Austrian that believes in "possession-type" property rights. Even in mercantilist-cum-socialist Ecuador, you have perpetual rights unless someone else homesteads an abandoned piece of property and you didn't judicially protest it in 15 years. Strawman attack...again.
Published: January 3, 2008 11:31 AM
Inquisitor
Forgot something: building the factory with *scarce* resources. IP is not predicated on this...
Published: January 3, 2008 11:34 AM
Person
Juan_Fernando_C.: I wasn't saying Austrians support possession-type property; I was saying that such a person could *attack* the Austrian position (of Neo-Lockean property) by making the exact same arguments you did, thus completing the reductio. Read the posts again with this in mind.
Inquisitor: "This is sheer nonsense. By building the factory on the land, you have made first use of it. It is therefore owned. Come back when you have a real argument."
So what, they deserve to use the factor, just because of their LABOR, even though others can manage it better?
Why not apply that same reasoning to intellectual labors then, mr. labor-theory-of-value?
"Forgot something: building the factory with *scarce* resources. IP is not predicated on this..."
IP asserts a claim in conflict with others and thus reveals a scarcity just the same.
Published: January 3, 2008 11:43 AM
Michael A. Clem
Sorry, Ed, but the Happy Birthday song IS copyrighted: http://www.unhappybirthday.com/
Published: January 3, 2008 11:50 AM
Inquisitor
A conflict in claims? Does a conflict in claims over a monopoly right to sell a good render this right legitimate...?
Published: January 3, 2008 11:56 AM
Billy Beck
Bratton: "Look at how you phrased it. 'Contractual.' If you have a contract with the printer and he breaks it then the contract is your legitimate basis for action against him, not IP."
This is patently ridiculous. The whole point of contracts is to protect the values at exchange during the exchange, and the IP is the value to be protected on the author's side of the deal.
In brief: nobody enters a contract to exchange nothing.
Published: January 3, 2008 12:09 PM
Inquisitor
Billy, what if one refrains from selling the specific right to copy the physical good, and retains thus partial ownership of the good? Isn't it then possible to emulate IP via contract?
Published: January 3, 2008 12:19 PM
ed
~~~ Sorry, Ed, but the Happy Birthday song IS copyrighted: http://www.unhappybirthday.com/ ~~~
Well shoot, I thought it had expired. Forget that one then. I guess since it is so rarely inforced its defacto public domain. Almost. BTW, is that website a parody or for real? Am I supposed to really go through all that red tape to sing Happy Birthday? That goes to show the ridiculousness of IP in a nutshell.
At least tell me Santa Claus is safe?
Published: January 3, 2008 12:28 PM
Michael A. Clem
Traditionally, only commercial use is restricted, such as its use in a movie or at a restaurant or such. Singing it at a friend's birthday party would not be a commercial use. Just to be safe, though, you might want to use the "Good Morning To All" lyrics instead. ;-)
Published: January 3, 2008 12:39 PM
Michael A. Clem
And I think the site is supposed to be sarcastic. Google pulled up other interesting sites, including a few that argue against the validity of the copyright claim.
Published: January 3, 2008 12:43 PM
Jay D
Basically you can set up a contract with the publisher to print the book for you. You are an established writer? He can buy the opportunity to get your draft of the book, lets say for $500,000. You shop around and can get other different offers and take the best one.
The publisher would be buying the opportunity to get the draft of the book unseen because the author is keeping it secret. Even for an established writer, selling an unknown product will drive down the bidding on the product, which is good because the publisher needs to be quick and as soon as the first copy goes out, other publishers can produce copies. Other publishers also get a head start on profits because they didn't have to pay the $500,000 start up cost to sell high demand books written by "Famous Author."
You aren't an established auther you say? You can purchase the time and services of the publisher, say for $500,000 for 500,000 copies of the book plus his distribution and marketing ability.
An author can rent a printing press and purchase marketing services to sell those physical copies, sure. That is not far off from saying the author has to also be a printer. No division of labor there.
The author would also have to guess with extreme accuracy as to the optimal number of copies to print up front. If he guesses too low, the printer will have no incentive to extend his contract for a second printing. The author is making enough to cover renting the printing press plus the author's profit. If the printing press operator didn't renew the renting contract, he would loose rent, but the book sales cover more than the rent. The printer would not renew the contract and instead print the books himself.
Why would anyone want to deal with all of that?
Published: January 3, 2008 12:47 PM
Jay D
Question:
Should somebody who is printing a copy of a work someone else has written be able to advertise it as "by: so-and-so"?
That person is printing the work on the basis that that particular arrangement of letters is not owned by anyone, therefore they are free to print it. Having a cover that says "by: so-and-so" seems hypocritcal at best and fraudulant at worst.
I might rethink copyright if it meant that people who are just printing a particular arrangement of letters have to do it without attributing the source of who first arranged those letters, thereby selling the arrangement of letters on their own merit.
Published: January 3, 2008 12:56 PM
Ed
"What kind of binding contract could I enter into regarding something that is not my property?"
Ah, but the physical manuscript (or the device storing its digital equivalent) is definitely your property. You only hand over the manuscript once you have a signed contract dictating how the manuscript will be used. This is an easily solvable problem.
The more interesting problem is how do you deal with unrelated third-parties who buy a copy and then start printing their own copies. Hypothetically your neighbor could require each buyer to agree that they will not reprint as a condition of the sale, or that they will pay a certain royalty.
But I'm not convinced that even this is necessary. It would be fraud for the unauthorized copies to claim to be authorized (or for another writer to claim he wrote the text), and so as long as enough consumers value the author and wish to see him rewarded he can still make a profit. This scenario becomes increasingly easier as distribution costs fall, which is why artists are rapidly discovering that they can be successful despite giving away their recordings/writings for free.
Obscurity is a greater threat to a writer or artist than piracy. Piracy can actually work like free marketing, ultimately increasing the value of your personal brand and increasing demand for your ideas. Once you're a respected thought-leader, there are numerous opportunities to translate that into wealth.
Published: January 3, 2008 1:00 PM
ed
~~~ Why would anyone want to deal with all of that? ~~~
Maybe they would maybe they wouldn't. But thats a decision that every entrepreneur faces. Same with the judgement on number of copies to print (This is a risk of the current process) or the price a printer/publisher would pay for a book sight unseen. I can only say that top authers have contracts on books long before they are fully written. See Tom Wolfe in todays WSJ page B6.
Regarding the problem of a single buyer reprinting the book. Good for him! He should have every right to do so. Again use some creativitiy. Hardback v Softback v cheap stock paper making it uneconomic for a person to reprint. Additional items besides writings. Signed by author. Coupons for a free book on tape or discount for a future book by author/publisher. Ideas are endless and the free market and good authors (entrepreneurs) will succeed. All to the benefit of consumers.
A reprinter incorrectly attributing the writting to themselves would be performing a bit of fraud but IMO wouldn't be that big a deal and probably not even much of a threat to the original author. Reminds me of the question. Who first sang "Hound Dog"? Big Mama Thornton, but I always consider it an Elvis song. He made the song great at least from an economic viewpoint.
These are just details though where the high philosiphy behind defining what is property. But these details are important in showing how philosophy is used in practical real life.
Published: January 3, 2008 1:56 PM
ed
~~~~ Hypothetically your neighbor could require each buyer to agree that they will not reprint as a condition of the sale, or that they will pay a certain royalty. ~~~~
I don't think this argument works at all. You can't require action over something you can't own. I sell you a car and write a contract saying you can't copy and sell anything with a wheel on it. Its an exaggerated analogy but I believe your example would be impracticle, unenforcible and not a true contract. Tough one though. Good food for thought.
Published: January 3, 2008 3:04 PM
Jay D
ed,
Are you Ed?
Regarding the problem of a single buyer reprinting the book. Good for him! He should have every right to do so. Again use some creativitiy. Hardback v Softback v cheap stock paper making it uneconomic for a person to reprint.
I don't own a printing press! I was renting one for the initial printing of books. I don't have the facilities to produce even cheap stock paper books. Why should printers rent their presses to me anymore when they can make the books themselves and keep the profits? I am an unknown author starting out. Unless my work was a one in a million "Harry Potter" type success, nobody cares for my signature.
Who first sang "Hound Dog"?
Songs are actually more like bread. People don't buy the recipe for bread, they buy the bread. It is the quality of the final product that matters, which have more factors involved than just the recipe.
Nobody will buy a recording of me singing "Hound Dog." They aren't buy the song itself, but the performance of the song, the quality of which has more factors involved than just lyrics and notes.
Books are different. People do primarily buy books for the intangible content. Things like bindings and paper quality are secondary.
Published: January 3, 2008 3:10 PM
David Bratton
Billy Beck: "This is patently ridiculous. The whole point of contracts is to protect the values at exchange during the exchange, and the IP is the value to be protected on the author's side of the deal."
No, the income from what the author has written is the author's side of the deal. Monopolies are created to generate or enhance income. The monopoly is not an end in and of itself. And a monopoly is not the only way to profit from one's creative work.
Published: January 3, 2008 3:19 PM
David Bratton
Jay D: "Maybe I misunderstand a world without Intellectual Property. What kind of binding contract could I enter into regarding something that is not my property?"
Have you ever consulted with a lawyer? The advise he gives you is not copyrighted nor owned by anyone. Yet you are willing to pay him for it. That's because he has some knowledge you want, and it's much easier for you to buy it from him than it is for you to go to law school and get it for yourself.
Suppose you tell your lawyer that you are not going to pay him because he does not own the information he has given you.
Published: January 3, 2008 3:31 PM
Jean Paul
Arbitrage is profit dreived from information asymmetry. When practicing arbitrage, you get while the getting is good, until the asymmetry disappears, and then you have to wait for the next one.
This is the profit opportunity naturally available to 'IP' 'creators' (perhaps 'discoverers' is more appropriate).
The institution of IP turns a naturally fleeting arbitrage opportunity and turns it into an unnaturally years-long opportunity - this is done by disregarding self ownership.
YMMV, but I care about protecting self ownership. Arbitrageurs are entitled to what they can naturally get, nothing more - and especially nothing at the expense of self ownership.
Published: January 3, 2008 3:54 PM
Jay D
No, the income from what the author has written is the author's side of the deal.
How the author realizes anything but a minimal profit is what I want to know. The best way is to partner with a printer, but without IP, that is very difficult. More difficult than it needs to be.
The printer needs the author and the author needs the printer, but they don't have blind trust in each other so there should be a way to make a contract, but if the author doesn't own his contribution to the partnership I don't see how contracts are possible.
The printer is good at printing and the author is good at authoring. The printer wouldn't have anything meaningful to print without the author. The printer may have worked a year to save up and buy his printing press. The author may have worked a year doing research for a book. Once the printer has his press, he and the author agree to split the cost for physical raw book materials.
The printer hasn't seen the author's work yet, he is keeping it secret. They both need each other. In negotiating a business contract, the printer brings his possession of a press to the barganing table. The author brings what? They both have something valuable, and while the manuscript is still secret, it is still the author's. After the contract is made, the manuscript is no longer his. Why this destinction?
