A Book that Changes Everything
With piracy and struggles over intellectual property in the news daily, it is time to wonder about this issue, its relationship to freedom, property rights, and efficiency. You have to think seriously about where you stand. Read Against Intellectual Monopoly (Cambridge University Press, 2008) by Michele Boldrin and David Levine, two daring professors of economics at Washington University in St. Louis. They have written a book that is likely to rock your world, as it has mine. FULL ARTICLE
Bookmark/Share
|
Comments (324)
Comments (324)
ktibuk
"Their main thesis is a seemingly simple one. Copyright and patents are not part of the natural competitive order. They are products of positive law and legislation, imposed at the behest of market winners as a means of excluding competition. They are government grants of monopolies, and, as neoclassical economists with a promarket disposition, the authors are against monopoly because it raises prices, generates economic stagnation, inhibits innovation, robs consumers, and rewards special interests."
Of course the main thesis is simple.
It is called socialism.
Many socialist have been saying the same thingd for ages.
Private property is not part of natural competitive order, that private property titles (like land titles) are positive government grants of monopolies. That everything would be so peachy if there was no private property.
But thank god there have been and there still are rational people that refutes these socialist nonsense.
Published: January 16, 2009 6:33 AM
theblob
ktibuk, I think you are confused by the name "intellectual property".
If there was a way to clone your porsche with almost no cost, no libertarian would call that theft.
Published: January 16, 2009 7:07 AM
keijo
to ktibuk:
Read the book! Intellectual property is not a part of private property, it's in fact something that prevents you from having any real property.
With regular property, land for instance, you can choose to do anything you like once you own it. It may be split, sold, cultivated etc. But your property, once it has intellectual property rights, may not be copied, sold or improved. The state will use force to prevent one from doing this.
The question is if IP protected property can be classified as property at all. Shouldn't one be able to use ones property in any way one sees fit, as long as it doesn't damage other peoples property.
Published: January 16, 2009 7:15 AM
ktibuk
First of all, how do you know I own a Porsche?
And second of all, "I" get to decide who could or could not clone "my" Porsche. If I don't have a say in it that means not I but society owns it. Hence socialism.
Published: January 16, 2009 7:17 AM
newson
i found the book a marvelous introduction into the libertarian view of ip. convinced me, coming from a position of agnosticism/ignorance, as i was.
Published: January 16, 2009 7:26 AM
Inquisitor
Ktibuk, you seem to conveniently ignore that ideas are not scarce, which is to say no matter how an idea is "used", by no matter how many people, it remains... non-scarce. So why are property rights being assigned to things that are, non-scarce? One need not be a socialist to think certain things simply are not the proper objects of appropriation...
Published: January 16, 2009 7:29 AM
David Hamill
It's somewhat disingenuous to encourage people to buy this book via your website but not tell them that they can download the full book as a free PDF file from the authors' website -- unless I missed your announcement.
Out of courtesy I won't link to the online version, but it's not hard to find via a search engine.
Published: January 16, 2009 7:55 AM
jeffrey
Out of courtesy? I would put a copy in every mail box in the US if I could.
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm
I wonder if I should put up an announcement on the blog so that people will stop making strange comments that somehow imply that hard copy and pdf are substitutes and that we (of all people) have an incentive to hide information. On the contrary. This book should also be download and shared on every computer in the world. In fact, we tried to get Cambridge to let us host our own copy -- alas: IP!
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm
Published: January 16, 2009 8:00 AM
newson
well, kinsella had the link up earlier this year on a mises blog. and prior to him, roderick long gave out the link for the online version on another mises blog.
Published: January 16, 2009 8:10 AM
ktibuk
Inquisitor,
When it comes to IP socialism (arguing society owns IP), the argument from scarcity doesn't make any sense.
Any tangible good can be made economically non-scarce. If the matter of scarcity is prerequisite of property nothing can be owned since almost everything can be produced so abundantly that there wouldn't be rivalry.
This has been brought up before but it is necessary to bring it up again because many are fixated on the scarcity issue without understanding it.
If you build a theater with a capacity of 1000 seats in a town populated by 500 people, there wouldn't be any scarcity of theater seats (imagine seats are homogeneous). Now according to the argument from scarcity, if the theater seats aren't scarce and if there is no rivalry, these seats can not be property. Which is absurd since the the theater was once the property of the builder. And if the theater builder creates an artificial scarcity by not building a theater that big, but creates scarcity by building it for 100 people than he is condemned by these people.
Argument from scarcity makes sense only in the case of homesteading a nature given free good. But ideas aren't nature given and freely picked off from nature. They are created by people who should own them since nobody else is entitled to the fruit of the labor of someone else.
Current IP laws, especially patent laws maybe flawed but this doesn't mean there can not be private property when it comes to intellectual property.
Published: January 16, 2009 8:26 AM
jeffrey
ktibuk, I think you are confusing scarcity and shortage, or non-scarce and surplus.
Published: January 16, 2009 8:32 AM
ktibuk
Scarcity is, shortage of goods when it comes to satisfying everyones demand for a good.
Published: January 16, 2009 8:36 AM
jeffrey
Ok, kitibuk, that's wrong. Scarcity means the absence of unlimited supply. Whether markets have cleared or not at any particular time is irrelevant to this fundamental issue.
By the way, the book in question only touch on this level of theory briefly. Mostly it deals with practical issues and theory only insofar as it helps elucidate them
Published: January 16, 2009 8:47 AM
newson
bricks are scarce, cinema projectors are scarce, popcorn machines are scarce...
Published: January 16, 2009 8:49 AM
Franklin
Timlety discussion, as is often the case with the "Mises-ians." Provoked by Steve Jobs' illness and sabatical from Apple, PBS was running a brief (very brief) retrospective on the unpleasant brat last night. Not having patience to tolerate arrogance on my screen (which makes it hard to watch any TV at all) I was about to switch channels, but was not fast enough to see the clip of Jobs opining and whining about the dreadful contemporary problem of "...ideas being stolen..."
So interesting, isn't it? His buddy and arch-enemy (a paradox? No, it's U.S. business we're talking), Mr. Gates, made billions on his "idea" too, and does his utmost to stifle competition.
I hope my subtle but clumsy attempt at irony is yanked by the throat by most of my heroes -- you readers; Gates' is most famous for his "idea" -- a multi-window/panel display on our video screens. Wait a minute, wasn't that Apple's (Jobs') "idea"? Or was it the Xerox vision that he emulated? And which Xerox employee had the "idea" that the supposed boy-wonders intially saw and improved upon?
"...Intellectual property...."
"...Ideas being stolen..."
Rubbish, through and through.
Cheers.
F.
Published: January 16, 2009 8:57 AM
Smart Alec
I can reprint that book, right? Thanx.
Published: January 16, 2009 9:08 AM
jeffrey
Smart Alec isn't smart. Cambridge own the rights. Discuss amongst yourself.
Published: January 16, 2009 9:10 AM
Jeffrey G
Ideas can be property and I can prove it.
Suppose I have an idea that could make money. An entrepreneur is willing to pay me a sum to reveal that idea to him so he can put it into action and make money off of it. It is in his and my best interest to make a deal that involves the transfer of cash.
Suppose through some elaborate fraud, he tricked me into revealing that idea before the deal could be made. He no longer has any reason to pay me.
Before the fraud, I had something valuable to him. After the fraud, I didn't. Something was stolen. IP.
Published: January 16, 2009 9:16 AM
jeffrey
"some elaborate fraud" is fraud, not theft. The fall in the value of an idea is not theft; there are no property rights in values.
Published: January 16, 2009 9:21 AM
David Ch
ktibuk said:
'First of all, how do you know I own a Porsche?
And second of all, "I" get to decide who could or could not clone "my" Porsche. If I don't have a say in it that means not I but society owns it. Hence socialism.'
Response: Rubbish. If I have the technical knowledge in my head, and the equipment in my factory, to manufacture a car exactly like your porsche, who are you to tell me I can't? How are you going to stop me? And how does that impinge on your ownership of your porsche? You still have it, and all the benefits of owning it - other than, perhaps, the snob prestige of exclusivity - But thats not what you bought when you acquired all that steel and aluminium from the dealership.
If I own a secret formula that nobody else knows, I am quite at liberty to keep it under lock and key, and nobody else has the right to steal that piece of paper from my safe. If he does, that's theft and I have a right to seek redress. But if someone else either uses his intellect to infer the formula from analysing a sample of the product he buys honestly in the market, or if he arrives at that formiula independently, he has stolen nothing from me, and I have no right to stop him using the knowledge that now resides in his head as he sees fit.
Once someone has learnt something new and it's now wired into his neurons, no third party has any moral right to stop him acting on that knowledge. ( INcidentally, this is why casinos banning card-counters from blackjack tables on the grounds of cheating is also wrong - If a man can use the contents of his skull alone to understasnd th eodds sufficiently to win consistently against the dealer, without equipment or outside help, how can that possibly be cheating? thats the casino's problem, they must either not offer blackjack, or shut up and pay out. I digress)
Imagine if the use of fire had been patented and enforced! Scores of motor manufacturers have used the same basic internal combustion engine design for nearly a century - had the patent on the original design been rigidly enforced, how would the automotive industry have turned out during the 20th century? Id warrant far less choice and quality and innovation, and high costs - A tiny elite would probably be driving chronically expensive cars of the quality and sophistication of a 1956 Trabant, and the rest of us would not be able to afford cars at all.
Or, to really exspose the absurdity of your assertion, suppose Mr Heimlich had patented his famous manoevre because he thought of it first and deserved royalties on every life saved henceforth? Does this mean that if I can't afford to pay the royalty, I'm not allowed to save the choking restaurant patron sitting across from me?
Published: January 16, 2009 9:22 AM
Jeffrey G
You admit the idea has value, but I don't own it. Couldn't a judge force me to reveal it, since it is not mine? Why would it even be fraud for some one to trick me into revealing it, thus reducing the the value someone is willing to pay me for the idea to zero?
Published: January 16, 2009 9:28 AM
J Cortez
I happily and completely agree with Mr. Tucker's article. Through this book and Stephan Kinsella's work, I've come to the conclusion that intellectual property is a harmful idea. Michele Boldrin's and David Levine's book is excellent and I recommend it to everyone.
Published: January 16, 2009 9:29 AM
Mike
"You admit the idea has value, but I don't own it. Couldn't a judge force me to reveal it, since it is not mine? Why would it even be fraud for some one to trick me into revealing it, thus reducing the the value someone is willing to pay me for the idea to zero?"
Think long and hard about why forcing someone to reveal an idea is unjust. Hint: it has nothing to do with the value of the idea.
Published: January 16, 2009 9:36 AM
C. A. Hendon
See sections 3 & 4 of "'Free Enterprise' and Competitive Order", Individualism and Economic Order (1980 [1948]). The University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Pg. 107-118.
There, Hayek explicitly addresses this. I'm quite sure he did so in subsequent works as well, but this serves as a brief direct address of the matter in his earlier works. If one accepts the view that Hayek's work has a philosophical unity (as put forth by Dr. O'Driscoll), then the fact that Hayek raised the issue early in his writings, and continued to raise it, would serve as confirmation of a linkage between Hayekian epistemology & a skepticism toward patent, copyright, & trademark privilege.
Published: January 16, 2009 9:39 AM
parc
Why isn't there a link to read the book for free? This was my first thought? Clearly this man doesn't have a problem with that, to stay consistent I would think there is a free place to read it offered by the author. Anybody know where it is? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Published: January 16, 2009 9:54 AM
parc
I see where you'll placed a link. Comment retracted. I look forward to reading it. I think the Mises article should have included it. It seem outright silly and hypocritical to leave that out of the review. Any rational person would have wondered why we would have to go out and buy the book.
Published: January 16, 2009 9:59 AM
jeffrey
I've add http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm to the article. Not that this will stop people who don't read from making the same point again and again.
Published: January 16, 2009 10:00 AM
Alexander S. Peak
Smart Alec,
In accordance with natural law, you absolutely can (so long as you don't do anything fraudulent, like claim to your purchasers that someone other than the actual authors authored the book).
But, if you do this, that criminal gang we call the state, that criminal gang that has granted a mercantilist monopoly privilege to some entity, will come down upon you in the same way it comes down upon nonviolent drug users or nonviolent tax-evadors. These people, like the book copier, have done nothing wrong in accordance with natural law, but the national criminal gang cares not. It will come down upon you anyway--because it can.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
Published: January 16, 2009 10:13 AM
Pat
Parc, the link has been given in the previous comments (Just scroll down if you are at the top of the page).
Published: January 16, 2009 10:23 AM
SweetLiberty
You mention pharmaceutical companies in your article. I envision two scenarios:
Pharmaceutical company A decides to share their new drug – Drug X - with everyone upon inception, making it available to all. Immediately it is cloned and distributed generically and under varying brand names. Many consumers benefit and live longer from low prices on Drug X, but Pharm A cannot recoup the cost of R & D that went into making their product and goes bankrupt, preventing them from producing Drug Z in the future.
Pharmaceutical company B takes advantage of the existing IP laws which give them exclusive rights to Drug X for a year. They charge a premium for Drug X, and some consumers that cannot afford the initial expense parish. However, Pharm B makes a profit and reinvests that profit into making Drug Z, which benefits future consumers.
It is clear to me as an investor which company I would buy stock in. And for all those who think Pharmaceutical companies make exorbitant profits, invest you fools! Seriously, I would like to know what you could possible argue that would make investing in Pharm A a better option than investing in Pharm B.
Published: January 16, 2009 10:38 AM
SweetLiberty
You mention pharmaceutical companies in your article. I envision two scenarios:
Pharmaceutical company A decides to share their new drug – Drug X - with everyone upon inception, making it available to all. Immediately it is cloned and distributed generically and under varying brand names. Many consumers benefit and live longer from low prices on Drug X, but Pharm A cannot recoup the cost of R & D that went into making their product and goes bankrupt, preventing them from producing Drug Z in the future.
Pharmaceutical company B takes advantage of the existing IP laws which give them exclusive rights to Drug X for a year. They charge a premium for Drug X, and some consumers that cannot afford the initial expense parish. However, Pharm B makes a profit and reinvests that profit into making Drug Z, which benefits future consumers.
It is clear to me as an investor which company I would buy stock in. And for all those who think Pharmaceutical companies make exorbitant profits, invest you fools! Seriously, I would like to know what you could possible argue that would make investing in Pharm A a better option than investing in Pharm B.
Published: January 16, 2009 10:40 AM
SweetLiberty
Sorry for the double submit - it gave an error the first time.
Published: January 16, 2009 10:42 AM
Mike
Sweet,
Government arms dealers make a lot of money too. The mafia makes a lot of money. Why not just invest in them?
Published: January 16, 2009 10:49 AM
Karlos
The debate on IP is certainly exciting but it seems to me that some of my libertarian fellows rejecting IP are falling in the same "what-is-seen-and-what-is-not-seen" trap, as is the case with today's mainstream macroeconomists.
Are you sure, Jeffrey, that the world without IP would be the Brave New one, as you and the autors of this book envision it? Someone called "SweetLiberty" here in the comments section touched the problem already - sure, IP sometimes "impede the flow" of the development, but don't you think that without IP there wouldn't be any flow to impede in the first place? Or to put it more precisely - the flow wouldn't be impeded but it would probably be more like a trickle.
What possible incentive would writers, translators, musicians, designers, artists or R&D companies have to do their job knowing that they won't be reimbursed for all the tremendous work, time and costs they are investing in their IP product? Sure, a lot of artists make art just because they can't help it, but vast majority of the so called popculture stems from purely financial motives of its autors and creators (which is perfectly ok). As far as art is concerned, without IP we would be left just with an enthusiasm and a need for expression. Are you sure you would want that?
And as far as business is concerned, the non-IP world would be even more unpredictable. Why would anybody invent anything? Don't forget we are not in the 18th century anymore, a small lab, a handful of retorts and a kettle is not enough to research anything. Modern science is immensely expensive, money-wise and time-wise.
So I ask you - what underlying principle would ensure the (unimpeded) development in the world without IP, if not the good old pursuit of self-interest?
Published: January 16, 2009 11:10 AM
Stephan Kinsella
Jeffrey G.: "You admit the idea has value, but I don't own it. Couldn't a judge force me to reveal it, since it is not mine? Why would it even be fraud for some one to trick me into revealing it, thus reducing the the value someone is willing to pay me for the idea to zero?"
Nothing "has" value--rather, various ends are demonstrably valued by being sought in action. As I explain in this comment, we do not have property rights in values, or in the value of our property--but in its physical integrity:
It is the physical integrity of goods that property rights protect--not their value. As I noted in "Objectivist Law Prof Mossoff on Copyright; or, the Misuse of Labor, Value, and Creation Metaphors",
all this is intermixed with the idea of value. A common mistaken belief is that one has a property right in the value, as opposed to the physical integrity of, one's property. For elaboration, see pp. 139-141 of Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism; also see my comments re same to Patents and Utilitarian Thinking. This assumption sneaks into or lies at the basis of many fallacious notions of property rights, such as the idea that there is a right to a reputation because it can have value. It ties in with the (especially Randian) notion of "creation" as the source of rights, and the confusing admixture of the "labor" idea, when we talk about using our labor to "create" things of "value" (like reputations, inventions, works of art). Actually, if you labor transform a homesteaded thing into something more valuable, you own the resulting valuable thing not because you created it; not because you own your labor--but because you were the first user of the underlying property that was transformed. Yes, your creative labor made the object that you owned more valuable to you (presumably, ex ante, as this was your goal), but it is not a source of ownership. Therefore, it's a non-sequitur to leap from these observations and say that you own anything you create that has value.
Published: January 16, 2009 11:44 AM
gooddebate
ktibuk,
Interesting assertion, let me see if I've got it right; An idea currently 'protected' under IP law is in fact property. The owner can use it at his will; sell it, use it, bury it. And to remove the protection of IP law would be a form of socializing the idea; making it public domain. So, in your view it would be socialism to dismantle IP laws.
I hadn't considered this. I will say that I've had a vision problem with the concept of eliminating IP law in general and was very against the idea of removing the protection. But when I read carefully, it slowly started to answer my apprehensions.
For instance, the biggest help was to point out all the industries that don't have IP protections and to analyze how they work. The apparel industry was a good example. The designers expect copies and cheap ones at that but it doesn't stop them from continuing to innovate and being paid well for it.
What about some of the IP law complaints? Like the fact that patents expire? Would you say that this is a socialist policy and that patents should never expire?
Is your view, 'yeah there are problems with IP law but we've gotten along just fine with it so far'?
Personally, I'm more interested in a consistent philosophy on a subject and I'm not satisfied when I'm just fine with the flaws.
Published: January 16, 2009 11:46 AM
David Leeman
Apologise for not buying and/or reading the book first, but if I spend 2,000 hours writing my novel, and $10,000 printing it, I would only have the right to that first run of books? Anyone could then reprint that story, which they could never write on their own, and reap their own profits? So if the story tanks, I am the only loser, but if it becomes wildly popular, others will reap profits from my story without my knowledge or consent?
Published: January 16, 2009 11:47 AM
ktibuk
"Ok, kitibuk, that's wrong. Scarcity means the absence of unlimited supply. Whether markets have cleared or not at any particular time is irrelevant to this fundamental issue.
By the way, the book in question only touch on this level of theory briefly. Mostly it deals with practical issues and theory only insofar as it helps elucidate them"
No Jefferey it is not wrong. The terms scarcity and shortage are related terms but usually used in different contexts.
If air is a non scarce good, it is because we may never witness a shortage of it. If we could it would be scarce and thus an economic good.
Never the less my example still holds.
If something can be produced so abundantly that it ceases to be scarce (thus ceases to be an economic good), this means scarcity can not be a prerequisite of property. This is a logical necessity. Otherwise you are putting the carriage before the horse.
The scarcity argument is only meaningful when dealing with nature given free goods that are homesteaded by people and it is the reason of Locke's "first comer principle". But of course Lockes and Rothbards homesteading rule has another principle which is effectively denied by Kinsella and the like. Consequently there are no humans and production in this half ass theory of Kinsella's but only scarcity.
And somebody please answer this question.
By what right you think you are entitled to someone else's production?
Published: January 16, 2009 12:00 PM
jeff
David, when you print and market your book, just be sure to do a good job. Maybe the prospect of competition would inspire you in this respect.
Published: January 16, 2009 12:10 PM
ktibuk
Gooddebate,
"For instance, the biggest help was to point out all the industries that don't have IP protections and to analyze how they work. The apparel industry was a good example. The designers expect copies and cheap ones at that but it doesn't stop them from continuing to innovate and being paid well for it."
Every IP is embedded in some form of tangible good. It can be your brain tissue, paper, digital media, chemicals, mechanical stuff or clothes.
Sometimes the IPs value is much more than the tangible material it is embedded in. Like books and movies and software. A blank CD is cheap, and the reproduction cots are low because it takes very little time to copy it so piracy is a bigger problem in these industries
Clothing is not the same. The quality of the fabric and stitching is as important as the design and more costly since it takes more time and resources to reproduce a knock off. So the real Prada bag is 5000 dollars, while the knock off is 1000 dollars.
But these are utilitarian approaches. I am mainly concerned with morality of claiming a right on someone else's fruit of labor
Published: January 16, 2009 12:15 PM
Inquisitor
"Any tangible good can be made economically non-scarce. If the matter of scarcity is prerequisite of property nothing can be owned since almost everything can be produced so abundantly that there wouldn't be rivalry."
That's nonsense. To even have production scarce goods must be employed in the first place. Production diminishes, but never eliminates, scarcity. So this attempt at obfuscation fails miserably. All produced goods are scarce in that possession and use of them by one person excludes possession and use by another. Ideas are not scarce in this sense, no matter how you wish to cut it, and never will be; why assign ownership over them? When produced goods cease to be scarce (as opposed to being merely abundant), ownership becomes a non-issue in their case. So what? What on earth do you think you've demonstrated by that? That in some hypothetical world, scarcity may EVENTUALLY be outdone by production? Well yeah, in which case property rights would lose much of their force and necessity...
