Are Copyrights and Patents Property Rights?

January 31, 2008 9:53 AM by Stephan Kinsella (Archive)

Timothy Lee on the Cato blog notes that

The latest issue of Regulation magazine has a fantastic article by Peter Menell discussing the divisions in libertarian theory on copyright and patent issues. One one side is what Menel dubs the Property Rights Movement, of which Richard Epstein is a leading theoretician. They see intellectual property and more traditional property rights as fundamentally similar, and apply libertarian insights about the importance of strong property rights in tangible goods to debates over patent and copyright law. For theorists like Epstein, the need to reward the fruits of labor lie at the heart of the libertarian case for property rights, and as a consequence the argument for strong intellectual property rights is identical to the argument for tangible property rights.

The other camp sees copyright and patent law as fundamentally different from tangible property rights. It includes F.A. Hayek, many "cyberlibertarians," and Menell himself. For this camp, the fundamental argument for property rights is not about rewarding creativity so much as managing scarcity. We need strong property rights in tangible property so people can make plans about the use of scarce resources. Since inventions and creative works are non-rivalrous once created, the argument goes, property-like restrictions on their use are at best a necessary evil.

The paper cited is Intellectual Property and the Property Rights Movement by Peter S. Menell.

Bookmark/Share | Comments (89)

Comments (89)

Mike Martelli

The problem with patents and intelectual property is that simnply put, once an idea leaves your person it no longer belongs to you. If you keep an idea to yourself then you have full ownership of it. Once you decide to let somone in on the secret then ownership of that thought is passed along.

When it comes to literature copyrights it is impossible to assume that only the copyright holder is capable of reaching a particular thought outcome. This is why scientific knowledge can't be copyrighted. For example: Imagine if I propose that tides are highest when the full moon is out, so therefore the moon effects the tides. This idea might have been mine initially, but since it is based in a repeatable situation it is up for others to come to the same conclusion. So how can I own that idea if it is something that others could deduce on their own? Should I copyright that idea and then force others to pay me everytime they think about the moon and the tides?

Let's apply the copyright idea to something more tangible than a thought. Lets say, Music. Music is based on many elements such as rythm, melodie, tempo, and key. All of these things are intangible ideas. If I ask you to hold up a melody and show one to me, you could not comply because a melody is not an object. It is a term which we apply to an intangible as all of music is. So how can one own that which is intangible?

Ok, that may be a little deep. I understand that creative people worry about having their ideas stolen and claimed by others. This is a disinscentive to many. I think we need not worry about the issue of intelectual theft. If we take the example of the battle between the English rock bang Queen and the American rapper Vanilla Ice. When Mr. Ice blatantly ripped off the famouys bassline of the Queen song Under Pressure he was ridiculed into obscurity for trying to pass of the bassline as his invention. Consumers are able to recognize who was first and who is just coppying.

I am an architect and my profession is filled with ideas ripped off from other Architects. When an architect creates something which works it becomes a precident and is copied by others. The end result is a profession which continuosly rethinks the way things work. Architects have always improved on the ideas of the past. If we had architectural patents then we would have to stop the growth. It would make no sense for an archuitect to pay royalties to thoese who came before. After all, who was the first to come up with the idea of a wall, or a roof? What if I claimed to be the first person to invent the concept of window? Would people pay me royalties for every window they have? If a theory can not be applied equally to every situation then it is not a valid theory. I can not own the idea of a window for the same reason i can't own the idea of a song, or the idea of a novel's main character, or a lightbulb, etc.

My biggest problem with copyrites is that they prevent competitors from improving on technology or the ideas of somone else. This leads to stagnation in technology, and high prices. Imagine if company A was the only company allowed to own the concept of a light bulb. Now imagine if other companies had to pay royalties to company A everytime they wanted to make lightbulbs. That would drive the prices up.

If company B could copy the lightbulb and improve upon it then company A would be forced to become competative. They would have to keep improving their product in order to compete. The competition would make products much better, and ultimatly would advance mankind's achievements.

The bottom line is that you can not lay claim to something that does not exist in reality. Musical melodies, ideas, and thoughts can not be physically owned. And once shared they are no longer the property of the orriginator.

Published: January 31, 2008 12:40 PM
Yancey Ward

I know he is busy somewhere else at the moment, but Person will be along shortly. :~)

Published: January 31, 2008 1:08 PM
Jonas

Uh, architectural plans and designs are protected under the copyright act. Check any magazine, book, or website with house plans or other types of blueprints...they all have copyright notices.

You are right, the idea behind a window, roof, or door cannot be protected. But (according to current IP law) the exact arrangement of those items into a completed product (the house) can be protected.

I'm not saying I agree with this (I am currently trying to sort out my ideas on IP) but this is how things work in the US right now.

Published: January 31, 2008 2:22 PM
Scott S

Where you fall on the idea of intellectual property seems a litmus test on whether you are libertarian based on morals (rights) or consequentialist/utilitarian grounds. Because it does seem reasonable that certain areas where there must be a large investment in R&D will have disincentive to invest in that research when the end product can be immediately replicated by others and the costs cannot be recovered. For instance, pharmaceutical companies. Which means that the advancement of medicine in a world with no intellectual property rights might be stunted compared to our world.
However, that's really not much different than admitting that if the government spent trillions of taxpayer money on alternative energy research, we would be further along the road to energy independence than we are now.
Some people think that using government force to steal or forbid activity is justified because the theoretical end-state is desirable. Others believe that morality is not up for calculations of utlity, and it is not justified to violate individual rights no matter how well off it is likely society would be.
My opinion is that consequentialists are usually falling for variations of the Broken Window fallacy, but that's because I am a libertarian on moral grounds, and thus a minority even among libertarians.

Published: January 31, 2008 2:30 PM
Person

Thanks for the intro, Yancey_Ward, and let me say that the blog is as ugly and non-functional as ever.

Stephan_Kinsella: Regardless of the whether IP is ultimately justified, the claim made by the Epstein side is 100% justified. As I have argued in the past, all IP claims are formally equivalent to any other property claims. Give me any justification for ownership of physical property, and I will transform it into an argument for ownershp of IP. Give me any argument against IP, and I will show how it works against a kind of property you already support.

In fact, I have done precisely that with Stephan_Kinsella. He has already admitted that there is an assumption underlying his simultaneous love of spectrum rights and hatred of IP.

Check out this thread here, the exchange around December 21, 2007 10:07 AM:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/007561.asp

I pointed out that spectrums, like IP, are also non-scarce in that tons of people can transmit along the same frequency, it's just that no information will get through. He responded that when I transmit, I'm "using" all of the frequency.

My response: No, I'm not "using all of it". OTHER PEOPLE CAN STILL TRANSMIT! They can still set up their own transmitters and make their own waves.

To this, Stephan_Kinsella said: "Yes, and two people can tug at the wheel of a car at the same time. But neither will be able to use the car for its relevant purpose, which is driving, while this is occurring."

So there we go: it all hinges on what counts as a relevant purpose, which is, ultimately arbitrary. So, I asked, Why is the relevant purpose of an intellectual work not "exclusive publishing"?

So, Stephan_Kinsella basically admits he rests his ENTIRE argument on an arbitrarily chosen premise.

In fact, ALL of these distinctions between physical and intellectual property hinge on very base-level assumptions that no one feels they need to justify: What counts as the "relevant purpose" of a resource? Across what kinds of conflicting desires does our property rights delineation need to worry about? And so on.

Go ahead: prove me wrong. Try to find an argument for or against IP or physical property, which I can't change into an argument you disagree with, simply by changing an arbitrary assumption. You can't. It's just not possible.

Give up, Stephan_Kinsella, you have lost. Your groupie-gathering paper is based on a house of cards.

Published: January 31, 2008 2:39 PM
Stephan Kinsella

Person, the relevant use of property is not arbitrary. See Rothbard in the "relevant technological unit" re this. It's part of praxeology. SEe this post: "According to Rothbard, the amount of property legitimately available for immediate homesteading is the smallest amount necessary for the purpose to which the homesteader is putting the new property. This is the Relevant Technological Unit (RTU) or just "technological unit," and Rothbard discusses it in Man, Economy, and State, For a New Liberty (part 5 and part 12) and most thoroughly in "Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution."
Especially in this last essay — which is really a presentation of general property theory as much or more than it is a policy paper on pollution — Rothbard makes clear that spatial or territorial conceptions of property are misguided. What we legitimately own is exclusive claim to particular uses of resources, not necessarily spatial boundaries, not even in land.
From a Rothbardian perspective, then, the idea that someone might homestead, one RTU at a time, what turns out to be a ring around unowned land, is not at all out of the question."

Published: January 31, 2008 2:53 PM
Kilmore

Many people would say that eforcement of property rights even in case of intangible assets ensures proper reward and higher level of R&D. Both statements are false.

Is there any proper level of research? And do we really need government to set it for us? Of course we do not. Moreover patents are quite far from being incentive for faster progress. Simple reductio ad absurdum shows it clearly. Total patent protection would stop innovation process completely. In fact it is competition that makes enterpreneurs to improve their products if only to withstand onslaught of other companies. Abolition of patent protection would make enterpreneur to work harder not contrary as many would like to assert.

Patents and copyrights are only monopoly privileges given to first-comers. For some time others cannot independently invent similar thing. But how can any man claim any property right over thoughts of others?

How long should patent and copyright protection last? Again, do we really believe goverment can do this task well? They have never even tried to exact proper reward. What is, in fact, proper reward? That of unhampered market.

(I am sorry for being so brief and for my grammar, English is quite a challenge :)

Published: January 31, 2008 3:45 PM
Jonas

As I said, I am still trying to formulate my thoughts on IP. So if I could get some clarification:

Silas, what are the limits to which I can push IP law? You mention Harry Potter in the other thread. I assume you are saying that an author puts words into a certain pattern, and that pattern can be protected so that no other person can use that same pattern. What if I only replicate 2/3rd of the pattern? 3/4ths? What if I change every 10th word to "boogie"?

The same goes with art. A famous artist paints a picture, and I copy the pattern but change all the colors.

To what extent do you believe that the pattern should be protected? Do you think it needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis? Are you satisfied with the current status of IP laws in the United States?