Once the initial contract is over, the printer still has the option to profit from the colaberation. The author is SOL.
Doesn't it just seem like the author should have more to negotiate with? Forget about long term profits, the author is disadvantaged in the initial contract negotiations with the printer even though he holds something valuable. The manuscript is a valuable commodity while it is secret, but becomes a valuless infinite resource a second afterwards. Why? What happened of great significance happened that its value should change?
Published: January 3, 2008 3:54 PM
David Bratton
"How the author realizes anything but a minimal profit is what I want to know"
The better question to ask is why is the author due anything more than what the market naturally offers?
"but if the author doesn't own his contribution to the partnership I don't see how contracts are possible."
It depends on what you are contracting to do. The printer can pay the author for something to print and sell. That's how it worked before copyrights came into being. Think about all those illegal bibles that were printed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. There was no one suing anyone over royalties for those. Yet there was a market for translations and there was a market for printing, and those that didn't get caught prospered.
"The printer hasn't seen the author's work yet, he is keeping it secret. "
Right. Contracts may have non-compete clauses, but there still has to be trust and good faith between the trading partners. If the printer cheats the author he will get a reputation for dishonesty and other authors will not trust him. That's good enough.
Published: January 3, 2008 4:10 PM
Person
Jean_Paul: That arbitrage opportunity you refer to is now so short that barely one exchange can happen during it. How anyone is supposed to make money, even on extremely great ideas, is beyond me. Of course, you can deny the importance of being able to make money for doing something productive, as long as you recognize that your argument transforms into any one of many socialist economic positions.
Published: January 3, 2008 4:11 PM
Jean Paul
Jay D says (paraphrased): [How the author realizes a profit without IP is more difficult than it needs to be.]
To address this point specifically: Without IP, earning a profit for 'creating' is exactly as difficult as it should be - as difficult as anything is when you have complete freedom to try.
You could ask, is robbing a bank more difficult today than it 'needs' to be? We could fix that with silly rules that would make bank robbing much more profitable and convenient than it is now - but would that really be the right thing to do?
Also, why should EVERYONE be subjected to the threats, limitations, and costs of a rule which dilivers direct benefit to the creative few? Wealth transferred to an interested minority at everyone else's expense - isn't that simply socialism?
Published: January 3, 2008 4:21 PM
Jean Paul
Person, see my above point regarding whether it is the presence or the absence of globally-in-effect-and-enforced IP laws - to which everyone is party and subject, regardless of assent, the net cost of which is borne by ALL yet the net profit of which is retained by few - which is more socialist.
Published: January 3, 2008 4:27 PM
ed
The motive of money for writers and other artists is typically not the fundamental motive that drives artists. Still there are ways that the market place would figure out the whole author v printer thing. With or without IP the first days sales of a new book are where the real money is made. No need to explain why is there? So now the printer and the author have the same incentive to keep the manuscript "secret" until the grand opening. There are just so many creative ways for artists to make money its almost a shame that IP has made it so easy to have a government monopoly on an idea that this creativity dies.
~~~~ I don't own a printing press! I was renting one for the initial printing of books. I don't have the facilities to produce even cheap stock paper books. Why should printers rent their presses to me anymore when they can make the books themselves and keep the profits? I am an unknown author starting out. Unless my work was a one in a million "Harry Potter" type success, nobody cares for my signature. ~~~~
This is called division of labor. I can do a search and find over 1000 printing companies willing to print and bind books for you. You'll have to pay them of course. And even today, they could really care less whats inside. As far as being a beginning artist. IP is the least of your concerns and not every buisiness idea will work. For an aspiring writer I'd recommend authoring for free until you get a following and then due to your abilities you could then command a contract for a future book. See. no IP and great livings abound.
Lets set up a scenario. You write a great book and can't market it very well but I read it and love it. So I plagerize the heck out of it and call it my own, then successfully market it and make millions. There is a good argument here for fraud but not much of one. Where was the value generated in authoring or in marketing. By definition of success the value was in the marketing since a well written book, by itself, typically sells to no one. More typically, lets just say I attribute the book to you but still sell it for millions. Now there is no fraud but again, as the marketer/distributor I contributed a more valuable service than the author.
We are programmed to romantically side with authors and not with evil business types but so be it. In my scenario, at least the new artist is now an established artist and his next book will make him millions. In the rare case he or she doesn't or can't follow up on the success.... well, too bad.
Published: January 3, 2008 4:34 PM
Jean Paul
Person says: "How anyone is supposed to make money, even on extremely great ideas, is beyond me."
How anyone can make money on most things is beyond me too. Professional sports is the one that amazes me. I guess people are just retards, god bless em.
Anyway, if there's profit in some form or another to be made from a great idea (perhaps that's a reasonable definition of a great idea?), I'm pretty confident someone will make it, moreso without IP than with. I just don't feel any need to pass a law. Why do you?
Published: January 3, 2008 4:35 PM
Person
Jean_Paul: "Person, see my above point regarding whether it is the presence or the absence of globally-in-effect-and-enforced IP laws - to which everyone is party and subject, regardless of assent, the net cost of which is borne by ALL yet the net profit of which is retained by few - which is more socialist."
Sure, but only if you promise to listen to see my upcoming point regarding whether it is the presence or the absence of globally-in-effect-and-enforced *PROPERTY* laws - to which everyone is party and subject, regardless of assent, the net cost of which is borne by ALL yet the net profit of which is retained by few - which is more socialist.
"Anyway, if there's profit in some form or another to be made from a great idea (perhaps that's a reasonable definition of a great idea?), I'm pretty confident someone will make it,"
Yet you can't articulate a single plausible way (kinda like Stephan_Kinsella), even to a high level of abstraction.
Published: January 3, 2008 4:43 PM
Bystander
IP rights are not analogous to the labor theory of value. No one's claiming that all authors deserve a set price for their work. IP creators deserve property rights.
You guys who argue that there's no such thing as intellectual property remind of those who argue for the propetyless society. You can't seem to make your points without refering to everything in the discussion at hand as property.
The whole arguement for property comes down to one thing: what's the best way to utilize scarce resources? I've seen a lot of good back-and-forth here but no one's mentioned the glaringly obvious...
Work is a scarce resource.
Published: January 3, 2008 4:47 PM
David Bratton
Bystander: "Work is a scarce resource."
Future work is a scarce resource. But all of the things we call "intellectual property" constitute past work.
Published: January 3, 2008 5:07 PM
Person
David_Bratt: "But all of the things we call 'intellectual property' constitute past work."
You mean like those burgers you just cooked but haven't sold yet?
You mean like the house your built but haven't sold yet?
Published: January 3, 2008 5:14 PM
Sasha Radeta
Great job Ed!
When it comes to third-parties who buy a copy and then start printing their own copies, it is analogous to a situation in which someone sells some stolen merchandise. If I decide to contractually allow you only a personal, non-commercial use of my book - you cannot lawfully transfer the full ownership rights of that book to someone else. You can't legally sell something that does not belong to you.
I agree with your statement: "once you're a respected thought-leader, there are numerous opportunities to translate that into wealth." Unfortunately, some authors don't live long enough to see that wealth because of someone's theft. My friendship with a terminally ill author and my acquaintance with his troubles gave me a closer insight to copyright violations.
Published: January 3, 2008 5:22 PM
Jay D
Lets set up a scenario. You write a great book and ... I attribute the book to you but still sell it for millions.
OK. Suppose you are a fantastic publisher and promoter of books. You can't sell nothing, you need a good story, or non-fiction work. I have a great manuscript and I am keeping it secret. Let us further suppose you could somehow accurately assess how much money you could make by marketing and selling the story. (You can't in reality because it is secret.)
That secret manuscript is valuable to you. You would bid a sum of money against other publishers for the knowledge of what the manuscript says. The secret manuscript has a market price, even if that market price is, in reality, unknowable because of lack of information.
Let us further suppose me, as an author, and you, as a publisher, are negotiating a price for me to reveal the manuscript to you. You, at this moment, are willing to give me a sum of money (however small or large).
Let us further suppose that during these negotiations, my ex-girlfriend posts my manuscript on the internet. Your secretary comes in and whispers this information in your ear. Negotiations are now off. You can now use the story for free.
One moment there was a market price for the fruits of my labor, the next moment there isn't. Something was stolen. Intellectual Property. I know IP exists because someone was willing to give me a sum of money for it.
Published: January 3, 2008 5:27 PM
Inquisitor
I'm still curious, are monopoly grants on the sale of certain physical goods legitimate because claims to them are 'scarce'?
What Person says, regarding the socialized cost of the enforcement of property rights is true under modern states - but most here, then, aren't even supportive of the status quo.
Published: January 3, 2008 5:58 PM
Inquisitor
"One moment there was a market price for the fruits of my labor, the next moment there isn't. Something was stolen. Intellectual Property. I know IP exists because someone was willing to give me a sum of money for it."
Someone was willing to pay me an extremely high amount of money for a painting they (and I) believed was the only work of a long dead artist. A price exists. Suddenly a new painting is discovered by this artist, and the offers I receive fall in value. So what? I do not own the market value of the good, I own the good itself. Proof that people are willing to pay for something is not proof that I own it.
Published: January 3, 2008 6:01 PM
David Bratton
Person: "You mean like those burgers you just cooked but haven't sold yet?
You mean like the house your built but haven't sold yet?"
No. Not like that at all. Burgers and houses are both tangible and scarce. Copies of writings are neither.
Published: January 3, 2008 6:53 PM
David Bratton
Jay D: "One moment there was a market price for the fruits of my labor, the next moment there isn't. Something was stolen. Intellectual Property. I know IP exists because someone was willing to give me a sum of money for it."
In the case you describe what you are selling is not just access to the story but exclusive first access to it. It you were careless enough to let it get out then shame on you. What happens when a dollar bill blows away on the wind? Nothing was stolen from you. You lost it.
Published: January 3, 2008 7:00 PM
vlad popovic
One question remains unanswered in this discussion: why would anyone invent if he had NO chance of profiting from it? Without IP rights, no one would risk the CAPITAL needed to develop an invention, never mind the labor!
Contrary to what I have inferred from this string, inventions are extremely scarce resources. They are not just random ideas, they are research and development dollars applied to a problem. As technology advances, the amount of R&D needed to create a meaningful invention increases. A new drug for instance is about a billion dollars: any volunteers to spend a billion dollars to make a product that can be reverse engineered and sold cheaper by someone else? (And yes it will be cheaper -even if they are not as skilled as you - because they are not in a billion dollar R&D hole!) Or is their reverse engineering considered "superior marketing"?
Published: January 3, 2008 7:23 PM
George Gaskell
Work is a scarce resource.
No, it is not.
Your working (on whatever you want to work on) in no way prevents me from working on whatever I want to work on.
In other words, your labor is in no way rivalrous with my labor (unless we are attempting to use the same physical object, such as farming the same patch of dirt, harvesting the same trees, or transmitting signals in the same part of the radio spectrum).
There are all kinds of "work" that are not rivalrous. My telling Story A to my friends in no way prevents or impedes your telling Story A to your friends.