By what right do you think the thinker of an idea is entitled to direct the use of another's property? If anyone's ideas are half-assed here, it's yours, and not Kinsella's...
Karlos, I fail to see why anyone should enjoy socialized protection of their ideas. If they want to keep them secret, it will be at their own expense, much as with the defence of anything...
Published: January 16, 2009 12:15 PM
Robert A. Meyer
I believe there are two valid points about intellectual property mentioned on the blog.
1.Jeffrey G.--Ideas can be property and I can prove it. His following statement is interesting.
2.Karlos--Someone one called "SweetLiberty" here in the comments section touched the problem already - sure, IP sometimes "impede the flow" of the development, but don't you think that without IP there wouldn't be any flow to impede in the first place? Or to put it more precisely - the flow wouldn't be impeded but it would probably be more like a trickle.
Also we should seriously consider the questions David Leeman asks.
Apologise for not buying and/or reading the book first, but if I spend 2,000 hours writing my novel, and $10,000 printing it, I would only have the right to that first run of books? Anyone could then reprint that story, which they could never write on their own, and reap their own profits? So if the story tanks, I am the only loser, but if it becomes wildly popular, others will reap profits from my story without my knowledge or consent?
My question: Would this mean that anyone could reprint Mises’ “Human Action” and reap the profits? If so, something’s wrong.
Published: January 16, 2009 12:23 PM
ktibuk
Inquisitor,
"When produced goods cease to be scarce (as opposed to being merely abundant), ownership becomes a non-issue in their case. So what?"
So what?
I will say it again. If the above statement is true as you concede, then scarcity can not be a prerequisite of property. Otherwise you would be committing a logical fallacy.
"By what right do you think the thinker of an idea is entitled to direct the use of another's property?"
First of all, I am not claiming anything of that sort. Second of all by answering my question by an irrelevant question are you actually claiming a right on someone else's fruit of labor? I just want to hear it.
Published: January 16, 2009 12:24 PM
David Leeman
Jeff, sorry for the confusion, but I would consider competition to be others who write stories that would compete with mine for reader's attention and therefore, dollars. A person who buys my book, buys not just the paper and binding which is not scarce, but my interesting story. The book is theirs, but the story is mine. They may certainly shere their book with family and friends, but reprinting it for their own profit seems wrong to me. Let them write their own story and put on a store shelf next to mine, and see how they do. It seems to me that disallowing my story to remain mine would be a severe disincentive to publishing. How would it encourage people to publish?
I'm pushing the hypothetical here. I'm not a writer. I am a libertarian (and Ron Paul supporter). I'm just trying put get my brain around the idea of no IP at all, and so far I'm not able to do so.
Thanks for helping.
Published: January 16, 2009 12:24 PM
jeffrey
"The story is mine."
The only way to make sure that it stays that way is to never tell it to another person. As it is, people should be flattered when others are influenced by their ideas.
In any case, Huck Finn is Mark Twain's story in some sense but it is public domain. No one tries to take credit away from Twain, and thousands of publishers are able to make money selling it.
Published: January 16, 2009 12:28 PM
ktibuk
Inquisitor,
"That's nonsense. To even have production scarce goods must be employed in the first place."
Yes and also for the production of IP, scarce resources must be employed. Like the producers time.
Published: January 16, 2009 12:31 PM
DTY
The monograph by Stephan Kinsella, cited in this review, is very similar to the common understanding in Buddhist countries. When I lived in Thailand, for example, there were essentially no IP rights respected there. Software was free (or more-or-less cost of the disks in software stores), pharmaceuticals were commonly copied, as were books (e.g., manuals for the "pirated" software), music and films. The common Buddhist understanding was that it was impossible to own an idea. Nevertheless, the software industry in Thailand was flourishing, in contrast to neighboring Malaysia where possession of unlicensed software could earn one ten years in prison!
I encountered similar understanding in the Kingdom of Bhutan, along with a healthy dose of pragmatism (they are Tibetan Buddhists, after all): What's in it for us?
Published: January 16, 2009 12:35 PM
gooddebate
ktibuk,
Ok, I'll take you at your word. Ideas represent labor having been done. What do you think about the ownership of an idea when the person who has the idea works for a company. Who should own the idea, morally speaking?
Published: January 16, 2009 12:39 PM
ktibuk
"Ok, I'll take you at your word. Ideas represent labor having been done. What do you think about the ownership of an idea when the person who has the idea works for a company. Who should own the idea, morally speaking?"
Just like the production of any good. If the company employs someone to produce something the company owns the product.
Published: January 16, 2009 12:50 PM
Robert A. Meyer
I just found out anyone can reprint Human Action. It is in the public domain as a text
I'll have to further explore this intellectual property issue. I've always accepted the Randian arguments in favor of the copyright laws.
Published: January 16, 2009 12:52 PM
ron jeremy
So, Why the authors of the book do not put it online for free, in order to be more easy to improve it. ehehehe
Published: January 16, 2009 12:54 PM
Mike
"I've always accepted the Randian arguments..."
First mistake right there.
Published: January 16, 2009 12:59 PM
SweetLiberty
I thought Ayn Rand cleared this up in Atlas Shrugged. Without IP, the John Galts of the world have no incentive to build their new motors if they will be declared society’s property the moment the work is done. It speaks to the very heart of Socialism versus Capitalism. It creates a society of looters waiting to exploit the next invention or great idea without putting into it the effort of creation or acknowledging that without the inventor, their would be no new idea to profit from. Bypassing the rewards of innovation creates a disincentive towards new production, as David Leeman would no doubt agree. I support his IP rights because without them, I may never have the choice to read his book as without the prospect of success, he is unlikely to spend the 2000 hours writing it or the cost to produce it. Jeffrey asserts that flattery should be enough motivation for an author to dedicate his time to a project, but doesn’t Socialism hold the same precepts? Dedicate your time for the good of society, not for your own benefit. I don’t think this system has been proven to work well.
Published: January 16, 2009 1:14 PM
jeffrey
A note I just received:
Published: January 16, 2009 1:14 PM
jeffrey
A note I just received:
Published: January 16, 2009 1:15 PM
Mike
"Many software patents are particularly silly. Many of these are issued for algorithms - the vast majority of the time, these algorithms are only available outside the company via patent!"
This is a point worth bringing up. When it comes to digital copyrights, IP laws essentially grant monopoly privilege to the use of zeroes and ones placed in a certain order.
Published: January 16, 2009 1:29 PM
Mike
"I thought Ayn Rand cleared this up in Atlas Shrugged."
Ayn Rand couldn't clear up her sinuses with a box of tissues.
Published: January 16, 2009 1:32 PM
SweetLiberty
In regards to your software engineer, I would agree that the system gets abused, but that is a flaw of implementation, not concept. Certain fields of significant complexity hardly need IP protection because the cost to reverse engineer make the endeavor self-prohibiting. Yet one must ask the owners of his company if they would have taken the risk and gone into business at all had their been no IP protection of their innovation, or if they would have been forced to share the concepts under the hood of their product to competitors. My guess is, probably not. And if one is to allow IP at all, it shouldn’t matter if it protects binary code, a 26 letter alphabet, or molecules – it is the arrangement of these building blocks that generates something new of value.
Published: January 16, 2009 1:34 PM
gooddebate
ktibuk,
I'm not trying to trip you up, ok, just investigating to see things I might have missed.
You said, "But these are utilitarian approaches. I am mainly concerned with morality of claiming a right on someone else's fruit of labor"
So I thought you were going to say that, morally speaking, the person who came up with the idea should own it. Otherwise, isn't this a violation of what you said because the company owns it rather than the one who labored?
The reason that this interests me is that I'm looking for consistency in a philosophy.
Published: January 16, 2009 1:37 PM
Michael A. Clem
Taking someone else's story and printing a new copy of it with your own name on it is merely fraudulent--IP protection isn't necessary to cover that. With a well-known book like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, or Atlas Shrugged, it would also be laughably embarrassing, as everybody would know you didn't write it.
However, these authors are now dead; why shouldn't you be able to publish new editions of their books (with their names on them), and profit from it, if you can? Just because you can take someone else's work and publish it doesn't automatically mean you will profit from it. Others might also want to do the same thing, and they may be able to promote or distribute their version more effectively than you can. People may be willing to pay a premium for a leather-bound edition published by Easton Press instead of a cheap, poorly glued paperback edition.
The situation may be different with living authors, but even here, the author's skill and reputation help make a difference. An author who becomes well-known and popular will be courted (and paid) by publishers eager to publish new work by the author, even if they are merely clamoring for the right to publish first, before copycat publishers publish their own editions.
Again, the resources and quality of the publisher make a difference when it comes to actual sales, and thus, profit. Self-publishing is easier than ever, but still rarely guarantees success.
Published: January 16, 2009 1:46 PM
David Leeman
Jeffrey,
I know the only sure way... is to keep it to myself, but there is no profit in that.
Please answer my question.
It seems to me that disallowing my story to remain mine would be a severe disincentive to publishing. How would it encourage people to publish?
And Mike, just saying Ayn Rand couldn't clear her sinuses does not add to the discussion. I care about how the IP ideas in Atlas Shrugged wrong or right. Please demonstrate one or the other.
Published: January 16, 2009 2:07 PM
Cencig
To my knowledge, the greatest copyright and patent abuses are in the information technology and biotechnology areas. For example the laws that protect the use of GMOs on the basis that they contain intellectual property, while preventing a distinction by name on the labels of food containing it. If a farmer has to pay rights to the GMO corporation that invented the seed he wants to grow, then the seed is not corn, because no one has to pay rights on the growing of corn. If it is not corn, then why is packaged as such in food? One could argue that the collectively own property right on the use of the word corn has been highjacked by a corporation to mislead the consumer. Is collective intellectual property a limit to private intellectual property?
Published: January 16, 2009 2:18 PM
Kiba
David Leeman: Did you brother to read the article?
It already cited one example: British authors.
Published: January 16, 2009 2:28 PM
Nate W
Lots of debate back and forth, looks good but I have a few questions for both sides:
Even without IP laws, do you think there would not be agreements enforced through contract law to protect IP? Such as Pharm company A and Pharm company B agree to not copy each others new products for X years unless they pay X dollars, etc.? This could even go as far to A whole consortium of Pharm companies signing with major distributors to only sell products from people signing this pact? THough this could really hamper innovation because it could squeeze out small players... Who knows? THoughts?
I think the free market would find some sort of way to protect IP itself...
Published: January 16, 2009 2:33 PM
pbergn
I knew it - this was going to be a can of worms!
Pretty good arguments on both sides.
Here is my two cents on this brilliant subject for what it worths ( I also agree that copyright laws are wrong, as I justify it below):
1. Ideas are property of the individual generated them, for as long as they are not made public, but cannot be considered as property once they were made so, much like a person's face on a tourist's photograph cannot be considered that person's property, and be confiscated from the tourist, since he/she has made his/her face public by showing up on the public property uncovered, etc. ... [as opposed to a Paparazzi breaking-in into a celebrity's house (private property) and taking a picture of him/her naked without consent];
2. The main argument FOR IP rights is to compensate the creator of the property such as writers, artists, actors, scientists, etc. for their labor, which at first glance seems a natural right, and seems to be the only way to stimulate creative activity.
The problem with this thinking is that it pre-supposes that an intellectual property or simply put - an idea has an intrinsic value (that is to others other than the individual creator(s)), which is FALSE.
For example, if you have figured out a better way to plough the earth by utilizing a tractor, instead of a horse, the idea on its own worths nothing, until you actually build or buy a tractor and put it to work. In this example I am trying to show that the idea has acquired some objective value only in the context of its practical implementation. Or, for example, many famous composers, writers or artists were totally ignored by their contemporaries or were not well-known at some point of their career, not because they had worse ideas, but because the intellectual products made public by them was not valued by the public at that time. This demonstrates that the idea has as much value as much it is given to by the participants in the labor-sharing society. Now this by no means does NOT mean that the authors themselves weren't proud or weren't valuing their work...
To summarize, any idea acquires value in its economic sense only when it comes into direct interaction with the potential consumers of the idea, thus it cannot be claimed as absolute property of the originator of the idea...
Now, the critics may retort on how about compensating the author of a good book, or the actors in a good movie, if anyone can re-publish, and even freely distort the original work of art, and present it as their own.
Well, the answer to it is again the free market. For example, if I wrote a book, and published the original first, and it is a good book, something that represents intellectual value to the ultimate consumers, I will have competitive advantage of being the first and the original one to write the story. I can exercise the free market tools such as advertisement to push my product. And if a copy-cat steals my story and re-publishes under his her/name, well, they have to try to be at least as good. It's unfortunate, I agree, but so is any other theft, and like with any other theft, it is very hard for the thief to sound authentic, since he lacks the evidence to make his/her case, and have to essentially re-invent the reality every step of the way. And if the thief is that good, and even better at telling his spin of the story,well, then so be it. Again, as I said, something has value just because someone is willing to acquire or consume it...
That's the free market, baby. You have to stay sharp and bright everyday (no blackout days or vacations :-))!
Published: January 16, 2009 2:37 PM
Mike
"Even without IP laws, do you think there would not be agreements enforced through contract law to protect IP? Such as Pharm company A and Pharm company B agree to not copy each others new products for X years unless they pay X dollars, etc.? This could even go as far to A whole consortium of Pharm companies signing with major distributors to only sell products from people signing this pact? THough this could really hamper innovation because it could squeeze out small players... Who knows? THoughts?"
On the contrary, it would encourage small players to enter the market, since they would not be burdened with the self-imposed regulations. In a free market, I doubt a cartel like the one you describe could hold together for long.
Published: January 16, 2009 2:40 PM
Mike
"Even without IP laws, do you think there would not be agreements enforced through contract law to protect IP? Such as Pharm company A and Pharm company B agree to not copy each others new products for X years unless they pay X dollars, etc.? This could even go as far to A whole consortium of Pharm companies signing with major distributors to only sell products from people signing this pact? THough this could really hamper innovation because it could squeeze out small players... Who knows? THoughts?"
On the contrary, it would encourage small players to enter the market, since they would not be burdened with the self-imposed regulations. In a free market, I doubt a cartel like the one you describe could hold together for long.
Published: January 16, 2009 2:41 PM
John
David Leeman's arguments seem right to me.
And the "counters" which suppose changing the author's name etc., seem false.
It is not necessary to put your name on someone else's story to damage them.
Suppose David writes a novel. He spends years pouring his soul into it and giving up other pursuits to make it happen.
In the end, due to his passing up other work to finish his novel, he is able only to publish a limited number of copies and those are cheaply made (cheap paper, plain cover, etc.).
Someone else finds his novel and realizes it's worth. So they print a slick, cool looking, glossy, nice paper version identical in content to his. Same name. Same story. Etc.
Their version sells well. His poor version does not.
They make money from his intellectual work but form their physical work (the printing). He makes no money from either.
How does allowing him to own the rights to his own efforts, and the promulgation thereof, stifle others other than preventing them from making money off of only doing the smallest portion of the work?
They are still free to create their own stories etc. and them publish nice copies of them.
But why on Earth should they have the "right" to reproduce his work, even giving him proper credit for it, but not having to give him any of the profit from his efforts which allowed their product to even exist?
This is wrong on so many levels.
Published: January 16, 2009 2:45 PM
Patricia Robinett
why does IP even exist? so someone else can make a buck riding the coattails of the creative minds of the time?... publishers, agents, movie moguls?
i am not particularly invested in any political or economic model, so i am free to ponder the ills and abuses that have resulted from the game we adults play: the game of 'money'. why, i wonder, does it cost money to live on this planet? why such a push to privitize everything? profits and losses, that's why... which create more fear, greed, competition, insecurity, destruction, distress, dis-ease.
why, in 'primitive' societies does it take a few hours at most each day to take care of necessities while in our 'leisure society' we spend 10-12 hours going to and from a job (notice job is spelled like Job)? doing NOT (usually) what we LOVE to do and are GOOD at doing because we love it, but doing something just to survive in the money game.
again -- i am not an economist nor a politician -- but i sure would like to see all humans have lives instead of being tied involuntarily to the money game. i'd like to see everyone grow a garden and be healthy, everyone have a first rate computer and high speed internet access, everyone be able to study anything they wish at any time on the web -- the best of schools and libraries for all, free, on the web -- and best of all, get to know their neighbors all over the globe...
as for incentive... YouTube has shown that people LOVE to create, LOVE to share information. people flourish when they love, teach, sing, dance and give. yet it's actually impossible to be truly creative when you operate out of constriction/tension due to the money game.
greed, withholding and hoarding come from fear. heal the fearful so they can cease abusing others in any way.
pump up infrastructure all over the world so everyone has everything they need to live clean and healthy lives... put all the talent and creativity that currently goes into the war machine and the money game and steer it into building water systems, clean transportation, gardens -- and make the WWW accessible to all.
free of the money game, a new degree of creativity will blossom on this planet that you never dreamed of.
Published: January 16, 2009 2:52 PM
Karlos
pbergn - "The problem with this thinking is that it pre-supposes that an intellectual property or simply put - an idea has an intrinsic value (that is to others other than the individual creator(s)), which is FALSE" ...... True, an idea indeed doesn't have an intrinsic value, but "this thinking" (actors should be compensated for their work) certainly doesn't pre-suppose any such thing.
Mine and SweetLiberty's point (which still hasn't been properly addressed here, by Jeff or anyone else) is that autors should be compensated for their work because without it they would have far less incentive to engage in any creative activities.
Now I'm not saying there would be NO art or R&D in the non-IP world, only much less of it. Therefore the analogy between an impeded flow vs. unimpeded trickle.
And I totally agree with Nate W - without government enforced IP laws, free market would almost certainly find a way to protect IP itself.
Published: January 16, 2009 3:39 PM
Lucas M. Engelhardt
The way I see it - there are only 2 sensible nonutilitarian views on IP. Which is right depends on what you believe about the nature of ideas.
One is the view that IP exists because ideas are "created" by the thinker (or that "ideas" exist in nature and are homesteaded by the first thinker). (I'm pretty sure this is the Randian, and also Rothbardian, view.) In this case, IP rights must be everlasting. After all, when I die my house goes to my heirs, not the public domain. So, similarly, my right to my created ideas should pass to my heirs. (Lysander Spooner made these arguments in "The Law of Intellectual Property" - which, ironically, you can find for free online.) So, along this line of thought all of these arbitrary time limits (life + 70 years, 7 years after creation, etc.) are violations of property rights because they set an end to a property right that is, by nature, everlasting.
The other view is that rights to IP are nonsense because ideas exist in nature and are freely available without limit to anyone who "comes across" them. (This is basically Kinsella's view.) The trick is that "coming across" an idea can happen by encountering another person's expression of that idea. And, in fact, if the other person is any good at expression, encountering their expression will mean that you must come across the idea.
I lean very strongly toward the latter view - mostly because of my understanding of what "stealing" is. An example: When I steal your jacket, I prevent you from using your jacket for the time that I possess it. Try as you might, you cannot use your jacket as long as I have stolen it. This cannot be true of an idea. When I "steal" your idea, you can still use it. So, at least in the way that I think of stealing, I haven't stolen anything.
Now, there are a number of practical concerns that both sides can raise... but all of these are essentially consequentialist, and generally utilitarian. And I'd bet that those are the arguments dealt with in this book.
Published: January 16, 2009 3:41 PM
Lucas M. Engelhardt
Karlos,
Your argument is basically consequentialist.
Which is why a lot of people here (many of whom have been influenced by Rothbard) won't touch it. Doing so would mean accepting that the basis of property rights is the fact that property rights create good consequences. Some (Mises, for one) do believe this. But, many (Rothbard, Hoppe, Kinsella, Rand, Locke) believe that the foundation of property rights is something very different. In fact, they'd claim that property rights have a moral existence independent of their consequences.
So, as far as Rothbardians are concerned, your argument doesn't mean anything because the foundation for property rights that you are assuming is not the one that they accept. In short, the consequences don't really matter. What matters is the logic underlying the establishment of the IP rights.
Just to be clear: I do not accept a utilitarian/consequentialist ground for property rights. It's a shaky ground at best. But, let's do it,
If we want to argue from a consequentialist standpoint, we have to establish what "proper" consequences are. This requires that we have some other criterion that we can measure consequences by.
All that you have claimed is that "IP increases innovation". Well, even if that is true (and it is not necessarily so), you have to show that more innovation than an IP-free free market provides is actually socially desirable.
Now, before you say "Of course it is", you must establish a criterion for evaluation. May I suggest one of the following:
Utilitarianism - benefit is greater than cost (if you do this, you have to come up with a way of measuring the two so that they can be compared)
Pareto improvement - makes at least one person better off without making anyone else worse off
Published: January 16, 2009 4:05 PM
Egosumabbas
I'm surprised nobody has brought up Popper in this IP conversation. Anybody ever heard of his cosmological views? It's quite elegant. There are three "worlds": The physical world, the world of the mind, and the world of ideas.
Obviously, we all exist in the physical world, and all human goods are in the physical world. But a statue , in world 1, is simply a hunk of rock worn by the activity of creatures living on the third planet of an unremarkable star. Before this hunk of rock was worn down, it existed in world 2, in the mind of a sculptor, as an ideal form. Today the statue exists in world 3 as an idea, because the statue has meaning beyond a simple piece of marble. It has a name. Even if the name is not known, people can infer its meaning and what it represents.
How does this apply to IP law?
Property exists in world one. It can be your farm, your car, or an marble statue. However, an idea, exists outside of the physical dimension. Nobody can physically own an idea. It's impossible. An idea can manifest itself in world one as a physical item that can be held (a book or a CD), but it also exists in world 2 (nobody can own the mind of a person once they read a book), and persists in world 3 even if all minds cease to exist today as well as all physical copies. Why is that? Because a new mind can rediscover this idea.
An idea cannot be owned or contained.
We only think that an idea can become property, because of the existence of a state that makes an idea scarce through the threat of force. It is the state that limits the ability to reproduce an idea to give it an artificial value. The Internet, and the ability of information technology to reduce the cost of copying an idea essentially to zero, makes the farce of artificial scarcity painfully obvious.
