IP Debate on Free Talk Live
On the July 24, 2008 show of Free Talk Live, the excellent libertarian radio program, there was a lively and interesting IP discussion between host Ian and three callers, on the anti-IP side, and host Mark, on the mildly pro-IP side. It's interesting to see the sincere but confused and fumbling host Mark utterly unable to articulate a coherent defense, or even definition, of IP, especially in response to intelligent criticism by his callers. Anyway, the show is good and Mark and Ian are both great.
The recorded show (28M MP3) is about 2 hours long; the IP discussion starts at the 1:21:14 (or so) mark.
Comments (27)
I absolutely love the show and am admittedly addicted. Besides a short break from it late last year I've listened to every show the past 2 1/2 years. It's great when people call after only listening a short time that have gone from liberal/conservative and now realize the state is pure violence.
It's entertaining and intellectual at the same time. A very unique thing in the movement.
Published: July 26, 2008 1:43 AM
The caller at the end totally dominated the defender of IP. 'It seems wrong" lol
Published: July 26, 2008 2:48 AM
I was one of the callers and tried to address Mark's pro-IP position. To be fair, he does not seem to favor the current statist order, which is good. However, when we talk about the market and a free society, we favor such things for a reason. That is, we envision a society without the systematic abolition and infringement of our rights, primarily by the state. Thus, if this theory has to be applied coherently and fully, and it leads us to the conclusion that intellectual property rights are artificial state-granted pattern monopolies, then it follows that in a free market this should not exist nor should it be enforced. So while Mark is not in favor of the government enforcing these rights (good), he still favors a market-based IP system (not good).
As a final note, I would like to note that Mark is an excellent libertarian (far better than any of the often watered down libertarians on the LP). IP is just one of the (very few) issues where we disagree.
Published: July 26, 2008 8:20 AM
So, let me see if I can get this straight: it was interesting to see a sincere but fumbling defense of IP by this talk show host, but when I repeatedly given a sincere, articulate defense of IP, that's not interesting.
Is that about right?
Published: July 26, 2008 9:14 AM
When did you give a sincere and articulate defence of ip?
Published: July 26, 2008 9:36 AM
Person suffers from delusions of grandeur. Pay him little heed.
Published: July 26, 2008 9:42 AM
"when I repeatedly given a sincere, articulate defense of IP"
Not in these forums.
Wait, that's not quite correct. I have no doubt you were being sincere.
Published: July 26, 2008 2:39 PM
How interesting that Free Talk Live gets mentioned here. I've been thinking lately about how FTL represents a sort of common sense, down-to-earth, almost anti-intellectual libertarianism, while the Mises Institute represents the highly intellectual side. While I am very much an intellectual, I appreciate FTL's place in the liberty movement and I listen every day. It's mostly great stuff.
Published: July 26, 2008 3:19 PM
How would the free market work in lieu of a patent system? An insurance company would surely lose money trying to protect a single idea. Has their ever been a "reputation system" that anarcho-capitalists are so quick to bring up?
Published: July 27, 2008 12:12 AM
"How interesting that Free Talk Live gets mentioned here. I've been thinking lately about how FTL represents a sort of common sense, down-to-earth, almost anti-intellectual libertarianism, while the Mises Institute represents the highly intellectual side. While I am very much an intellectual, I appreciate FTL's place in the liberty movement and I listen every day. It's mostly great stuff."
Ian once dismissed the Mises Institute as too scholarly for him, but I think he didn't know much about it at the time. I later heard him read a mises.org article on air about Somalia and the Somali's resistance to a central government.
Published: July 27, 2008 4:00 AM
Having listened to the show, thanks for the link, I must say I am unconvinced by the pro-IP argument: "Big budget Hollywood movies wouldn't be made."
Considering the abuses and absurdities of what patent and copyright have fostered, even _if_ such things did not get made (and I see no reason they would not, just as dams, bridges and roads were built privately) the balance is positive.
Marcello, have you heard the term "The Real McCoy" to denote something that is genuine or original? The McCoy bearing oiler was copied far and wide, but the company came up with an advertising slogan "The Real McCoy" to counter it, and it entered our language.
When JRRTolkien's LotR was published in England, there was no American publisher. "Pirated" copies were circulated, copied, even sold. When the American publisher was signed up, Tolkien made a plea to those who had shown they loved the story, to buy "authentic" copies rather than the "pirate" copies. It worked.
Right now, there is a huge community of "fan-subtitlers" for Japanese cartoons. Some shows are known in English only by the work (and copying) by these fans. When a show is licensed in English, the fans stop copying/distributing their work. Those who do try to distribute licensed titles are shunned, thrown out of conventions, etc.