Published: January 3, 2008 7:51 PM
David Bratton
"One question remains unanswered in this discussion: why would anyone invent if he had NO chance of profiting from it? Without IP rights, no one would risk the CAPITAL needed to develop an invention, never mind the labor!"
It is simply wrong to think that no one will invent without IP rights. Inventors work for profit, not for monopoly per se. Explain why companies sell aspirin. While you're at it, explain why companies sell water?
IP can cause more money to be committed to certain types of R&D than would otherwise be invested; but that just means that money is being diverted away from consumer preferences towards some privileged activity.
Published: January 3, 2008 8:13 PM
David Bratton
"A new drug for instance is about a billion dollars: any volunteers to spend a billion dollars to make a product that can be reverse engineered and sold cheaper by someone else? (And yes it will be cheaper -even if they are not as skilled as you - because they are not in a billion dollar R&D hole!) Or is their reverse engineering considered "superior marketing"?"
First, most of that expense comes from government regulations and procedures. Think of all the research that does not get done because of the barriers government imposes.
Second, there wouldn't be so many drug companies to compete with if it weren't for IP. Easy money draws a lot of competition.
Published: January 3, 2008 8:22 PM
Jay D
David Bratton: In the case you describe what you are selling is not just access to the story but exclusive first access to it. It you were careless enough to let it get out then shame on you.
I know this. I do not see that this refutes anything I said.
What happens when a dollar bill blows away on the wind? Nothing was stolen from you. You lost it.
All we are is dust in the wind, dude.
A dollar bill is still a dollar bill, even if it blows away in the wind. The market value of the bill remains the same. If the dollar bill burnt up, it would truly be gone, and no use to anyone. My manuscript is still exists and is of use to people, but the market value for it suddenly changed from something to nothing. The market value of the manuscript was taken away from me.
Published: January 3, 2008 8:30 PM
Jay D
Someone was willing to pay me an extremely high amount of money for a painting they (and I) believed was the only work of a long dead artist.
Stop. Nobody has any false information. Nobody believes that particular copy of manuscript is the only copy there will ever be. All the facts are known upfront (except the text of the manuscript itself), and there is still a market price for my revealing the text.
Published: January 3, 2008 8:35 PM
Inquisitor
Minor problem Jay D. You don't own market value (otherwise competition on the market must be outlawed.) See Kinsella's latest blog post on this, and the counter-argument I made before.
Published: January 3, 2008 8:37 PM
Jay D
Minor problem Jay D. You don't own market value
I was imprecise in my language.
Only a "thing" can have a quality called "market value." I must own that "thing" because someone is willing to trade me a different "thing" of value (in this case, money) to get it. Why else would they be willing to give me money for it?
I own a thing, it is that thing that has market value. That thing is IP. Somebody else did something to my IP to change its qualities such that the market value for it is reduced to zero. Normally that sort of thing is called vandalism or some such.
Published: January 3, 2008 8:51 PM
Inquisitor
You own the good - you do not own the subjective valuations of it that occur across the market and which result in its price. If someone sells a good you're selling as well they will create competition, lowering the price. There is good reason that we do not label this harmful. You've yet to demonstrate that you can own ideas, though.
Published: January 3, 2008 9:00 PM
scott t
"A new drug for instance is about a billion dollars: any volunteers to spend a billion dollars to make a product that can be reverse engineered and sold cheaper by someone else?"
i dunno...having jsut took a liqui-gell pain reliever, i expect the machinery to make it (the liqui-gell caplet) was rather sophisticated and expensive.
so for some reverse engineering company to get there hands on liqui-gell technology and the equipment to mass produce these items would require a lot of (risk) capital itself.
meaning, the first to the market with this swell new medicine would have a distinct advantage - provided the liqui-gells were well received by the marketplace in the first place - which would probobly take a awhile for that even to be determined.
Published: January 3, 2008 9:00 PM
Person
David_Bratton: How long is your attention span? You first said:
"Future work is a scarce resource. But all of the things we call "intellectual property" constitute past work."
Then I pointed out that a hamburger you have made is PAST work.
Then you said:
"Burgers and houses are both tangible and scarce. Copies of writings are neither."
Hm, did we forget our original claim there?
In case you missed it:
David_Bratton: IP can't be owned because it's PAST work.
me: Hamburgers you just cooked but haven't sold are also PAST work. Can they not be owned either?
David_Bratton: But those are tangible and scarce.
Don't worry, keep that up and eventually, you'll be just like Stephan_Kinsella!
Published: January 3, 2008 9:17 PM
Jay D
You own the good - you do not own the subjective valuations of it that occur across the market and which result in its price.
Correct. I own the physical copy of the manuscript, but that is not what is valuable, it is the intellectual content. It has the quality of being secret, which gives it a market price. I can prove I own this intellectual content because someone else is willing to give me money for access to it. They are not after the physical manuscript, they would be content to leave that with me as long as they get the intellectual content.
This proves intellectual property exists. I possess intellectual content and someone else is willing to give me money for it.
What is the definition of property? A publisher would not be willing to give me money for something that does not exist, and the publisher would not be giving me money for this thing unless it was, in fact, mine.
This proves IP exists, now it is a separate question as to if and how it should be protected.
Published: January 3, 2008 9:20 PM
Inquisitor
Forcefully extracted organs also have a market price - does this prove that I own them? You are merely proving that people value a certain good - not that this proves ownership thereof. Likewise, monopoly grants to sell a good could easily garner a price; does this show that these rights are real and justified? Ideas exist - whether property in them can exist is the bone of contention.
Published: January 3, 2008 9:24 PM
Jay D
Forcefully extracted organs also have a market price - does this prove that I own them?
I think you and I agree that someone has no property rights claim on forcefully extracted organs and has no right to sell them.
We agree that such a transaction would be invalid.
I think you and I agree that both parties in the manuscript transaction have every right to make the transaction. I have a right to accept money from a publisher for the purpose of allowing that publisher first access to the intellectual content.
We agree that such a transaction would be valid.
Your analogy doesn't apply. It proves my point. The organ extractor robbed someone of their property. If the publisher gained illicit access to the intellectual content of my manuscript, what is that?
Likewise, monopoly grants to sell a good could easily garner a price
Who said anything about a monopoly? Do you consider the fact that I have thus far kept the intellectual content in my manuscript secret a monopoly? Do I not have a right to keep it secret?
In the manuscript example there exists no artificial government protections. I have kept the intellectual content of the manuscript secret and a publisher freely offers me money in exchange for access to that intellectual content.
The publisher would not offer me money for something that doesn't exist, so that proves the intellectual content exists. If you agree that this is a fair and legitimate transaction, then you should agree that the publisher would not offer me money for that intellectual content unless it was mine.
This proves that I own the intellectual content. IP exists.
Published: January 3, 2008 9:53 PM
Bandwagon Smasher
Two problems: (1) You shouldn't lump trademarks in with copyrights and patents -- they really aren't the same type of intellectual property. Trademarks are protected in part to prevent consumer confusion. In fact, if there is no likelihood of confusion, a trademark is unlikely to be protected. Furthermore, a trademark must be used actively to be protected, which requires continuous effort (marketing and otherwise) on the part of the holder. (2) The policy of having intellectual property prevents serious free rider problems in the arts and sciences. Incentives are important, especially if one is just starting out in a certain endeavor (e.g., Radiohead can get away with giving away its album, but it wouldn't have been able to do so at its inception).
Published: January 3, 2008 10:28 PM
David Bratton
Person:How long is your attention span?
Evidently longer than yours. It helps if you actually read what I was replying to.
You first said: "Future work is a scarce resource. But all of the things we call "intellectual property" constitute past work."
Person:Then I pointed out that a hamburger you have made is PAST work. Then you said: "Burgers and houses are both tangible and scarce. Copies of writings are neither."
Hm, did we forget our original claim there?
This is what you get for jumping into the middle of a thread. You are equivocating between two different uses of the word "work" - work as in the labor itself vs. work as in the result produced by labor. Bystander stated that work is scarce, implying that IP resulting from work is therfore property. I pointed out that only future work is scarce. The implication being that you cannot establish property rights simply on the basis of work alone.
Burgers are scarce, not because they are the result of work, but because they are made from scarce resources.
In case you missed it:
David_Bratton: IP can't be owned because it's PAST work.
No, those are your words. What I said was that past work does not establish ownership.
me: Hamburgers you just cooked but haven't sold are also PAST work. Can they not be owned either? David_Bratton: But those are tangible and scarce.
Hamburgers are not past work. They are the result of past work and scarce resources. IP is the result of past work, but not scarce resources.
Don't worry, keep that up and eventually, you'll be just like Stephan_Kinsella!
I consider that an undeserved compliment.
Published: January 3, 2008 10:29 PM
Grant
Jay D,
In the absence of IP, you would go to some sort of annual meeting of printing press owners, and present them your story. In order to read it, they would be required to contractually agree to wave any rights to print it. Breech of this contract would of course be a serious crime and a serious problem for their reputation.
The printing press owners would then have to collectively offer you the amount you wanted for your story. Each of course would face incentives to bid as little as possible, but if they felt they could make money at the price you'd set they'd eventually buy it.
Published: January 3, 2008 10:44 PM
Cameron
I've enjoyed reading the commentary thus far, but there are a couple important points which have yet to be adequately addressed.
First and foremost, the likely eventuality is that a publisher would not purchase a manuscript knowing that another publisher will immediately reprint their own copy without having incurred the expense of the original manuscript. As a result, the manuscript would be essentially of zero monetary value and therefore, the only profit to be made by the author is an intangible 'emotional profit'. The publisher would struggle to do much better because without IP protection it would be a battle between which printers could sell the most copies at the most razor-thin margins. I'm not trying to say this is necessarily bad, because the market will always allocate the most efficiently. However, it still seems like part of the equation is missing.
Maybe I'm off-base here, but I thought that a free market was based on voluntary exchanges. To exchange property, do we not assume that the person exchanging the property (in any of its forms) has a claim of ownership? How is this reconciled with the notion that an author owns the PAPER of his manuscript, but not the WORDS scrawled within? He owns his body, but not his thoughts?
Time is a scarce resource, which is mixed with the author's labor to produce a work of art. Does the work not have status as a good under Menger's criteria? If the author has the right to withhold the work, as many here on both sides have suggested, does this not assume that he has some de facto right of control over it? If we hold that he has no such right to withhold it, is this not acknowledging the existence of some sort of dreaded 'public good'? But if he has property rights over the disposition of the manuscript, should he not also be free to permit or deny to anyone the story contained in it?
I hope the following illustrates clearly the point I'm trying to make here: John writes a wonderful novella and wishes to give Tommy a chance to consume the story for a fee, let's say $10. Those who would deny John property rights over the story are essentially claiming that Tommy could take the original manuscript without permission, copy it, and return it to John without ANY recourse whatsoever. John didn't voluntarily give up the story, yet we're trying to rationalize this situation as one in which nothing was really stolen? Under what universal philosophical construct can John not be reasonably secure in his right to own the intangible fruits of his labor, yet have an absolute right to own any sort of tangible product of his labor?
Anyway, I'd love to get some feedback on this because, as a writer myself, I have a hard time grasping the notion that the words I commit to paper are no longer mine.