Published: January 16, 2009 4:12 PM
SweetLiberty
The flaw in pbergn’s 1st argument, “Ideas are property of the individual generated them, for as long as they are not made public, but cannot be considered as property once they were made so…” is that it fails to draw a distinction between that which exists versus that which is created. My face exists ergo you cannot help but see it if I go out in public. However, if I create something new, I’ve brought something into the world which otherwise wouldn’t exist and therefore I can and should claim ownership of that new idea. For a new product to immediately become public domain assumes that inventors are equally skilled at sales, marketing and manufacturing and therefore need not fear someone more skilled looting their concept.
The second fallacy asserts an idea has no intrinsic value. It is only through the power of a mind and ideas that tractors, novels, and paintings can ever exist. Again, at its most basic component, we and everything mankind has ever produced originates from ideas. Ideas are what differentiates us as a species, and the ability to make those ideas manifest and profit from them provide the incentive. To devalue ideas is to diminish the incentive it takes to produce the actual products that derive from those ideas. And those who believe good ideas are just out there scattered before us like a field of daisy’s ripe for anyone to just pick upon a whim undervalue what it takes to write a fresh novel, research and test a new drug, or create a truly innovative new computer algorithm. Please write a new Shakespearean sonnet indistinguishable from his originals if ideas are so easy to come by.
Pbergn’s stance that theft is just an unfortunate byproduct of free markets ignores that thieves are and should be punished for their infractions. The free market does not mean it’s a no-holds barred free for all and anything goes. Consent must enter into it. If I am the producer of an original idea and that alone is the value I bring, I do not consent for you to use that idea without some form of equal trade. And at the margin, if someone else can lay claim to my IP simply because I expose it to the public, at the margin you will see a decline in time and effort poured into new inventions. Despite Patricia’s wishful thinking, there is no free lunch and men will not work as hard for their neighbor as they will for themselves. Is this not one of the basic tenets here on Mises.org? If you can tell me specifically what incentive you can offer that will provide the same potential compensation to investors and inventors once you abolish IP laws, you may persuade some of us that can’t see “what’s in it for us?” Otherwise, I would recommend that the aspiring novelists such as David Leeman campaign for the current (albeit flawed) system.
Published: January 16, 2009 4:51 PM
Robert A. Meyer
Patricia Robinette
Without economic calculation and the benefits of a medium of exchange (money) mankind would exist in an extremely primitive state indeed. The division of labor would barely exist. We would trade with each other through the inefficient system of barter. There would no industry and definitely no information age. All those things you say people should have would be non-existent.
Regressing to this primitive state of existence would mean that at least 95% of the population on earth would perish. The ones that survived would live at best slightly better than savages would.
Published: January 16, 2009 5:05 PM
Franklin
David, good post. By the way, I agree that the casino owners are wrong to say someone is "cheating" if he uses his own intellect to assess odds immediately and win most of the blackjack hands. Of course, it's the owner's property so he can expel whom he wants.
I don't propose to change this, only to wish that every poor soul who is throwing his money down the drain, at the table, knows what kind of people he's dealing with. The casino owner doesn't play fair. If you can beat him at his own game, he runs you off the premises. Nice folks, huh? Not too close but also not too far from the pool-shooter thugs who would beat the crap out of you because you beat them at their own game.
Caveat emptor....
Published: January 16, 2009 5:14 PM
SweetLiberty
Casino's are a private business. They may do what they like, and you are free not to gamble there. "The casino owner doesn't play fair." This is a fair trade, even though the odds are stacked against you and you are not allowed to win by intellect. The value in gambling comes from the enjoyment of the games, the environment, and the slim chance of winning. Addicted? Call 1-800...
Published: January 16, 2009 5:29 PM
Peter Cohen
For the last twelve years, I have supported myself and several other people by creating videos which were sold on the web. They are short (~five minute) fetish scenes of great interest to those who possess the relevant fetishes, and of little interest to others. It is micro-niches that I serve.
In the last few years, more and more people have discovered that virtually everything I have ever created can be downloaded for free on pirate sites. Any new video I create is available for free within days, sometimes hours. Whereas a few years ago, I could reasonably expect to sell 100-200 copies from which I could recoup costs and make sufficient profit to make more, nowadays I am lucky to sell 20 copies of a new video. Needless to say, I am effectively out of business. So too are the single moms who were able to support themselves with relatively few hours away from their kids.
I find much to be in agreement with, in the basic thesis of this book. There are a lot of problems with the current implementation of copyright and patent. However I absolutely cannot subscribe to the notion that I must spend my own money, time and talent to create work which everyone is then 'entitled' to view for free.
Published: January 16, 2009 5:32 PM
Franklin
We are saying the same thing, Sweetliberty. Indeed it's their property and premises.
I just find the business model quite revolting. And yes, I enjoy pulling the lever in Vegas just as much as the next guy.
I don't wish to change the model, but simply am taking the opportunity to state that the game is stacked against you. And if the poor addicts don't believe me, see what happens if they start a lucky run and it continues a few nights.
Casino owners have their right to operate as they see fit. But it's an unseamly business and leaves little doubt why it was, at one time, run by gangsters.
Cheers.
Published: January 16, 2009 5:54 PM
Kiba
Peter Cohen: It is called the free market. Take it or leave it.
There are plenty of way of making money and economists have already describe how it work. Google it.
As for people who suggest that people have less incentives to invent whatevercrap. That's nonsense. A cursory look through history and today would have told you otherwise.
Software companies like RedHat exists in spite of copycat competitors. There are inventors who make a living off hardwares that chinese manufacturers have replicated from their schematic they published.
There are litterally ten of thousand of examples.
They were innovative and profitable.
Published: January 16, 2009 6:03 PM
David Leeman
First, a novel is not an idea. It is a product. People are willing to pay me to enjoy the product I produced. In what way is it correct for someone else to copy that product and reap the rewards I should be earning. I am not using IP to keep them from producing anything. They are welcome to produce and sell their own novels. I am asking them to use their own skills to make their money, and not mine.
Second, I read the article. It said Americans got around their own restrictive IP laws by using English books. It never said whether the English authors gained or lost out by that arrangement.
Third, I am ready to be convinced. Please forgive my lack of vision. I am just not seeing how the market will make J.K. Rawlings rich and famous without her owning her novels.
Published: January 16, 2009 6:23 PM
Peter Cohen
"It is called the free market. Take it or leave it."
That is NOT the free market. It is looting.
My door is unlocked and people can anonymously walk in and take anything I produce. They do it without a thought, without a care. If people were walking into your home and taking your food, your books, your belongings, would you say that was the free market too, just because they see your belongings as being 'free' for the taking?
Published: January 16, 2009 6:42 PM
Mike
"However I absolutely cannot subscribe to the notion that I must spend my own money, time and talent to create work which everyone is then 'entitled' to view for free."
Labor theory of value, FTW!
Published: January 16, 2009 7:11 PM
X
Wrong analogy
Published: January 16, 2009 7:17 PM
Kiba
Copying cannot be looting or theft, no matter how much you wish it to be looting. You are not deprived of food, books, or belonging. Instead people are copying your food, books, and belonging that were sold by you long ago.
There are business models that took advantage of the fact that people were copying your stuff. I suggest you look them up and use them.
If you do not figure out a business model suitable to your line of work soon, you will get percisely nothing. If that happen, I don't care and I am not willing to subside you.
Published: January 16, 2009 7:19 PM
X
My comment was directed at mr. Cohen
Published: January 16, 2009 7:20 PM
hyokon
I think idea is the fundamental of the free market, not the capital that Marx emphasized.
Henry Ford and Stevie Wonder made money in the same way. They both made ideas into a replicable product.
You can read more at my blog.
http://www.slowblogger.com/2008/06/wrong-paul-krugman-chris-anderson.html
Published: January 16, 2009 7:26 PM
Mike
"If you do not figure out a business model suitable to your line of work soon, you will get percisely nothing. If that happen, I don't care and I am not willing to subside you."
Well, sure, those business models are great, but utilizing them someone else's business model would be looting. I can see why this is hard for Cohen.
Published: January 16, 2009 7:35 PM
Abhilash Nambiar
Couple of things came to my mind as I read this article. One was about the Wright Brothers. Seems the invention we all call the Airplane has never been a commercially viable venture. It was thrived only in a regulated market, supported by government either as an instrument of war or an instrument of state policy (think national flag carriers). Now that airlines have been opened to deregulation, they are all struggling. Even the budget airlines are in trouble. Warren Buffet (no Austrian) once remarked that if a business man was near by when the right brothers first flew, he ought to have shot them down!
Now on the Creative commons. It is a beautiful example of the simulated free market and can work perfectly in an anarcho-capitalistic world where market mechanisms can develop to safe gaurd innovation. Business men who want to increase their margins may decide to some form of exclusivity to the innovator of the product. If the business man cannot keep his end of the bargain, innovators will stop approaching him. Same thing works the other way too. Innovators who renege on their promise will not be sought after by business men.
Perhaps an insurance company can act as an intermediary. They will insure the contract and determine the level of risk involved. So some form of third party arbitration can take place.
Published: January 16, 2009 7:40 PM
Jim Fedako
Couple of things came to my mind as I read this article. One was about the Wright Brothers. Seems the invention we all call the Airplane has never been a commercially viable venture. It was thrived only in a regulated market, supported by government either as an instrument of war or an instrument of state policy (think national flag carriers). Now that airlines have been opened to deregulation, they are all struggling. Even the budget airlines are in trouble. Warren Buffet (no Austrian) once remarked that if a business man was near by when the right brothers first flew, he ought to have shot them down!
Now on the Creative commons. It is a beautiful example of the simulated free market and can work perfectly in an anarcho-capitalistic world where market mechanisms can develop to safe gaurd innovation. Business men who want to increase their margins may decide to some form of exclusivity to the innovator of the product. If the business man cannot keep his end of the bargain, innovators will stop approaching him. Same thing works the other way too. Innovators who renege on their promise will not be sought after by business men.
Perhaps an insurance company can act as an intermediary. They will insure the contract and determine the level of risk involved. So some form of third party arbitration can take place.
Published: January 16, 2009 8:04 PM
Peter Cohen
Mike wrote: "Labor theory of value, FTW!"
It is not the labor theory of value. I am not saying a thing is worth X because I put X amount of work into it. A thing is worth what people will pay for it. That is not in question.
A few years ago before piracy took off, plenty of people were willing to pay for my product. The same product; now people can avail themselves of it for free; does that mean it is now valueless? In truth to those who search out my product, they value it highly. They do not however 'pay' for it because they do not 'have' to. Stealing it is easy and without consequence, and so they do.
What I am saying is that this goes to the root of property rights. This is the fruit of my own labor and capital and that therefor; I own it! I do not simply own the right to 'my copy' of it.
Published: January 16, 2009 8:05 PM
Jim Fedako
My previous comment was a cut and paste of the comment from Abhilash Nambiar directly above.
Other than using bad form, have I stolen anything from Abhilash? Are his comments scarce in any terms? Has he been aggressed by my actions?
I may have harmed the reputation that some hold of me by implying that Abhilash's words are mine, but I have taken nothing from him. And I doubt that my cut and paste will limit Abhilash's production of ideas in the future.
Note: Abhilash, I just used your comment for no other reason than it was the most recent to my post.
Published: January 16, 2009 8:12 PM
newson
to david leeman:
jk rowling has been adept not only as a writer, but also as a promoter. the elaborate security measures that have accompanied the harry potter releases give a hint to what an ip-free regime could look like. release is synchonized and massive, to achieve maximum market penetration before copiers swarm in. plagiarists are more likely to be identified if their "masterpiece" achieves vast distribution; the odds of being discovered increase dramatically when the object is widely read and discussed.
in fact, getting rid of ip may ironically even help the genius writer who is an absolute failure at selling any of his work. assume the copycat is wildly successful at creating a commercial hit with the work that he's passed off as his own. as more and more people become acquainted with the work and the "author", so too, are the chances that the real creator of the work, or someone who's familiar with him, will come forward and challenge the copycat's authenticity. fame attracts controversy, and this is in itself a great control mechanism. being a phony is still not going to be a good look, even if it is not subject to legal retribution. it may be that the phony creates the commercial success, is then exposed, and the original impoverished author is revealed as the genius, but has the copycat to thank for his new-found fame (upon which he can capitalize for his next novel).
to answer your question, rowlings' initial popularity (if not monetary reward) would allow her to insist on a substantial advance, or else the book could be released on a serialized basis.
Published: January 16, 2009 8:38 PM
SweetLiberty
The distinction between Jim Fedako’s conscious attempt at plagiarism and the theft of Peter Cohen’s product should be clear. Abhilash does not suffer because he didn’t seek to gain commercial value for his comments, whereas Peter is. It is abundantly clear that entrepreneurs like Peter will stop producing their product if there is no return on investment. Multiply this times many authors, inventors, and businessmen across the nation and you have a decline in production. The notion that the public is entitled to his effort for free is the antithesis of Capitalism. But Capitalism can only work if rights of ownership are protected, and this includes protecting IP.
It’s simple really. All you have to do to win the argument is show how writers like David and entrepreneurs like Peter can be better off – or at least come out the same – once IP laws are removed. So far, the only argument has been that they shouldn’t really strive to claim ownership in their ideas and products in the first place. In that event, all you need to do is ask them if it would still be worth the effort if they are giving it away. While some may take this “altruistic” road, I think we have David and Peter’s answer.
Published: January 16, 2009 8:47 PM
newson
to karlos:
translators are not likely to have any problems adapting to a non-ip model.
pre-payments can be negotiated, pay-per-page, etc. this is a no-brainer.
most clients would prefer to have one translator per work, in order to achieve a consistency of style, and so it's unlikely that works would be split up amongst an entire multitude of translators.
anyway, translators are performing a technical task, not strictly a creative one. a translator cannot claim copyright.
Published: January 16, 2009 9:00 PM
newson
sweetliberty says:
"It is abundantly clear that entrepreneurs like Peter will stop producing their product if there is no return on investment. Multiply this times many authors, inventors, and businessmen across the nation and you have a decline in production."
this ignores the fact that if there is a demand for fetish-films, that demand will be met. just not by mr cohen or his business model. demand begets supply.
Published: January 16, 2009 9:07 PM
Timothy foster
SweetLiberty
All you have to do to win the argument is show how writers like David and entrepreneurs like Peter can be better off – or at least come out the same – once IP laws are removed.
An earlier article on just that. Though I do agree this should have been posted sooner: http://mises.org/daily/3280
Published: January 16, 2009 9:56 PM
Peter Cohen
The notion that people should feel 'entitled' to the fruits of my labor, for free, simply because they 'can' take it for free, leaves me baffled. In my opinion it is nothing more than people rationalizing theft, so their consciences should not be bothered by their actions. I am told that I have lost nothing by their theft when they make a copy. How is it then that I and those who have worked with me have lost their livelihood, if it is that we have lost nothing?
And yes, I suppose it is possible that some manner of supply will exist to fill a demand once all profit motive has been eliminated from intellectual property. However it will be a demand filled by amateur hobbyists working with little training, tools, or for that matter, talent.
Published: January 16, 2009 10:01 PM
Nate W
I completely believe that some sort of IP protection is needed, but am still having trouble wrapping my head around what it should be like.
Look at the music industry, thats where piracy too the shuttle ride to space... And its now dropping off almost as fast now that you can buy songs legally for "a fair price", kinda like marginal utility if i'm not mistaken. If people want to copy your work illegally you aren't giving them the right price or enough incentive to purchase it legally. Millions of moral less teens have proven that, now that its more popular to pay for itunes or some other service...
As for novels, would it not be able to be assumed that each original work would have a seal on the cover stating that the author is getting his share from this printing? I would rather buy that book than the one next to it that didn't have that seal, as long as the prices/product were competitive, and the knock off would be committing false advertising if they tried to put that seal on there...
Though I think there should be some sort of line drawn for the two groups of IP I'm currently looking at, let me call them "artistic" and "mechanical". Artistic being books, music, art, etc, something that only has utility in and of itself, how could you be depriving anyone by not sharing it or making it public domain? Where "mechanical" would encompass physical improvements used to drive innovation such as drugs, algorithms, engines, etc. these being extensions to or improvements on something else, here just because you found out that X+B=Z first doesn't mean that Joe Bob on the other side of the world completely independent of your findings and research shouldn't be able use this in his newest invention...
I dunno, keep up the conversation, let me try and learn more from you!
Published: January 16, 2009 10:26 PM
Kiba
Peter Cohen:
Once again, please stop equating copying with theft. It is intellectually dishonest.
Published: January 16, 2009 10:47 PM
Egosumabbas
I think it's really funny that you think you can steal something that can be copied at zero cost without doing harm to the original copy.
Lets say I have some rabbits. For whatever reason, this particular breed of fluffy rabbits can't be bought anywhere else. They're very pretty rabbits and I want to sell them as pets to the children in town. I put a sign out saying they're $10 a piece. A few buys, but some people think the price is a little steep.
A week goes by and they've multiplied. There are twice as many rabbits. I'm forced to reduce prices by half. It also costs me twice as much to feed them.
Another month goes by. There are so many rabbits that they are literally bursting out of my pen. I hire some guards who try to chase down rabbits and toss them back into the pen. They also beat anybody who is holding onto a rabbit who looks a bit like the ones in the pen, unless they can produce a receipt of goods. This complicates policing. The townspeople are noticeably upset due to the enforcement, but the state of fear as meant that prices have stabilized--at least for now. Some people in alleys are selling bunnies for a buck apiece, and the guards are having problems chasing them all down.
Another month goes by. No matter how many guards I have hired, there are rabbits covering the whole city. Every other kid now has their own fuzzy bunny. I could drop the price to zero, and nobody would buy them. I could beat every child holding a bunny, but what would it matter if they returned them? How do I prove that those bunnies are stolen? I can't, because there are probably more multiplying outside of my bunny-pen than inside my bunny-pen.
As you can see, it's a real stretch
This is not socialism, this is an acknowledgment of reality. The bunnies are an allegory representing ideas. The guards represent IP lawyers and agents of the state. Ideas replicate. That's what they do. They are not physical objects. You cannot pen them up, or put them in a box and lock them. They are not property. They do not "belong to everybody" because they cannot be owned.
Published: January 16, 2009 10:57 PM
pbergn
RE: SweetLiberty
SweetLiberty,
I beg to disagree with your refutations of my logic in respect to the intellectual property.
Let me elaborate further:
1. I claim that the intellectual property, or just an idea cannot be considered private property once made public, by the same token as any other property cannot be considered private once made public.
Why should there be a distinction? For example, let us say you have a computer that belongs to you because you have legally purchased it, and now you put it outside your doorway with a sign "free". You have made the computer public, and thus you cannot make a claim on it. Or conversely, let us say you put a sign "for sale". Now if someone buys it from you, again you loose the ownership. To compare, let us say you have invented the first electric bulb, and you keep the design drawings in your safe. You have a new idea - an electric bulb, and you did NOT make it public - the drawings are locked inside your private property, maybe in your head... It's yours, no questions asked! Now assume, you stopped self-indulging and marveling at your exceptional brilliance as a great innovator, and decide to make some money. Remember, the idea of a bulb has no economic value to anyone - to the consumers as of yet, since they do not even know that it exists. The moment you put that flashy ad on the market proclaiming "the best and only clean magic light source in town" you make your idea public, much like showing your face on the street. From that point onwards, anyone who can clone your invention must have a legitimate right to compete with you in the free market, as long as no criminal act was committed to produce the same or similar product (in terms of forcing you to disclose your drawings or techniques, or simply stealing them from your private safe).
I understand where you are coming from though, as a libertarian. I fell into the same logical trap myself initially, when I first started thinking about the IP laws a few years ago...
Think about it - in the present day, the IP laws are merely serving as tools to establish a monopoly wherever it is possible (think Microsoft, Sun in the IT world, or some big Pharmaceutical company names). Most of the IP laws today are NOT being effectively enforced due to the impracticality of the whole endeavor. It would have been more productive in the economic sense if the resources directed at upholding the IP laws, and thus stifling the competition, were directed at producing something useful, instead.
2. Now I would like to address your second objection to my claim that the idea does NOT have an intrinsic value.
My claim is based on the fact that any good or service that can be consumed must be imparted to the ultimate consumers through some physical medium that can be sensed in some way or at some stage by human senses.
If you accept this claim, then the idea in one's head or written on a piece of paper and stored in the closet remains just that - an idea, an abstraction that can cause change in the physical world ONLY if it follows a certain physical path leading to the ultimate consumers.
Since the consumers are not affected by the idea itself, but rather by its concrete implementations, it is not valid to claim that the idea has an intrinsic value. There are many good ideas that are poorly implemented that have no economic or emotional value at all. And in some cases the idea itself is not valued until the consumers start experiencing the need of various implementations of that idea that were implemented for entirely different reasons.
In other words, since the idea does NOT have an intrinsic value by itself when considered in isolation from the ultimate consumers, and since it gains value when imparted to them in some shape or form, it is NOT valid to claim that one can "own" the idea by itself. By contrast, one can certainly own the various implementations of the idea, but NOT the idea itself. The moment it was imparted to other individuals they have the same rights to "own", i.e. in this instance, to be aware of it, as the initial source of the idea, provided the information was disseminated voluntarily by the original individual...
Published: January 16, 2009 10:58 PM
Peter Cohen
Kiba wrote: "Once again, please stop equating copying with theft. It is intellectually dishonest."
You are dead wrong Sir. Copying my intellectual 'property' most emphatically IS theft. You would assert that only physical property exists as property. This is clearly nonsense. If my talent, capital and labor is devoted to the creation of a work, a work that in normal circumstances people are happy to pay for, clearly that work is my property. If then later some trick of technology enables people to avail themselves of my work without paying for it, the work does not stop being my work and my property.
And if when that trick of technology has bereft me of any revenue from my profession, are all those who were professional artists, writers, etc., to then get jobs working at McDonald's and content themselves seeing the world satisfied solely ever more by amateurs, whilst their prior life's work is nostalgically enjoyed by all with no compensation to the creators? Do you think this is justice?
Published: January 16, 2009 11:10 PM
Daniel J. Sanchez
Jeff, your writing sparkles.