Published: January 31, 2008 3:58 PM
Person

Well Jonas, I'm going to answer that with a tu quoque-type argument. Some people don't consider it a valid response and hastily dismiss it. However, since my point is simply about the equivalence between the two property types, not that I have an ideal system in mind, this response will suffice to establish what I want:

"Jonas, what are the limits to which I can push PROPERTY law? You mention LAND PLOTS FOR HOMES in the other thread. I assume you are saying that a SETTLER DOES SOME STUFF TO SOME LAND, and that PLOT can be protected so that no other person can use that same PLOT. What if I only WALK ACROSS THE EDGE? TO KNOCK ON THE DOOR? What if I SEND SOUND WAVES ACROSS?

...

To what extent do you believe that the PLOT should be protected? Do you think it needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis? Are you satisfied with the current status of PROPERTY laws in the United States?"

Published: January 31, 2008 4:13 PM
Jonas

Okay, since you didn't answer any of my questions I'll try to start things going by answering yours.

"Jonas, what are the limits to which I can push PROPERTY law?"

You cannot make use of another's property, if by using that property you prevent the owner from using it...even if they are not using it at that moment....without the owner's permission.

"What if I only WALK ACROSS THE EDGE?"

You cannot cross the edge at all, since that would be using my property without my consent.

"TO KNOCK ON THE DOOR?"

If I have signs stating that no trespass at all is allowed, you cannot approach and knock on the door. If there is physical boundary with a closed entrance you likewise cannot approach. If there is no such sign or other obvious means for preventing approach, passage is allowed for temporary access.

What if I SEND SOUND WAVES ACROSS?

You are not allowed to send sound waves across in any level determined to be preventing my use of my property. I would go so far as to extend this to any form of radiation. Light, heat, infrared, visible, electromagnetic, etc.

"To what extent do you believe that the PLOT should be protected?"

The property should be protected so that I am in no way hindered in its use at my whim.

"Do you think it needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis? "

No. Nothing should be handled on a case-by-case basis. There should be a single rule of law.

"Are you satisfied with the current status of PROPERTY laws in the United States?"

No. I am a fierce opponent of eminent domain.

Published: January 31, 2008 4:42 PM
Person

Well, Jonas, it looks like you proved my point for me. Despite your claim that your property system contains a "single rule of law", it turns out you have to make quite a few nuanced distinctions, most of them arbitrary, especially when you get into sound, and how much door-knocking is permitted in the absence of a sign.

Combine all these factors, and you have a non-obvious set of laws, requiring human judgment, with some arbitrary calls.

So, I don't think the fact that IP systems have the same thing, is any argument against them.

Hey Gil_Guillory, do you want that in a paper, or you do understand it as is?

Published: January 31, 2008 4:53 PM
Jonas

Person, you still haven't answered any of my questions. I explained my beliefs regarding property law...no matter how nuanced or arbitrary you think them. Please explain yours regarding IP.

Published: January 31, 2008 6:02 PM
nick gray

I'm back! I am New-Button-Type inventor! I once raised this point, and i don't think I was answered-
I have a design for a new type of button, one you wouldn't sew on. The mechanics don't matter- how would you induce me, a newcomer, to risk my idea without patent protection? In a patent-free, copyright-free America, would inventors bother to invent, or would they move to a country with strong patent protection laws? (I assume, as libertarians, you're going to let them emigrate if they want.) Sure, their ideas might be copied in America, even if they now lived elsewhere, but they'd have other markets for their ideas.

Published: January 31, 2008 6:24 PM
Peter

Jonas: please don't feed the trolls - you're never going to get anything sensible out of Person.

Published: January 31, 2008 6:33 PM
Peter

how would you induce me, a newcomer, to risk my idea without patent protection?

To risk your idea? I don't see the danger...

Published: January 31, 2008 6:36 PM
Jean Paul

IP is simple.

You own your head and the grey matter inside it.

If my idea intrudes on that, then I'm trespassing on you and I may owe you some kind of proportional damages. You on the other hand are free to do as you wish from that point on.

Simple.

No different than if you spraypaint graffiti on the side of my building, and I decide I like it and start charging admission for people to come and enjoy it, the profits of which I don't need to share with you.

The only way to turn my trespass into something else is to A) keep my ideas tightly controlled so they don't go out marauding into other people's heads, and then B) get your explicit agreement to keep the ideas to yourself before I let you see them.

Very simple.

Published: January 31, 2008 6:46 PM
Jonas

I figured that was the case, Peter. I was hoping, however, that I might get some straightforward answers to some straightforward questions. I don't understand what the point is of participating in a comment discussion like this if you can't explain your own positions.

Published: January 31, 2008 6:51 PM
Person

Jonas: I have told you my position: arguments for IP are arguments for physical property and vice versa. I have just showed you why that is, in the context of your question. Since I'm not advocating any system of IP, my beliefs about what kind of IP system should or should not exist, are irrelevant, as much so as my favorite flavor of ice cream.

Now, I know you bozos all like to get buddy-buddy with each other and high-five, or, as in the case of Stephan_Kinsella and Max_Chiz, agree to overlook major disagreements you have with each other and act like you agree. But I'm just interested in the issue at hand.

I have an open challenge for anyone to show me a difference between IP and physical property. You're welcome to it, once you stop whining.

Published: January 31, 2008 7:58 PM
Scott S

"I have an open challenge for anyone to show me a difference between IP and physical property."

Physical property is that which can only occupy a specific space at any moment of time. This tangible nature entails that an agent who uses the property can run into conflict with another agent who also is using the property (I can't eat the same sandwich you are eating, at best I can eat the parts you don't eat). Thus property rights arise out of man's essential need to determine how tangible things are to be used to his own ends without conflict. IP is not tangible, and can exist in many places (minds) at the same time. Thus two agents may utilize the same* IP without conflict and there is no justification for rights to exclusive use.

* - having the "same" idea is of course ontologically impossible to determine, as each agent's mental state is inaccessible to others; no one person likely has the exact same conception of "bunny" or "automobile" as anyone else. This is because what can be imagined is infinite. Of course what can be implemented in reality is finite (bounded by what tangible property is available, information on how to manipulate it, etc), and so you can have two implementations of a "similar" idea look the same. But so long as the physical property used to create those things was used by the rightful owner, then there is no conflict.

Published: January 31, 2008 9:11 PM
Mike Martelli

It all comes back to what is and what is not tangible. One could homestead a plot of land and mix his labor with it to own the land. An idea can not be owned once the owner gives it up. So how can you defend the property rights of something which the "owner" does not have control of. The owner of a plot of land has control over it, similarly that man owns his body because he can control it. He can not control the minds of others so if he passes on an idea and that idea takes root in someone else's mind then to claim property rights on that idea would mean that one could control the thoughts of another man.

It is true that if I design a house the construction documents are copyright protected, however, if my design influences another to copy an architectural element then I can not stop them from copying. The reason CD's (Construction Documents) are protected is because they are a legal contract between an architect who represents a client, and the contractor. Now once our projects are completed anyone is free to walk thru them and sketch them, photograph them, and be influenced by them. I know as an architect my designs may be copied, but I also know that it will force me to be more creative to keep my edge over the competition.

In fact a free economy revolves around competition and alternatives. For example, there are many brands of sneakers on the market today. While each sneaker is the same in concept they all vary in style and fit. Imagine if we considered the concept of sneaker as the IP of the inventor. If we defend IP then we must pay for the use of the concept “sneaker.” I believe that this starts to explain the absurdity of defending IP.

Intellectual property is not real property. It can not be owned once it leaves the control of the originator. A defense of IP would mean that an originator would have to have control over the thoughts and actions of other people and therefore would be illegitimate. A defense of IP would be able to justify man controlling man and would completely disprove the notion of self ownership. For it is impossible to own my own thoughts if I can not think about certain things because someone has already laid claim to those thoughts.

Published: January 31, 2008 9:41 PM
Niccolo Adami

Scott S,

"Because it does seem reasonable that certain areas where there must be a large investment in R&D will have disincentive to invest in that research when the end product can be immediately replicated by others and the costs cannot be recovered."

One of the fundamental strengths of the market comes from the idea of market alternatives. Of course IP laws are today the only thought of, but does that mean that no alternatives exist?

Published: January 31, 2008 11:46 PM
TLWP Sam

I with you Person. I failed to see how inventors would bother in a world without IP. Indeed history supports this notion - back in ye olde there weren't protections and inventions didn't stream forth, instead inventors tended to hold onto their inventions and kept plans encrypted should someone else stumble upon it. After all Libertarians like to point how economic growth would be near impossible without strong property rights.

But, oh dear, in the 20th century with IP protection, inventions kept getting made and made and more patents got issued. If patents were all powerful where do people find avenues for more inventions that allow for more patents? Interesting I totally disagree with Kilmore's assertion about no IP versus total IP, just as unreasonably strong property rights would be allow for wealth creation over a society without any property rights - a R&D company with a monopoly for their inventions would still invent to keep revenues flowing as a opposed to free-for-all no IP where expensive R&D is never undertaken because there's little chance of getting revenue.

If many-a-Libber doesn't like IP (It's theft'n'all) then would they be happy if the world never had IP and we were still living on farms? Better an honest farmer than a 'thieving' computer nerd?

Published: February 1, 2008 1:27 AM
Person 2

I support the idea of intellectual property, including patents, copyrights, and registered trademarks, because I believe somebody who writes a book, or a song, or a software system, is morally entitled to the profits from their product.

Moreover, rewarding those who produce is beneficial from a utilitarian perspective, as it creates an incentive to produce and spurs growth. By contrast, if somebody's work is not protected, they will probably not want to produce it and share it (think Atlas Shrugged).

Expecting somebody to only share the idea with their close friends, and make them swear not to reveal it outside of their closely-guarded group, it ridiculous. If that were the case, no book would ever be published. That is why the Constitution provides for patents and copyrights (see Article I, Section 8).

Let's look at the basic libertarian definition of property. Property is anything that is owned. To own anything means to have exclusive rights to its uses. Anything can be owned; a human body is "owned" by the person inside. Somebody is said to "own" something if they create it, or have it given to them (either freely, or at a price) by a previous owner. A person cannot be deprived of their property without their consent. Some say we need government to protect property rights; others say government is the worst transgressor of property rights and must be eliminated.