Published: January 3, 2008 10:57 PM
Jay D
In the absence of IP, you would go to some sort of annual meeting of printing press owners, and present them your story. In order to read it, they would be required to contractually agree to wave any rights to print it. Breech of this contract would of course be a serious crime and a serious problem for their reputation.
So such a contract would be enforceable? It would be a real crime with penalties to print it? That part is counter-intuitive. In the absence of IP, nobody owns that particular arrangement of letters. Who's to say a printing press owner can't print that arrangement of letters in a book and sell it. Nobody owns it.
What if there was a janitor at that meeting (who didn't sign the contract) who got a hold of the story and then gave it to one of the printing press operators? The janitor is just giving the printing press operator an unowned arrangement of letters in the English alphabet.
I'm sure the contract would have to be written to prohibit the printing press operator from printing anything given to him by the author. The contract couldn't cover the arrangement of letters itself because nobody owns that. If a janitor gave it to him it would be fine.
Published: January 3, 2008 10:58 PM
TLWP Sam
I.P. creates contracts with everyone most of whom didn't agree to it? Bah! A person putting a fence around unclaim land suddenly creates a contract with everyone else regardless if they agree to it or not.
Published: January 4, 2008 12:09 AM
Inquisitor
"I think you and I agree that someone has no property rights claim on forcefully extracted organs and has no right to sell them.
"We agree that such a transaction would be invalid."
Because self-ownership is at least proven.
"I think you and I agree that both parties in the manuscript transaction have every right to make the transaction. I have a right to accept money from a publisher for the purpose of allowing that publisher first access to the intellectual content.
We agree that such a transaction would be valid."
You have a right to sell your good, and the publisher has the right to sell it. In this case the good is commanding a high price due to its rarity, something which lies in the subjective estimation of the buyer.
"Your analogy doesn't apply. It proves my point. The organ extractor robbed someone of their property. If the publisher gained illicit access to the intellectual content of my manuscript, what is that?"
Which is circular. You are aiming to prove that IP is property, apparently, because it can fetch a price on the market, proving it is owned. So what? An independent proof is needed that it is property. All it proves it that it is under your control and that someone is willing to pay for it. Self-ownership rests on an independent proof.
"Who said anything about a monopoly? Do you consider the fact that I have thus far kept the intellectual content in my manuscript secret a monopoly? Do I not have a right to keep it secret?"
No, you do. That was something for Person to ponder and respond to.
"The publisher would not offer me money for something that doesn't exist, so that proves the intellectual content exists. If you agree that this is a fair and legitimate transaction, then you should agree that the publisher would not offer me money for that intellectual content unless it was mine."
The paper it is written on is yours; by keeping the idea contained therein secret you can secure yourself exclusivity; you still have no rights to the idea itself. Just the physical good which contains them.
"This proves that I own the intellectual content. IP exists."
It proves you can market an exclusive good so long as you can keep the ideas contained in it secret, thus raising its value in the subjective estimation of the potential buyer - at most, you can go after the person who released your manuscript for violating physical property rights, if they did so in the process.
Published: January 4, 2008 8:43 AM
ed
Cameron,
There is one philosophical point that I believe you are missing. Thoughts indeed are not property and can not be owned. Of course that doesn't mean you can't think or don't have privacy to your thoughts, just that they can't be owned. Also you can be paid for your thoughts. But really the payment is for your service (future work) and not for your thoughts. Imagine the lawsuit if you "breach the contract for your thoughts" What, you didn't think the right ones or didn't live up to expectations?
And regarding the manuscript, yes you do own the paper and the ink that makes up the words. But you do not own the words. Think about what that means - to own words. In the extreme case it means that nobody can use those words without your permission!. In the practical current system, there are all these gyrations on sets of words allowed etc etc.
A little bit on the ex girlfriend showing the secret manuscript online. If the first opportunity to see the manuscript is valuable then the author should secure that manuscript. That said, he would be able to sue his ex for theft since presumably he did not give her permission to the manuscript and she stole it some format or another.
A little bit about future work and rights. Lets say I tell a story, sing a song, or draw Mickey Mouse and offer my services for pay. Due to IP law backed by force, I am prevented from doing those things. I can not sing Happy Birthday for pay since it is "owned". My rights have been severely restricted, specifically my right to freely exchange my future service for somebody elses goods.
Regarding pills and other items that are basically free to copy, expensive to produce, yet extremely valuable to consumers. Comibine this scenario with the desire to promote innovation. I'll disregard the government involvement for the sake of argument. One thing we have to appreciate is that we are so used to accepting IP that we don't think twice about the governemnt monopoly given to the drug companies and the resulting excess profits they make. Yet all through history inventions occured without the excess profit motive. From the wheel to gunpowder to the steam boat (fascinating history on how IP was used regarding the early steamboat businesses) all these inventions still occure without IP protection.
Back to drugs. Lets say I can make a drug that cures breast cancer but it will cost an additional 1 Billion. If I am the only producer protected by IP I can make 2 Billion in revenue. Yet it can be reverse engineered in 1 day and with zero expense produced in mass the next day making it profitable for a generic company to earn only 1 million. Now what. Again, we have to be creative and let the free market allow for creative ways to capture the extra billion in value. I can't really contract with future cancer victims. Hmmmm, OK then. I can contract with insurance companies though. They may pony up the 2 billion by providing and charging for insurance to cure breast cancer on all their policy holders going forward. This idea may or may not work but again, the marketplace is ingenious for coming up with ways to extract value. There is also free market charity. Think of the billions people have raised for health issues. I can see a drug company raising the 2 billion (or whatever) through charity to generate cures and then the drug itself costs (basically) nothing once produced. Think of the benefits, the drug company gets its billions. Consumers get a drug that has huge benefits and costs nothing. And the charity gets a reputation for having cured XXX disease lending them credibility not only to raise even more billions but to then have more sway with the drug companies doing research going forward. Because of IP, this kind of thing can never happen since the drug companies are motivated to profit from the governemnt sponsored monopoly and not from research grants.
Again, this idea may or may not work but allow the marketplace to come up with the very best ideas to generate profit that nobody could even think of before hand.
Published: January 4, 2008 8:46 AM
Inquisitor
Cameron: "I hope the following illustrates clearly the point I'm trying to make here: John writes a wonderful novella and wishes to give Tommy a chance to consume the story for a fee, let's say $10. Those who would deny John property rights over the story are essentially claiming that Tommy could take the original manuscript without permission, copy it, and return it to John without ANY recourse whatsoever."
Did John sell the right to reproduce the book? If not, then Tommy is engaging in an activity to which he has no right, and may thus be punished.
Published: January 4, 2008 8:49 AM
Jay D
You are aiming to prove that IP is property, apparently, because it can fetch a price on the market, proving it is owned. So what? An independent proof is needed that it is property.
I am saying the independent proof that an idea can be my property is:
1) The idea can fetch a price on the open market
2) I am the one who will rightfully and not fraudulantly receive payment for the idea that can fetch a price on the open market
Why is this not a valid independent proof? What is a valid independent proof? I asked you earlier, "What is property?"
The paper it is written on is yours
True, but irrelevant. It is not the paper it is written on that can fetch a price on the open market. The buyer would be happy to leave the paper with me as long as they can walk away with the idea. The buyer would be fine if I orally recited the idea while he recorded it.
by keeping the idea contained therein secret you can secure yourself exclusivity; you still have no rights to the idea itself.
Yes I do have rights to the idea. I have the right to not willfully reveal it. If I had no rights to the idea itself I would be obligated to reveal it on demand.
Published: January 4, 2008 9:24 AM
Inquisitor
"I am saying the independent proof that an idea can be my property is:
1) The idea can fetch a price on the open market
2) I am the one who will rightfully and not fraudulantly receive payment for the idea that can fetch a price on the open market
Why is this not a valid independent proof? What is a valid independent proof? I asked you earlier, "What is property?"
The problem is with 2. It is circular. You're assuming what you're trying to prove. A good proof of property ethics, IMO, is Kinsella's "How we come to own ourselves". His latest blog entry replicates some of the arguments central to the neo-Lockean homesteading theory.
"True, but irrelevant. It is not the paper it is written on that can fetch a price on the open market. The buyer would be happy to leave the paper with me as long as they can walk away with the idea. The buyer would be fine if I orally recited the idea while he recorded it."
Then they are purchasing a service from you, namely your oral recitation. What is in fact being purchased is exclusivity, i.e. a feature of the product your selling.
"Yes I do have rights to the idea. I have the right to not willfully reveal it. If I had no rights to the idea itself I would be obligated to reveal it on demand."
You wouldn't be obligated to do anything, as this will surely involve use of your body, thus violating your self-ownership. IP does something like this - someone claims ownership over an idea, then limits all others in how they may use their rightfully acquired physical property. As no one owns ideas, furthermore, no such demand can be made.
Published: January 4, 2008 9:58 AM
Jay D
Then they are purchasing a service from you, namely your oral recitation. What is in fact being purchased is exclusivity
No. They do not value my oral recitiation either. Their contract lawyer's only prority will be to ensure that at the end of the transaction, the publisher will know all the details of the idea, in full.
1) I have an idea for a story that a third party could use to make a book. It is the idea itself that has value on the open market to those with the means to fabricate and market the physical book but lack stories to fill them.
2) If I keep that idea for a story secret, I am the one who is in the position to receive something of value in exchange for 1)
3) The transaction in 2) would be recognized as a valid transaction, i.e. there is no fraud or other wrongdoing involved.
IP does something like this - someone claims ownership over an idea, then limits all others in how they may use their rightfully acquired physical property.
You are jumping ahead and describing artificial governmental protective measures of some sort (not the Intellectual Property itself). I am describing the reality of one free market transation with no governmental copyright protections in place to try to demonstrate that the IP itself exists, not how it should or shouldn't be protected. The only protective measures in place in my example is the natural protective measure that I may keep the idea secret, such that only I have knowledge of it, and others cannot demand the idea from me.
Published: January 4, 2008 10:40 AM
George Gaskell
Yes I do have rights to the idea. I have the right to not willfully reveal it. If I had no rights to the idea itself I would be obligated to reveal it on demand.
The right not to "willfully reveal" some idea is not a property right in the idea. It is a right of personal liberty that we all have not to be compelled to do things against our will.
Besides, who says that you are obligated to produce any of your (genuine) property on demand? Ever?
Published: January 4, 2008 10:42 AM
George Gaskell
I am describing the reality of one free market transation with no governmental copyright protections in place to try to demonstrate that the IP itself exists, not how it should or shouldn't be protected.
You have only demonstrated that ideas exist, and that good ideas have value (to yourself but also to others).
Let's say I have the idea to beautify my house a certain way just before a parade that will be held down my street that will be on national TV. The TV exposure for my beautiful house will make my house famous. So, my house-beautification ideas have value to me.
I become so famous that someone else then wants to pay me for my advice about how to remodel the front his house so that he can become famous, too.
Are my ideas about how to fix his house a form of IP?