Does the book mention Homer and Bach? Both borrowed heavily from past works, synthesizing the best of their artistic heritages into the near-perfection of their respective oeuvres. Had they been working today, they would have been sued into oblivion.
Published: January 16, 2009 11:11 PM
Peter Cohen
To develop that proverbial light bulb (rabbit, whatever) costs the inventor millions of dollars. To then examine the light bulb and reverse engineer it costs vastly less. If the original inventor is not allowed to profit from their invention, there is no incentive to make the investment to invent it in the first place.
It is not the fact that the first copy has not been harmed or removed when a work is pirated. It is that the first copy costs significant money and work to create. If anyone is then free to take the work, without compensation, again there is no incentive to ever create that first copy. Those who would defend piracy are living in a bygone industrial mindset where only the tangible has value.
I work for a year, I spend vast sums hiring other people to help, and ultimately we create a work of art. We wish to sell access to our art. Along come the pirates and without a thought, they take the fruits of our labor and capital leaving us utterly unable to earn back our investment.
"But we didn't take anything away from you!" Claim the pirates.
No. Only our livelihoods and the product of our labor and capital.
Published: January 16, 2009 11:42 PM
newson
to peter cohen:
well, there is a real "amateur" niche out there already. and quite a bit of talent, i might say!
Published: January 17, 2009 12:20 AM
newson
peter cohen says:
"If the original inventor is not allowed to profit from their invention, there is no incentive to make the investment to invent it in the first place."
there is plenty of scope for profits, just that they're mainly to be reaped in the early phase of commercialization. so get the product out quick, cream off the very rich rewards because if you sit on it too long, the first-comer advantage wears off.
reverse engineering is not a costless exercise either, and still presupposes that the original product is already a success (otherwise why would anybody bother copying it). for every lightbulb, there are millions of duds.
Published: January 17, 2009 12:33 AM
Kiba
It does not matter if the first copy take a lot of money to create. It doesn't even matter if we can't or can earn back on our investment. Copying cannot be equated to theft, ever. Because copying is a fundamentally different thing from stealing.
I also don't give a damn if "pirates" forces you to work at McDonalds. Destruction of potential revenue sources doesn't count as theft anyway.
Not that it matter that there are indeed countless examples of business models that properly account for the fact that the production of intellectual works.
One example is my very own gaming encyclopedia. Anybody can copy my encyclopedia, put it on some other site and promote it, and yet....I still make money and I been doing that for over a year now. The revenues might be laughable to you but my enterprise is already profitable.
Yes. It took many hours to create that encyclopedia. Yes, anybody could copy my encyclopedia and then promote it and get all the revenues. Yes, it would totally sucks if someone actually did it.
But it didn't happen and even if it did happen, it probably benefit me more than the legal pirates and I'll probably end up making more money instead.
In other words, this issue is mainly a business model problem. That's why I don't give a damn.
Published: January 17, 2009 12:35 AM
Jukka M
Seems that one major argument for IP is the question of incentive.
Since we are speaking about moral values that question should never even pop up. It is a a question of practical nature, not moral or philosophical one, and it should be solved my entrepreneurs, not philosophers.
In short: Solving the problem of how to incentivize innovation ought to be left to entrepreneurs. Whether or not it is easy or impossible without IP should not be the base for a philosophical argument for IP.
Published: January 17, 2009 1:00 AM
Egosumabbas
I think people who think the world will end without IP and we'll all be living in teepees without artists and technology betray a serious lack of imagination.
Take our fetishist from above. Because a cheap computer now has the ability to process a few gigs of video and transfer it within hours, it doesn't surprise me that his stuff is pirated. He fears that he will be unable to keep his fetish business in place and keep his MILFs employed. A priori it seems like he has but two options: set loose a pack of lawyers on the internet, or shut the business down.
But this is a "with us or against us" logical fallacy. Even in a world without IP protection (either de jure or de facto) our pornopreneur could still make money. For instance, he could create an "open source" type porn site, where people post their own fetish videos, seeded with perhaps some of his older content to get the site going. The site could be paid with advertisements and endorsements related to his business, much like how broadcast TV and Radio operates. Viewers could rate other people's contributions, so contributors could compete. Top rated winners could receive cash prizes or free product tie-ins.
By the way, feel free to copy my idea, since I can't physically stop you from "stealing" it anyway.
Published: January 17, 2009 1:07 AM
enough
Shut up already and READ THE BOOK.
Published: January 17, 2009 1:35 AM
Jack
Mike wrote: "Labor theory of value, FTW!"
It is not the labor theory of value. I am not saying a thing is worth X because I put X amount of work into it. A thing is worth what people will pay for it. That is not in question.
A few years ago before piracy took off, plenty of people were willing to pay for my product. The same product; now people can avail themselves of it for free; does that mean it is now valueless? In truth to those who search out my product, they value it highly. They do not however 'pay' for it because they do not 'have' to. Stealing it is easy and without consequence, and so they do.
What I am saying is that this goes to the root of property rights. This is the fruit of my own labor and capital and that therefor; I own it! I do not simply own the right to 'my copy' of it.
----------------------------------------------
Actually all you did was to create a long number full of 1s and 0s that already existed. You do not own this number. Nobody owns this number. Everyone can use this number. Sorry.
Published: January 17, 2009 2:49 AM
newson
with the amount of free porn available on the internet from sites where no "stealing" is required, pay-for-service (so to speak) now requires something extra, as per ergosumabbas.
the paradigm has changed, but successful entrepreneurs will adapt accordingly.
Published: January 17, 2009 3:47 AM
Louis Sette
I have always thought it was telling that each DVD begins with an FBI warning against infringement of the copyright associated with the work to be shown. The warning shows the politically favored "intellectual" class has been able to harness government to protect its products. This contrasts sharply with what government has done with real property---it has invaded it with wetland, handicapped access, zoning, environmental and endangered species laws. The class of owners of real property---the local businessman, the farmer, the developer---is disfavored by the intellectuals who see them as exploiters. The property of this disfavored class may be invaded in the name of various regulatory virtues---but not the government created "property" of the intellectual. The accumulated Legislation burdening real property has effectively put a warning on it that might be summarized by this---WARNING, THIS IS REAL PROPERTY. THE GOVERNMENT MAY INVADE IT IN THE NAME OF THE PUBLIC GOOD AND THEREBY DIMINISH ITS UTILTIY AND VALUE. OWNERS AND POTENTIAL BUYERS BEWARE.
Published: January 17, 2009 6:39 AM
Nate W
SOOOOO wouldn't protecting IP in a patentless world be as simple as having everyone agree to a contract to not reproduce, reverse engineer, redistribute, etc?
Lots of good debate, but I think the comments about it not being able to own a string of 1's and 0's is very outlandish and not useful...
Published: January 17, 2009 7:47 AM
Franklin
Three cheers for Mr. Sette's fascinating observation. The heart of libertarianism is the belief in everyman as his own king. When we illustrate the numerous protections of an oligarchy in the name of "the people," I like to believe we attract converts.
By the way, ten or twenty years ago, Jay Leno poked fun of the VHS FBI warning, as well. I'm paraphrasing and can't remember the quote but the overall gist was: "They won't arrest the mafia and murderers, but they're gonna haul me away for making a copy of E.T."
Published: January 17, 2009 10:39 AM
Franklin
Governmental-driven "incentive" is anti-liberty.
Published: January 17, 2009 10:58 AM
SweetLiberty
I appreciate the elaboration from pbergn, but I still struggle with your analogy. Putting a computer I own out on my lawn with a for sale sign does indeed require me to relinquish ownership once the unit is sold. However, lets say I had the means to invent a new computer with 10 times the capacity for calculation of any computer currently in existence. It will take me two years of effort and 10 million dollars to develop this invention. If I know that the moment I put the computer out on my lawn for sale, other engineers will immediately clone the machine, taking them only 1 month and a fraction of the overhead to do so, I have an extremely narrow window of opportunity to recover my costs with first buyers before the clones descend, underbidding me substantially. And the competing companies don’t even have to “reverse engineer” but can simply copy what I’ve created without penalty.
In this IP free world, I would imagine the majority of consumers would gladly wait the extra month for the clone since its price will be so much cheaper (as the cloning company will not have to go through the 10 million dollar invention pains and can leap right into production and marketing). The real question becomes, is it worth my time and energy to build the new computer in the first place without a period of “exclusive rights”? In some cases, it might be, but in many others, I imagine the answer is no.
The specific products that David and Peter produce are not important, what is important is that they are two inventors that come to this blog with reservations about entering the marketplace in a world without IP protection. If they represent the majority of opinion of inventors and artists (and based on the small sample size of this blog, I’d imagine they do – though I’m no statistician), they clearly would not create their products without protections. What original inventions, works of art, etc. will the world be without if our innovators don’t feel its worth the time, money and investment to create them? Perhaps all that is needed is a new business model and change in paradigm to see the same benefits, but without a parallel universe to test which method truly works best, I can’t see innovators rushing to discard the IP protections they currently embrace. The question isn’t what’s best for the consumer, but what is best for the inventor, because without them, the consumer has nothing new to consider or purchase.
However, like Mulder, I want to believe. I just can’t see the dollars and cents working out.
Published: January 17, 2009 11:12 AM
Eric
SweetLiberty,
You're ignoring the other side of it. You will able to create your new super computer far easier since you won't need to hire a herd of lawyers to protect you from every idea you think you originated, but cold find that someone else had a patent already - who probably stole their idea from someone else.
I've developed software for 40 years. Nearly everything I wrote in the past was based on some idea that was freely available, for anyone willing to do some reading. Linked lists, binary searches, compiler theory, .... none of it was patented and the industry grew.
If I had a patent for some of the things I had written long ago, I could have stopped all the software that relies on virtual drivers.
I worked with someone who taught me the power of writing a virtual device driver. I used that to create a "drum roll" virtual magnetic tape driver, using ram (actually core memory) to simulate a tape drive. Sound stupid? Today maybe, but this was the era of punch cards. Now, it's the basis for every device driver that does MORE than just drive a device. Think ram disks, data compression disks, think vmware virtual disks, think..... well, I could go on forever.
Of course, I also stole the idea from someone else who gave me the idea I needed. I can see it now,
"Patent for the concept of pairing a device driver in kernel space with a user level process in a recursive manner".
Hell, I could of gone after everybody on the planet.
Lucky for all of us that none of us could patent software back in the golden days.
Published: January 17, 2009 1:01 PM
DixieFlatline
It's absolutely nuts that people still feel they are entitled to the labour value of their creations, regardless if anyone wants to buy those creations.
@newson - you hit the nail on the head. The marketplace evolves constantly. The state demands a static experience by regulation and coercion. Those who agitate for IP, are agitating to maintain a past that never was.
Published: January 17, 2009 1:20 PM
Franklin
At the end of Fahrenheit 451, the survivors of the war figuratively had "became" the books, memorizing them, word for word, and passing them down to the next generation, all in hopes that someday the classic literature could be introduced again in a more free and resurrected civilization..
If a book was memorized and then spoken at a later time to a transcriber, at what point is there a property violation. 'course, what with a nuclear war and rebuilding the planet as current to-do's, I doubt attributions on Moby Dick would be the priority of the day. Plus, Melville wouldn't have much to say about it.. But it does provoke a thought.
Absent that catastrophic scenario, if I had purchased a copy of Mr. Cohen's opus, memorized it, and I then turned around and charged a fee to speak it aloud to those unable to read, when and how often should Mr. Cohen be compensated? (Note, performing a play currently requires rights to the book unless public domain.)
Anyway, if someone attended my "reading" or "speaking" of Mr. Cohen's book, then wrote down my spoken words, then tried to sell the pages elsewhere, have both, one, neither Mr. Cohen and/or I an argument for trespass?
I understand that these hypotheticals become intellectual and sometimes silly puzzles, sort of "angels dancing on a pin," but it's just these kinds of convolutions that pushed me to the purist's position -- virtually no government intervention in IP save for upholding contracts. (OK, yeah, yeah, so government is enforcing the contract.). But many contracts could be applied to the above hypothetical.
Published: January 17, 2009 1:24 PM
Franklin
'scuse me, obviously meant to say, "...had 'become' the books."
Published: January 17, 2009 1:29 PM
SweetLiberty
My hypothetical does assume an IP free world. Take another example, E.T. Let’s say Spielberg spent 100 million to make E.T. with the latest and greatest special effects available at the time. He poured so much capital and investment into his product because he knew he would have exclusive rights to royalties ongoing. Now if he looked at making E.T. in a world where as soon as the movie is released, everyone can copy and redistribute it for free without consequence, certainly he won’t make a fraction of his money back. What is his incentive to spend 100 million if there is no projected ROI?
Again, I’m trying to take this out of the theoretical and see exactly where a business can make its money up front back. Yes, lawyers cost money, but if I employ them after a significant infraction against my IP rights has occurred, I am likely to recoup more than the attorney fees in damages against the company that “stole” and financially gained from my movie. Spielberg (and the production company that made E.T.) not only made royalties during the box office run, but also has ongoing rights to profit from video release and international distribution. Take those incentives away, and E.T. becomes a B rate movie made on a shoestring budget, if it’s made at all. The FBI warning probably won’t prevent Jay Leno from copying E.T. for his home theatre collection, but it will prevent him from televising the blockbuster after his show and gaining income from the commercials without first paying for the rights to the filmmakers.
While I agree that the current laws have spiraled into often ridiculous and unenforceable territory, I think it is equally egregious to support an absolute position which abolishes all rights to an inventors creation. There is a tipping point where lack of IP rights will cause inventors to just not bother.
Published: January 17, 2009 2:05 PM
John
Newson said:
REPLY: Apparently Newson missed the part where Peter said that Any new video I create is available for free within days, sometimes hours.
That's a pretty damn small window in which Peter is supposed to make his profits.
To all those who want to tell Peter and David to simply "find another way to make money" on their efforts, do you have any suggestions?
You talk a lot but seem to be bereft of actual ways in which they might be able to recoup their investment of time, talent, and money and maybe even gain a benefit from continuing their efforts.
No benefit. No efforts. Seems fairly straightforward to me.
What am I missing that would somehow incentivize creators to create if the potential for return on their efforts was thus minimized?
As for your jkrowling example . . . how ludicrous. So a billionaire writer with IP protection is able to make money off or her work. How in the heck is that an argument FOR jettisoning Peter's property rights?
Published: January 17, 2009 2:16 PM
Eric
SweetLiberty
You're still not seeing the whole picture (no pun intended). In a free market, there will always be some who see farther than the rest of us (me and you included). It will pay those who can see a business model that will pay off.
Just because we can't tell you how the movie business would have developed w/o IP doesn't mean that someone wouldn't find one. Maybe there'd be a big increase in live performances. Maybe someone would find a copy protection method that actually works.
So, your examples of "how would you do this" don't really apply. It's like asking how will the transportation systems of the late 1800's continue in the face of people copying the idea of the wheel and steam engines. Pity the poor horse and wagon makers.
IP is not part of nature, it is a creation of government. It's excuse for existence is NOT because people have a natural right to a monopoly of ideas, but because people gave up their natural rights to freely exchange information in return for the promised benefits of better innovation over the long run. Just as government monopolies such as the FED have turned out to be bad for society, so too has IP turned out bad.
Maybe it's because government is in charge and they have the touch of death about them. IP is different in that it can't exist without government protection. It's like selling air - you just can't do it unless you can get someone with guns to help you.
And maybe the answer is that big budget movies simply go away, and something else replaces them. Who even goes to movie theaters anymore today? I don't. Who wants to sit in a too cold (or hot) dark room, no pause button, people making noise, the floor is sticky, and so on. And who cares about computer special effects? Most movies that rely on them are awful anyway.
Published: January 17, 2009 4:06 PM
Rose Ley
I have read a great many of the blogs and have a question regarding the issue of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Fin as raised by someone.
I used to read the classics to my children when they were young. However, some of them are hard to understand and I have often wondered why these classics cannot be rewritten (word for word) in a language that modern children can understand without destroying the essence of the story and in a way that reflects life at the time it was written. Personally I think that this would actually preserve history.
Is this because of IT rights or something?
Published: January 17, 2009 4:45 PM
SweetLiberty
Hey Eric,
I appreciate some of what you are saying. The problem as I see it is you are asking all those real world creators today to drop IP in favor of something which you cannot foresee how it will benefit them. And just because you personally see no value in going to the movies or special effects makes a poor argument for abolishing the business entirely or replacing it with something unknown.
I agree, the “men with guns” must be hired to protect IP or it will dissolve. But those same men are hired to protect personal property rights. So the main issue comes back to, do I have a right to profit from my ideas, effort and investment made manifest or must I share communally with all comers. And if I must share, I for one (and I echo the sentiment of others here) will NOT put much effort into producing new creations.
Finally, we must not imagine a world that never had IP in the first place, for that world can only exist in speculation. What we must envision is today’s world and how it will change should the authors of the book get their way. That gives us real world problems to solve and would affect real people.
Published: January 17, 2009 5:25 PM
Nate W
Rose,
someone could do that due to Tom Sawyer and Huck Fin NOT being protected by IP. After I think 50 years anyone can copy/reprint the book(or is it a number of years after the authors death? would have to look it up), but there seems to be ways to work longer patents up through legislation making the IP problem even worse....
Published: January 17, 2009 5:30 PM
Nate W
Couldn't IP almost be equated to a type of price control?
For the blockbuster movie scenario, without IP your 100M budget would probably shrink considerably, probably most notably in the form of reduced pay to the star actors making 5-20M+.
There are lots of good CG guys out there that can do just as well as the guys getting millions but at a small fraction of the cost. If you look budgets of a movie you will see gross amounts of overhead and inflated costs.
Without IP you would have to have a good product that people would want to buy, at a price low enough to prevent people from copying...
Published: January 17, 2009 5:37 PM
SweetLiberty
"There are lots of good CG guys out there that can do just as well as the guys getting millions but at a small fraction of the cost. If you look budgets of a movie you will see gross amounts of overhead and inflated costs."
Really? Name one and point me to his company. You assume mismanagement as the norm and assert that the budget would "probably" shrink. If there exist equally qualified CG guys that can deliver for a fraction of the cost, isn’t it in the best interest of the producers to hire them to maximize profits for all shareholders? Again, conjecture that doesn't satisfy specifics.
Published: January 17, 2009 6:10 PM
Wes Bertrand
This is indeed an extremely important topic, Jeffrey. Most libertarians and nearly all Objectivists (it seems) favor some form of monopoly privilege in this realm. Chapter 6 of my book _Complete Liberty: The Demise of the State and the Rise of Voluntary America_ tackles the racket of IP from both a moral and economic perspective.
Here's the link: http://completeliberty.com/chapter6.php . It was definitely the hardest chapter to write, given that I too had absorbed many of the cultural (and Objectivist--even though I'm an AnCap) memes about the morality of IP. What really got me researching answers to this question was Ian on Free Talk Live referencing Kinsella's essay against IP nearly 5 years ago. I believe I've refined and clarified some of the ideas and issues raised in his essay too. And of course, I released CL into the public domain (via CC), but I'm selling the print edition on Lulu.com.
I also intend to do a few CLpodcast episodes on the racket of IP too, so for those interested, stay tuned!
Cheers,
Wes
Published: January 17, 2009 6:17 PM
Dianne
I lived in Guatemala for a number of years and the subject of patents and copywrites came up a number of times in various ways.
1. Our church wanted to project the words of the hymns being sung on a screen for the congregation. They needed some kind of special license or permit to do this since the hymns are copywrited by some music company or the heirs even though the original composers may be long dead.
2. The seeds that are available for the "campesinos" ro plant are patented and will not reproduce. This is a hardship for poor farmers who have been acustomed to saving seeds from one year to the next.
3. The local cable companies steal the signals that they sell to their customers. Their excuse is that the airwaves over Guatemala are free and they can pluck anything out of the air that they want (as long as they can de-scramble them).
4. Some local individuals, anticipating a well known company coming to Guatemala, put a copywrite on the name (for example: Purina). When the company does come to Guatemala and wants to market their product, they find that they have to pay this individual for the right to use their own trade name.
These are just a few examples. I am not passing judgment on any of this but think that these are situations that haven't been brought up and maybe should be thought about.
Published: January 17, 2009 6:50 PM
Renegade Division
@Peter Cohen
Instead of selling videos why don't you put your videos up on every possible porno version of youtube (like porntube, redtube) etc and make money off the advertising.
Of course that requires some effort on your part to contact the owners of those website to allow your advertising to appear.
BTW I just do wanna ask you a question, if there were 10,000 fetish-porn producers out there and they were producing 1,000 porn clips like yours per day, would you still be complaining about your product's price driving down to zero within hours of being released?
How about Bastiat's essay where the candlemakers of France are petitioning the govt to ban their competitor the Sun?
If you like Rand how about the idea in Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged where a guy suggested that govt should allow only 10,000 copies of a novel to be printed so that people will be forced to write new novels.
Surely that would push the Markets towards more excellence.
You do have a valid question that when you put your hours of labor into something, you must be allowed to reap its rewards.
But must we pay a person who pushes a Wall all day long the price of his labor? Why not?
In fact you make an amazing case for Protectionism.
Lets say you in USA sets up an multi-million dollar investment industry to produce Laptops, now suddenly, someone in China starts to produce and ship cheap laptops to USA at 1/10th the cost at which you are selling the laptops. Are you going to say that since you put so much labor and capital in it, the govt must protect you from evil Chinese people stealing your Capital?
I mean if you put $100K in a business and I with my business totally make that investment redundant, and take all your business have I stolen your Capital?
Published: January 17, 2009 7:03 PM
Eric
sweet,
Yes, there is the problem of we have IP now, and it's unfair to those that depended on it for their business model.
But so did the people buying homes with a business model that depended on "men with guns" creating counterfeit money and pumping it into the housing market.
However, with IP, it wasn't so long ago that it didn't even exist (read the book being reviewed). But we could eliminate it over time, or buy out their IP and set a date where it no longer would be enforced. In the least, we could go by the words of the constitution and make it for limited time. I don't consider life of author plus 75 years as a limited time. Nor are patents for 20 years limited time in today's market.