That leads me to another subject: is it possible to completely eliminate intellectual property law, and replace it with private contracts? For example, the End User License Agreement that comes with software says you cannot copy, sell, rent, or reverse engineer the software. Can that kind of contract between producer and consumer eliminate the need to government copyrights and patents?

Published: February 1, 2008 2:25 AM
Kevin Carson

"Intellectual property" is an example of artificial property rights. It falls into the same category as, say, an absentee title to vacant and unimproved land.

Natural property rights reflect scarcity; artificial property rights create it where it does not naturally exist.

Natural property rights secure the individual's right to the product of his own labor; artificial property rights give the privileged person control over the product of other people's labor.

Published: February 1, 2008 2:25 AM
Person 2

What if I purchase vacant and unimproved land, with no intention of living on it? Isn't it still legitimately mine? What puts you, an uninvited third party, in any place to decide whether I deserve what is mine?

How am I expropriating somebody else's labor? Nobody else labored to create the land.

Published: February 1, 2008 2:35 AM
P.M.Lawrence

KC, I must disagree. I tend to start with "natural" as meaning something like the the way a mathematician or a scientist might use it, as meaning something that "naturally" comes out of the situation, that doesn't need further work done on it to make it happen (which would be "artificial"). It should be "obvious", i.e. if you need to explain it, ipso facto that explanation is artificial further work.

Here's an example. I find a coin and put it in my pocket. Pause: I don't need to explain what "my" pocket is, even if you are from a culture that needs "pocket" explained. What is in my pocket, is in a very natural sense "mine", in that I have to do practically nothing in the mean time to maintain control of it now and obtain use from it later. The coin is mine.

Contrariwise, maintaining property in slaves in the early USA took massive laws and policing costs (largely externalised, of course). To the extent that that machinery had to be arranged to make it work, and to the extent that signalling the condition of being a slave and educating people in the concepts of slavery took work, that was artificial. Not wholly artificial, though; it was actually an exaggeration of existing concepts and applications, making something new from them, not making something wholly new. Today's intellectual property is far more artificial, although based on a certain element of "natural" - somebody would probably recognise this comment here as in some sense "mine".

Getting back to your definitions, artificial property rights do not intrinsically create scarcity where none would "naturally" exist; however, usually there would be little point in creating them if that were not the case (though one could easily imagine circumstances changing, or different motives applying, e.g. the Anglican Church "should" have perpetual copyright in the King James version of the Bible, not to keep it scarce but to prevent mutilated copies being passed off to support different doctrines, e.g. like the Jehovah's Witnesses). Likewise, "natural" property rights will tend - but only tend - to line up with things that are "naturally" signalled and defended by their owners, as with animal territoriality; this is a personal connection that suggests a strong correlation with personal work - but that work might simply be "taking seisin", as William the Conqueror did with England. In cultures with no pre-existing work ethic, there is far less to build on to support any claim based on making something.

The thing is, we are more sophisticated than animals; in a certain sense, artifice is natural to humans - and we all grow up with cultural concepts that help or hinder, and which make things natural to one culture but not to another and vice versa. So the question makes more sense as one of degree than of kind, although of course having a continuum does not prevent differences of kind along it, any more than a continuum of temperature means water and ice are not distinct. To me the question that highlights differences of kind is, do the artifices - teaching them, signalling them, enforcing them - add more to the cost than the property system gives back by allowing things to be bundled and controlled and used (or not, i.e. kept in reserve for other purposes)? A good indicator for this is, do the people who want the artifices also want their costs externalised and not borne by themselves as owners, to the point that it wouldn't be worth their while covering the costs themselves?

Published: February 1, 2008 5:33 AM
Peter

What if I purchase vacant and unimproved land, with no intention of living on it? Isn't it still legitimately mine?

Purchase from whom? Your purchase implies that there is some previous legitimate owner. If it's legitimate property, then of course it's still legitimate property after you buy it. But that's just pushing the question back a step.

Published: February 1, 2008 6:07 AM
Person

Kevin_Carson: good to have your contribution to this discussion, but I have to disagree.

First of all, I assume mutualism would have property rights in frequencies, where there is no scarcity, correct? Remember, an indefinite number of people can blast radio waves into the air -- the only conflict is: whose information gets to be transmitted. But a) why does someone's desire to use the airwaves for that purpose justify a right in it, and b) it's a right over a non-physical good.

"Natural property rights reflect scarcity; artificial property rights create it where it does not naturally exist."

While your property rights system handles the following problem better than neo-Lockeans, you're still vulnerable: For one thing, you recognize the right of farmers who are currently growing crops on a plot of land, to kick off people who sleep there, even though there's no natural conflict between sleeping and growing crops there.

(with the usual caveat about maybe it's different for spade cultivation, blah blah blah)

Published: February 1, 2008 8:53 AM
Person

Does anyone know who Person_2 is? It's not me.

Mike_Martelli: Your support for radio frequency rights: reconcile it.

Scott_S: "Physical property is that which can only occupy a specific space at any moment of time. This tangible nature entails that an agent who uses the property can run into conflict with another agent who also is using the property "

The problem is, people can run into conflict over intangible things too. By saying there's only conflict over physical objects, you're assuming away a broad class of conflict, or contorting its definition to the point where your use of the term no longer supports your conclusions.

Like with everyone else, your theory runs into problems when trying to handle radio frequency rights. Just as two people can use an idea at the same time, two people can use a frequency at the same time. Only by "artificially" creating the right to information transmission via the EM spectrum is there ever conflict.

And just as you might claim that the "intended purpose" of the EM spectrum is information transmission, I can claim that the "intended purpose" of the "idea-space" is "exclusive publishing".

Now what?

Published: February 1, 2008 9:01 AM
George Gaskell

Person, the relevant use of property is not arbitrary. See Rothbard in the "relevant technological unit" re this. It's part of praxeology.

Stephan, when last I bothered to try to explain to Person the significance of a "unit" of use to property definitions, he replied as follows:

no one I know of, including Stephan_Kinsella, predicates the homesteading principle on what amount of a new resource you "need" to use to accomplish something, so there you're just off on your own little theory.

That was July 11, 2007.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/006823.asp#comment-122654

So, no, he hasn't actually read it. At least, not as of last summer when he was peddling this same nonsensical, circular argument.

He's really not worth the trouble.

Published: February 1, 2008 9:33 AM
Person

George_Gaskell: I believe I responded adequately to you at the time. But if you're point is that a portion of spectrum can count as the relevant economic unit, that wouldn't change anything, because the same argument can carry over to IP.

That is, if you're going to accept a "section of spectrum" as the "relevant economic unit" that someone "needs" to do something cool (in this case, transmit information), then you have to accept a "section of the idea-space" as the "relevant economic unit" that someone "needs" to do something cool (in that case, control instantiation of a pattern he created). Any attempt to distinguish the cases will necessarily be arbitrary and come down to "I like one and not the other".

Published: February 1, 2008 10:00 AM
ktibuk

First of all there is something called artificial scarcity. And it is not only about intangible things.

Many tangible objects are scarce thus treated as property, because humans want it to be that way.

If BIll Gates wanted he could invest all his worth to producing bicycles and render them non scarce, thus non property, like air.

It is the fact that people like Bill Gates holds back production of bicycles that makes bicycles are being traded.

Maybe humans cant make every possible abundant to the point that it ceases to be property but thats no the point.

If artificial scarcity is not immoral or a crime, then IP is just.

Published: February 1, 2008 10:30 AM
George Gaskell

Scott S: it does seem reasonable that certain areas where there must be a large investment in R&D will have disincentive to invest in that research when the end product can be immediately replicated by others and the costs cannot be recovered. For instance, pharmaceutical companies.

TLWP Sam: I [fail] to see how inventors would bother in a world without IP.

I fully admit that a predictable result of repealing IP legislation may be a decline in the pattern of economic activity that currently depends on said statutes. When you repeal a subsidy, the thing that is subsidized is often diminished.

But, here's my question: How do you pro-IP folks know that the existing level of "innovation" (or money spent on such things) is economically sound? By what means do you determine that spending X% of national GDP on R&D (or X% of any given company's annual budget) is a sound economic decision?

It is sort of like the attitude toward education -- no one wants to be the guy who says that we spend too much on education, so as a matter of politics, everyone wants to be the one who calls for more education spending. Education is good, so more education spending must therefore be better.

Why is it that every Russian cab driver in New York was a nuclear scientist back in the home country? Apparently, the Soviet Union spent too much time, energy and effort educating nuclear scientists. There was much less economic need for them in the market than the amount of nuclear engineering education that the Soviet government provided.

What is the right amount of innovation? In what fields? How do you calculate your answers to these questions?

Published: February 1, 2008 10:37 AM
Person

First of all, I want to thank George_Gaskell for linking to the previous discussion. I think it shows me at my best, neatly demolishing the arguments of others, and giving an example of the various replies and counterreplies on this issue. I highly recommend everyone here follow that link.

Now, in George_Gaskell's latest post, here's what I just saw:

***

Scott_S: it does seem reasonable that certain areas where there must be a large investment in CAPITAL EQUIPMENT will have disincentive to invest in that EQUiPMENT when the end product can be immediately SQUATTED by others and the costs cannot be recovered. For instance, CEREAL FACTORIES.

TLWP_Sam: I [fail] to see how CAPITALIST would bother in a world without ROTHBARDIAN PROPERTY RIGHTS.

George_Gaskell: I fully admit that a predictable result of repealing PROPERTY RIGHTS legislation may be a decline in the pattern of economic activity that currently depends on said statutes. When you repeal a subsidy, the thing that is subsidized is often diminished.

But, here's my question: How do you pro-ROTHBARDIAN PROPERTY folks know that the existing level of "PRODUCTION" (or money spent on such things) is economically sound? By what means do you determine that spending X% of national GDP on CAPITAL EQUIPMENT (or X% of any given company's annual budget) is a sound economic decision?

It is sort of like the attitude toward education -- no one wants to be the guy who says that we spend too much on education, so as a matter of politics, everyone wants to be the one who calls for more education spending. Education is good, so more education spending must therefore be better.