If so, then NO ONE who even SEES the results of my neighbor's house can imitate them. They can't cut the grass like him, paint the shutters my way, choose the style of mailbox I select, or imitate my selection of flowers in the flowerbed.
These are valuable ideas, remember. Someone paid me for them.
Published: January 4, 2008 10:58 AM
Jay D
George Gaskell: The right not to "willfully reveal" some idea is not a property right in the idea. It is a right of personal liberty that we all have not to be compelled to do things against our will.
Can't it be both? Property rights and rights against compulsion are closely related. I have property rights to my pencil. I cannot be compelled to give it to you agaist my will.
Published: January 4, 2008 11:11 AM
Inquisitor
"No. They do not value my oral recitiation either. Their contract lawyer's only prority will be to ensure that at the end of the transaction, the publisher will know all the details of the idea, in full.
1) I have an idea for a story that a third party could use to make a book. It is the idea itself that has value on the open market to those with the means to fabricate and market the physical book but lack stories to fill them.
2) If I keep that idea for a story secret, I am the one who is in the position to receive something of value in exchange for 1)
3) The transaction in 2) would be recognized as a valid transaction, i.e. there is no fraud or other wrongdoing involved."
So they're willing to pay you for the idea - that still does not demonstrate that you have exclusive rights over all physical instantiations of this idea. That someone values something, as I said, does not show that you own it.
"You are jumping ahead and describing artificial governmental protective measures of some sort (not the Intellectual Property itself). I am describing the reality of one free market transation with no governmental copyright protections in place to try to demonstrate that the IP itself exists, not how it should or shouldn't be protected. The only protective measures in place in my example is the natural protective measure that I may keep the idea secret, such that only I have knowledge of it, and others cannot demand the idea from me."
Okay, and I have said I agree that the market will find ways to replicate IP. None of this establishes a right to property in ideas though.
Published: January 4, 2008 11:15 AM
Jay D
Are my ideas about how to fix his house a form of IP?
Yes, while the idea is in your head unrevealed, it is your exclusive intellectual property.
If so, then NO ONE who even SEES the results of my neighbor's house can imitate them. They can't cut the grass like him, paint the shutters my way, choose the style of mailbox I select, or imitate my selection of flowers in the flowerbed.
You are jumping into some wild set of artificial governmental protections. It does not follow that if the idea in your head is valuable intellectual property then "NO ONE who even SEES the results of my neighbor's house can imitate them."
These are valuable ideas, remember. Someone paid me for them.
You almost got it. They were valuable ideas, when they were exclusively in your head. You willfully made a transaction with full foreknowledge that the market value for the idea is likely to go down if you revealed it to your neighbor.
Published: January 4, 2008 11:27 AM
George Gaskell
Can't it be both? Property rights and rights against compulsion are closely related. I have property rights to my pencil. I cannot be compelled to give it to you agaist my will.
If it can be both, then your argument fails, since the conclusion that you cannot be compelled to reveal your idea could stem from the liberty right, not the property right.
As for your pencil, liberty and property operate in different ways. The right not to be compelled to hand it over is more limited than the property right. The pencil remains your property even when you do not have possession of it.
Published: January 4, 2008 11:27 AM
George Gaskell
Yes, while the idea is in your head unrevealed, it is your exclusive intellectual property.
There is no reason to create a special category for the idea that is in my head. The idea is merely my neurons, arranged and firing in a certain way; but I already own the neurons, and the head they are in, and thus I own them no matter what ideas they may or may not have.
The idea is just a pattern among the neurons, and thus not an independent thing capable of being owned separately from the neurons.
Published: January 4, 2008 11:32 AM
Jay D
Inquisitor: So they're willing to pay you for the idea - that still does not demonstrate that you have exclusive rights over all physical instantiations of this idea.
OK. Fair enough. In arguing all this I was trying to demonstrate one very narrow instance where intellectual property can be shown to exist with natural protections for it. That narrow instance is when the idea is still in your head, secret, and others value it enough to offer you money to transfer the idea to them.
What rights may or may not exist after revealing it is a bigger problem. I'm still working that part out, but just demonstrating that IP exists at all, no matter how narrow the circumstance seems to be a hurdle that must be first crossed before anymore progress can be made.
Published: January 4, 2008 11:42 AM
Jay D
George Gaskell: There is no reason to create a special category for the idea that is in my head. The idea is merely my neurons, arranged and firing in a certain way; but I already own the neurons, and the head they are in, and thus I own them no matter what ideas they may or may not have.
We inhabit two different philosophical planets, you and I. I probably can't begin to relate to you.
Ideas are independent, sometimes valuable entities. Firing nurons are how are brain records the idea, much like the idea is recorded on the written page. The publisher puts value in the idea and couldn't care less about paper or nurons.
Published: January 4, 2008 11:54 AM
ed
Jay D said: ~~~~I was trying to demonstrate one very narrow instance where intellectual property can be shown to exist with natural protections for it. That narrow instance is when the idea is still in your head, secret, and others value it enough to offer you money to transfer the idea to them. ~~~~
So the point here is that the idea, while in your head and still secret, is property and therefore can be treated as such even outside your head. This is an interesting concept but its still not a resource such as a physical thing or future labor. Those are the only two things that are property. You tell/show me your original story. The property (the labor of telling/giving me the story) is your choice and you have the liberty to do so or not. Once you tell me though, then the story is now in my brain. Is that story in my brain not then MY property? Property defined as future labor to reprint/retell the story and the liberty and freedom to do with it what ever I want (ie sell it) Because you have the same story in your own head, gives you the moral/natural right (and therefore reason to later use force) to prevent me from using that same idea in my head. I agree that without your idea first I would never have it in my head but so what. You chose to share it with me. You do not have the moral/natural right to limit what I do with it.
Published: January 4, 2008 12:18 PM
Sasha Radeta
There is 91 posts here and anti-IP crowd is still philosophizing about ideas in head, neurons, and other nonsense. Some folks forgot the definition of scarcity (demand exceeding supply for a good/service when price is zero), but that's a completely different issue.
The issue of copyright can simply be summed up in two basic points:
1) People who want to pay for full ownership rights over a CD or a book (scarce goods) can currently purchase those rights and they will be able to replicate those works at will - or to do whatever they want with it. That's what publishers do, but nobody is preventing any one of you to do the same.
2) Many people who only pay for non-commercial and strictly limited kind of use of someone else's property, such as books and CDs, decide to hijack the owner's exclusive rights without paying a dime. It's like renting a car at Hertz and then deciding to give it away or sell it to someone as if it is your property.
So far, nobody gave a libertarian explanation on why should anyone be allowed to clearly violate market exchange terms (explicit or implied voluntary contracts).
Published: January 4, 2008 12:23 PM
Jay D
You chose to share it with me. You do not have the moral/natural right to limit what I do with it.
Sasha Radeta has a point I hadn't thought of. What if, as part of the conditions of the exchange where I share the idea and you give me money, you agree to limit what you do with it. I won't share my idea unless you a) pay me the agreed upon sum, and b) agree not to use the information for _____ (whatever)?
That is the basic idea behind copyright. I buy a book under the terms that I won't make and sell copies of it. It is not a use of force against my will. I implicitly or explicitly agree to those terms when I bought the book. They wouldn't have sold me the book if I didn't agree to that.
Published: January 4, 2008 12:42 PM
Grant
Jay D,
Of course! This is how the vast majority of innovation is currently protected: With non-disclosure agreements (NDAs, patents usually come later). All voluntarily signed contracts are binding. If they have explicitly agreed not to print that arrangement of letters or anything similar, they can't print it, period. The conditions of breaking the contract could be harsh (and would already be spelled out in the contract). Again, much of this already goes on in the real world, where patent litigation is extremely expensive and time-consuming. Employees commonly sign agreements which prevents them from using one company's industrial secrets outside of that company. Well, the janitor would then be guilty of theft and possible trespassing. The downside is once the story is out in the open, there is nothing preventing others from printing it. If the publishers (and their janitors) were not trusted, third-party witnesses could be present.
You might say this form of sale of information is ineffecient, because it requires all of the buyers of information (or their representatives) to meet with the seller at the same time. However, systems of intellectual property also have vast amounts of overhead, with litigation as well as the patent-approval process being extremely expensive and complex. In addition, the legitimized use of force is needed in all areas where patents are to be enforced.
Published: January 4, 2008 12:50 PM
ed
Sasha,
The argument has gone towards the definition of property and the counterpoints to your 2 points are as follows. Your first assumption is that the original producer has a natural right to the song or story he is selling. The anti IP crowd is saying that you cannot own such a thing as the idea (words, story, song as written in this case) is not property. And here we are again as to how we define property diving into neurons etc.
Renting a car is not the same thing. A car is property while a song is not. Hertz owns the car and renting it is subject to the contract of use (and abuse) of that car. If allowed, I can give away the use of the car I have rented but not beyond that as I do not own that property.
Regarding signing a contract of non use through purchase. Parties can enter into an agreement but now it gets down to contract enforcement. If you buy into the idea that an item is not property then the contract is not and should not be enforcible. That doesn't mean there wouldn't be ramifications for breaking a contract such as this just not ones that should limit liberty such as with a contract on (true) property.
Once an idea is given status as property then all the concepts behind ownership and contracts would then become valid but I wouldn't concede that point in the slightest.
Published: January 4, 2008 12:57 PM
Philip Botha
This is quite an interesting debate. On the one hand, I am for IP, I view it as a product of intellect, and though it is intangible it is real nonetheless.
Without patents, disclosure of new technology would probably non existent, a patent forces disclosure but for the reward of exclusivity. Without this, much research would stay within companies instead of being spread amongst other researchers.
Without IP, knowledge would be limited to the company. The knowledge will likely be "rediscovered" many times. IP reduces this by encouraging the disclosure of knowledge, which also leads other researchers to work on alternatives or to build upon the current knowledge.
However, George Glaskell raises an important point. I feel that all knowledge or intellectual "products" can not be considered "property".
Published: January 4, 2008 1:02 PM
George Gaskell
So far, nobody gave a libertarian explanation on why should anyone be allowed to clearly violate market exchange terms (explicit or implied voluntary contracts).
IP, including copyright, is absolutely NOT a form of contract. If you or Jay or anyone else would like to take the time to look at many of the dozens of IP-related posts here, mostly by Stephen Kinsella, you would see that most if not all of the anti-IP advocates (myself included) have clearly and repeatedly said that there is no libertarian objection to governing the entire realm of what is now copyright protection by using contract principles. That would be absolutely fine by me.
But that's NOT what IP does. IP makes a claim that any and all instances of the pattern in question, or anything derived from it (like movies from books), are covered regardless of any contract that may have existed, implicitly or explicitly. You could literally find a stack of papers on the street, and IP would say that the pattern of ink smudges on them were "owned" by someone.
Why a phony "property" label should be applied to a poem but not to the way I mow my lawn or the way I bake a cake, no one has yet adequately explained.
Published: January 4, 2008 1:09 PM
David Bratton
"That is the basic idea behind copyright. I buy a book under the terms that I won't make and sell copies of it. It is not a use of force against my will. I implicitly or explicitly agree to those terms when I bought the book. They wouldn't have sold me the book if I didn't agree to that."