And what of the abuses of the patent laws? Perhaps someone who sits on a patent and does not use it should be liable for abuse of the patent system. That might reduce the number of patents down to a reasonable number. Not the 10's of thousands of patents that each large corporation has today.
I'm glad I'm out of the software business. I was burned by IP laws. I had a company that sold software before software could be patented. Even then, I was sued for calling one of my "raid" like software device drivers a "shadow disk". Someone had apparently trademarked that name before they ever had a product to sell. Then they copied our ideas (which we didn't mind, since we were earlier and better) but after we made up all the product materials with the words shadow on it, we had to change everything. And we thought the term shadowing was in the public domain. The competition sat on the trademark until we began our marketing campaign.
Published: January 17, 2009 8:02 PM
pairunoyd
What about the role of pre-selling certain creations, e.g., movies?
Published: January 17, 2009 8:21 PM
SweetLiberty
Eric,
I would absolutely be on board for re-examining and limiting IP laws to a more realistic time frame for today's market. And certainly there is abuse and waste, no argument. And perhaps that's where we can all find some common ground in reform.
And to Renegade Division, I would just suggest that no one is proposing the government limit anyone's production. Rather the better analogy from Atlas Shrugged would be John Galt walking away from his motor because he would reap no benefit "donating" it to a society that was unwilling to pay for it.
This topic interests me greatly, but I've said more than my share and will read what others have to contribute from here on. Thanks for the great ideas and well considered debate!
SL
Published: January 17, 2009 8:34 PM
newson
john says:
"REPLY: Apparently Newson missed the part where Peter said that Any new video I create is available for free within days, sometimes hours.
That's a pretty damn small window in which Peter is supposed to make his profits."
actually i specifically referred to the rich profits to be reaped in the early phase of commercialization. peter cohen's "product" is obviously dated, and whilst he made out ok in the past, now the commercial environment has changed and it's up to the individual entrepreneur to experiment new ways to get the customer to part with dollars.
those arguing mr cohen's case must explain how it is that the net is full of porn; much of it is free; and porn-pedlars are as dollar-driven as anyone else. somebody's making money!
Published: January 17, 2009 8:42 PM
scott t
i am not completely sure but i think a non-IP regime would work as well if not better than the current system in the us.
i worked briefly for a contract pharm laboratory that would essentially perform trials and testing for large pharm companies.
i am pretty sure they had to sign all sorts of confidentiality agreements with the pharm companies to begin drug compound testing.
numerous hplc chroma machines costing multiple thousands of dollars, dozens and dozens of well paid scientists, paperwork buy the stack load, costly waste product disposal procedures - and i assume this was the 'cheaper' way to (often FDA required) test drug compounds for many companies.
could a contract 'intellectual' market arise similar to the above without IP tyranny? probobaly.
health insurance companies, universities, hospitals and sports figures could all channel funding into research guilds and consulting firms - furthering research for new pharm developments, products and manufacturing technology.
research breakthroughs would be quickly heard about attracting more interest and likely money into 'intellectual' and research endeavors - from numerous sources.
the 'instantiation' that i have heard about would take place amongst the pharm manufacturing sector, who would also likely seek input (fee consultation) from the researchers (intellectuals) for production enhancement and quality.
if wal-mart sells liquigel analgesic caplets cheaper or is closer to where you live one would likely go there instead of say walgreens who would have a similar product - whatever the reason.
this may not be to far off from what already takes place - but without the costs of IP defense it might would work.
as for the arts - i believe that is basically a form of communication which cannot be owned but at best attributed to a prior source and best funded using 'fan' patronage. with the electronic age here - getting money to artistic sources for furtherance of their craft is pretty easy. ( http://www.posfi.com/ )
marvel comics now has many of their titles available (for a fee) for online viewing with a special software viewer (comic book broadcasting in a sense) - which i enjoy more than the comic 'books' themselves. this could probobaly be extended to the fetish producions spoke of in a similar thread.
if i was to pay for fetish material online , http://www.dana-and-friends.com/ - has lovely models and crisp photography and has been around for some time apparently. even some movie viewing and downloads are now available -- and more with financial patronage.
i see IP as unneeded and market methods to tech innovation and artistic continuance as superior.
Published: January 17, 2009 8:44 PM
newson
to sweetliberty:
minus ip, it's imaginable that rather than spend vast sums on technology for one particular film, smaller amounts may be spent and scattered over diverse projects.
if one special effect is successful, its cost will be reduced over time more rapidly. perhaps $100m won't need to be spent to produce ET, as the whole industry is caught up in the innovate-and-copy race. merchandising may account for even more of the profits than is currently the case. merchandise copycats may get their products to market after too great a lag for the super-profits.
it could also result in more ET's being produced as the technology is more rapidly disseminated, who knows?
Published: January 17, 2009 9:13 PM
Abhilash Nambiar
Jim Fedako tried to make a point by cutting and pasting everything that I wrote. The point being that copying someone else's work is not aggression and indeed he has not stolen anything from me. And I agree that people who plagiarize should not face the full force of state imposed aggression. In fact in the libertarian sense it is legal.
Nevertheless it does not therefore imply that all legal actions must be equally tolerated. And that plagiarism mustn't be punished by aggression does not mean it should not be punished at all. Boycott, exclusion and ostracism are still viable options. Better would it be if entrepreneurs find ways to prevent plagiarism without the threat of aggression or the involvement of the state.
Developers of original content may (or may not) like to have conditions attached to its distribution. If that developers work is held in value, then the distributor will indeed develop mechanisms to respect his/her wishes.
Published: January 17, 2009 9:34 PM
John
Here's a question : since intellectual property is "not property" and, once it is out there in the market it may be freely copied without limit or recourse, what if Peter produces a film and does not release it.
Then someone steals it put it out there, "on the market".
Certainly the thief should be punished for her act.
But may anyone now freely copy and distribute Peter's film even though he never gave permission for it to be released?
Published: January 17, 2009 9:50 PM
newson
to abhilash fedako(!):
being stigmatized as a plagiarist is already a career-killer in the creative arts. original thinkers will always be toasted, and rightfully so. i have no problems with people who copy and acknowledge, this is sportsman-like. civil society can do perfectly well where the state fails.
Published: January 17, 2009 11:27 PM
newson
to john:
the only crime is the burglary and the film theft. recipients of the film contents are not a party to the crime (unless they commissioned it).
peter should have insured his opus magnum, and stuck it in the safe, to be doubly sure.
Published: January 17, 2009 11:39 PM
newson
arguing that creative input is "capital" is just like hearing that you owe somebody friendship just because he/she has done x,y,z for you in days gone by. the moment i hear this, the "friendship" has been devalued.
past "sacrifice" from this "friend" may, or may not matter. on balance, they may just piss me off, notwithstanding all the time/effort they've "invested" in me.
Published: January 17, 2009 11:50 PM
PaulB
Every time this argument is brought up I see pages of debate over definitions of words such as "theft" and "property."
What all proponents of the abolishment IP fail to address straightforwardly is this fundamental problem: If I am not reimbursed for my labor, I will not spend my time creating intellectual product I would have produced otherwise.
Some people, such as those active in the open source movement, produce creative works because their enjoyment from doing so is a satisfactory reimbursement. But I speak for myself - I am interested in money, and I will not labor for free. Without protection of my IP, my potential product is forever lost from the world.
Do proponents of the abolishment of IP not understand this simple application of incentives? I must admit I have not read this book, but I do plan to soon. In the mean time, could someone against IP provide a solution to the problem I've presented?
Published: January 17, 2009 11:51 PM
newson
to paul b:
the book offers redhat as one of many example to rebut your criticism.
Published: January 17, 2009 11:57 PM
Kiba
PaulB:
"Open-source movement" is already a commercial enterprise. Look at the various programmers employed by large corporations like Novell and Redhat and look at their business.
They obviously already figured out how to make good money from "open source".
Published: January 18, 2009 12:07 AM
meekaaku
paulB:
I havnt read the book, but my guess is that if it is not suitable for u to labor because u are not getting the return u want then u not do it. someone else will whether for monetary gains or not.
the open source ppl has many factions, and there are always debate over which license to use be gpl, lgpl, bsd, apache, mit, CC etc.
redhat and others make money in the service contracts. sure you can buy their software like traditional licensed software but most of their money comes from service.
and the fact that the selling of product is not feasible never stopped the community from growing.
Published: January 18, 2009 12:31 AM
PaulB
Granted, open-source can work for computer software through subscriptions that offer support, more convenient data transmission, etc.
But what about something like a movie? That medium requires no support, and the price people are willing to pay for convenient data transmission is negligible when they can grab it for free from a p2p network. Furthermore, since no "updates" are being provided, anyone can provide data transmission as a service, not just the original producers.
How can a movie, which costs up to several hundred million dollars to produce, possibly pay off production costs? It must rely on charity, through people who pity the movie producers or wish them to produce more movies in the future. As such, the market can only survive through people "investing" in entertainment, i.e. paying for a movie before it is produced, so that it may be produced. How is it realistic to expect such an industry to thrive?
Published: January 18, 2009 12:33 AM
bigmammal
I’d like to counter some typical arguments against IP.
1. “Copying is not theft, because the author doesn’t lose anything”
There are two points here:
(1) Selling something is making a trade: I agree to give you something in exchange for something else. If you take my product and don’t give me what I want in exchange, you rob me, because you take away that something I wanted to get in exchange. You coerce me into doing something I don’t want and don’t have to do, while I give you a choice: make a trade or pass on the deal.
If you take some physical thing from somebody paying half the price they want you to pay, is it stealing? Yes it is. Because you force them into a deal they don’t want and are free not to make.
(2) If people/businesses who want to sell their ideas/products knew in advance that people have a right to them, they wouldn’t start their business in the first place. You tell me that there are others who would; I tell you that I personally wouldn’t. Others can give you a right to their products, but they cannot give you a right to MINE.
2. “When you sell your product, you make it public”
No. That’s what IP is about: Part of the deal is not allowing the buyer to make the product (make it public). If you agree to my rules, you have to follow them. If you don’t accept them, then don’t buy my product.
3. “IP protected by government, therefore it is against liberty.”
If this is true, can’t we say the same thing about private property? Government is created with the purpose to protect our freedoms. That’s why I expect it to protect my right not to be forced into deals I don’t want.
4. “There are many creators that work for free”
True. There are also kind people who give away their money. Does this mean everybody else is obliged to do the same? No.
5. “The demand will be satisfied without those who seek IP protection. Everybody will be happy”
If you are not afraid of losing those who seek IP protection, why don’t you just ignore their products and enjoy living in a world of non-copyrighted things? Why steal things that you can live without (= that have no value for you)? Ideas or access to ideas have value. This is why people want so desperately to get an access to those ideas.
Plus, at this very moment we can compare copyrighted and non-copyrighted products. Where are all good computer games and movies created for free? Do we have anything better than Photoshop?
I personally like Windows. Do you think somebody is going to develop Windows for free? No, I’ll get stuck with another version of Linux which I don’t want. If you remove IP, I won’t be able to get what I like and people won’t be able to sell it to me. Why would anybody want to create something that I want if they don’t expect to get something they want in exchange?
In short, abolishing IP implies infringing upon individual freedoms: you force me to follow the rules which I have a right not to follow. Somebody’s decision to not exercise their freedoms cannot take away my freedoms.
Published: January 18, 2009 1:48 AM
newson
to paulb:
you're appealing to the current business paradigm, distorted as it is via ip, to prove that the products that people cherish wouldn't be created in a non-ip world.
it is highly likely that the blockbuster as we know it today would be different, perhaps even unviable, but so what? other products will be dreamed up to satisfy the public, and do so with no more than standard contract law as underpinning.
entertainment didn't require ip to flourish for millenia. it will be interesting to see whether homer's "the iliad" outlasts homer simpson.
Published: January 18, 2009 3:59 AM
Artisan
@# bigmammal
I agree with your critic of the old "scarcity" argument
1. “Copying is not theft, because the author doesn’t lose anything”
There's another fallacy here that "anti IP - libertarians" cannot logically debunk without sinking in a chaos of contradictory opinions:
The fallacy of this argument is simply illustrated through the following absurd analogy:
the measure for "not loosing" is taken here "at the source", just like you would measure thus the sun radiation and come to the conclusion that solar panel energy cannot be owned in any ways,,, because you don't take anything away from the sun! (therefore it belongs to everyone!?).
Homesteading theories of free-market see it differently of course. But anti IP fundamentalists don't care about the theory of homesteading so much.
Conversely in the case of copyright the "solar energy " analogy suggests the ressource to tap is a pattern of individuality... with a clear original owner thus.
Published: January 18, 2009 4:51 AM
bigmammal
A couple more thoughts.
6. “It doesn’t cost anything to produce another copy of the idea/creation, therefore it should be free”
From the ethical viewpoint, you don’t pay for somebody’s labor itself, you pay for the benefit you’re getting from it. This is why good actors and musicians absolutely deserve their millions. And this is also a reason why you pay a full price for any material object, no matter how much it costs to produce it (which is a source of potential profit or loss to any producer/creator). If you insist that another copy of the idea should be free, you should also insist on “fair” prices of physical objects. Do I have to sell you a physical item for almost nothing just because my marginal cost is almost zero? If you don’t believe it is the demand that determines the price, then I wonder what you are doing on this site in the first place.
7. “IP slows down human progress”
Same applies to the world of material things. People/businesses sell material things for profit, not to boost human progress. There is no difference between material and nonmaterial things here: if you want the author to give away his creation for free for the sake of human progress, you may equally want a profitable company to cut its profits by half for the same cause.
The bottom line is that you cannot deny IP without being a socialist deep inside.
Published: January 18, 2009 7:00 AM
Jack
Regarding the solar panel/sun analogy - it's bogus. The energy that can be gained from the solar radiation is scarce (finite). Hence, it can be considered property of the person who harvests it.
The concept of scarcity has been brought up many times. Familiarize yourself with it.
Other people bring up consequential arguments. If you are going to argue consequentially, you will likely fall short. Please see the book. Innovation is spurred when the government does not regulate IP.
Published: January 18, 2009 8:54 AM
Peter Cohen
Newson wrote: "Those arguing mr cohen's case must explain how it is that the net is full of porn; much of it is free; and porn-peddlers are as dollar-driven as anyone else. somebody's making money!"
That 'free' porn is all pirated. Someone owns copyright on that and they are not getting paid. I know a lot of people in the porn business (not surprising) and they are all struggling, many are going under. Soon, most will be gone, the few remaining largely living off of avails of mass copyright violation. The porn that the web is full of is for the most part, all old work.
Gone are the days that we will see the like of Peter Jackson creating a billion dollar work of art like the movie trilogy of The Lord of the Rings. Unless we come up with a scheme that allows for people to actually own and be able to sell that which they produce, be it made of atoms OR bits, we will soon be living in a world in which all art is either old, or amateur.
Newson wrote: "Entertainment didn't require ip to flourish for millenia."
For those millenia, entertainment either required the labor of individuals at the time of the entertaining or physical media that were not easily copied. We need IP now because those days are gone.
It is not enough to simply state that because it can all now be easily stolen, that this is fine and good and should be enshrined in libertarian principle.
Renegade Division wrote: "BTW I just do wanna ask you a question, if there were 10,000 fetish-porn producers out there and they were producing 1,000 porn clips like yours per day, would you still be complaining about your product's price driving down to zero within hours of being released?"
I have no issues with competing legitimately against other people's products. I am not a candlemaker lamenting having to compete against lightbulbs. What I bemoan is that I am forced to compete against 'myself'! I spend significant labor and capital to create a work and put it up for sale. Almost immediately I must compete with an infinite quantity of 'my own work' which is now available for free. The 'price' of my work drops to zero.
Your 'sun' analogy would only be correct if there were an alternate universe containing an infinite amount of artists pouring 'their' creations into our universe for free. It is not that there is an infinite supply of art that is the problem. There is not. The problem is that there is for technical reasons, an infinite supply of 'my art' available to anyone unscrupulous enough to click the button. The effect of this is not to blot out the sun. It is rather to blot out the candlemakers in a universe that has no sun!
Published: January 18, 2009 9:34 AM
John
bigmammal said:
To echo bigmammal, if Peter sells a product with the specific proviso that it not be recreated, redistributed, copied, etc., -- with or without government backing as threat to fulfill that proviso -- are the specific individuals who break the proviso the only ones who are morally suspect in possessing the copies?
If you download his films, even though you did not put them on the file-sharing site, are you utterly devoid of any moral fault in this matter?
Think carefully before you answer.
BTW, bigmammal, well said,
Published: January 18, 2009 11:03 AM
John
Another note, it seems to me that this entire discussion is merely an attempt to cut off moral responsibility at the root and thus vindicate theft.
If only the actual copier is culpable, then all the rest of you can copy to your hearts' content. You are free in the "knowledge" that you are "right" to do so. All because it was "wrong" for the guy who created the content in the first place to be so selfish/ignorant as to want to control his own work and profit from it.
If people make things with the understanding that they would be re-made ad infinitum, that's one thing. They CHOOSE to participate in such a system.
As for now, when people like Peter are making things with the SPECIFIC understanding that, by trading for their products you are not to copy and distribute them, those who make the copies, as well as those who enable and encourage them to do so, are morally culpable.
=========
Would the society be better off if their were no IP? Who knows?
But to argue that is to argue that society's betterment is a higher principle than an individual's right.
A slippery slope to be sure . . . . . .
Published: January 18, 2009 11:25 AM
John
I said:
Sorry. That was imprecise.
A better way to phrase it would be:
To argue that it is ok for people to currently act as if such a system were already in place is to argue that society's betterment is a higher principle than an individual's right.
Change the system if you can. That's participatory government and reasoned debate. But don't try and tell us that it is allowable to behave as if the system were already changed.
Published: January 18, 2009 11:33 AM
Kiba
The pro-IP guys can whine as much as they want and how copying is theft and how we're trying to justify theft. The fact is...you can't steal through copying. We aren't justifying theivery.
They like to blame "pirates" for their poor entrepneurship and inability to adapt to the world as we know it.
Oh, I can't print books that I have legally purchase that compete with the official publisher because some jackass decided that he doens't want others to compete with him. Never mind the Against Intellectual Monopoly book have tons of examples that point to the opposite direction!
Never mind the fact that sites like techdirt has to continously point out example of successful business thriving without the needs for copyright!
Nevermind the bad business sense of becoming adversial to your customers!
Can you guys see? Of course not. You're blind to both reason and reality. You're blind to both moral and practical senses.
Published: January 18, 2009 1:34 PM
Bob Schaefer
Quote from the book in question:
“In fact intellectual property is a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty.”
My comment: The same could be said about tangible property. Say I happen to own a parcel of land under which can be found all of the world’s supply of a most valued resource – say Miracle Ore. The government grants me a deed and title to this land, effectively creating a costly and dangerous (?) private monopoly over the world's (?) supply of Miracle Ore.
My deed and title to the total available supply of Miracle Ore is sure to hinder growth, prosperity and liberty when considered from the point of view of the rest of the world.
If the rest of the world’s entrepreneurs had access to my Ore, the development of Miracles would certainly be greater as compared to my slow pace of development or my unwillingness to develop my Ore. Hence growth and prosperity in society would be more widespread. Society would benefit more greatly. The liberty of other potential Miracle developers would surely be curtailed by my monopoly ownership.
My question: What is the essential difference between the government's granting a copyright/patent for intellectual property and the government's granting a deed/title for my parcel of land?
Published: January 18, 2009 1:52 PM
John
That was whining? Note to self: update definition of whining.
You are talking about a world which does not exist.
Currently, producers DO have ownership of their "intellectual property" whether you like it or agree with it or not. They only produce it and agree to sell it with the understanding that no one may copy it without their permission.
As it stands, if you copy it, you are stealing -- whether you feel like that should be defined as stealing is irrelevant. It IS defined as stealing in the world in which you live.
Poor entrepreneurship is not adapting to your desired way the world works?
As for "the world as we know it" you are wrong.
You may believe wholeheartedly that IP laws are wrong and should be abolished. (Maybe you are even right.)
But they do exist and thus, like it or not, you are subject to them.
Protest in court. Fine. But if someone decided to make a case out of you, your belief that the world does not include the stealing of intellectual property might be sorely tested.
Examples of instances in which lack of IP laws would have promoted the general welfare are all well and good. But just because something is socially useful does not make it right.
What you are arguing for is a change in the current idea of an individual's property rights.
You might believe you have a good case to make. That is what some here are doing. But to say that a producer like Peter is a jackass because he wants to profit from his work while you either want it for free or want to profit form it as well . . . .
[If you want so badly to profit from Peter's work, why not talk to him and make an arrangement to do so? Why take the easy (and currently illegal) way out and wait for him to make all the effort than piggyback on his production? Or why not show him up and make something better without copying his work?]
He is operating in a world which includes the idea that if his agreement to sell includes a "do not copy" rider, it should be honored. You seem to think that, because he is not the best businessman in (your version of) the world, that he should just shrug and resign himself to the fact that you are purposefully violating the agreement made upon selling.
Isn't a cornerstone of libertarian thought the idea of a "voluntary transaction"? If that voluntary transaction includes a restriction you don't like, don't accept it. But don't convince/encourage a proxy to make the agreement under false pretenses and then proclaim yourself blameless when you gain under such a ruse.
Because some people choose to operate under such terms as you would prefer does not mean that you get to force everyone else to do so as well.
Just because techdirt choses that model does not mean that you get to make Peter do the same.
Perhaps he could make more money under an alternative model but chooses, to his financial detriment, not to do so.
THAT'S HIS CHOICE TO MAKE NOT YOURS.
How can you guys justify forcibly altering the parameters of the sell/purchase agreement after the fact?
Convince the rest of us first and make the change. THEN you are blameless. As it stands, you are not.
Published: January 18, 2009 3:18 PM
Peter Cohen
So the physical goods that people produce with their hands are held sacrosanct by libertarians as being the sacred property of those who have produced it. This is enshrined by the principle of individual liberty and self ownership. However many here would now assert that non-physical goods that people produce with their minds are different. They are to be the communal goods of all mankind. How very libertarian of you.