Why is it that every SQUATTER in VENEZUELA was a FACTORY WORKER back in the UNITED STATES? Apparently, the UNITED STATES spent too much time, energy and effort PREDICATING BUSINESS DECISIONS ON MODES OF PRODUCTION INVOLVING FACTORY WORKERS. There was much less economic need for them in the market than the amount of INVESTMENT IN FACTORIES that the AMERICAN BUSINESSES provided.

What is the right amount of CAPITAL EQUIPMENT? In what fields? How do you calculate your answers to these questions?

***

'Nuff said. (Before anyone asks, yes, when I look at others' names, I do see underscores where there are spaces. You can shut up now.)

Published: February 1, 2008 10:49 AM
Kilmore

To TLWP:

History cannot prove any theory :) The speed of progress might have been much greater if there were no patent rights. How would you falsify such statement? In fact current laws extort patent monopoly only for certain time and they are not easily enforced. Thus enterpreneurs are not completely free from competition and growth has not stopped totally.

Usual reasoning is somehow static. As if someone tried to represent movie two hours long by single picture. Research and developement is endless drudgery aimed at profit, it is not single decision "to carry out research or not to carry out research". Competition forces enterpreneur to keep pace or perish. Moreover the best way of making money is to assume forefront position, to acquire monopoly for some time and to sell for monopoly prices. How to gain such favourable position? You have to invest huge amounts of money into research.

Alternatively you may persuade government apparatus (via some of its apparatchiki) to grant you such privilege. Patent rights are cozy safe havens, goverment enforced rights to make money while doing little or nothing. Market would force you to struggle forever and ever, government graciously gives you peace, allows you to slow down considerably.

In other words patent rights disencumber enterpreneur from the domination of consumer. Do we really wish it?

Published: February 1, 2008 12:15 PM
George Gaskell

I want to thank George_Gaskell for linking to the previous discussion. I think it shows me at my best

Person's self-identified "best" consists of openly admitting that he has not even read the basic literature on the subject of Rothbardian concepts of property, homesteading and IP, to which these various blog posts (and by extension, this website) are addressed.

Parading a fundamental ignorance while claiming to be a winner of arguments does not reflect well on one's intellect or character.

Ignorance can be cured. Stubborn ignorance cannot.

Published: February 1, 2008 12:38 PM
Person

I didn't say I didn't read it, George_Gaskell. I simply disagreed with you on the implications. In any case, it doesn't matter what Rothbard or Kinsella wrote. What matters is whether they were right.

Published: February 1, 2008 1:18 PM
Fred Mann

Person writes: "Just as two people can use an idea at the same time, two people can use a frequency at the same time. ... And just as you might claim that the "intended purpose" of the EM spectrum is information transmission, I can claim that the 'intended purpose' of the 'idea-space' is 'exclusive publishing'.Now what?"

"Intended purpose" is not the basis for property rights; rivalrousness is. Rivalrous things are things which can not be used simultaneously by two people without destroying or altering that thing. Ideas are not rivalrous. An infinite number of people can use the same idea at the same time without destroying or altering it. But, the EM spectrum *IS* rivalrous. The distinction is not arbitrary and not based on "intended purpose".
The fact that two people *CAN* transmit over the same frequency in the same area at the same time is irrelevant. I could just as easily say "two or more people can occupy the exact same space at the exact same time. All we need is a hydraulic press." Of course, in both cases, the original property is altered/destroyed when we attempt to do this. Ideas are not destroyed when two people simultaneously use them. Therefore, they are not rivalrous, and can never be considered property.
"Intended purpose", or the Relevant Technological Unit, *only* enters the equation once a property right has been established. The RTU is employed to determine the *scope* of a particular property right -- i.e. the allowable size of a land claim, or the allowable range of a radio transmitter.

Published: February 1, 2008 1:52 PM
Person_1

I, too, wish to know who this interloper, Person_2, is.

Published: February 1, 2008 1:58 PM
Mike Martelli

I do support radio frequency rights. Radio frequencies may be considered intangible, but they certainly are real controllable things.

The differnce between radio property and intelectual property is controll. A man can not control the thoughts of others, so if somone wanted to copy an idea, no man had any right to stop the thoughts in an other man's head. Your thoughts only belong to you as long as you can control them. (Meaning they are in your head). Once you give up that control then your thougths are not your property.

Radio waves are tangible, measurable things. And most importantly they can be controlled. Like homesteading, one can mix labor (or control) with the radio waves and lay claim to the frequency. You can homestead a radio frequency but you can not homestead the thougths in somone else's head.

Published: February 1, 2008 3:11 PM
David Bratton

Person: Like with everyone else, your theory runs into problems when trying to handle radio frequency rights.

As you have pointed out the only way a spectrum "owner" can enforce his rights is to restrict the ability of others to use their own transmission equipment. But that isn't a vindication of IP rights. It sounds to me like an indictment of RF rights.

Consider the Ethernet protocol, which is also a method of allocating scarce spectrum. Ethernet is a shout and listen protocol. When a computer wants to speak it listens for quiet on the network, then shouts its message and waits for an echo. If the echo doesn't match the message the computer assumes it got interrupted and waits a random number of clock ticks before simply repeating the process. Note that no single computer requires exclusive control over any discrete portion of spectrum. Instead, the protocol in use permits every computer on the network to treat the spectrum as a non-scarce resource (within reason).

Radio frequency usage and ownership practices have been shaped and directed by government policy. Who is to say that RF usage would have evolved into the current model if there had been no government management involvement? Perhaps some other usage model might have evolved. Perhaps the current regime of absolute rights over discrete portions of RF spectrum is blocking the development other potentially more efficient uses of the spectrum.

Published: February 1, 2008 3:27 PM
David Bratton

Radio waves are tangible, measurable things. And most importantly they can be controlled. Like homesteading, one can mix labor (or control) with the radio waves and lay claim to the frequency.

I don't think the issue is your ability to control a radio frequency. I think the issue is your assertion of a right to control other people's transmission equipment. Once you agree to that you are back on the slope to controlling other people's right to use their own pen and ink.

Published: February 1, 2008 3:40 PM
Person 2

"I fully admit that a predictable result of repealing IP legislation may be a decline in the pattern of economic activity that currently depends on said statutes. When you repeal a subsidy, the thing that is subsidized is often diminished."

Allowing somebody to keep what is legitimately theirs safe from theft is not a "subsidy".

But, here's my question: How do you pro-IP folks know that the existing level of "innovation" (or money spent on such things) is economically sound? By what means do you determine that spending X% of national GDP on R&D (or X% of any given company's annual budget) is a sound economic decision?

One of the basic principles of the free market is that each individual of firm can spend as much money on something as they please, and can do so free of interference or theft.

Published: February 1, 2008 4:17 PM
Kilmore

Lets suppose John Smith is in possession of some piece of land. Others certainly cannot drive their cars over his plot without John's consent. Is it that slope to controlling other people's right to use their own pen and ink? Property is always denial of certain possibilities.

Allowing somebody to keep what is legitimately theirs safe from theft is not a "subsidy".
Patents are far from mere keeping legitimate property. If they were they would not be time limited (and we would still dwell in caves).

One of the basic principles of the free market is that each individual of firm can spend as much money on something as they please, and can do so free of interference or theft.
Yes, of course, but it is irrelevant here. It is goverment who would like to establish proper level of innovation by setting duration of patent protection. First, such protection actually forbids competition and therefore slows down innovative process. Second, it is no market.

Published: February 1, 2008 4:34 PM
Niccolo Adami

Generally speaking, any and all justification for "IP" comes down to, "IT'S MY IDEA, NOT YOURS!" and "if I weren't paid for my thoughts, I wouldn't uh-thunk-'em."

The first objection seems rather childish. It's your idea? Really? Then keep it to yourself. If intangible concepts can hurt people, then perhaps the mere thought you express harms me. "IT'S MY HEAD, STOP FILLING IT WITH YOUR IDEAS." Ridiculous? Not as much as suggesting that your conceptualizations are exclusively yours and may never have any influence on others.

The second objection mistakes patent law as an issue of efficiency. Patents and IP are completely ETHICAL issues, and whether their abolition sent man back to the stone age or not - it wouldn't - should be wholly as wholly irrelevant to an ethical debate.

In any case, say what you want about IP laws, either way I'm going to take whatever ideas I want and use them as I want, and I dare you to stop me.

Published: February 1, 2008 4:34 PM
Kilmore

If IP laws are ethical question only than there is no solution of our quarrel. Ethical problem cannot be solved in rational discourse. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Published: February 1, 2008 4:50 PM
David Bratton

Lets suppose John Smith is in possession of some piece of land. Others certainly cannot drive their cars over his plot without John's consent. Is it that slope to controlling other people's right to use their own pen and ink? Property is always denial of certain possibilities.

But there is a difference. Property rights come with the right to deny others the use of your property, so I can prevent you from driving across my property if I want to. But IP and RF both entail the right to deny someone else the use of his own property even when he is in no way affecting any property of yours.

Published: February 1, 2008 5:48 PM
Niccolo Adami

Kilmore, please, enough of the moral-relativism bollix.

Most philosophers worth their marbles can tell you what ethics are.

Published: February 1, 2008 6:10 PM
Kilmore

But IP and RF both entail the right to deny someone else the use of his own property even when he is in no way affecting any property of yours.

Once you have got your patent you have got certain rights over thoughts of other people. They might independently invent same thing and yet they could not use it. If they tried your property right would be certainly violated.

I cannot find any persuasive argument in this matter against IP laws. It seems IP is morally and legally justified. However there must be some glitch because IP is an antithesis of free competition, its another word for monopoly right. Proponents of patent laws talk so much about proper reward and duration of this privilege that they cannot really disguise true nature of their concern. They do not seek justice they seek rent. My right to live on my land does not mean others cannot live on their own plot. The same holds for cars, phones, suits or ice-cream, even for radio frequencies. It does not hold in case of patent rights. Their purpose is obviously different. Little can be gained from exclusive possession of some thought. Sole purpose here is to squeeze money out of fellow citizens, not to establish some order enabling cooperation and preventing clashes.

And yet this way of reasoning, though true, is not convincing enough.