I talked to one of the members of "The Ranma Project" who said that when executives of Pony (I think) saw their work, it was so good they wanted to hire the _Fans_ rather than a professional company to do the English language version!
Around 1995, Compaq Computers stopped trying to compete with Dell, Gateway and the other commodity PC builders. Instead, they raised their prices by about 25% and made the claim that they were special. Indeed, there were some tools that Compaq included that were not on other systems, and Compaq had always been just enough non-standard to be annoying to us geeks. But they leveraged "reputation" and made some very good money doing so.
Is simple "reputation" powerful enough to recreate the kind of iron-clad protections against copying that law provides? (as if people don't copy now just because of the law...) I don't think so. But it will also not have the idiocies and abuses that the system has fostered.
Time to market, innovation, fulfilling the needs of ones customers. These will become the difference between success and failure, rather than being able to play the lawyer/court game better than other, more productive, people.
Published: July 27, 2008 8:37 AM
Having listened to the show, thanks for the link, I must say I am unconvinced by the pro-property argument: "Large scale investment wouldn't be made."
Considering the abuses and absurdities of what property law has fostered, even _if_ such things did not get made (and I see no reason they would not, just as communes are capable of production) the balance is positive.
...
When BMW set up its first factory in America, it hadn't paid off the right communes. Armed gangs took over the factory. "Pirate" BMWs were circulated, copied, even sold. When BMW regained control, its CEO made a plea to those who had shown they loved BMWs, to buy "authentic" BMWs rather than the ones churned out during the occupation. It worked.
...
Is simple "charity" powerful enough to recreate the kind of iron-clad protections against seizing factories that property law provides? (as if people don't steal stuff now just because of the law...) I don't think so. But it will also not have the idiocies and abuses that the property rights system has fostered.
Time to market, innovation, fulfilling the needs of ones customers. These will become the difference between success and failure, rather than being able to play the lawyer/court game better than other, more productive, people.
***
See Curt, I can rationalize too.
Published: July 27, 2008 3:42 PM
Person, did you have any actual point to make? I've read your post three times, and I just can't find anything in it that makes any sense what so ever (that I didn't write first).
Published: July 27, 2008 4:24 PM
Curt, I don't give a crap about copyrights. I want to know how does an anarcho-capitalist protect patents in a free market.
Published: July 27, 2008 6:47 PM
Anyone who supports patents is either a privileged patent holder or just ignorant of how patents suppress entrepreneurs in favor of the cartelized big business. In the software industry, patents are cartelized by monopolies such as Microsoft, IBM, Cisco, Apple, Google and they do not sue each other even though they violate each other's patents because of mutual deterrence of patents. They use these patents as weapons against new software firms and smaller competitors. It is impossible to start a software firm without filing a portfolio of patents because they would sue you.
As for copyright, the definition is a legal privilege from the state for copyright holders to prohibit redistribution. Movies would still be made without copyright because the movie theatres would prohibit copying by banning cell phones and video cameras by using stricter measures such as metal detectors. The real reason of why movies are expensive is because of licensing requirements.
Published: July 27, 2008 7:48 PM
Curt: The (obvious) point was that your arguments apply just the same to regular property rights. So are you going to follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion and start advocating against property rights?
*grabs popcorn*
Published: July 27, 2008 11:00 PM
I do remember giving a ye anciente real example of private copyright - an Aboriginal man who was privileged to paint a certain story on bark could kill another who copied his story painting without permission. But would Libertarians argue that Microsoft was 'initiating force' if certain hired staff (at Microsoft's expense and assuming there's no government) kicked the crap out of any one caught with pirated Microsoft software?
Published: July 28, 2008 1:04 AM
"Marcello: I don't give a crap about copyrights. I want to know how does an anarcho-capitalist protect patents in a free market."
We wouldn't. A patent is one of the vestiges of mercantilism which anarcho-capitalism would abolish. In a free market, the original producer might profit exclusively for a while on the basis of having come up with it first. But after other people catch on, they must earn their profits by being excellent, not by having been first.
Published: July 28, 2008 7:41 AM
"Person: The (obvious) point was that your arguments apply just the same to regular property rights. So are you going to follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion and start advocating against property rights?"
The conclusion you have drawn is not logical. Property can only be held in things which are scarce. Ideas aren't scarce; they are superabundant. You own an idea only so long as it is in your head and nowhere else.
Published: July 28, 2008 7:50 AM
Marcello: "I want to know how does an anarcho-capitalist protect patents in a free market."
In a patent-free market, I think there would be more effort on the part of manufacturers to protect their interests through technology. Software companies would more closely guard their source code. DVD manufacturers would employ stronger encryption methods to prevent bootlegging. Those who believed that someone else had copied their ideas would actually have to prove it. Manufacturers would be forced to expend resources protecting themselves, rather than shift the costs of doing so to taxpayers.