Published: January 18, 2009 3:26 PM
jeffrey
Not so. You can produce and keep anything with your mind and call it yours. But when you share it with others, it becomes theirs too, and you can't use coercion to keep them from further sharing it with others.
With real private property, you can own a resource for a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand years, provided heirs hold it too. Ask yourself how it comes to be that the state so carefully regulates IP terms: the answer is that this is artificial "ownership" wrought by positive law, not the market.
Published: January 18, 2009 3:33 PM
Artisan
@ Jack
Regarding the solar panel/sun analogy - it's bogus. The energy that can be gained from the solar radiation is scarce (finite). Hence, it can be considered property of the person who harvests it.
The sun rays ARE energy, so for human standards I d say the sun shine is the closer you can come to NOT scarce. We're talking about the sun, which cannot be as such "property" of anyone, can it?
What I say is By IP-opponent standards as Bigmammal mentionned, one would measure scarcity at the source if something is missing (is the "cd master" still there undammged by illegal copy)... so the IP opponent looks at the sun to see if it's still as bright as before, and tells the guy with the solar panel, on which he now casts his shadow : -" I'm not really taking anything from you and you have no priority on that particular use anyways because, at the source, the sun is still there, shining as strong as ever".
(...yet I'm not saying art is the sun by all means! The analogy with the sun and copyright just STOPS here... for understanding)
Published: January 18, 2009 4:19 PM
Peter Cohen
Jeffrey wrote: "Not so. You can produce and keep anything with your mind and call it yours. But when you share it with others, it becomes theirs too, and you can't use coercion to keep them from further sharing it with others."
Note that I am here specifically talking about art work. If I spend my time, talent, labor and capital to produce a work, clearly I own that work. I may do with it as I will. I can choose to give it away, to give away all rights. I can also choose to contract with someone to sell to them limited rights. Can you possibly assert that I may NOT enter into a contract to give someone the right to enjoy that work without my surrendering all rights?
The principle at stake here is that I did not, do not, 'share' it with others. I enter into a contract with someone and sell to them limited rights. I sell to them the right to possess a copy of my work, to view it and enjoy it at their leisure. I expressly do NOT sell to them a right to give copies to other people, nor do I license them to give license to others to view my work. If a pirate breaks that contract and provides copies or the means to make copies and give away access, they have violated the contract, they have stolen from me rights I did not grant to them.
Furthermore, at no point in this have I surrendered any rights to anyone to make additional copies. Simply because a pirate has made it 'easy' for other people to now make their own copies does not change the fact that I have not voluntarily relinquished my rights. Anyone subsequently making copies and viewing my work without making a contract with me is in fact, stealing from me.
Jeffrey wrote: "With real private property, you can own a resource for a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand years, provided heirs hold it too. Ask yourself how it comes to be that the state so carefully regulates IP terms: the answer is that this is artificial "ownership" wrought by positive law, not the market."
Government has attempted over time to enshrine rights to physical property in law. The failure of government to adequately protect property rights is one of the pillars of libertarian thought. Obviously the government is imperfect when it comes to enshrining property rights. This is also the case with intellectual property. However simply because the government has made an imperfect attempt to enshrine such rights, does not mean that no such rights exist.
If I come up with an idea like being able to reverse the camera on a cell phone so you can see yourself on the phone's screen when taking a portrait of yourself and others (so you can adjust the picture frame), I agree that it is absurd to expect phone makers fifty years from now to still be paying my heirs a royalty every time they produce a phone. The laws regulating IP obviously have problems. (And there by the way is an idea I wish a phone maker would 'steal' from me. I hereby relinquish all rights to this idea. ;-)
However this does not mean that there is no such thing as property with regard to the creation of a movie, a television show, etc.. Do you truly believe that people will spend one hundred million dollars to produce a movie so they can sell a single ticket and then have the product of all their capital become the common property of all mankind? Do you truly believe that this is justice?
For the whole of human history, the physicality of things created a scarcity of physical things that could best be mitigated through the actions of a free market. There is in fact today a scarcity also of art, art that by mere coincidence, an accident of technology, can be easily copied. There are for instance insufficient blockbuster science fiction movies to meet my demand. There must be a market so that I may offer within that market money to encourage the creation of more such art. You Jeffrey are headed down the road to a philosophy that destroys the market I need, both to satisfy my own demand for art that I wish to consume, and to destroy the market I need in order to sell my own art to those who have a demand for it. You have been seduced by the ideology of communism.
Published: January 18, 2009 4:21 PM
Eric
PaulB wrote,
"What all proponents of the abolishment IP fail to address straightforwardly is this fundamental problem: If I am not reimbursed for my labor, I will not spend my time creating intellectual product I would have produced otherwise."
This ignores that fundamentally, YOU should be responsible for protecting your IP, not me (through taxes to enforce IP laws).
The appropriate way to protect IP is by CONTRACT. The academy awards allows some to preview their works provided they agree not to allow it to be copied. To this end, they encode the recipient's identity into the product so that any copy can be traced back to the party that didn't safeguard the material. The contract stipulates what penalty is imposed if the contract is violated. The contract is agreed to in advance by all parties.
I don't think any true libertarian would have any problem if IP were handled by private contract. If the penalties are so harsh for violation of the contract, then nobody will agree to the contract. And if the loss from violation of the contract is so high, then a better business model will need to be created.
IP law thus also has interfered in the natural investigation of ways to protect IP through innovation. This is a loss we cannot easily put a price tag on, but is there nonetheless.
IP laws also use force to make me protect what you call your property. Why should I have to pay for this?
The answers given would seem to be twofold.
1. Because I too wish to be protected in this manner but I don't want to personally pay for this. I.E. I wish to socialize IP.
2. Because others will not get to benefit from my efforts if I don't produce the IP.
This second argument is that there is a greater good for society with IP laws. And this is not proven in my opinion.
For one thing, society loses the opportunity costs of so many IP legal experts choosing IP law vs. something more productive to society.
But the really bad result is that IP laws lead to political favors and compromises which lead to millions of other laws. There are so many confusing, irrational laws on the books that society loses over all. We'd all be better off without IP law and all of its unintended consequences.
Published: January 18, 2009 4:45 PM
John
Eric --
Opportunity costs, political favors, compromises, laws, greater good etc. are all "ends justifies the means" arguments if there ever were any.
And Peter IS using a contract which is subsequently breached.
Is that contract somehow void if he does not have the resources of the Academy Awards to encode his products in the same manner they do?
Published: January 18, 2009 5:01 PM
John
Seems to me that IP laws do not force you to do anything positive. They restrain you from doing something -- namely copying and distributing someone else's IP.
You are under no obligation to do something about someone else. Merely to not do something actively transgressing his IP.
Published: January 18, 2009 5:21 PM
Jeffrey Tucker
IP is not a contract between two parties. If it were, it would be called a contract. The key to IP is the coercion of third parties. You sing a song and no one else may sing it without paying you etc.
Published: January 18, 2009 5:33 PM
bigmammal
Jeffrey writes:
"You can produce and keep anything with your mind and call it yours. But when you share it with others, it becomes theirs too, and you can't use coercion to keep them from further sharing it with others."
The point is that some authors don't want to share their creations with others unconditionally. You pay me the money and I agree to share my idea with you, provided that you don't share it with others. If you don't like this clause as part of the deal, you're free not to buy my product. As the author, I have a right to share my creation with others, not you. I don't sell you that right, I sell you access to the creation. If you want to share it with others, you should ask/buy my permission. This is the same as a right to sublease. You cannot sublet the property without the owner's permission. How do you know whether you have the right to sublease or not? It's part of the license agreement you have to accept if you wish to make the deal. Again, if you don't like my rules, you are free not to play. I have the same right: you cannot force me to play by your rules.
Published: January 18, 2009 5:49 PM
newson
peter cohen says:
"Soon, most will be gone, the few remaining largely living off of avails of mass copyright violation. The porn that the web is full of is for the most part, all old work."
this is similar to the writer railing against the competition of "free" books in the public library. if recycled, free porn is all that the market will tolerate, so be it. the "stars" will migrate to pole-dancing in pubs, or some other service to capitalize on their talent. i somehow doubt that the online porn market is going to stop developing new product, but how the money is collected will be the job of the next larry flynt. to ask for more protection than standard contract law is to ask for taxpayer subsidization, as eric says.
it's not all old material out there in pornoland, there's a thriving amateur market competiting with the pros (think yuvutu etc, and its analogues).
Published: January 18, 2009 6:20 PM
Peter Cohen
Jeffrey wrote: "IP is not a contract between two parties. If it were, it would be called a contract. The key to IP is the coercion of third parties. You sing a song and no one else may sing it without paying you etc."
We are again stuck in semantics and legalisms. When I sell access to my work, it most emphatically IS a contract, inadequately and only partially partially defined by existing law as "you do not have a right to copy this work". Just because the words used by government didn't happen to include the word 'contract' does not void my rights to my property.
And again aguing the point from my personal perspective, I engage in no 'coersion' by insisting that my work not be copied and given away. The act of copying is a deliberate and from my perspective, criminal act. It is not coersion to stop someone from engaging in theft!
Newson wrote: "it's not all old material out there in pornoland, there's a thriving amateur market competiting with the pros (think yuvutu etc, and its analogues)."
I have said it before in this discussion; if things continue as they are, soon all art will be either old or amateur. From a social perspective (leaving aside the fact that my argument is based on personal property rights), this is a bad thing. The days of big budget movies and well produced television will soon be over, and this is not hyperbole. What is happening in the market for art is that the market itself is dying. Piracy is killing it. It is rapidly becoming impossible to support oneself through the creation of professional art. And for the champions of the market to think that this death of the market is a good thing strikes me as a crushing betrayal.
Actually what I expect to happen is that the market will be killed off but people will insist that big movies and television still exist and that the government should do something about this. Government will then dutifully start levying taxes with which to support publicly funded movies and television so that at least some new production will still exist. Welcome to the Austrian utopia of socialized intellectual property.
Published: January 18, 2009 6:46 PM
Eric
John,
***
Opportunity costs, political favors, compromises, laws, greater good etc. are all "ends justifies the means" arguments if there ever were any.
And Peter IS using a contract which is subsequently breached.
Is that contract somehow void if he does not have the resources of the Academy Awards to encode his products in the same manner they do?
***
I posed the counter argument to the greater good argument. I don't agree with that argument in principle, but I tried to show that even if it were a valid principle, that IP law doesn't even hold up in this light.
I'm a libertarian. My fundamental principle is uninitiated force on others to be outlawed. I also believe that promises (i.e. contracts) should be honored. In no other case, except for violation of the 2 principles of no uninitiated force and contract violation, should force be permitted in anything.
I'm sorry but I don't really know which argument you refer to in your second statement regarding Peter.
I'm of the opinion that copyright is ok, so long as it's done through private contract. But once it is handled by IP law, things change. Then decisions are made, not from principles, but by whoever has the most political power at the moment.
Because copyright law is so vast and confusing, it is often impossible to tell if one is in compliance with the law. And the law can change. The Supreme Court has interpreted the no ex-post-facto prohibitions in the constitution to their own choosing, ignoring the clear meaning of the words. Thus, they can change the meaning of the laws and therefore the laws themselves, at will. Just adding more years to a copyright is an ex-post facto, at least to those who were readying their own business model to make use of the public domain material. Laws that constantly change, are purely political laws, as opposed to natural laws, such as those against murder, which always hold. (Drug laws are another example of political laws, that change all the time and are not natural law).
Disney is the worst offender. They made most of their fortunes using public domain stories, but then convinced politicians (probably through bribery - sometimes known as campaign contributions) to extend the copyright so they could continue to keep a monopoly on ideas that were, by law, supposed to be only protected for a limited time.
Patent law is quite different. In this case, you can be forced to stop using your own ideas just because someone else had the same, or similar idea and was first to apply for a patent. Even if you feel IP is true property, how can one own an idea if another discovers the same idea on their own. This is different from copyright, where at least one can argue the unlikelihood of 2 works having the same exact wordings. Property cannot be possessed by two at the same time. IP violates this concept of property, as regards to patents.
And finally, your last argument (re: Academy awards) would say that people shouldn't have to place locks on their doors, and to have to do this is some violation of their natural rights - or that others should have to bear the costs of the locks. You ignore the fact that I then have to pay for their protection. Should I then also have to pay for everyone to place locks on their doors?
Published: January 18, 2009 7:06 PM
Jeffrey Tucker
Peter, if you want to exclude others, it is incumbent upon you to find the means to do so. you must create an artificial scarcity. Some people manage this with various tricks: water marks on photos, for example. That's fine. But if you release your creation for the public, you can't then expect to use the state to stop people from being influenced by it and sharing it with others.
Published: January 18, 2009 7:10 PM
Jeffrey Tucker
Interjecting a personal plea for all those who find this topic challenging and interesting: please read this book. Think about it. Study the issue. Think some more. Consider that you might be wrong, or at least accept the challenge that Kinsella/Boldrine/Levine have offered. This is far more important than tossing out arguments based on nothing other than a quick intuition.
Published: January 18, 2009 7:13 PM
Eric
John, "Seems to me that IP laws do not force you to do anything positive. They restrain you from doing something -- namely copying and distributing someone else's IP. "
I disagree, IP laws force me to pay tax dollars to support their enforcement (not to mention the very high costs of lawmakers and their perks). And laws, without gun carrying enforcers, are not law, but merely suggestions.
Published: January 18, 2009 7:13 PM
bigmammal
Eric: "IP laws force me to pay tax dollars to support their enforcement"
So you wouldn't mind if I create a private army to enforce the contracts people make with me?
Published: January 18, 2009 7:26 PM
John
Isn't IP Law a subset of Contract Law in a sense?
Peter sells his films under a contract which states that they may not be copied or distributed.
This is a contract which is subsequently broken.
(At least some) IP laws are there to punish this transgression.
Published: January 18, 2009 8:14 PM
Jeffrey Tucker
Well, Stephan should address this more completely but there are limits to contracts. Let's say a health food freak sold me a cereal with the proviso that I not add sugar to it when I got home. I mean, once I buy it, it is mine, and screw the crazy grocer.
Published: January 18, 2009 8:20 PM
Peter Cohen
Jeffrey wrote: "Peter, if you want to exclude others, it is incumbent upon you to find the means to do so. you must create an artificial scarcity. Some people manage this with various tricks: water marks on photos, for example. That's fine. But if you release your creation for the public, you can't then expect to use the state to stop people from being influenced by it and sharing it with others."
I have explained at length, several times now, that there is not an infinite supply of art. It is not the 'copies of art' that are at stake here, it is the art itself. There exists a scarcity of new, original art. I own my art, I do not permit that others should own my art without paying me for that right. You suggest that the enforcement of my property rights is my job and that I cannot request of government that it protect my rights. But it has long been held that one of the sole legitimate reasons for being of government is precisely that, to protect people's right to their property and the legal obligations of contract. But here you would assert that in the case of 'my' property, 'my' contract, I am on my own, I may not seek recourse to the law.
I do not 'release my art' to the public. I offer it for sale to individuals in the public, I offer limited rights, that expressely does NOT include giving away copies or allowing others to make copies.
How can you not see how wrong this is? You assert that I as an artist must provide for the public the fruits of my labor according to my ability so that they may consume it according to their needs. My work is to be the common property of all mankind. My desire to reap profit from my work is simply my greed.
I apologize for being emotionally engaged in this debate, but I sit here today destitute because of piracy. Where once I could sell license to my art to hundreds, now I am able to sell ten or twenty of a new work. Many here have claimed that this is my own fault for not adapting to the new socialist paradigm of my product being free for all. But very few artists are able to make that adaptation without severe and permanent hardship, some art forms cannot adapt at all.
And I should not have to. The Mises Institute should be my greatest champion. Imagine my betrayal.
Published: January 18, 2009 8:23 PM
Jeffrey Tucker
Peter, everyone is VERY interested in this topic, so please provide a specific case. If you paint a painting, there is only one painting that you painted. It can be sold. There is still only one. It can only have one owner at a time. One and no more. No problem. No IP is necessary.
A museum-private property-can restrict photos of it in order to keep the image scarce. No IP.
If, however, you post it somewhere public and someone photographs it or draws it etc., there is nothing that will permit you to beat them up. you cannot own the image as such. you can only own the physical property of the painting itself.
Published: January 18, 2009 8:36 PM
Peter Cohen
Jeffrey wrote: "Peter, everyone is VERY interested in this topic, so please provide a specific case. If you paint a painting, there is only one painting that you painted. It can be sold. There is still only one... ...You cannot own the image as such. you can only own the physical property of the painting itself."
My specific case: I put together a script, I build a set, put together props and costume, I hire actors, I shoot video, I edit the video, I do foley and score, and when all is done I have a finished video on my computer. The video is something other people would value viewing, traditionally I have been able to make a decent living from people paying me for the privilege of possessing a copy of the video. That is my specific example.
Your thesis is that unless I possess the technical means to restrict copying, that I have no rights to my creation the instant I have sold a single copy. (Such means have been attempted and they are promptly and deliberately cracked by pirates. Am I somehow expected to reap the full measure of my costs and profit from that single sale?) And how on earth you could possibly come to that conclusion and still think that you are on the side of ethics absolutely boggles my mind.
You assert that because my creation is not made of physical matter, that I cannot own my creation? You make a HUGE assumption here. Where is it written anywhere that physicality is a necessary precondition for property rights? This is simply an assertion you make and it is a wrong assertion. CLEARLY I own the product of my work. That the work should exist as bits rather than atoms does not change ANYTHING with regards to my right to my property. The only thing that it changes is the fact that other people may easily steal it.
Fortunately for me the world is run by big governments that somehow are more interested in protecting my property rights than is the Mises Institute. (!!!)
Published: January 18, 2009 9:10 PM
Jim Fedako
Peter,
I'm not understanding your predicament.
You claim there is something so unique and desirable about your product that hundreds willingly spent money to purchase it. Now there are ten to twenty willing to do the same. What happened to the rest? Where are they finding a substitute?
Earlier you made the claim that the substitute products are low quality. By whose standard? Yours? The consumer?
I ask this since McDonalds introduced its Angus Burger in order to compete with the high-quality burgers offered by the likes of Red Robin. In my opinion, the Angus is both good and cheap. So I would rather save a tenspot and buy the Angus.
Certainly the folks over at Red Robin are aghast at the quality of the Angus versus their offerings. But there it is, and there I am.
If the Angus put Red Robin out of business, would that be any different from your experience? Didn't Red Robin also invest a lot of capital only to see their ideas "stolen" by a competitor.
Published: January 18, 2009 9:23 PM
newson
john says:
"Isn't IP Law a subset of Contract Law in a sense?"
willful breach of copyright can find you charged with a crime, and possibly incarcerated. breaches of contract are dealt with by the civil courts, the state is the adjudicator, not a party to the action.
Published: January 18, 2009 9:24 PM
John
Jim, hundreds were willing to pay for it . . . until they realized that, within hours of his selling a copy or two, it would be available to them on a pirate site.
So Peter is in competition with a free version of his own product. It's a bit tough to be better than yourself. . . . .
The McD's/Red Robin analogy is faulty because Peter is not competing with a different film producer but with pirated copies of his own product.
Published: January 18, 2009 9:40 PM
John
newson, perhaps it would be better for the charges to be brought in a civil court where the offended party is part of the case rather than the government.
Either way, it still amounts to a breach of the initial sales contract, doesn't it?
Published: January 18, 2009 9:44 PM
Peter Cohen
Jim Fedako wrote: "I'm not understanding your predicament."
Thank you John.
"Earlier you made the claim that the substitute products are low quality. By whose standard? Yours? The consumer?"
I do not believe that I said that. There is another person who posts to this blog who goes by the name 'Peter'. He falls on the socialist side of this argument however.
Published: January 18, 2009 9:54 PM
Jim Fedako
Peter,
Earlier, someone posted this comment under the name "Peter Cohen":And yes, I suppose it is possible that some manner of supply will exist to fill a demand once all profit motive has been eliminated from intellectual property. However it will be a demand filled by amateur hobbyists working with little training, tools, or for that matter, talent.
Was that not yours?
Assuming that it was your comment, who gets to decide the quality issue?
John,
"Jim, hundreds were willing to pay for it . . . until they realized that, within hours of his selling a copy or two, it would be available to them on a pirate site."
I'm still not understanding the predicament. Are you saying that the buyers are satisfied with one version only? If that is the case, there was never a market for videos two, etc.
I'm gathering that there is still a market for Peter's product (he has said the very same) and that this market desires new products (which is exactly what Peter said in his first post).
I am just trying to figure out how the demand is currently being satisfied. I wll assume that all producers face the same predicament as Peter. So is nothing being produced for this micro-niche market?
That question is has still gone missing.
Published: January 18, 2009 10:44 PM
Jim Fedako
Post clean up:
John,
I meant to include this in the quote from you: "So Peter is in competition with a free version of his own product. It's a bit tough to be better than yourself. . . . ."
And it's the answer to the question that is still missing.
Published: January 18, 2009 10:55 PM
Peter Cohen
Jim Fedako wrote: "Earlier, someone posted this comment under the name "Peter Cohen" :And yes, I suppose it is possible that some manner of supply will exist to fill a demand once all profit motive has been eliminated from intellectual property. However it will be a demand filled by amateur hobbyists working with little training, tools, or for that matter, talent."
Yes, that was my post. As to your question; "Who gets to decide the quality issue?"
It would seem to me to be perfectly obvious that there will be a HUGE quality difference between Peter Jackson producing the movie version of the Hobbit with a budget of 200 million dollars and a solitary hobbyist creating the same story using machinima on his PC. Give it ten years and Peter Jackson and all such similar artists not working under government grants will be for all intents, no longer producing.
"I'm still not understanding the predicament. Are you saying that the buyers are satisfied with one version only? If that is the case, there was never a market for videos two, etc."
I spend time and money creating a video "Harem Girls Gone Wild" for instance. I put that video up for sale. Someone buys it and promptly uploads that video to a pirate site. It is not some other version of the "Harem Girls Gone Wild" video, it is the exact same video. 90% of my customers know that my new work will be available for free from pirates within days and so never bother to pay me for the video, they would rather wait and get it for free. Certainly they want me to produce more similar scenes. But they will then wait and pirate those too.