Published: February 1, 2008 6:52 PM
TLWP Sam

Pleeeease Kilmore. Why treat patents and copyrights as all powerful and all emcompassing? The ratio of profitable patents versus number of patents issued is a tiny one. Copyrights, on the other hand, is there to avoid plagiarism and I don't what the whinge towards copyrights are. Patents are probably better described as a 'window of opportunity' for the inventor(s) to recoup their costs. Tough luck if the invention becomes profitable 30 years later.

Published: February 2, 2008 12:18 AM
Niccolo Adami

Kilmore, I have the exact opposite feeling. I've seen nothing convincing to suggest that, morally speaking, intellectual property possesses any legitimacy at all.

For one, as we all know, it's not tangible. If you desire to re-invent the concept of what property actually is, then fine, but until you can do that, we'll stick with the old homesteading principle.

Two, even suggesting that IP is ethical, one must actually establish that the event, though not probably likely, was not merely a fluke or a coincidence. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Personally, I see no way that one could prove that.

Third, if IP is valid because it's property, then why do you need a law to protect it? You don't need "laws" to protect property. You need contracts and mutually established guidelines to get others to help you protect your property, but you can still protect it.

Also, I've not seen the ethical rule about why IP is valid yet. I've seen a bunch of bollix about it being "necessary," but nothing about it being valid.

Published: February 2, 2008 1:20 AM
Kilmore

Patents are probably better described as a 'window of opportunity' for the inventor(s) to recoup their costs.
Yes, you can look at them this way and repeat it again and again. That does not change a thing, the facts are clear, patent protection is a hindrance, it forbids competition. I would like you to address this argument.

If you desire to re-invent the concept of what property actually is...
Usual concept of property is not good enough. If it were so many people would not defend IP. I look for better explanation (not ethical one), nothing else.

Most philosophers worth their marbles can tell you what ethics are. Cardinal problem of ethics is its uselessness. Those who share your view are convinced by default. The others cannot be convinced by ethical arguments at all. For example, lots of people think about welfare state as of ethical question. They call for strong government to protect minorities, poor and disabled. In their eyes it is moral duty of every citizen to pay for this. How to attack such an opinion? There is no way but one. You must show them that goverment cannot do the task. Therefore I do not like ethics, mostly it is superfluous intellectual chatting.

Published: February 2, 2008 4:04 AM
Peter

Before anyone asks, yes, when I look at others' names, I do see underscores where there are spaces. You can shut up now.

But (a) by writing this you demonstrate that you know there are spaces, even if I believed that you see underscores. Therefore, type spaces. And (b) your browser certainly doesn't know the difference between people's names and other text, therefore it can't insert underscore in the former and not the latter; if you indeed see underscores in people's_names,_you_must_necessarily_see_underscores_in_place_of_all_spaces;_so_why_don't_you_type_like_this?
You're just an annoying PITA. Go away.

Published: February 2, 2008 4:45 AM
Peter

Ethical problem cannot be solved in rational discourse
See Hoppe on that subject!

De gustibus non est disputandum
FWIW, "non disputandum est" is more natural word order; though it'd more commonly be just "non disputandum", with "est" implied...(in Latin...Google turns up many more hits for the slightly-odd-sounding "est disputandum" version in modern use, though)

Published: February 2, 2008 5:24 AM
Peter

But IP and RF both entail the right to deny someone else the use of his own property even when he is in no way affecting any property of yours
No they don't. Other people are not prevented from using their own transmission equipment, as IP would have it; they just can't interfere with your transmission - you own the transmission, not just the transmitter.

Published: February 2, 2008 5:29 AM
David Bratton

Other people are not prevented from using their own transmission equipment, as IP would have it; they just can't interfere with your transmission

Isn't that a contradiction though?

And the issue is ownership of a particular portion of the spectrum. It doesn't do any good to just own a transmission since someone else could send a transmission they own on the same frequency at the same time. Electromagnetic energy from your transmitter is beyond your control once it leaves your antennae. So how can you say you still own it? What do you mean by "own". It seems to me this is another case of wrapping a set of infringements against others up in the label "property". What you really mean by saying you own a transmission is that you somehow have the right to partially control other people's transmitters.

Published: February 2, 2008 11:46 AM
Kilmore

Ethical problem cannot be solved in rational discourse...See Hoppe on that subject!

I have already seen and I prefer Mises or Popper. Thanks for correction of my Latin. Unwittingly I used Czech word order. At least you can see why my teacher did not like me at all.

Published: February 2, 2008 2:46 PM
nick gray

No-one has answered my question- why would inventors stay in a country without patents or Intellectual property rights? As an inventor, I have an interest in the answer. And how many other contributors are also inventors or writers? What are your views on these matters

Published: February 3, 2008 5:43 PM
ed

If Stephen K is suggesting that radio frequencies (or any other frequencies) are property then he really has a problem in argument. Its not tangible therefore it is not property, simple as that.

Plus, what to do about frequency hopping methods. This is how two secure radios "talk" to each other. I have a key and you have the same key. Our two radios frequency hop 100 times/sec and we can hear each other securely and allow for bad frequencies that someone else might be using.

Then there is technical innovation where frequencies used are tighter and tighter. This allows for infinite frequencies. If the Hz is so large or so low that these methods aren't usable, well then too bad.

If I need to have line of sight to use a radio station, I don't own every inch of airspace with line of sight, even if I was there first using that airspace.

This may lead to an appearance of the tragedy of the commons. But really its the original tragedy of the commons that led to innovation in fences and barb wire.

Published: February 4, 2008 11:25 AM
Person

I tried to post Saturday, but it kept refusing. Let's try again.

Fred_Mann: You're dismissing the issue I raised, and then re-constructing it. Yes, what matters in determining whether property rights can exist is rivalry. But rivalry over *what*?

On the EM spectrum, you could naively say, "Well, hey, everyone can send out radio waves at the same frequency at the same time -- what's the problem?"

Whatever your answer to it, you are making precisely the same objection to someone who says of ideas, "Well, hey, everyone can use an idea at the same time -- what's the problem?"

A "problem" arises in both cases when more than one person tries to use the resources. The challenge is to tell me what the moral difference is between the responses to the naive argument above.

But more importantly, I want all of you to step back and ask what you're trying to accomplish with the "ideas can be used without conflict" argument. But obviously, people *do* conflict over the use of ideas. So how is that argument supposed to accomplish anything?

Peter: Grow up. I use software that saves the names and puts underscores in the spaces in screen names. Yes, I know what's going on. Yes, I could manually remove them. But what's the point? Who's really offended by it? (WHOAMG, conflict over a non-scarce resource! Who knew?)

Published: February 4, 2008 11:47 AM
Jesse

The problem people have with defining rights in the use of the EM spectrum is that they start from the wrong point of view, that of the transmitter. When someone uses their property to create emissions in the EM spectrum, it's the receiver that's affected. If you're going to start affecting someone else's property you need their permission; ergo, in order to start transmitting a signal you first need to ensure that your transmission won't interfere with the way any existing property owners in the area are using their radio receivers. The same principle applies to all other sorts of emissions, from sound waves to noxious fumes.

Of course, you only require permission when there are existing users; anyone who moves into the area must accept the existing environment, EM emissions included.

Published: February 4, 2008 12:30 PM
Mike Martelli

The EM spectrum contains lots and loots of space. The typical FM radio dial is capable of picking up about a hundred. Even at Radio's hayday there weren't that many stations in any one region. Even tho radio frequencies are scarce the market still found away to get more content on the limited bandwidth. Take for example HD radio. HD is basically a way for each station to subdivide thier signal into 3 parts. so 88.3fm in HD (using the same FM radio frequency) now has 88.3a 88.3b and 88.3c. In a world without the FCC, each station could rent out it's subdivisions to smaller stations or colleges to broadcast, effectively adding more space to a crowded field.

My point is that though radio frequencies are scarce, they don't need the government to dole out slices of the EM spectrum and there is enough space out there for lots of competition so there never was a need to fight over frequencies. If courts defended the homesteading of airwaves then there would not have been any chaos in radio and no need for government control.

Published: February 4, 2008 1:04 PM
Fred Mann

Person writes: " people *do* conflict over the use of ideas. "

There can NEVER be conflict over the use of ideas. This is a misdiagnosis of the source of the conflict. In reality, the pro-IP argument actually boils down to a conflict over market share, NOT ideas per se. And market share, although it is a "scarce resource", is not ownable since it is merely the sum of the decisions of self-owning individuals. In a sense, market share is already "homesteaded" by the individuals making the decisions. And you can not homestead something which has already been homesteaded.
Just to drive the point home, the *ideas themselves* are not rivalrous. We can both print up a million copies of the same book. There is no limit to the number of copies that can be made. Or another example ... everyone on Earth can simultaneously recite a particular paragraph. And they can do it every day until the end of time. My use of a particular set of words (the set of words is the idea) has absolutely no bearing on your ability to use that same set of words. Ideas can be implemented/used an infinite amount of times without altering or destroying the idea. Therefore, ideas are NOT rivalrous.

Published: February 4, 2008 6:15 PM
Person

Fred_Mann: "There can NEVER be conflict over the use of ideas. This is a misdiagnosis of the source of the conflict"

Wrong, Fred_Mann. As a matter of undeniable FACT, people do conflict over who should or should not use a given idea. What you (and all the other anti-IP sleight-of-handers) are trying to do is define away that conflict. Which is okay, if you want to restrict the sense in which you refer to "conflict" -- but that same restriction, as I have shown, cuts against the "conflict" over the EM spectrum. That is, I can define away the conflict between different people who ("deludedly") believe that THEIR and only THEIR transmissions should be the ones along a particular frequency, using the same reasoning by which you define away the conflict over ideas.

"In reality, the pro-IP argument actually boils down to a conflict over market share, NOT ideas per se."

Again, not true. People can want exclusivity over ideas they have created, for any number of reasons, not just to make money. Just as an example, an artist (Howard-Roark-type) may believe something is worth producing, but only if he can limit its display. You know -- like how you feel about your bank account information.

Wie bevor, nicht wahr. Leute koennen Exclusivitaet wollen, ueber Ideen die sie erfindet haben, aus vielen Gruended, nicht nur Geld. Als einfaches Beispiel moegen ein Kunstler (Howard-Roark-Typ) glauben, etwas wertet Produzieren, aber nur wenn er es kontrollieren kann. Du kennst's -- wie du ueber Die Bankkonteinformationen fuehlst.