It is not the basic idea behind copyrights. If it were libertarians would have no problem with copyrights since what you have described is a voluntary contract between two individuals. Modern copyright law imposes restrictions on the entire public, its terms are completely arbitrary (50 years, 70 years, etc.), and it is not voluntary.
Contractual copyright would not be effective in most cases since it doesn't provide a way to restrict publication by someone you don't have a contract with. Suppose someone you've never met before publishes your book without your permission. You didn't sell it to him and he refuses to tell you where he got his first copy. In that case you would have no recourse.
Published: January 4, 2008 1:19 PM
Jay D
Why a phony "property" label should be applied to a poem but not to the way I mow my lawn or the way I bake a cake, no one has yet adequately explained.
Let me take a crack at it.
A book publisher has the printing press and marketing skills to sell books but nothing interesting to put in the book.
You have a poem in your head, that if published in book form would increase the market value of that book. The book publisher needs something to print so that poem might have value to him. He is willing to pay you money to tell you the poem so he can print it in his book and sell it. The poem has a market value.
Free market economists should be interested in preserving the true market value of things as an economic pricing tool. This is market information that should be preserved to promote market pricing accuracy.
Now suppose you left a paper copy of the poem on your desk. Between contract negotiations, the publisher meets your roomate and your roommate says, "you mean this poem? Here take it."
The market value for that poem suddenly dropped to zero for no good reason. Market information was lost. Market pricing looses accuracy.
There really isn't much market information to be lost regarding how you mow your lawn or bake a cake, so a free market has little interest in protecting that information.
Published: January 4, 2008 1:34 PM
ed
The poem has market value no problem. Poem on paper is property but only as far as it being on paper not the poem itself as defined as words put together a certain way. The roommate technically stole your property but as the owner of a valuable piece or property (again the piece of paper which is valuable since it provides access to a valuable idea) you should have protected it better. A diamond is just a piece of broken glass to someone who doesn't know better. That said, he gave away something that wasn't his, you're problem is with him not with the publisher. The idea has value and the piece of paper has value, not as a piece of paper per se, but as access to your idea.
Disregarding his point of how he mows his lawn or bakes a cake is not very fair of you. Assume his method is valuable or simply replace that with some method that is. A recipe for food that reduces cancer for example (or a recipe of chemicals and the method of putting them together). His point is that something with value doesn't mean it is property.
Published: January 4, 2008 1:49 PM
Jay D
Jay D: I buy a book under the terms that I won't make and sell copies of it. It is not a use of force against my will. I implicitly or explicitly agree to those terms when I bought the book. They wouldn't have sold me the book if I didn't agree to that.
David Bratton: If it were libertarians would have no problem with copyrights since what you have described is a voluntary contract between two individuals.
Two individuals can enter into a voluntary contract regarding the transfer of IP and the restrictions of use therof. Is this what you are saying?
If I enter into contract with Joe saying he can have my IP on the condition that he doesn't reproduce it and sell it, is that right?
Well if I made the contract with Joe saying that I will transfer my IP as long as he doesn't reproduce it, that means I didn't make a contract with Schmoe that said he could have my IP. IP didn't willfully transfer from me to Schmoe.
If a contract regarding IP has force, a lack of contract regarding IP should also have force.
Published: January 4, 2008 1:49 PM
Jay D
ed: (again the piece of paper which is valuable since it provides access to a valuable idea)
We agree the idea is valuable. Is it in the free market's best interest to preserve the idea's value as a market data point? Would pricing in the book market be more accurate if idea's value is preserved as a market data point? Would recourses be allocated more efficiently? Does the market suffer if your roomate gives access to the idea for the false value of zero?
Yes on all counts. I conclude the market would be healthier with some sort of IP protection.
Published: January 4, 2008 2:03 PM
Sasha Radeta
Again, anti-IP crowd shows the lack of interest for a meaningful discussion. George Gaskell says:
"IP, including copyright, is absolutely NOT a form of contract."
WELL DUH!!!
Of course that IP is not a form of contract. Market exchanges are form of contracts. If you purchase a CD for $14.95 you did not obtain much more expensive, full ownership rights (which was available to you in the market). For such small amount you only obtained a limited use and if you violate it, you are trespassing. I'll stop torturing you: there is no libertarian defense of such trespass.
Published: January 4, 2008 2:30 PM
David Bratton
Two individuals can enter into a voluntary contract regarding the transfer of IP and the restrictions of use therof. Is this what you are saying?
Almost. Two individuals can enter into a contract to buy/sell a book or whatever (I didn't say "IP"). And there can be a clause in the contract against copying the book. That doesn't make the book intellectual property in the sense that you mean though. The property is the book itself, not the pattern of words printed in it.
"Well if I made the contract with Joe saying that I will transfer my IP as long as he doesn't reproduce it, that means I didn't make a contract with Schmoe that said he could have my IP. IP didn't willfully transfer from me to Schmoe."
Nice try. Now if you could prove Schmoe stole a physical book from you you'd have a case for theft. But you don't have a contract with Schmoe.
"If a contract regarding IP has force, a lack of contract regarding IP should also have force."
How do you figure that?
Published: January 4, 2008 2:49 PM
Grant
Well, I think we first need to define the scope of the debate. Are we debating the morality of forced IP (not to be confused with voluntarily recognized IP)? Or are we debating whether or not IP allows for more wealth creation?
Information can be financed without IP, and the Internet is a great example of the beginnings of this. As many have demonstrated, public goods can be funded through voluntary means. I'm not saying such methods don't have disadvantages - they do - but IP enforcement is also wrought with problems.
In our current society, the Internet is the only place with some of the institutions necessary for the voluntary funding of information. The "real world" more often uses IP enforcement. The lack of obvious techniques to fund information in the absence of IP does not necessarily indicate that such things cannot be adequately funded.
Published: January 4, 2008 2:57 PM
ed
~~~~Is it in the free market's best interest to preserve the idea's value as a market data point? ~~~
I'll assume by "free market" you mean the economy as a whole. The answer here is no. My cell phone and service I value much greater than what I actually pay as are any number of things (actually everything) that I purchase. Who cares what that actualy value is. If the seller can figure out where that point is to maximize his profit, good for him more power his way.
~~~~ Would pricing in the book market be more accurate if idea's value is preserved as a market data point? ~~~~
Accurate if you mean maximum profit for the seller then yes. Accurate as maximum gain to the buyer than no. I don't think accurate is the correct terminology here but I believe your point is to suggest that the seller deserves to extract the value from his idea. This really has nothing to do with whether or not IP should be enforcible but it leads to your next point.
~~~~Would recourses be allocated more efficiently? Does the market suffer if your roomate gives access to the idea for the false value of zero? ~~~~
No and No. Short term there is only gain to the economy. A valuable poem (or drug or whatever) can now reach millions at the price of near zero as opposed to what a consumer has to pay. Long term the standard argument is that without IP you have no (or less) innovation. Thats been countered by better folks than me and its not really the case in reality. But more to the point on liberty, once you limit natural rights and liberty for the benefit of society as a whole you go down the road of socialism.
If you did not mean market to mean the economy as a whole then I can only ask, What is a market and why does it matter what is "best" for it? Whether datapoints or efficiency or whatever. I didn't want to belabour that point though but I hope I assumed correct.
Published: January 4, 2008 2:59 PM
Jay D
Almost. Two individuals can enter into a contract to buy/sell a book or whatever (I didn't say "IP"). And there can be a clause in the contract against copying the book. That doesn't make the book intellectual property in the sense that you mean though. The property is the book itself, not the pattern of words printed in it.
It is so hard for me to understand this insistence that it is the physical book itself that is the only property. It is not the book itself that holds the value, it is the information in it. It is not the book itself that is being protected from duplication, the book remains as it was. If it is not the pattern of words printed in it, how do you prove the book was copied?
Maybe if someone linked to an actual phrase in a contract that does not refer to information as property but yet prevents duplication I would be more clear.
Published: January 4, 2008 3:02 PM
Jay D
Almost. Two individuals can enter into a contract to buy/sell a book or whatever (I didn't say "IP"). And there can be a clause in the contract against copying the book. That doesn't make the book intellectual property in the sense that you mean though. The property is the book itself, not the pattern of words printed in it.
Here is a thought problem. Suppose I'm shopping for a book. Someone approaches me and gives me the rough outline of a book he wants to sell me. I think it sounds good so we right up a contract describing the use restrictions outlined above.
After we sign the contract, I get the book and thumb through it and realize that it is MacBeth. The MacBeth. Am I still bound by the terms of the purchase agreement?
Published: January 4, 2008 3:09 PM
Grant
Yes. Typically people don't sign terrifically stupid agreements; industries generally arrive at standard operating procedures which reduce that sort of thing. For example, escrow agents are common in the software industry. They hold source code for one party until the transaction is complete.
Again, things like you mention are solved problems. Most IP protection does no come from patents, but voluntary contracts such as NDAs and other agreements to protect trade secrets.
Published: January 4, 2008 3:18 PM
Jay D
ed,
By "free market" I meant Austrian Economics where efficient allocation of resourses depeneds on the individual decision making of the multitudes of people participating in the economy. If those multitudes are making decisions on correct data, such as the the true market value of things, then resources in an economy get allocated efficiently.
If there are false signals in a market, such as an artificial interest rate, than people are responding to false market signals and resources are allocated inefficiently.
So when you say it doesn't matter to the efficiency of resource allocation if the poem sells for $0 or some non-zero value, I disagree. The non-zero value is the market value of the poem. It is the value the publisher was freely willing to pay me, the poet, for the poem based on what profit the publisher estimates he can gain by printing and selling the book that contains the poem. It is the free market value for the poet's labor. The poem didn't write itself.
If the publisher then gets the poem for $0 instead of the price he was willing to pay, this is a false market signal. Resources would, in Austrian theroy, be mis-allocated.
Published: January 4, 2008 3:32 PM
George Gaskell
For such small amount you only obtained a limited use and if you violate it, you are trespassing. I'll stop torturing you: there is no libertarian defense of such trespass.
That's not what I meant when I said that IP is not a form of contract.
What I meant, as I expressed in the remainder of my comment, was that if the sale of a CD (or book, or a movie, or anything) contained an implied or express contract whereby the consumer agreed to refrain from copying it, then I would be all in favor of enforcing that contract, and holding the party in breach liable.
As I stated, however, IP protection goes FAR beyond this basic contract protection. IP does not replicate this contract. It does not reflect an implied contract between artist and consumer. In contrast, IP legislation purports to govern people's behavior regardless of any reference to any form of contract whatsoever.
Modern IP legislation cannot be replicated with contracts. IP legislation is not in accordance with or an expression of contract principles.
Published: January 4, 2008 3:33 PM
ed
~~~~If the publisher then gets the poem for $0 instead of the price he was willing to pay, this is a false market signal. Resources would, in Austrian theroy, be mis-allocated.~~~~
This is absolutely false. Just because someone is willing to pay a certain amount does not mean that that is where resources should be placed or even what its value is. Even in a macro sense that just isn't the case. mis-allocation is when the price of money (interest) is changed by the governemnt through the fed which gives false information to business owners etc etc.