"So is nothing being produced for this micro-niche market?"
There are fewer and fewer producers still creating material for the niches I have served. The few that remain are looking to get out. Those that have stuck with to date it have done so by pushing the limits of what is legal in a desperate attempt to increase demand among the remaining 10% of clientele.
Published: January 18, 2009 11:10 PM
John
Jim
Hundreds of people want to see the video. Now, only one need buy it and the other 299 or so can wait for the free pirated copy.
Thus Peter makes only the money from the first sale while everyone else waits.
Buyers are satisfied with that video and hope Peter will make more. Unfortunately, they are (wittingly or unwittingly) decreasing the supply of his product because now, with no profit available to offer him a living and (potentially) fund the next film, he will no longer do so.
He is now out of a job because someone is breaching the purchase contract they made when they bought his film.
It may be that amateurs will step in and make similar films for that micro-niche.
As it stands, that purposeful breach of contract you all seem to applaud is diminishing that field by at least one professional producer.
If this is such a micro-niche, it just may be that no one will step up to provide the content given that you and others like you are so easily willing to see Peter put out of business through willful breach of contract by distribution of his product.
=============
I read a good piece in the WSJ the other day about how Atlas Shrugged seems to be coming true.
Reading this blog, filled with intelligent people actively promoting the end of Peter's (and other producers) rights, makes me worry the author may be right. =(
=============
Like I said before, if you and others of like mind want to live like this, go to town. More power to you.
If you can convince others to do the same, yippee!
But to think that it is moral to force Peter and others like him to live by your rules -- rules they explicitly reject -- prior to your IP-less Utopia becoming reality . . . that's wrong.
Published: January 18, 2009 11:15 PM
crosson
Sorry in advance for the long post. This is in response to ktibuk.
Instead of reading the whole post I just skipped most of it just to respond to Ktibuk's flawed example which proves nothing.
Ktibuk-"If you build a theater with a capacity of 1000 seats in a town populated by 500 people, there wouldn't be any scarcity of theater seats (imagine seats are homogeneous). Now according to the argument from scarcity, if the theater seats aren't scarce and if there is no rivalry, these seats can not be property. Which is absurd since the the theater was once the property of the builder. And if the theater builder creates an artificial scarcity by not building a theater that big, but creates scarcity by building it for 100 people than he is condemned by these people."
First off this example is terribly flawed, because it assumes that somehow seats can be built as if they were scarceless like thought or idea is. You cannot compare subjective objects with physical objects. First off there is no metric which you could even fathom that would accurately measure the ingenuity and thought process of man. Your example cannot be applied to the metaphysical. You cannot compare metrics of the physical world to objects in the metaphysical or otherwise subjective world.
How is it 'justice' that man A develops a device on one side of the planet, then man B who by his own originality later develops his own new but equally similar device however cannot produce it or share it with his neighbors due to IP. Furthermore where is the encouragement of man B to further develop this device? Where is the encouragement of any man other than man A to further develop the device? There is none. And what you have is technological stagnation.
Now, let me explain to you why your example is fundamentally flawed. It would cost a theater twice as much money to build that many seats, it would then charge twice as much on movies. Then it promptly will go out of business because no one would attend the shows due to high price. The theater would not be able to pay it's high mortage due to purchasing twice as much realestate then was necessary. So in short, the seats are still scarce, even if you do place twice as many. So the Theater must objectively decide not to built more seats than necessary, along with all the other amenities of the theater. So it is obvious that one cannot compare the metrics of the physical world to objects from the metaphysical world. As they are vastly different.
Lets say for the sake of argument that we could. If we are to take your assumption that objects in the metaphysical should be held to account just as physical objects then it rises some itneresting questions. Should society pay the man who "thought" that a theater should exist there in the first place. What if it was the man who didn't even build the theater? Does not society owe the man whom wholly owns the original idea of this great theater? How much do we pay him for his idea that either has not been built or was built by another party.
More so, metaphysical objects are untangible, and free for you to produce without effort. If this was not the case than I could simply think of food and be fed. However I ask you, can you think into existence a banana? I think not, you must gather materials and put forth labor to produce your banana. When you are hungery you can think of food all day, but it will not ease your hunger. You must put forth the effort and labor of actually eating. Only by producing a physical object are you repaid and rewarded. You can produce metaphysical objects all day long as they come free to you without any effort however the laws of nature will not pay you untill you rise and produce yourself something to eat.
Perhaps society owes a great debt to the original inventor of the wheel. Since this man is dead should we not instead pay a hefty some to an individual who inherited his idea? You see, the more we explore this line of thought, the sillier we become.
So as you can see, the laws of scarcity, production, and consumption do not apply in the metaphysical. If they do, I should like to charge you an extra free for reading this response, not because I put forth the effort to write it, but because I thought of it originally. In fact I would like to keep you on notice everything I think of something that may be of benefit to society, not necessarily produce.
Lets continue...
The first tool was built by a cave man. It was then developed by another caveman into something more clever. Several years later another intelligent man created a Hammer. One thing led to another and all of the sudden we had nails, knifes, screw drivers, nuts, bolts, steel buildings, structures, etc.... Technology develops in an exponential pattern without these restrictions. Could you imagine what would have happened if the original caveman had some kind of IP restriction on his crappy stone blunt tool? Where would we be today?
An ipod sells for 400 dollars. It does not cost this much because the IPOD is an ingenious object, though it may be. It costs that much because of the silicon, copper, and other raw scarce materials that go into making it are scarce. It also costs that much because there is a finite amount of physical ipods produced each year which makes them scarce. The idea behind the IPOD only becomes a marketing tool making the object more desireable to consumers.
Finally, there is nothing more socialistic then making an attempt to centralize the ownership of ingenuity and the metaphysical to a single person or organization. We are advocating the opposite of general ownership. We are advocating ingenuity.
Published: January 18, 2009 11:26 PM
Cliff Rosson
And this is in response to myself.
I apologize for the bad grammer/spelling. Next time I'll use a text editor....
Never the less, I think my point is sound.
Published: January 18, 2009 11:32 PM
Jim Fedako
Peter,
Regarding quality, many people I know spend more time watching goofball YouTube videos than watching TV or movies. There is a real market for free amateur entertainment; a market that sees new products every day.
And I would bet that Peter Jackson is aghast when he considers that he has to compete with home videos of babies laughing (some of those have 100 million views).
"Those that have stuck with to date it have done so by pushing the limits of what is legal in a desperate attempt to increase demand among the remaining 10% of clientele.
So no one ever pushes the limit to satisfy what appears to be unmet demand? I find that claim hard to believe. And who is producing material for the other 90%?
John,
"But to think that it is moral to force Peter and others like him to live by your rules -- rules they explicitly reject -- prior to your IP-less Utopia becoming reality . . . that's wrong."
Force? No one is talking about forcing Peter to do anything. Where did that come from? Peter is the one wanting the social apparatus of coercion and complusion on his side.
Published: January 18, 2009 11:39 PM
Cliff Rosson
And this is in response to myself.
I apologize for the bad grammer/spelling. Next time I'll use a text editor....
Never the less, I think my point is sound.
Published: January 18, 2009 11:52 PM
Peter Cohen
Crosson wrote: "Metaphysical objects are untangible, and free for you to produce without effort."
My example video was not produced without effort. My 'metaphysical' objects take significant labor and capital to produce. The problem is that it takes virtually no significant effort on the part of the pirates to then subsequently steal my work.
And then we get to things like say, a new drug that costs the developer 200 million dollars to produce. Are they to be content when they market their drug and two weeks later someone else is selling their drug for a fraction of the price? All such companies would promptly go out of business, leaving the world to fund it's new drug research how? Government taxation and government research programs perhaps?
"An ipod sells for 400 dollars. It does not cost this much because the IPOD is an ingenious object, though it may be. It costs that much because of the silicon, copper, and other raw scarce materials that go into making it are scarce."
This is profoundly incorrect. The raw materials in that Ipod are no more expensive than the transistor radio that comes with the key chain you can buy for $1.95. And neither is it the small production run, for that key chain certainly is not selling anywhere near as much as the Ipods. What makes the Ipod cost what it does is in fact the degree of effort and ingenuity of a great many people that needed to be paid while creating the idea and design of it.
Published: January 18, 2009 11:55 PM
crosson
Peter Wrote “My example video was not produced without effort. My 'metaphysical' objects take significant labor and capital to produce. The problem is that it takes virtually no significant effort on the part of the pirates to then subsequently steal my work.”
What metaphysical object are you refering to? I have never seen such an object, short of the images of my own imagination.
“And then we get to things like say, a new drug that costs the developer 200 million dollars to produce. Are they to be content when they market their drug and two weeks later someone else is selling their drug for a fraction of the price? All such companies would promptly go out of business, leaving the world to fund it's new drug research how? Government taxation and government research programs perhaps?”
So Drug company B is prohibited from using it's own original ingenuity in developing the same product even if it's development is completly original? If Drug company A doesn't want its molecular compound from being discovered then they shouldn't be in the risky game called “Business”? These are the risks you take when you participate in business. And, no such company would go out of business. This statement is 100% speculatory.
“This is profoundly incorrect. The raw materials in that Ipod are no more expensive than the transistor radio that comes with the key chain you can buy for $1.95. And neither is it the small production run, for that key chain certainly is not selling anywhere near as much as the Ipods. What makes the Ipod cost what it does is in fact the degree of effort and ingenuity of a great many people that needed to be paid while creating the idea and design of it.”
This is profoundly correct and you fail to disprove me. All you have done is corrected the cost of the ipod which Iassure cost more then 2 bucks. If you melt it's contents down you may get 2 bucks, probably less, of raw materials. However thats besides my point, you have actually just agreed to my argument. What your paying for maybe is the R&D that went into the development process. Since research and development cost in the way of raw materials and time of labor than there is a physical tangible object which needs to be considerd in priceing. More so however demand and supply of the ipod detirmins it's power. Howver the pricing of goods is a completly different argumetn and your argument is completly besides the point. The “IDEA” of the ipod did not alone give the object it's price. The “Idea” behind the ipod simply has assisted in it's attractiveness of the consumer and possibly increased its demand. However I could argue that it's features and ease of use is whats made it a success. The zune had the same idea but has not felt it's success. Perhaps microsoft should not have been allowed to create the zune? Perhaps they should pay royalty fees of the idea to Apple. Perhaps we shouldn't have competing technology at all? We already have one example of this. One of the biggest examples of IP is the software world int he form of Windows. What we have is a monopolistic environment in the way of desktop operating systems. However look what it is also has produced, a backlash of open-source software. Any how the original point is the same the “idea” is not the soul reason for the price.
And I for one would like to challenge you. I'd like to see you with your own equipment and tools produce 1 single Ipod for less then 400$. Short of mass production/equipment/ and other such tools that cost money you will not be able to do so. The general makeup may be cheap copper/silicon/ and other components, but the capital goods that were used to produce it plus the labor are tangible, unlike the original idea.
And you seem to have ignored my counter-example about the seats or the caveman analogy.
Published: January 19, 2009 12:21 AM
newson
john says:
"As it stands, that purposeful breach of contract you all seem to applaud is diminishing that field by at least one professional producer."
this breach of contract is something that regards only peter and the other contracting party. let the two sort it out amongst themselves and not drag the state into the dispute as a part in cause.
Published: January 19, 2009 12:31 AM
John
Jim -- Don't play dumb. It ill suits you.
By force I meant that you and others who denounce IP rights see nothing wrong in what happens to Peter.
You applaud the pirates who diminish his ability to make a living and you actively encourage them to do exactly that.
You are by all intents and purposes trying to force him to adapt to a world governed by the rules you wish to see enacted.
But rather than wait until you can convince enough people of the rightness of your view, and then implement the societal and legal scaffolding upon which to enforce your vision, you either actively undermine his current rights or at least encourage others to do so.
Perhaps you hope that the more widespread this becomes, the more likely society is to stop (ignorantly) resisting the "obvious" power of your position. Who knows your motivation? But it certainly is the case that you are trying to make Peter live in your IP-less Utopia prior to it becoming reality.
That is what I meant by "forcing them to live under your rules" and you know it.
Published: January 19, 2009 12:39 AM
John
newson --
If something to which you have access is available as the result of an illegal act, and you know it is the result of an illegal act yet you avail yourself of it anyway, do you bear no culpability in any way, legal or moral (or any other "-al"), for using it despite knowing the circumstances of its origin?
Published: January 19, 2009 12:45 AM
newson
to john:
i have no problem at all if i am the benefactor (unwitting or otherwise) of some breakdown between the two contracting parties. there is no illegality because the contract falls within the ambit of the civil code, not the penal code.
Published: January 19, 2009 1:00 AM
JJ
"You are by all intents and purposes trying to force him to adapt to a world governed by the rules you wish to see enacted." - John
-------------------------------------------
Wrong. It takes government regulation to uphold IP - not the other way around.
Published: January 19, 2009 4:44 AM
Michael Smith
This book changes nothing.
When a man creates the content of a work of art -- a book for example -- or creates a design for a new invention -- or creates a formula for a new material -- the content, the design and the formula become his property -- his property by right of the fact that he, and he alone, is causally responsible for bringing the content, the design or the formula into existence.
All subsequent copies of the book, or instances of the invention or batches of the new material necessarily make use of the creator’s property -- namely, the content, the design and the formula, respectively. Absent its content, there is no book, only a collection of blank pages. Absent its design, there is no invention, only a collection of un-integrated components. Absent its formula, there is no new material, only a collection of separate ingredients. Thus, to make any copy of the book, to produce any instance of the invention, to produce any batch of the new material necessarily requires the use of the creator’s property.
The commercial value, if any, of the book, the invention and the new material will be determined by the market -- by those individuals willing to trade their money for them. But whatever commercial value the market assigns, it is made possible by what the creator has contributed: the content of the book, the design of the invention and the formula of the new material. No one will pay for a blank book or a useless collection of components or a random collection of ingredients.
Observe that the man who merely copies the creator’s work is adding nothing that the market values. Those who purchase Atlas Shrugged do so not to gain possession of the paper and ink inside -- which is all that the copier has provided -- rather, they purchase it to gain possession of its knowledge and content -- which is what its creator provides. The same is true of any copier who seeks to appropriate the commercial value of the creator’s work; the commercial value he receives in exchange for the copies he makes is not given in exchange for what the copier is providing -- it’s given in exchange for what the creator provides.
This is why all of the commercial value made possible by the creator’s property rightfully belongs to the creator. Simply put, there is no “right to copy” because there is no right to use another man‘s property without his permission. The libertarian claim that copying is acceptable because it does not involve the initiation of force against the creator is false; when the copier makes unauthorized use of the creator’s property to obtain a portion of the commercial value made possible only by the creator, he is obtaining funds that are rightfully the property of the creator. The copier’s physical possession of money rightfully belonging to the creator -- his act of keeping the money from the creator by physically possessing it himself -- is indeed the initiation of physical force.
The libertarian claim that “ideas can’t be property” -- the assertion that the ideas expressed in the content of a book or in the design of the invention or in the formula of the new material cannot be owned -- is obviously false, for IP law is precisely the means of protecting them as property, and properly so. Nothing justifies the notion that merely because the property in question first has an intellectual existence, i.e. an abstract, mental existence, its physical existence in instances of the book, the invention and the new material cannot be owned. Nothing justifies the notion that the physical output of a man’s muscles should be protected as property, but the mental output of a man’s mind belongs to the public at large.
Nor does the existence of invalid and obviously flawed examples of intellectual property constitute an argument against intellectual property per se. The existence of an improperly granted patent, for instance, doesn’t argue for the elimination of all patents and the legalization of copying inventions any more than the existence of some improper laws argues for the legalization of murder.
Nor does the possibility of simultaneous invention argue against IP. IP law can allow for a sharing of the right to the invention; both inventors can be, and should be, protected against copying.
The libertarian claim that everyone has a right to profits made possible only by the creator’s work introduces the twin notions that: a) Property rights need not be earned, i.e. they may be unearned, and b) Earning a right to property does not give one an exclusive right to its use and disposal, i.e. others may have a right to what you‘ve earned. But this is an inversion of justice, which demands that the earned be granted and the unearned withheld; in other words, it is an injustice -- and nothing can justify an injustice.
None of the libertarian arguments against intellectual property are valid, because none change the essential fact that property -- and any commercial value that the market may be willing to exchange for it -- belongs exclusively to the man who brings it into existence. The bottom line is that no man has a right to the output of another man’s mind -- and consequently, he has no right to any of the commercial values a market is willing to trade for that output.
Published: January 19, 2009 7:31 AM
John
Nicely said, Michael.
Published: January 19, 2009 7:51 AM
JJ
"None of the libertarian arguments against intellectual property are valid, because none change the essential fact that property -- and any commercial value that the market may be willing to exchange for it -- belongs exclusively to the man who brings it into existence."
One can argue that the person did not bring it into existence. He just found something that was already there.
"The bottom line is that no man has a right to the output of another man’s mind."
This is precisely the argument for no IP. A man sees a new production method that is fascinating. It enters his mind. He uses his knowledge to build a business. He gets sued. It is THE PLAINTIFF who asserts that he has a right to the output of another man's mind.
Many of your assertions are predicated on the fact that IP is property. If we allow this, then your assertions make perfect sense. However, if we allow this, we do not have an argument in the first place, do we?
It is precisely whether IP is property that we are debating. If we seek to prove that it is or isn't property, we cannot start the proof by saying "Let IP = property...".
Published: January 19, 2009 8:16 AM
newson
a question for michael smith:
a thief steals some canvas and paints from my workshop. he's the next basquiat and turns out some masterpiece on my materials.
the theft is discovered. who owns the goods? me, the owner of the physical capital, or basquiat who contributes labour and talent?
Published: January 19, 2009 8:49 AM
newson
anyone know of randians who don't buy the ip part of the package?
Published: January 19, 2009 8:51 AM
bigmammal
JJ: "One can argue that the person did not bring it into existence. He just found something that was already there."
To argue this, all you need to do is to prove that it existed before. Can you do that?
"It is precisely whether IP is property that we are debating."
Officially, property is defined as "one's exclusive right to possess, use, and dispose of a thing". Obviously, the author of an invention have all these rights before he makes it accessible to others and nobody can claim he had these rights before him. The access to his invention is a lease, not a property transfer.
Published: January 19, 2009 9:07 AM
newson
bigmammal says:
"Officially, property is defined as "one's exclusive right to possess, use, and dispose of a thing"
what's a thing? something touchable, or something intangible like a thought or a feeling?
Published: January 19, 2009 9:19 AM
Jim Fedako
John,
"By force I meant that you and others who denounce IP rights see nothing wrong in what happens to Peter."
How is that force? You use very sketchy definitions.
Keep in mind that Peter started this string when he claimed that he had a right to earn a living producing his material. His defense: he has made investments of time and money; he and others benefit financially; absent his IP protection, the market will end up in the hands of what he terms amateur; this will lead to what he terms low-quality products.
That is not a sound justification for IP.
"You applaud the pirates who diminish his ability to make a living and you actively encourage them to do exactly that."
I "applaud' no one. Where did that come from?
"You are by all intents and purposes trying to force him to adapt to a world governed by the rules you wish to see enacted."
There you go with "force" again. I'm typing on a PC, not employing any coercive force whatsoever. I know, I know. You have a slippery definition of force. So, in your mind, my typing may actually constitute force. But that is quite an expansive definition, wouldn't you say?
"But rather than wait until you can convince enough people of the rightness of your view, and then implement the societal and legal scaffolding upon which to enforce your vision, you either actively undermine his current rights or at least encourage others to do so."
Encourage? Again, these verbs that appear out of nowhere.
"Perhaps you hope that the more widespread this becomes, the more likely society is to stop (ignorantly) resisting the "obvious" power of your position. Who knows your motivation? But it certainly is the case that you are trying to make Peter live in your IP-less Utopia prior to it becoming reality."
You accused me of playing dumb, yet all you offer is slippery words, misplaced verbs, and hyperbole. Regardless, I'm glad I have the ability to exert force when necessary. I only wish the neighbor's yapping dog recognized as much.
Published: January 19, 2009 9:50 AM
Peter Cohen
Bravo Michael Smith!
Thank you for that. I've written ten times as much in this discussion and not come half as close as you did in articulating this position.
Published: January 19, 2009 9:53 AM
Jeffrey Tucker
I hope that the IP advocates on this blog are aware that they are posting their precious thoughts for all the world to see. There is a grave danger here that someone could be influenced by their ideas and even adopt them as their own-- which is really an act of theft! The best course of action is to lock the doors, shut down the computer, and speak only to yourself (checking the room for bugs first of course). Only in that way can you be full secure in the ownership of your amazingly valuable thoughts.
Published: January 19, 2009 10:14 AM
ktibuk
Jeffrey,
You are reaching for straws. All these posts are gifts. I personally enjoy posting my ideas which are payments in itself. And I am sure everyone else is doing the same thing, including you.
You have to at least realize that you argument is in a tough spot once you try to negate property rights based on the fact that some of the property is given away for free.
Please don't ever go to a philanthropist and claim he doesn't have a right to any property because he is spreading his wealth.
Published: January 19, 2009 11:31 AM
bigmammal
"what's a thing? something touchable, or something intangible like a thought or a feeling?"
It doesn't matter as long as there are rights attached.
Published: January 19, 2009 11:44 AM
Michael Smith
@JJ
One can argue that the person did not bring it into existence. He just found something that was already there.
One cannot patent a discovery, only a creation.
JJ went on:
"The bottom line is that no man has a right to the output of another man’s mind."
This is precisely the argument for no IP. A man sees a new production method that is fascinating. It enters his mind. He uses his knowledge to build a business. He gets sued. It is THE PLAINTIFF who asserts that he has a right to the output of another man's mind.
I assume in this example you are referring to a man who sees a patented production method and proceeds to start a business using this method.
The production method is a creation, which properly belongs to the creator who brought it into existence. In bringing an action against another man who is using the patented production method without permission, the plaintiff, the creator of the method, is not asserting a right to the output of the other man’s mind -- he’s asserting a right to output of the patented production method, which is his, the creator’s, property, and which the other man is using without authorization.