"Just to drive the point home, the *ideas themselves* are not rivalrous. We can both print up a million copies of the same book. There is no limit to the number of copies that can be made. Or another example ... everyone on Earth can simultaneously recite a particular paragraph. And they can do it every day until the end of time. My use of a particular set of words (the set of words is the idea) has absolutely no bearing on your ability to use that same set of words. Ideas can be implemented/used an infinite amount of times without altering or destroying the idea. Therefore, ideas are NOT rivalrous."

LET'S TRY THAT AGAIN: Just to drive the point home, the *frequencies themselves* are not rivalrous. We can both broadcast a million sequences of information on the same frequency. There is no limit to the number of broadcasts that can be made. ... My use of a particular frequency ... has absolutely no bearing on your ability to use that same set frequency. ... Etc., you get the point.

You can only justify restricting people from broadcasting at any frequency they like, by arguing that some "social good" comes from someone having exclusivity over a frequency, so we should "magic up" a little market, with cute little property rights, which would "incentivize" people to produce ...

HEY! Where have I heard that reasoning before...

Published: February 4, 2008 11:14 PM
Fred Mann

"people who ("deludedly") believe that THEIR and only THEIR transmissions should be the ones along a particular frequency, using the same reasoning by which you define away the conflict over ideas."

No. With radio waves, there is measurable alteration/destruction that occurs when two or more people try to use the same frequency band for a transmission in the same area. This is NOT the case with ideas. We can both simultaneously use the same idea without altering or destroying it. They are so obviously different that I find it hard to believe that anyone could honestly conflate the two. But anyway, when it comes to *property rights issues*, the definitions of "conflict" and/or "rivalry" MUST include the idea that the thing in question can not be used by two or more people simultaneously without causing that thing to be altered or destroyed. Simple disagreement is insufficient. For example, you and I can disagree over who should be allowed to breathe air, but this disagreement does not make breathable air rivalrous in the property-rights sense of the term. Or, you and I could disagree about the goodness of the color blue. But no property rights issues can arise from this type of disagreement. Ultimately, property rights are concerned with scarcity as it exists in the real world -- INDEPENDENT of our wills.

Published: February 5, 2008 1:34 PM
Person

Fred_Mann: "With radio waves, there is measurable alteration/destruction that occurs when two or more people try to use the same frequency band for a transmission in the same area. ... when it comes to *property rights issues*, the definitions of "conflict" and/or "rivalry" MUST include the idea that the thing in question can not be used by two or more people simultaneously without causing that thing to be altered or destroyed."

Okay, and again, the radio waves everyone blasted out along the same frequency *weren't* destroyed or altered. They were simply superposed such that no information from any one signal could be recovered. Only that nebulous attribute, the "capacity to contain information" was destroyed. And, just the same, when you copy someone's ideas, that other nebulous attribute, the "capacity to be exclusive to one author" is destroyed. Same, same.

"Ultimately, property rights are concerned with scarcity as it exists in the real world -- INDEPENDENT of our wills."

You can't really mean this, because scarcity in radio waves is not independed of our wills, and in fact, requires multiple wills regarding radio waves, in order to exist.

Published: February 5, 2008 2:47 PM
Fred Mann

"the radio waves everyone blasted out along the same frequency *weren't* destroyed or altered. They were simply superposed such that no information from any one signal could be recovered."

Superimposition IS a form of alteration. As I said above, I can superimpose your body on another person's body using nothing more than a hydraulic press and a roughly human-sized mold. No atoms are destroyed. You're still there. It's just a different arrangement of your atoms. What's the problem?

"scarcity in radio waves is not independed of our wills, and in fact, requires multiple wills regarding radio waves, in order to exist."

I'm not sure I know what you mean here, but you seem to be saying that scarcity is arising from the "multiple wills" of the actors -- i.e. that radio frequencies become scarce only when people try to simultaneously broadcast on them. But this is not the case. A road is rivalrous/scarce even if no one is driving down it. Like radio frequencies, roads do not *become* rivalrous only after two or more people try to drive on it. The quality is inherrent in the road. The *degree* of scarcity is determined by technology and number of users, but the quality of "scarcity" itself is inherrent in the thing. There is no such inherrent quality in ideas.

Published: February 5, 2008 3:39 PM
Person

Fred_Mann: You're still not making any kind of attempt to understand the argument I've presented.

"Superimposition IS a form of alteration. As I said above, I can superimpose your body ..."

Yes, but with radio waves, you're only superposing a pattern of motion on top of a pattern of motion. You're only altering the cumulative effect of several patterns of motion. If you're going to consider that an "alteration" that can "violate a property right", all bets are off. In that case, if you speak while I'm speaking, "destroying" the ability to extract information from the sound waves I make, that's also violating my property rights.

So are you really sure you want to argue that "altering" information going through the air by superposing of other information, is somehow "objectively" a property rights violation?

"A road is rivalrous/scarce even if no one is driving down it."

Then why do people say that atmospheric air isn't scarce?

Published: February 5, 2008 6:44 PM
Fred Mann

"In that case, if you speak while I'm speaking, "destroying" the ability to extract information from the sound waves I make, that's also violating my property rights. "

In some cases, this is, in fact, a property rights violation. We can homestead *all* areas of the EM spectrum *to some degree*. This is where the Relevant Technological Unit comes in. As Rothbard states in Law Property Rights and Air Pollution, we are NOT entitled to 18th century peace and quiet if we live in a modern city. BUT, we are entitled to some minimum level of peace. For example, you can not blare your home stereo into your neighbor's windows 24-7. But, the occasional outburst must be tolerated. The exact amount of spectrum that is homesteaded in any particular case (RTU) is a matter for the courts. Of course, there can be noise easements, so I'm not necessarily entitled to uninterrupted speech in any given area. This is also true of radio ... and land.
On a slightly more esoteric note, radio waves are not mere patterns, they are perturbations of a field. A pattern *can* be an abstract idea, which is probably why you chose that term. But radio waves are not imaginary or abstract -- like ideas.
And you're correct. Air IS scarce, so I retract that particular example. Breatheable air is *effectively* in infinite supply, but it is actually finite and rivalrous. And some crisis could make this much more obvious.
But again, the main point is ... property rights can only be assigned to things which can not be used by two or more people without altering or destroying it. And ideas do not meet that criteria.
So yes, a road IS scarce/rivalrous even if no one is driving on it. And ideas are still NOT rivalrous.

Published: February 5, 2008 8:53 PM
nick gray

Here's something else to consider- we can use strict property rights to licence other rights. I own my land, and, by extension, the 'public' owns the roads, and can democratically licence all uses of the public space, including allowing, or forbidding, radio waves, over or through the public properties. Copyrights and patents would be what the 'public' entity uses and allows on its' possessions, whilst not stopping others from using their private property for their own private uses, so long as they don't sell or advertise unauthorised copies of existing goods over or on public space.

Published: February 5, 2008 10:59 PM
Fred Mann

PS - I took your comments about speaking over others speech to be an attack on homesteading audible frequencies in general.
As for speech itself, we encounter this all the time in crowded restaurants and we solve the problem by talking louder or moving to another part of the room (if we're not on our own property). There is no "jamming" in speech in the same sense as there is jamming in radio. We can all pick out conversation even if the ambient conversation of others is at roughly the same level.

Published: February 6, 2008 10:03 AM
Person

Fred_Mann: "In some cases, this is, in fact, a property rights violation. We can homestead *all* areas of the EM spectrum *to some degree*. This is where the Relevant Technological Unit comes in. ... "

Okay, but that's beside the point. You are referring in your example to nuisances, not merely making it difficult to extract information. You *already except* that talking over someone, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT CAN DESTROY INFORMATION, cannot by itself be a property right. Yet you want me to believe that destroying the information contained in a radio wave by superposing mine over it, is "destroying something" and therefore must be a rights violation.

Since when can destroying "non-scarce", non-physical "information" become somehow a rights violation? And how would it be different from destroying "the state of only one person publishing a given work"?

"On a slightly more esoteric note, radio waves are not mere patterns, they are perturbations of a field. A pattern *can* be an abstract idea, which is probably why you chose that term. But radio waves are not imaginary or abstract -- like ideas."

I would say that any property you claim is in one, is also in the other. When you create an idea, you are also perturbing a "field" in the sense of "perturbing the condition that only one person is publishing a work". Keep in mind, your attempt to differentiate is not based on mere physical facts about the physics of electromagnetic fields, since you already accept that infinite people can blast waves at any frequency. You are characterizing a "conflict" because of how *desires* about information transmission conflict. And desires conflict just the same in IP.

"And you're correct. Air IS scarce, so I retract that particular example."

Then retact your use of Rothbard, who considers air scarce, and believes scarcity arises the moment more than one person wants something.

Remember, once the moment two people's desires conflict, there is conflict and therefore scarcity, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE JUSTIFIABILITY OF THEIR DESIRES.

Again, your whole argument is a category error: you cannot cite the non-existence of a conflict to resolve a conflict, unless you use massive equivocation of your terms.

Published: February 6, 2008 10:31 AM
Jesse

There's no more reason to consider homesteading of "audible frequencies" any more valid than homesteading of EM frequencies. The effect you're looking for is the result of self-ownership, in this case your property right in your ears, which are affected when others use their property to create waves in the air. When moving in to an environment (such as a crowded, noisy restaurant) you are a latecomer and must accept the existing level of noise; social convention would also suggest that the proprietor should be the one to deal with any particularly boisterous individuals. However, in the event that he or she neglects that role, those individuals are trespassing on your property and may be dealt with accordingly.

The same principle applies perfectly well to the relationship between any of your property which happens to be sensitive to radio emissions and those operating radio transmitters in your area.

Published: February 6, 2008 12:22 PM
Fred Mann

"You *already except* that talking over someone, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT CAN DESTROY INFORMATION, cannot by itself be a property right. "

No. As I just posted above: "There is no "jamming" in speech in the same sense as there is jamming in radio. We can all pick out conversation even if the ambient conversation of others is at roughly the same level." But it is certainly possible (I don't think this person exists in reality) that someone could speak so loud as to actually drown out all conversation in a given area. In this case, he *may* be violating my property rights. Again, all areas of the EM spectrum are homesteadable. Whether or not a violation occurs (i.e. the RTU has been exceeded) is a different issue than whether or not a portion of spectrum is ownable. And we are talking about what is and is not ownable.