If the free market (using my viewpoint on IP) with no government interference shows the price for a poem is (near) zero then thats what it is regardless of how many people say they would pay more for it if that were their only choice.
Ed
Published: January 4, 2008 3:57 PM
David Bratton
...And there can be a clause in the contract against copying the book...
"...so we right up a contract describing the use restrictions outlined above..."
"After we sign the contract, I get the book and thumb through it and realize that it is MacBeth. The MacBeth. Am I still bound by the terms of the purchase agreement?"
By terms of the purchase agreement you mean the requirement that you not copy the book? Yes of course. You agreed to those terms.
Published: January 4, 2008 4:12 PM
David Bratton
"It is not the book itself that holds the value, it is the information in it. "
How much of the value of the book comes from the artificial scarcity induced by the copyright? To say IP is justified because the article being protected has value borders on circular reasoning. Or at best it reduces to the mere argument that as an author I should have IP protection because that will mean more money for me.
"It is not the book itself that is being protected from duplication, the book remains as it was. If it is not the pattern of words printed in it, how do you prove the book was copied?"
I didn't say you can't protect the pattern. I said you can protect the pattern with voluntary contracts, but not with a blanket monopoly.
Published: January 4, 2008 4:32 PM
Inquisitor
So far, nobody gave a libertarian explanation on why should anyone be allowed to clearly violate market exchange terms (explicit or implied voluntary contracts).
Perhaps because no one here wishes to dispute this? I do not. In fact, it is the argument I made early on in this thread, that contracts can mimick IP.
Published: January 4, 2008 6:08 PM
Sasha Radeta
Here is why this discussion fruitlessly goes on and on.
Ed said
"Renting a car is not the same thing. A car is property while a song is not."
For heaven's sake, a car is a property, just like a CD is a property.
You can choose to sell the full ownership rights for a large amount of money - or you can sell only a limited use of that product (a service). When you sell only a limited use of a CD, which is a real property by any definition, you don't sell all your ownership rights with it. Copyright violation is therefore a classic example of theft.
Unfortunately, this is inconvenient for those who like to philosophize about "song ownership", neurons, metaphysics...
=====
George Gaskell said:
"As I stated, however, IP protection goes FAR beyond this basic contract protection. IP does not replicate this contract.
WELL DUH!!!
IP does not replicate anything. Market exchange is a contract and copyright violators are criminals who violate private property rights.
Once again: you have a choice to buy a limited use of a CD for approx. $10-$20, or you can buy full ownership of a CD for a lot larger sum. Buying the full ownership costs a lot of money, so criminals choose to buy a limited use - and then violate the terms of their market exchange (contract).
It is clear that advocating copyright violations is ideologically equal to advocating the abolishment of property.
Now back to IP: IP laws are nothing but a bureaucratic, sloppy way of fighting crimes of these contract violations. That doesn't change the fact that those who advocate copyright violations are actually arguing against the basic application private property rights. Communists and criminals can only cheer at that.
Published: January 4, 2008 6:48 PM
Kevin B
Inquisitor,
I would love to see people free to choose or refuse contracts attempting to mimic the effects of IP regulation.
Sure, people could attempt to mimic IP, but does anyone really believe that most people would act the same under any coercion as when free?
If there is confidence that people would choose to simulate the effects of IP, then there can be little fear to remove the force. I believe there is much fear.
Published: January 4, 2008 6:52 PM
Kevin B
Sasha Radeta: "When you sell only a limited use of a CD, which is a real property by any definition, you don't sell all your ownership rights with it. Copyright violation is therefore a classic example of theft."
If you mean violation of a voluntary copyright contract, then I agree. Currently, I have never seen a copyrighted item that did not simply rely on government coercion.
Please, someone write a book and attach a private copyright contract to it. I'll buy it, then I'll break it. We'll take it to arbitration and see who wins. Note: *The arbitrators must ignore government copyright law.*
Published: January 4, 2008 7:09 PM
Inquisitor
Kevin, do you agree that the right to reproduce the good could be retained by the producer of it, and thus never be contractually exchanged? If so, that it would be a violation of the contract to reproduce the good? This is what Sasha is arguing. Perhaps I misspoke by saying "IP", but do you agree that this sort of arrangement is certainly possible on a market?
Published: January 4, 2008 7:31 PM
Kevin B
Inquisitor,
Well, since I don't know any better, I guess it is possible on a free market, but I really don't see what that argument accomplishes here.
Who is saying that private contracts limiting the use of items transferred in trade are impossible? Aren't we all advocating the freedom to offer such contracts?
What I believe most here are against is copyright agreements based upon that silly concept of ownership of ideas or upon coercive copyright law. Sure, some think copyright contracts wouldn't arise voluntarily, but who here really cares about that?
Published: January 4, 2008 7:53 PM
Inquisitor
Well I've made it pretty clear that I'm anti-IP, as I do not believe ideas can be owned like actually scarce resources can be. My point is simply in answer to Jay D who wondered whether such contracts could arise, and would be enforceable, to which I think the answer lies in the affirmative in both cases. A lot of the confusion I've seen on IP debates stems from a conflation of IP with contractual limitation of which rights are sold, the latter being possible on a free market.
Published: January 4, 2008 8:17 PM
George Gaskell
Now back to IP: IP laws are nothing but a bureaucratic, sloppy way of fighting crimes of these contract violations.
You are deeply confused.
If I find a CD on the street (or legally come into possession of it any number of other ways WITHOUT buying it), there IS NO CONTRACT between me and the creator of the CD. I agreed to nothing, so there is no mutual assent to terms. I paid nothing, so there is no consideration to make such a contract enforceable.
Therefore, if I copy it, it cannot possibly be a "contract violation," as you so blithely and simplistically put it.
Published: January 4, 2008 10:06 PM
Jerry Lee
Interesting discussion.
Suppose, once again, that the writer is just about to reveal his story to the printer, and the printer has informally agreed to pay a sum of money to read it. Just as the printer is about to sign the papers, the secretary comes in and says she found a copy of the story on the street. The deal is off, the printer prints the book and the writer gets nothing.
According to some, there is something wrong with this situation. The writer has been deprived of something that was rightfully his.
Suppose, then, that Jim is trying to solve a math problem and he has no books or Internet to aid him. He really wants to know the answer, for whatever reason. Jill then offers to tell him the answer for a dollar. Just as Jim is about to agree, his father enters and promises to tell him the answer for free.
Is this not the same situation as before? Jim was about to pay Jill, so the answer, which is nothing more than an idea, had market value for a moment. Was Jill deprived of something that belonged to her?
Published: January 7, 2008 8:17 AM
Jay D
If I find a CD on the street (or legally come into possession of it any number of other ways WITHOUT buying it), there IS NO CONTRACT between me and the creator of the CD.
If you take possession of the CD, you take possession of the terms of use. The terms are attached to the CD.
Published: January 7, 2008 8:43 AM
Jay D
Suppose, then, that Jim is trying to solve a math problem and he has no books or Internet to aid him. He really wants to know the answer, for whatever reason. Jill then offers to tell him the answer for a dollar. Just as Jim is about to agree, his father enters and promises to tell him the answer for free.
Is this not the same situation as before?
That does not represent a market value for the idea. Both had equal claim to the idea--they both originally derived idea for themselves. Both Jill and Jim's father had a product to sell. The only reason Jim was willing to pay the $1 was for convienince of not shopping around. Jim's father underbid Jill with a price of $0.
This does bring up the question of if Intellectual Property should be extended to ideas that can be independently reproduced. Someone shouldn't get possession of an idea just because they had it "first." Original works, like poems and stories cannot be independently reproduced. They wouldn't exist without the author.
Published: January 7, 2008 8:55 AM
George Gaskell
If you take possession of the CD, you take possession of the terms of use. The terms are attached to the CD.
That is not valid grounds for creation of a contract. There is no mutual assent. There is no consideration.
You can't dictate terms to anyone who happens to pick up an object that you own. I could leave a shovel on the sidewalk that says that anyone who uses this shovel agrees to deed his house to me. When I find someone using that shovel, I do not have a valid claim to his house.
Published: January 7, 2008 9:00 AM
Jay D
That is not valid grounds for creation of a contract. There is no mutual assent.
Right. The producer of the CD did not assent to your taking possession of the CD without the terms of use. Your taking possesion of the CD was an invalid transaction if you ignore the terms. When the CD was originally sold, the producer retained some rights to ownership by contract. The person who bought the CD does not fully own it. The person who bought it does not have the right to give it to you without the terms of use.
You can't dictate terms to anyone who happens to pick up an object that you own. I could leave a shovel on the sidewalk that says that anyone who uses this shovel agrees to deed his house to me. When I find someone using that shovel, I do not have a valid claim to his house.
Technically, I don't see why you couldn't do that. Practically, that wouldn't be allowed because of unreasonably trying to "trick" someone.
Published: January 7, 2008 9:31 AM
TLWP Sam
Is it me or is this issue an impassé with the same tit-for-tat arguments? :?
Published: January 7, 2008 9:59 AM
George Gaskell
When the CD was originally sold, the producer retained some rights to ownership by contract. The person who bought the CD does not fully own it. The person who bought it does not have the right to give it to you without the terms of use.
Even if all of that were true, there is still no enforceable contract in this scenario.
Let's say there's a purchaser of the CD, Faithless Fred. Fred agreed to the terms of use when he bought the CD, and he swore on a stack of bibles that he would not under circumstances copy or reveal the contents of the CD to anyone. He signs an expertly-written agreement to that effect in blood. But, being Faithless Fred, he breaches that agreement and copies it anyway.
Even if you accept that the CD producer has a 100% iron-clad, slam-dunk, air-tight claim of breach of contract against Fred, there is no contract between the CD producer and every other subsequent person who, in any way, acquires a copy (or a copy of a copy) of Fred's admittedly illegal copy.
It is really not a tenable point to argue -- this whole issue will be much easier to understand if you accept the proposition that the rules and protections that IP purports to provide are NOT a form of contract, cannot be replicated by contracts, are not an extension of any contract, and do not conform to contract principles.
Published: January 7, 2008 10:25 AM
Jay D
It is really not a tenable point to argue -- this whole issue will be much easier to understand if you accept the proposition that the rules and protections that IP purports to provide are NOT a form of contract, cannot be replicated by contracts, are not an extension of any contract, and do not conform to contract principles.
I actually agree that if IP is not property, valid contracts cannot be made regarding it. If contracts can be enforced regarding IP, then a lack of contract can also be enforced. I was trying to say earler that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
It all comes down to if a intellectual work can be property. If it is property, I can sell it to someone on the condition that I do not give up some, but not all my property rights to it. If I don't give up all my property rights to something, and someone finds it on the sidewalk, it is still partially my property, and I can still have as much say in its use as when I originally gave up part ownership in it.
Published: January 7, 2008 10:47 AM
ktibuk
Let's say there's a renter of a car, Faithless Fred. Fred agreed to the terms of use when he rented the car, and he swore on a stack of bibles that he would not under circumstances give the car someone else for a drive. He signs an expertly-written agreement to that effect in blood. But, being Faithless Fred, he breaches that agreement and gives the keys to someone else.