Published: July 28, 2008 9:19 AM
MacFall: Let's see if we can read my posts in context, okay? Curt Howland made a specific argument against IP. I was responding to that argument. I pointed out that the same reasoning that he used works against regular property rights.
It's great that you think ideas aren't scarce and that this somehow justifies no IP ever. But what we're looking for is a response to my reduction of Curt's arguments. Could you explain why the specific argument he made, *can't* be expanded, as I did, to regular property? Again, refer only to the differentiations in his post.
As for you general point that the non-scarcity of ideas justifies no IP ever, I've address that countless times here. If you want to say something useful, explain why you support rights in radio waves even though "formation of a pattern that emits at a specific frequency" is not scarce.
Published: July 28, 2008 10:02 AM
Person,
Your defense of IP, C&T, etc., is based on the premise that government-created "property rights" are the same thing as actual property rights. You labor under the misconception that property rights only exist because government confers them upon certain individuals. You seem unwilling to consider that property rights preexist government, and that governments are created as a mechanism to enforce them. If, in fact, property rights were a fabrication of government, then they could hardly be called "rights". They are, rather, a "privilege" granted by government, and are therefore subject at all times to the whims of bureaucracy and/or the majority. This is anathema to the libertarian concept of property rights, which is why libertarians do not defend government-created "rights".
Also, in answer to your query concerning radio waves, you are correct that the "[ability to form] a pattern that emits at a specific frequency" is not scarce; however, the airspace in which they can be broadcast are indeed scarce. If you and I each attempt to broadcast at the same frequency within a certain range of one another, either neither signal will be clearly received, or the more powerful signal will suppress the less powerful (in which case, the less powerful signal will still show up as "noise" on the frequency). It is, therefore, perfectly legitimate to assume the existence of property rights in radio waves. This does not, however, in any way necessitate the existence of the FCC, as the rights to broadcast at a given frequency within a certain geographical area could certainly be traded in a free market. Just as a private organization was formed to perform this exact function with regard to internet URLs, a private organization could easily manage the ownership of frequencies by location.
Published: July 28, 2008 2:00 PM
Ron:
Wrong. I absolutely agree that property rights predate government and exist independently of it. I simply claim that the same holds for *intellectual* property rights. There is nothing I've ever said, btw, that substantiates your claim here; you just made it up in ignorance of everything I've posted on this blog. (On C&T, let's not forget, my point was just that there's no clear libertarian way to handle pollution that I've ever seen presented, except for truly absurd ones that either ban all pollution, or permit all pollution. But I do need to check the responses on that post, thanks for the reminder.)
I'm sorry, were you somehow under the impression that I wasn't aware of this technological fact? Or the rationalization you just gave about how it somehow justifies telling ME what I can do with MY OWN PROPERTY?
I've conclusively refuted your exact rationalization here several times over, and I needn't do it again. Just check out my exchange with Stephan Kinsella here. When push comes to shove, he freely admits that the entire libertarian case for fake government monopolies on radio waves, rests on -- wait for it -- the nebulous concept of what the "relevant use" for something is.
Game, set, match.
Published: July 28, 2008 2:58 PM
Ron: My last response got eaten because of too many links, but let me try again. Short version:
-No, I never assume anywhere that property rights e.g. exist purely because of the state. All I'm claiming is that the very same arguments for indpendence of property rights can apply just as well to *intellectual* property rights.
-I already understand the technological facts of the radio spectrum. Please give me a little credit here. I'm also intimately familiar with the "interference" rationalization, and have refuted it several times over by now. Refer to this thread:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007561.asp
Published: July 28, 2008 3:49 PM
Person: "As for you general point that the non-scarcity of ideas justifies no IP ever, I've address that countless times here. If you want to say something useful, explain why you support rights in radio waves even though "formation of a pattern that emits at a specific frequency" is not scarce."
Well that's easy - IT IS SCARCE. It is a physical phenomenon that can be transformed by other physical phenomena into a productive good - i.e., property. Ideas aren't. They do not exist in any physical sense. They cannot be controlled (other than by destroying the minds that hold them, which is a violation of rights in and of itself), hence they cannot be owned. The only just form of control which can be exerted over ideas is persuasion without coercion. In other words, you have to "do it better" than the other guy.
Published: July 28, 2008 8:08 PM
MacFall: I'm not going to repeat myself. That attempt at an argument is addressed in-depth in the link.
Published: July 29, 2008 8:12 AM
Okay, good news guys: I've consolidated my damning argument and put in one convenient posting on my blog where anyone can throw their best comments. Have at it!
The shortest, safest libertarian case for IP.
Published: July 29, 2008 12:36 PM