"Since when can destroying "non-scarce", non-physical "information" become somehow a rights violation?"

We are not talking about destroying "non scarce non-physical information". We are talking about the destruction of a wave - a real physical phenomenon. The EM spectrum physically exists. Waves aren't "information", they CARRY information. Your computer monitor isn't the words you're currently reading - it is projecting them. The computer monitor is a scarce resource, the words are not. All of your arguments are variations on conflating the two.

"When you create an idea, you are also perturbing a "field" "

Certainly the creation and consideration of ideas has some physical analog in the brain. But if I think of the same idea, it does not in any way interfere with the perturbations in your brain.

"Keep in mind, your attempt to differentiate is not based on mere physical facts about the physics of electromagnetic fields, since you already accept that infinite people can blast waves at any frequency."

No. As I said above, the EM spectrum is real and rivalrous. Ideas are abstract and not rivalrous. If I use an idea, you can use the same idea and it does not affect the integrity of my idea. There is no detectable alteration. This is not the case in broadcasting. Do you really not see the difference? It is a HUGE difference.

"You are characterizing a "conflict" because of how *desires* about information transmission conflict. And desires conflict just the same in IP."

First of all, please spend a little more time on composition. These sentences are hard to read. Secondly, I do not ever mention desires. Something is ownable if it can not be used by two or more people without being altered or destroyed. Of course, the RTU issue is a caveat -- a limit on property rights. For example, *some* interference in the EM spectrum must be allowed (flicking a light switch causes an RF burst). But this does not change the fundamental facts behind what can, and what can not be owned.

" Then retact your use of Rothbard, who considers air scarce, and believes scarcity arises the moment more than one person wants something."

Rothbard is right on some things and wrong on others (i.e. copyrights), so I am free to use his concept of RTU and reject his support for IP. This is just basic logic.
Secondly, things are scarce/rivalrous/ownable whether or not someone wants them. The Sphinx was scarce and *ownable* even while it was buried in the sand an not known to exist. Ownability is a quality inherrent in a thing. And again, a thing is ownable ONLY if it can not be used by two or more people without being altered or destroyed. Desires and wants are irrelevant in determining whether or not something can be property.

Published: February 6, 2008 12:31 PM
Jesse

Fred Mann: Actually, with the use of a couple of well-separated directional antennas you can pick up the signal from a specific omni-directional transmitter regardless of how many other transmitters there might be on the same frequency -- consider the way radio telescopes can pick out the signal from a specific location amid a multitude of competing signals in the same band. Ergo, multiple transmitters in the same area of the EM spectrum do not interfere with each other. Ergo, the EM spectrum is not rivalrous.

Published: February 6, 2008 12:47 PM
Person

Fred_Mann: "No. As I just posted above: ..."

Yes, I read that and I thought you were smart enough to see the error. I talk in bars all the time. The ambient noise is enough for me not to hear a lot of what people say. Where is the rights violation? Nowhere. Your attempt to shoo this away because you fantasize that information can still be extracted, is in error.

"The EM spectrum physically exists. "

The EM spectrum is a scientific abstraction used to account for various physical phenomena. Those phenomena exist, but "the EM spectrum" as such has no physical presence. Not that that necessarily affects our arguments.

"Waves aren't "information", they CARRY information. "

Correct, and the probem is that you're not just arguing for the right to transmit radio waves (which, again, everyone can do at the same time), but the right TO HAVE YOUR WAVES CONTAIN THE INFORMATION YOU WANT THEM TO.

Again, where does this right come from? Why should anyone have the right to have his waves have that property (that of containing his information extractably)? And how do you argue for this right without also justifying the right to have his intellectual works contain the property of "exclusivity"?

"The computer monitor is a scarce resource, the words are not. All of your arguments are variations on conflating the two."

Right, and:

The information-carrying capacity of frequenciees is a scarce resource, the capacity to transmit *some* wave is not. All your arguments are variations on conflating the two.

"Certainly the creation and consideration of ideas has some physical analog in the brain. But if I think of the same idea, it does not in any way interfere with the perturbations in your brain."

Good thing pro-IP-ers aren't disputing your right to think the same thoughts, just to instantiate them in the world in such a way that they reach others' brains!

"No. As I said above, the EM spectrum is real and rivalrous. Ideas are abstract and not rivalrous."

SOME aspects of the EM spectrum are rivalrous, while others are not.

rivalrous: information-transmission capacity

not: wave-creation capacity

Some aspects of the idea-space are rivalrous and others are not:

rivalrous: someone's exclusive instantiation of an idea

not: someone's instantiation of an idea

"Secondly, I do not ever mention desires. Something is ownable if it can not be used by two or more people without being altered or destroyed"

The 'capability of being the only one to publish an idea' cannot be used by two or more people without being altered or destroyed.

Is it therefore ownable?

"Secondly, things are scarce/rivalrous/ownable whether or not someone wants them"

So, the air is scarce then? Can I own some of the atmosphere and restrict you from breathing my part?

Published: February 6, 2008 12:58 PM
Fred Mann

"Ergo, multiple transmitters in the same area of the EM spectrum do not interfere with each other. "

Technology always dictates the *degree* to which something is scarce, but not the scarcity/rivlarousness itself. Unless resolution is *infinite* (i.e. the antennae can pick out one of two transmitters a fraction of an inch apart from a distance of 5,000 miles or more), then there is some degree of scarcity/rivalrousness.

Published: February 6, 2008 1:01 PM
Fred Mann

Well, I waited almost an hour so I'm reposting. Maybe this will be a duplicate, maybe not....

"Ergo, multiple transmitters in the same area of the EM spectrum do not interfere with each other. "

Technology always dictates the *degree* to which something is scarce, but not the scarcity/rivlarousness itself. Unless resolution is *infinite* (i.e. the antennae can pick out one of two transmitters a fraction of an inch apart from a distance of 5,000 miles or more), then there is some degree of scarcity/rivalrousness.

Also Jesse, when you say we must accept the background noise at a restaurant, I agree. But isn't this just another way of saying that a certain level of noise was homesteaded? If so, can we homestead something that we can't own?

Published: February 6, 2008 1:25 PM
Jesse

Fred Mann: "Unless resolution is *infinite*..., then there is some degree of scarcity/rivalrousness."

Resolution is essentially infinite; for any two (theoretical) transmitters there exists a theoretical receiver design which could separate the signals. Obviously the level of precision required is not generally practical -- but at the same time, it is not generally practical to locate two transmitters within 1/2" of each other.

In any event the reason transmissions are not rivalrous has little to do with whether the signals can be efficiently separated, and more to do with the fact that one person's transmissions do not affect the operation of someone else's transmitter. Consider: if there are no receivers present, then it is (by definition) impossible to even detect the presence of either transmitter, much less any "jamming" effect.

Fred Mann: "But isn't this just another way of saying that a certain level of noise was homesteaded?"

No, not at all. When you homestead property you homestead the right to use it in a particular way. Normally this results in exclusive use, but only because any use by others would interfere with the use you homesteaded. Afterward no one can force you to stop using it in that way. If you homestead property which is affected the prior claim takes precedence in any case where the two may conflict. E.g. if you homestead land to build a home you effectively have absolute authority over it against any latecomer, but cannot force the existing railroad operator to stop sending trains over the adjacent tracks, because their claim was homesteaded first.

The choice of a restaurant for an example was probably wrong, for two reasons: (a) sounds in a restaurant don't extend significantly outside the restaurant; and (b) what sound people can make in the restaurant, and what other must accept from their fellow customers, is determined by the proprietor, who owns the restaurant and thus the space it encloses. The EM spectrum is much closer to an outside sound source like the train, where the emissions cross the boundary between separately-owned properties.

Published: February 6, 2008 3:00 PM
Person

That's what I thought, Fred_Mann.

Published: February 7, 2008 1:22 PM
nick gray

PERSON_ I think the right to use a band of radio-waves should be licenced by the local public counties, since they own the roads, and should have the same rights as any land-holder to decide what passes over their domains. This is one way to settle this issue- private monarchies (each of us ruling the land we own) and public democracies, ruling the common 'public' properties.

Published: February 7, 2008 6:13 PM
Fred Mann

"That's what I thought, Fred_Mann."

Ha ha. You had me at "idea-space". That's a good one!!

But anyway, since the "capability to be the only person allowed to READ your books in a given area is also 'scarce"', someone can claim it and then you will have difficulties selling books in that area. And if you could own the "capability to be the only person to publish an idea", then presumably someone could own the right to read it, distribute/transport it, or print it on a certain type of paper, or with a certain type of ink, or record it in audio, etc. Or one could own the capability of being the only person allowed to write a book that begins with the letter "P"... or read said books. Absurdities abound.
Of course this is all complete nonsense. We are only concerned with the rivalrousness that is INHERENT in things. If we could, by force of will, control the rivalrousness of things (as your definition allows -- just fill in the blank and you have instant rivalrousness), then we would have no need for property rights.

It is very clear that ideas have no inherent rivalrousness. Everyone can use them without destroying or altering them. PERIOD. This is crystal clear and not debatable.

"Remember, once the moment two people's desires conflict, there is conflict and therefore scarcity."

Nope. I like the color blue. You don't like the color blue. There is no scarcity.
I dealt with your attempts to say " there is 'scarcity' in the ability to simultaneously satisfy two conflicting desires" a couple of years ago here: http://blog.mises.org/archives/005196.asp , and wrapped it up here http://blog.mises.org/archives/005713.asp . It is literal nonsense. Your definition of "scarcity" turns the word into a non-modifying adjective -- a literally meaningless utterance.

"Why should anyone have the right to have his waves have that property (that of containing his information extractably)? And how do you argue for this right without also justifying the right to have his intellectual works contain the property of "exclusivity"?"

When you own property, you acquire the right to restrict access, and the right to have said property remain unmolested. BUT, you must FIRST acquire the property!! And again, we can not own things that are not inherrently rivalrous. So, when you say someone should have "... the right to have his intellectual works contain the property of "exclusivity .." , you are making a question-begging assumption -- i.e. that the ideas are ownable ( ..."*HIS* intellectual works ..."). But they are not, so you don't have a case.