Even if you accept that the car rental place has a 100% iron-clad, slam-dunk, air-tight claim of breach of contract against Fred, there is no contract between the car rental place and the person who, took the key and drove away.
Published: January 7, 2008 10:55 AM
ktibuk
The people who claim there can not be IP and also say contracts arent binding to the third persons are in a dillema and they are not aware of it.
If something is not property you can not make a legitimate contract. Period.
If you believe IP is not property you have to deny the first and original contract. Before you can get to the third persons.
How can one, say an author, transfer certain use of something that isnt even his property, or anybodys property for that matter? IP doesnt exist right? Then all copyright contracts must be fraudulant contracts.
Oh but when the sale happens it just paper and ink, or a cd with 0s and 1s on it right?
By that logic it must be that, listening to Kinsella give a lecture on patent law, is the same thing as listening to a monkey make sounds.
I resent that implication.
Published: January 7, 2008 11:06 AM
George Gaskell
Even if you accept that the car rental place has a 100% iron-clad, slam-dunk, air-tight claim of breach of contract against Fred, there is no contract between the car rental place and the person who, took the key and drove away.
Correct. There is no contract between them.
If something is not property you can not make a legitimate contract. Period.
That is incorrect. People frequently make contracts that make promises as to their own behavior (i.e., promising to do or not do certain things). These contracts, which are perfectly valid, have nothing to do with the transfer of property.
If you want to govern your relationship with your CD producer (or your prospective producer) with a contract, that's fine. Just don't pretend that you are binding everyone else on planet earth to comply with your agreement with your CD producer.
Published: January 7, 2008 11:12 AM
Jay D
That is incorrect. People frequently make contracts that make promises as to their own behavior (i.e., promising to do or not do certain things). These contracts, which are perfectly valid, have nothing to do with the transfer of property.
How does such a thing work, practically speaking? If, as part of a purchase contract Bob agreed not to copy the data from a CD and sell it. Bob is then caught selling CDs with the same data on them. How do you prove the data came from the CD you sold him? He could claim the data came from a CD he found on the ground? Bob did not have a contract regarding the CD found on the ground.
Published: January 7, 2008 11:25 AM
Inquisitor
No contract exists, but the person who takes the rental car is still a thief. So long as the right to copy something was never sold (and here we are referring to physical property), then such an action may not take place. Where is the difficulty in understanding this?
Published: January 7, 2008 11:58 AM
ktibuk
"That is incorrect. People frequently make contracts that make promises as to their own behavior (i.e., promising to do or not do certain things). These contracts, which are perfectly valid, have nothing to do with the transfer of property."
Those contracts promising future services are different, and they are not valid, just as a slavery contract is unvalid.
Please read some Rothbard.
Published: January 7, 2008 12:16 PM
George Gaskell
Those contracts promising future services are different, and they are not valid, just as a slavery contract is unvalid. Please read some Rothbard.
Unvalid? No kidding.
If you would kindly direct me to the volume and page of some Rothbard text in which he states that all contracts for services (and perhaps also re: promises to refrain from specified acts) are "unvalid," I would be eternally grateful.
Published: January 7, 2008 12:32 PM
Jean Paul
Inquisitor says: "So long as the right to copy something was never sold (and here we are referring to physical property), then such an action may not take place. Where is the difficulty in understanding this?"
I dunno about anyone else, but my difficulty in understanding this is that I was born with the unrestricted freedom to copy, by virtue of having/being a machine with inputs, outputs, and storage.
Having been born free to copy, I don't see why I need to additionally purchase that right. Perfectly redundant and unnecessary.
Published: January 7, 2008 1:11 PM
Inquisitor
One could make similar arguments regarding rental - you were born with the ability to use things, why should you have to return the car? It is because the item's owner is the one with exclusive jurisdiction as to how it may be used. If they decide to sell all facets of an item, but the one use which is to copy it, wherein lies the problem?
Published: January 7, 2008 1:18 PM
Inquisitor
To make myself clearer: all facets of an item except the use of copying it
Published: January 7, 2008 1:24 PM
Kevin B
Jean Paul,
Inquisitor says: "So long as the right to copy something was never sold (and here we are referring to physical property), then such an action may not take place. Where is the difficulty in understanding this?"
To be logical, the right to copy [a particular object] is not sold by the seller of the object, but by the purchaser in exchange for possession of the object.
I think Inquisitor would agree.
Published: January 7, 2008 1:44 PM
ktibuk
It should have been "invalid", shouldnt it? Well, sorry.
As for invalid contracts see below.
Ethics of Liberty
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/seven.asp
Published: January 7, 2008 2:56 PM
George Gaskell
I assume you are referring to this passage, yes?
The distinction between a man’s alienable labor service and his inalienable will may be further explained: a man can alienate his labor service, but he cannot sell the capitalized future value of that service. In short, he cannot, in nature, sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced—for this would mean that his future will over his own person was being surrendered in advance. In short, a man can naturally expend his labor currently for someone else’s benefit, but he cannot transfer himself, even if he wished, into another man’s permanent capital good. For he cannot rid himself of his own will, which may change in future years and repudiate the current arrangement. The concept of “voluntary slavery” is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master’s will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary.
The contract I was thinking of was roughly this: A promises to give his manuscript to B so that B can evaluate whether he wants to publish it. B promises not to copy it and publish it without A's further permission (and the execution of a second publishing contract).
Both sides have made express promises as to a clear and definite subject.
Both sides have given consideration for these promises -- A has given a manuscript to B that A was not otherwise obligated to give. In exchange, B voluntarily gives up his right to copy that manuscript (and, conceivably, the right to write a manuscript that is within some degree of similarity to it).
Do you think that such a contract would be invalid, under traditional contract principles, in light of Rothbard's rejection of voluntary slavery? If so, please explain.
Published: January 7, 2008 3:40 PM
Jean Paul
Kevin B says: "To be logical, the right to copy [a particular object] is not sold by the seller of the object, but by the purchaser in exchange for possession of the object."
Yes, that makes the most sense. The Owner demands of the Renter a particular sacrifice (abstain from copying any aspect of the Rented item, in perpetuity), or else the Owner will exercise the Owner's right of exclusion to the physical book, and to the physical premises of the bookrental outlet. Of course all signage, receipts, etc indicate 'rental' or 'lease', with all parties identified and terms clearly stated, and in no way fraudulently misrepresents the transaction as a straightforward 'sale' (god forbid). Perfectly acceptable contract-based IP.
Of course this has the funny outcome that the Renter, in most cases an ally, fan, and supporter of the Owner/Creator, is rewarded for his support with lifelong shackles on his actions (you could view this as self-induced slavery of a sort; I don't care to argue for or against it right here); whereas the third-party stranger who finds the book accidentally left behind on a park bench is unconstrained - for all he knows the book is abandoned, and should he be informed otherwise, his only obligation is to surrender the physical book back to the Owner or Renter. There is nothing to prevent the Stranger from using his photographic memory and speed reading skills to reproduce identical copies sometime down the road.
The sad tale ends adding injury to insult, as the Renter (fan, ally, supporter, 'good guy') is forced to pay damages, per the Rental agreement, for his lax custodianship of the precious IP secrets, while the Stranger (dare I stoop to calling him a 'bad guy'? I know the IP folks do) enjoys unlimited potential upside.
The Owner can choose to abuse the Renter or not - not the best idea in my opinion - but there is no choice in how to deal with the Stranger. He, the rest must leave alone.
Published: January 7, 2008 4:30 PM
ktibuk
"The contract I was thinking of was roughly this: A promises to give his manuscript to B so that B can evaluate whether he wants to publish it. B promises not to copy it and publish it without A's further permission (and the execution of a second publishing contract).
Both sides have made express promises as to a clear and definite subject.
Both sides have given consideration for these promises -- A has given a manuscript to B that A was not otherwise obligated to give. In exchange, B voluntarily gives up his right to copy that manuscript (and, conceivably, the right to write a manuscript that is within some degree of similarity to it).
Do you think that such a contract would be invalid, under traditional contract principles, in light of Rothbard's rejection of voluntary slavery? If so, please explain."
You can make contracts on alianable objects, and IP is alianable. I can seperate it from myself.
But future promises of perfomance are not valid contracts. Past services is another thing. But for example a ball players contract regarding his future services is an invalid contract.
If you believe this, and also believe that copyright contracts are just about future actions, like labor prtformances, you need to denounce the initial copyright contract.
But you guys seem to object to third party involvement only.
So there seems to be an inconsistency. I am assuming that you think future service contracts are invalid.
I, on the other hand, believe a thing called IP is being exchanged on certain conditions. Just like renting a house or a car.
Published: January 7, 2008 4:45 PM
Jean Paul
I think it's important to not use wording like "sell a facet of an object".
You either sell or do not sell the whole object, or you divide the object into separate objects and sell or do not sell each of those individually.
You do not divide a book object into an imaginary 'right to copy the book' object and a separate 'physical book with the imaginary right to copy it deleted from it'. A constraint on action can't be added or subtracted from a physical object - it can only be AGREED TO by one person to another in a contract.
Published: January 7, 2008 4:47 PM
ktibuk
Jean Paul,
Haven't you ever rented something?
Published: January 7, 2008 4:57 PM
Jean Paul
I have.
What is your point...?
Published: January 7, 2008 5:49 PM
Inquisitor
George, your reformulation has merit - the good is exchanged on the condition that it is not copied, and violating this condition would be breaching the contract. Of course, this makes it unenforceable with regard to third parties.
Published: January 7, 2008 6:36 PM
Jerry Lee
That does not represent a market value for the idea. Both had equal claim to the idea--they both originally derived idea for themselves. Both Jill and Jim's father had a product to sell. The only reason Jim was willing to pay the $1 was for convienince of not shopping around. Jim's father underbid Jill with a price of $0.
What if they didn't solve the puzzle by themselves? What if they had heard it from someone? Or what if Jill had told the answer to Jim's father earlier?
This does bring up the question of if Intellectual Property should be extended to ideas that can be independently reproduced. Someone shouldn't get possession of an idea just because they had it "first." Original works, like poems and stories cannot be independently reproduced. They wouldn't exist without the author.
This is exactly what I was hinting at. However, the idea that something needs to be truly unique and original to be owned presents more problems. It's unlikely that two people would come up with the exact same book by themselves, but what about a haiku poem? How many words does something need to have for someone to be able to own it? Can you own a sentence, and if not, why not? Or the general plot of a story? After all, these are all ideas.
Published: January 8, 2008 3:02 AM
CALEV BEN AVRAHAM
I have published a book with the bookguild in sussex Brighton england,the book is availeble the world over and is in the major Universities and librries of the world.Papamedia has afulfilment Ratio of 80.71% sales ratio for my book .But my pubplisher claimes that only three books have been sold in the last eighteen months! Which is a great untruth.When confronted with this info they have sent me rude responses but refuse to acknowledge the sales reports of Papamdia and others.What can one we authors do to protect ourselves from wolves in sheepclothes?
Published: November 21, 2009 12:54 PM