"So, the air is scarce then? Can I own some of the atmosphere and restrict you from breathing my part?"

Of course. As I said above, the supply of breatheable air is not actually infinite. Therefore it is inherently rivalrous. But, from our perspective, it is *effectively* infinite, so there are no money prices for air at this point in time. And yes, you can enclose some of the atmosphere and prevent me from breathing it. If you make your home airtight, you have effectively done this. And I wish you would.

Published: February 9, 2008 8:04 PM
Fred Mann

"That's what I thought, Fred_Mann."

Ha ha. You had me at "idea-space". That's a good one!!

But anyway, since the "capability to be the only person allowed to READ your books in a given area is also 'scarce"', someone can claim it and then you will have difficulties selling books in that area. And if you could own the "capability to be the only person to publish an idea", then presumably someone could own the right to read it, distribute/transport it, or print it on a certain type of paper, or with a certain type of ink, or record it in audio, etc. Or one could own the capability of being the only person allowed to write a book that begins with the letter "P"... or read said books. Absurdities abound.
Of course this is all complete nonsense. We are only concerned with the rivalrousness that is INHERENT in things. If we could, by force of will, control the rivalrousness of things (as your definition allows -- just fill in the blank and you have instant rivalrousness), then we would have no need for property rights.

It is very clear that ideas have no inherent rivalrousness. Everyone can use them without destroying or altering them. PERIOD. This is crystal clear and not debatable.

"Remember, once the moment two people's desires conflict, there is conflict and therefore scarcity."

Nope. I like the color blue. You don't like the color blue. There is no scarcity.
I dealt with your attempts to say " there is 'scarcity' in the ability to simultaneously satisfy two conflicting desires" a couple of years ago here: http://blog.mises.org/archives/005196.asp , and wrapped it up here http://blog.mises.org/archives/005713.asp . It is literal nonsense. Your definition of "scarcity" turns the word into a non-modifying adjective -- a literally meaningless utterance.

"Why should anyone have the right to have his waves have that property (that of containing his information extractably)? And how do you argue for this right without also justifying the right to have his intellectual works contain the property of "exclusivity"?"

When you own property, you acquire the right to restrict access, and the right to have said property remain unmolested. BUT, you must FIRST acquire the property!! And again, we can not own things that are not inherrently rivalrous. So, when you say someone should have "... the right to have his intellectual works contain the property of "exclusivity .." , you are making a question-begging assumption -- i.e. that the ideas are ownable ( ..."*HIS* intellectual works ..."). But they are not, so you don't have a case.

"So, the air is scarce then? Can I own some of the atmosphere and restrict you from breathing my part?"

Of course. As I said above, the supply of breatheable air is not actually infinite. Therefore it is inherently rivalrous. But, from our perspective, it is *effectively* infinite, so there are no money prices for air at this point in time. And yes, you can enclose some of the atmosphere and prevent me from breathing it. If you make your home airtight, you have effectively done this. And I wish you would.

Published: February 9, 2008 8:18 PM
Fred Mann

Third attempt at posting this....

"That's what I thought, Fred_Mann."

Ha ha. You had me at "idea-space". That's a good one!!

But anyway, since the "capability to be the only person allowed to READ your books in a given area is also 'scarce"', someone can claim it and then you will have difficulties selling books in that area. And if you could own the "capability to be the only person to publish an idea", then presumably someone could own the right to read it, distribute/transport it, or print it on a certain type of paper, or with a certain type of ink, or record it in audio, etc. Or one could own the capability of being the only person allowed to write a book that begins with the letter "P"... or read said books. Absurdities abound.
Of course this is all complete nonsense. We are only concerned with the rivalrousness that is INHERENT in things. If we could, by force of will, control the rivalrousness of things (as your definition allows -- just fill in the blank and you have instant rivalrousness), then we would have no need for property rights.

It is very clear that ideas have no inherent rivalrousness. Everyone can use them without destroying or altering them. PERIOD. This is crystal clear and not debatable.

"Remember, once the moment two people's desires conflict, there is conflict and therefore scarcity."

Nope. I like the color blue. You don't like the color blue. There is no scarcity.
I dealt with your attempts to say " there is 'scarcity' in the ability to simultaneously satisfy two conflicting desires" a couple of years ago here: http://blog.mises.org/archives/005196.asp , and wrapped it up here http://blog.mises.org/archives/005713.asp . It is literal nonsense. Your definition of "scarcity" turns the word into a non-modifying adjective -- a literally meaningless utterance.

"Why should anyone have the right to have his waves have that property (that of containing his information extractably)? And how do you argue for this right without also justifying the right to have his intellectual works contain the property of "exclusivity"?"

When you own property, you acquire the right to restrict access, and the right to have said property remain unmolested. BUT, you must FIRST acquire the property!! And again, we can not own things that are not inherrently rivalrous. So, when you say someone should have "... the right to have his intellectual works contain the property of "exclusivity .." , you are making a question-begging assumption -- i.e. that the ideas are ownable ( ..."*HIS* intellectual works ..."). But they are not, so you don't have a case.

"So, the air is scarce then? Can I own some of the atmosphere and restrict you from breathing my part?"

Of course. As I said above, the supply of breatheable air is not actually infinite. Therefore it is inherently rivalrous. But, from our perspective, it is *effectively* infinite, so there are no money prices for air at this point in time. And yes, you can enclose some of the atmosphere and prevent me from breathing it. If you make your home airtight, you have effectively done this. And I wish you would.

Published: February 9, 2008 11:37 PM
Person

Fred_Mann: You made the same point several times, so let me see if I can directly address that.

You claim that it's *not* an inherent aspect of reality that IP is scarce, while radio waves are. This is in error. It is, in fact, an inherent aspect of reality that no more than one person may (across a given area) have the exclusive legal right to form things into a given pattern (i.e. instantiate an idea). That is inherent because of the rules of logic, which are, of course, an aspect of reality. Just like how it's an inherent aspect of reality that information cannot be extracted if multiple people's transmitters use the same frequency.

Yes, this does mean there can be scarcity in anything. So what? The purpose of property rights is to resolve these conflicts in someone's favor so that people can have well-grounded expectations for what they can do. (Uebrigens, "I like blue"; "you don't like blue" is not a conflict in the sense we were both using it before. It's physically possible for me to like blue and you not to like blue. For it to be a conflict, it would have to be something like, "I want that thing to be blue"; "you don't want it to be blue".)

Now, to address your refutation of it: from the fact that it is not logically possible for two people to have the *exclusive* legal right to gesticulate in the same way (whether that be making a specific picture or transmitting a specific frequency), it does not follow that anyone *at all* should have that right exclusively. I have never said anything to the contrary (despite your implications), so on this point, you and I agree. The problem is, however, that this same point cuts against ownership of radio frequencies as well. Yes, someone may want the exclusive legal right to transmit at a given frequency -- but that in no way justifies his right.

Yes, he gets some benefit from being exclusive. So what? I get a benefit from my idea being exclusive to me (i.e. having the exclusive legal right to use that idea) too. What privileges the radio transmitter's DESIRE for others to be able to extract information from what he transmits?

"Nature" as such, does not favor either. It only becomes a conflict when people *want* radio waves not merely for blasting into the ether, but for information conveyance. But people can also *want* idea usage for, say, "the promotion of the arts" or whatnot, and thereby have a use for ideas being exclusive to one person.

Published: February 10, 2008 4:30 PM
Fred Mann

"The problem is, however, that this same point cuts against ownership of radio frequencies as well. Yes, someone may want the exclusive legal right to transmit at a given frequency -- but that in no way justifies his right."

I am not talking about owning "rights" or "capabilites" or even waves, per se. In the case of radio, the thing being owned is a sliver of the EM spectrum. It is somewhat analagous to a road. When we own a road, we decide what travels down it. In the case of the EM spectrum, we could have a broadcast travelling down the "road", or, the "road" could have nothing on it -- dead air.
We don't *own* rights or capabilities. These things arise FROM ownership. Once we own something, THEN we have rights regarding the use of that thing ... including the right to exclude. We can't just homestead "the capability to exclude", as if it were some free-floating entity.

Published: February 12, 2008 5:24 PM
Person

Fred_Mann: Now you're just introducing a circularity. People can only own certain kinds of things, because they can only own certain kinds of things. Oh, um, uh, well, you can own this kind of thing, cause, uh, it's analagous to a road. Or something.

What is your unifying concept that defines, in abstract terms, what kinds of things are ownable? What *characteristics* cause a thing to be ownable? Why only physical things? What *things* are (arbitrarily) part of your consideration set? Etc. You're introducing arbitrary assumptions, which are already equivalent to your conclusion.

Published: February 13, 2008 10:56 AM
Fred Mann

I was simply responding to your assertion that we can't make the case that one can have property rights in radio without simultaneously justifying property rights in ideas. But this is false. When we talk about property rights in radio, we are actually talking about owning the "medium" through which the waves travel, and not the waves themselves. The medium is a real thing that actually exists, is measurable, and would continue to exist without humans ... unlike ideas. So, that would be the caveat -- we can own real things, and not abstract things.

Published: February 14, 2008 8:59 PM
Julien Couvreur

@Nick_gray
As an inventor, there would be two competing aspects of wanting to stay in a country which does not have patents for example.
On one hand, your inventions are harder to defend against copycats. On the other hand, there is less friction when you want to leverage others inventions.

Being a software engineer and with the limited power of my imagination, at this point, I would lean towards staying in such a country.
I could understand if a pharmaceutical researcher could feel differently.

That said, even the lack of patents made me less likely to write innovative software in that country, who is to say that is a bad thing? As George_Gaskell pointed above, who is to tell what the "right" level of innovation in a sector should be?

Published: March 3, 2009 12:47 AM

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Are Copyrights and Patents Property Rights?

Comments (89)

Blog Search

Blog Archives

Salamanca Live Blog

LvMI on Facebook

Inside Links

Students

Journals

Outside Links

More Aids

The Quotable Mises

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Are Copyrights and Patents Property Rights?

Comments (89)

Blog Search

Subscribe

Blog Archives

Salamanca Live Blog

LvMI on Facebook

Inside Links

Students

Journals

Outside Links

More Aids

The Quotable Mises