More from JJ
Many of your assertions are predicated on the fact that IP is property. If we allow this, then your assertions make perfect sense. However, if we allow this, we do not have an argument in the first place, do we?
It is precisely whether IP is property that we are debating. If we seek to prove that it is or isn't property, we cannot start the proof by saying "Let IP = property...".
I didn’t start with that assumption. I started by noting that the content of a book, the design of an invention, the formula of a material are brought into existence only through the knowledge and effort of man, i.e. only through an act of creation.
Objectivism holds that the source of man’s rights is his nature as a rational being who must produce what he needs to survive. Accordingly, for a rational being to survive, he must have ownership of what he produces; if others are allowed to physically take all or a portion of what he produces, his ability to survive is crippled accordingly.
The creation of the content of the book, of the design of the invention and of the formula for the new material are precisely such acts of production. The content of the book, the design of the invention, the formula for the new material are all real -- they all exist -- they were all created by man. These three creations are responsible for whatever commercial value other individuals are willing to trade for the book, the invention or the new material. They must belong to the man who produced them, i.e. the man who created them -- by right of the fact that it was his knowledge and action that brought them into existence.
Published: January 19, 2009 11:48 AM
Peter Cohen
Frankly Jeffrey, I am surprised at you. That sort of comment is beneath a man of your standing. If your argument has been reduced to this you truly are left with straw.
How can you not see the fundamental injustice of your position? A man pours his heart and soul, his time, labor, love, talent, capital et al, into the creation of a work that just happens to not be physical. While another does the same for a work that is physical. For the person who has created the physical work you stand ready to champion his rights to his property, your whole philosophy is predicated on this. But for the person who created the non physical work you denigrate his rights and proclaim that 'his' work belongs to all. You would reduce me to a slave in service to those who wish to avail themselves of that which I create, for free. In your world I would cease to create until forced to by the state.
Externally for the physical you are an Austrian. Internally for the non physical you are as socialist as Marx.
Published: January 19, 2009 12:03 PM
John
Jim -- sometimes people use insistence on overly precise definitions as a way to obfuscate what to others is perfectly clear. I hope that is not your goal.
You seem to think that "force" means only application of physical coercion upon a person's physical body.
Pardon me but bullspit.
If I change everything in your world to be purple, I have not, under your defintion, "forced" you "to do" anything. But to say that I have not forced you to live in a purple world is ludicrous and you know it.
When (people like) you use pirating sites to download copyrighted products, (people like) you are trying to force Peter and other producers to live under (people like) your idea of an IP-less Utopia. (People like) You deny him his current property rights by (people like) your act.
While (people like) you are not physically touching him, (people like) you are making him live in a world which he did not agree to, does not agree to, and specifically rejects, despite (people like) your arguments as to why he should drink the kool-aid and enjoy the ride.
When (people like) you tell the pirates that what they are doing is not actually wrong but "actually better for society," instead of saying "if we can change the laws, then it will not be wrong; and changing the laws would be a great idea," (people like) you are encouraging others to create the scenario above, even if you do not join them in copying Peter's products, thus, again, making him live in a world he did not agree to, does not agree to, and specifically rejects.
In the narrowest sense, (people like) you are absolutely correct -- encouraging others to commit a crime is not the same as committing the crime.
But if (people like) you are so innocent, tell me, do (people like) you approve of the crime the pirates are committing since, in (people like) your vision of the world their acts (hopefully) bring society closer to jettisoning IP laws?
Do (people like) you not fully intend that (people like) your arguments make the pirates actions more likely? Do (people like) you not hope that more people will take (people like) your arguments and use them as justification to commit the crime of which (people like) you (seem to) approve?
Stop playing innocent, Jim. If (people like) you don't believe these things, then why are (people like) you putting so much effort into arguing with Peter that his loss of work is nothing to be concerned about? That it is merely the right thing to have happen since his notion of IP is wrong and he should just see that and adapt?
Published: January 19, 2009 12:07 PM
bigmammal
newson, here's an example of an intangible property: your abilities and experience. You have an "exclusive right to possess, use, and dispose" of it. Your job is a lease of your property to your employer. A transfer of this property would mean that somebody can use and dispose of this property without your permission, which is slavery. Your decision to be somebody's slave does not give anybody a right to enslave others. Denying IP is promoting involuntary servitude to the common good, therefore socialism.
Published: January 19, 2009 12:14 PM
Marcus Wilmes
i didn´t read the book only the article, but from my point of view ideas are scarce because only living people have them and why copy ideas in the first place if there enough alternatives?
Simply invent another solution to the problem.
,
Having an idea and making a product that sells on the market is not the same the later always need work and capital and both are scarce!
A bootleger or somebody who puts Peters fetish videos on the net is not coping the idea of the song writer or Peters they are copying the whole product
not the idea but the implementation of the idea.
The copying guy is not paying the musician or the actor in Peters vides there is no treaty between the actor/musician and the guy that makes the copy, so this some kind of involuntarily work and like the income tax somekind of slavery.
Published: January 19, 2009 12:24 PM
JJ
Michael - you often use the phrase 'brought into existence'.
But this implies before some invention was 'brought into existence' - it did not exist.
But another person could have created it earlier - this was a possibility at the time.
Hence, it did actually exist at this time. It was just that nobody realized it.
Everybody - big hug. We are friends.
Published: January 19, 2009 12:33 PM
Patrick
This sounds like a scholastic argument but in the real world of raising money for a small company, it doesn't meet muster. As an entrepreneur raising money, IP provides security to the investor that the business idea can be implemented and more importantly protected. Without IP, my company's innovation can be implemented by a GE with billions to invest. How can a small company ever compete or seek investment? At best, the VC's will tell you to go directly to GE and sell them your idea. Jeffrey,, as one speaking from the trenches, the abolition of IP would destroy entrepreneurship and innovation and even give more power to the oligopolies at the expense of the free market.
Published: January 19, 2009 12:40 PM
Peter Cohen
JJ wrote: "Everybody - big hug. We are friends."
Yes, well...
Those friends are robbing me blind. With friends like these...
Published: January 19, 2009 12:40 PM
Jim Fedako
John,
We are talking theory here. You are telling me that I am not allowed to discuss IP -- and state my views, which are counter to the prevailing views -- since, by doing so, I may lead others to copy existing material. You've really keyboarded me into a corner, haven't you?
Here is what I conclude about this whole discussion:
1. There is no market justification for IP. Even Peter will state that the market adjusts. Oh, sure, the adjustment is not to his liking, but it adjusts nonetheless.
2. Peter has every right to use contract law to restrict use of his property. He can sue for damages. Without much effort, he could add identifiers to each instance of his product, thus revealing the one (ones) who violated the agreed upon contract.
3. Peter does not own anything beyond the initial contract. He does not own absolute right to his material -- I don't even know that he claims as much. So when Peter and A agree to the use of Peter's material, that contract cannot bind B, or any other individual not party to the contract.
If that's considered socialism in practice (as many are claiming), the term socialism is now devoid of meaning.
Interestingly, folks have not addressed libraries even though libraries have the same effect as the internet -- libraries reduce sales by providing the material free of charge (tax contributions excluded).
Published: January 19, 2009 1:18 PM
ktibuk
Jim Fedako,
"IP Socialism" isn't some term used for agitation in a libertarian site.
You are socialists because you are advocating, socialization of private property. You just want to socialize IP thus, you are IP socialists.
Also fraud and theft is coercive force. The creator thus owner of a video would only let you watch it for free under the threat of coercion. The fact that you download it anonymously over the internet is not the issue.
Stealing a song, a movie over the internet is no different than breaking into a house at night and stealing someone else's property without actually coercing anybody.
Also third party argument is a technical enforcement issue and putting it in the middle of the theory is a way to cop out of the argument.
If a copyrighted material leaks there are different possibilities that would be handled differently in a court of law. People who knowingly steal and people who come across copyrighted material unknowingly may be handled differently.
Published: January 19, 2009 1:45 PM
Jeffrey Tucker
amazing that this form of "ownership" was only discovered 200 years ago, and only recently protected for life! In the whole history of humanity, everyone missed it!
Published: January 19, 2009 1:48 PM
John
No, sir. I am not telling you that you may not discuss it.
I am saying that if you are telling pirates that what they are doing actually is right and ok because Peter has no claim on them, then you are encouraging them to force Peter to live by your desired rules.
If you are telling others that getting rid of IP is a good idea and hey let's go get our laws changed to make it happen, that's legitimate.
It is a subtle difference but real.
It seems to me that you are actually advocating the piracy of Peter's products since, as you say, he has no rights in them.
This is against the law.
You think the law is wrong. Fine. Change it.
Advocating the ignoring of the law prior to bringing about that change is the part in which you make your error.
Published: January 19, 2009 1:52 PM
ktibuk
I don't agree with John here.
Nobody has to live by an unjust law.
But in the case of copyrights the law happens to be just.
Published: January 19, 2009 1:59 PM
crosson
"anyone know of randians who don't buy the ip part of the package?"
Rand discussed the theft of the state of IP and used that theft to distribute it's knowledge amongst special interests groups. Her argument is different then the one being made today.
We are not asking Hank Rearden to share his metallurgist secrets to the world. In fact we ask that he protect his secrets until another original metallurgist discovers the same method or a similar method with the same result.
In fact I think Hank Rearden would applaud and encourage the competition of another fellow producer.
The difference is that the other thought was found by originally, not stolen. It is Hank's Rearden's responsibility to protect his thought for as long as he can, but it is not his responsibility to claim ownership of that specific thought until the end of time, lest we want all other metallurgists to give up trying to produce competitive materials.
And I would like to point out in regards to Michael's excellent rebuttal above.
A book that has been written is just as concrete as a hammer that has been produced. The words, labor, and time spent into writing this book equates to a physical value, not a thought. The thought may have been the inspiration to the book, but the text in the book is not the thought, it is the product of the thought + time + material that went into making it.
What you have done is structured your argument by stating that Artistic goods are some how less concrete than other more concrete goods. This is a fallacy, because removing IP does not encourage theft of art or text.
If you plagerize another author you have stolen his concrete work, not his idea. Instead, you should use his idea and produce your own new product. The difference here is that I am allowed to create my own book about the same idea and it is not considered infrigment on IP laws.
However with the same example if I create my own drug by my original innovation and it's compound by chance happens to be similar to a competitor, I am not allowed to produce my new idea and share it's value with the world. So in this example the world has created a monopoly to the other organization and discouraged the creation of new similar competitor products. The result is higher price with lesser quality for consumers. It is basically twisting libertarian ideals to justify a monopoly.
What seems to be hard for you folks is discerning between concrete goods and metaphysical goods like ideas or thoughts. Inventorys should be responsible with their knowledge and take care with whom they do business with. This is no different than with anyone else in business. If you are ir-responsible with protecting your physical or metaphysical assets you will probably get taken advantage.
I would argue that IP has actually assisted the exploitation of thought from legitimate inventors. If you remember Hank Rearden, in the book he openly professed that he did not understand the mechanics of "washington". I doubt many people understand how IP laws work. So it begs the question, how many patents are registered are actually just stolen from an original creator? And now because the creator does not hold this patent has lost his idea forever. Perhaps he was going to do something completely different and superior with his idea than the person who stole it and registered it.
Published: January 19, 2009 2:00 PM
ktibuk
"amazing that this form of "ownership" was only discovered 200 years ago, and only recently protected for life! In the whole history of humanity, everyone missed it!'
You are missing the fact that technology to copy is rather new. Before the printing press things were different. Just like it was different before the internet. Technology gave people the means to spread their intellectual works but it also made protecting property more difficult.
Also Jefferey, you shouldn't lean on conservatism that much. Whatever was, doesn't always have to be only right thing. Libertarianism depends on reason much more than it depends on history.
Published: January 19, 2009 2:00 PM
JJ
"Stealing a song, a movie over the internet is no different than breaking into a house at night and stealing someone else's property without actually coercing anybody."
Except for the part where it's not stealing, because copying a song leaves the original one intact. Furthermore, you wouldn't be copying it from the original. It would be a copy of a copy, and the original is untouched.
Published: January 19, 2009 2:04 PM
John
Jeffrey --
Prior to 200 years ago, single copies of someone's work might be made at enormous expense and effort and such a singleton act might be discovered and dealt with piecemeal.
Back then, the means to effectively steal and widely distribute someone's IP did not exist.
It is not unusual that people discover new things when the world changes.
Published: January 19, 2009 2:04 PM
ktibuk
Crosson,
Nobody is defending patent laws here as far as I can see.
The problem is not inventing a new metal and competing against Rearden.
The problem is printing 'Atlas Shrugged' and selling it without the consent of the owner of the novel..
Do you think the thieves doing this will claim they wrote the novel independently. Or do you think people stealing songs, movies, software over the internet claim they independently developed those things.
No.
They know someone else did it, but they claim they own the labor of others thus they own their body. They claim the owners of the songs and videos and software are their slaves.
Published: January 19, 2009 2:05 PM
JJ
"You are missing the fact that technology to copy is rather new."
The human brain has always been the greatest copier. And it has been around a long time.
Published: January 19, 2009 2:08 PM
John
Imitator, perhaps, but not copier. Exact copies are a relatively new invention.
Published: January 19, 2009 2:13 PM
Peter Cohen
Jim Fedako wrote:
"1. There is no market justification for IP."
There exists a demand for my work. However the current environment makes it effectively impossible for me to 'sell' my work because it is too easy for everyone to simply steal it. Therefor I am unable to gain from my work, therefor I am no longer working, and finally therefor, the market is not being served. If that is not a market justification, I don't know what is.
In point of fact, piracy is killing the market itself!
But it does not end there. Even if there were no 'market' justification (which I would vehemently contest), there is a higher justification. I have the right to own what I create. You have no right to take what I create without my permission.
"2. Peter has every right to use contract law to restrict use of his property. He can sue for damages. Without much effort, he could add identifiers to each instance of his product, thus revealing the one (ones) who violated the agreed upon contract."
The identifiers of which you speak are as easy to remove by a pirate as are attempts at copy protection. Even if they were not, it is effectively impossible for me to know who has illegally obtained my work without investigating every partition of every harddrive in the world. The only way to effectively police IP is for the state to legislate protection of IP. The state realizes this and has made some imperfect attempts to do so.
"3. Peter does not own anything beyond the initial contract. He does not own absolute right to his material -- I don't even know that he claims as much. So when Peter and A agree to the use of Peter's material, that contract cannot bind B, or any other individual not party to the contract."
I absolutely disagree. I own the work itself. I created it with my labor and capital, it would not exist if not for my effort. What I sell is a limited license to possess a copy of my work. I do not loose ownership of my work simply because I have sold someone else a limited license. If someone else acquires a copy of my work illegally, they have not contracted with me to possess what I own, and are therefor guilty of a crime.
"Interestingly, folks have not addressed libraries even though libraries have the same effect as the internet -- libraries reduce sales by providing the material free of charge (tax contributions excluded)."
Libraries have long been a sore spot with writers, many writers asserting that libraries are in fact violating the author's rights. However libraries are fundamentally different than the internet in practice, simply due to the physical nature of their medium. Someone cannot borrow a book from the library and then instantly flood every bookstore in the world with an infinite number of copies of the book, whereas with digital media, that is the case. Hence, while libraries were a small burr to creators, the internet is a mortal sword stroke.
Published: January 19, 2009 2:17 PM
Peter Cohen
Jeffrey Tucker wrote: "Amazing that this form of "ownership" was only discovered 200 years ago, and only recently protected for life! In the whole history of humanity, everyone missed it!"
In the whole history of humanity, everyone missed a lot of things. It was not much more than 200 years ago that everyone 'stopped' missing what is now self evident, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights... etc." Simply because in the distant past, people did not recognize or understand certain rights, does not mean that such rights do not exist. And just because the means with which the state has tried to protect them has proved to be flawed, also does not render those rights void.
Published: January 19, 2009 2:32 PM
Bruce Koerber
Property rights need to be defined and refined!
I think it is obvious to all of us that as we move towards a classical liberalism society and as the world moves towards a classical liberalism civilization made up of various and assorted classical liberalism societies that property rights will need to be continually defined and refined.
Property rights will evolve as civilization advances. We will not be able to perfectly resolve this issue of IP now but we can use the IP issue to see what changes need to take place in these 'dark ages of economics' to move us forward.
Published: January 19, 2009 3:36 PM
Jim Fedako
Peter,
1. The market: If there is such a demand for your product, how is it now being met? Are folks looking for just a Peter Cohen, and nothing else will do? You claim that amateurs will fill the market void, then in an instant you wave that away. Which is it?
2. You claim only a couple hundred folks in your niche. While your clientele (a very small base) can find the copies, you cannot. Is that what you are stating?
3. And if someone stumbles upon your product? Are they also guilty of a crime? That is the issue here.
Should I find a DVD by the side of the road, am I also bound by the contract? If so, it would appear that you and A could bind me to any type of contract.
In other words, you could have a contract that states A must pay a royalty of $1000 per view (though A physically possesses the DVD). If A then chucks the DVD by the side of the road, am I now bound to the original contract? Could you demand the $1000 from me should I view it?
Libraries: However libraries are fundamentally different than the internet in practice ...
No, libraries are fundamentally the same as the internet. They are only practically different.
Published: January 19, 2009 3:37 PM
Jim Fedako
John,
"It seems to me that you are actually advocating the piracy of Peter's products since, as you say, he has no rights in them."
Your choice of verbs is growing tiresome. I am not advocating piracy.
Consider this:
1. You walk down the street humming a tune. If I pick it up and then record and sell it, you have no claim whatsoever.
2. You sell a CD of your tune to A for the sole purpose of his enjoyment. If A then walks down the street humming your tune, I am not bound by the contract. To state otherwise is to stake a claim on my mind, memory, what have you.
3. You sell a CD of your tune to A for the sole purpose of his enjoyment. He then copies the CD and gives it to me. Then, A has violated your contract, but you still have no claim to my mind, memory, what have you. Write the contract with A that provides for all possible harm, but don't expect to be able to use force (here we are talking real force) to stop me from using what I now possess, should I hear the tune.
Ktibuck,
"Also third party argument is a technical enforcement issue and putting it in the middle of the theory is a way to cop out of the argument.
The third party is the issue. Contract laws address your theft, so all we are left with is the third party.
Published: January 19, 2009 4:07 PM
Peter Cohen
Jim Fedako wrote:
"1. The market: If there is such a demand for your product, how is it now being met? Are folks looking for just a Peter Cohen, and nothing else will do? You claim that amateurs will fill the market void, then in an instant you wave that away. Which is it?"
The demand is being met right now by virtually everyone who wants my product simply stealing it. Some of those who are stealing it are stealing anything they can find that is remotely close to what they are interested in. Some specifically seek out my work. I do not mean that amateurs will 'fill' a void. I mean to say that amateurs already exist (always have, always will) and soon they will be all that is left.
"2. You claim only a couple hundred folks in your niche. While your clientele (a very small base) can find the copies, you cannot. Is that what you are stating?"
No, there are around ten thousand people interested judging by unique IP addresses that repeatedly hit the web sites. I could typically sell 200 copies of a video to that market, depending on subject, etc..
I regularly find my work being hosted on pirate sites. I take what action I may and often am able to get it removed. However it is a trivial matter for the pirates to re-upload to a different site and it is a non trivial matter for me to find them and get it removed. Meanwhile, they are many and I am one. Worse are file sharing systems wherein my work is hosted on myriad systems which are largely unstoppable given my meager resources.
"3. And if someone stumbles upon your product? Are they also guilty of a crime? That is the issue here."
I am not a lawyer and I am ill qualified to to answer questions about minutia of existing law. I believe the law currently adjudicates these matters thusly; In the case of stumbling upon something, the question that needs to be determined is whether or not the person knew, or had reason to believe, the work to be stolen.
"Should I find a DVD by the side of the road, am I also bound by the contract? If so, it would appear that you and A could bind me to any type of contract."
I believe that the current interpretation of the law is that implicit in the physical medium of the copy of the work is a license to own that copy, assuming that the physical copy is itself not a pirate copy. No such license is issued when a pirate clones a copy of a work digitally.
Published: January 19, 2009 4:21 PM
John
At least it's only my verbs which bother you. There's a silver lining in that somewhere . . . . ;-)
First, nice way to ignore the rest of my post. Yes, I noticed and so did everyone else.
Second, no one is claiming a stake on your mind or your memory.
If you, however, use that mind and memory to copy something which I created, and then you attempt to make money off of that copy, yep, then there's a problem.
As (people like) you are so fond of saying, what you do in your own mind is private and no one may claim content of it. Enjoy my song therein to your heart's content.
But don't try to take my idea/song out to the market and try to make a buck on it. And don't take my idea/song and give it away to others.
Listen in your mind. That's great. Sell it or give it away, thus harming me and taking what is rightfully mine? Hell no.
Published: January 19, 2009 5:22 PM
newson
john says:
"Prior to 200 years ago, single copies of someone's work might be made at enormous expense and effort and such a singleton act might be discovered and dealt with piecemeal."
1439: gutenberg invents the printing press. outrage amongst scribes - all the talent and labour invested in handwritten texts lost to the machine!
reading becomes widespread (see martin luther for how quickly the printed idea spreads).
Published: January 19, 2009 6:23 PM
Dianne
How about this?
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=articles/news/moving_america_news/2568&page=7
Published: January 19, 2009 6:50 PM
Peter Cohen
So let me get this straight. We have here among us people who call themselves libertarian. And these putative libertarians espouse that my work, being of a mental creative nature, and being stored on digital media which is easily copied, aught by right ('right' mind you), be the common property of all mankind. I am required to create my work to fulfill the needs of all who would avail themselves of my work, but I have no ownership of my work, and so I cannot profit from it. Either that, or I could choose to not work.
You do realize do you not that there are people out there who decry big government, who champion people being left to pursue their own affairs and who also believe as you do that intellectual property is 'common' property. They appropriately call themselves libertarian socialists. Are you sure you are posting to the right forum?
At this point I am honestly thanking God that our governments have more sense than to listen to the likes of us.
Published: January 19, 2009 7:54 PM
scott t
as far as the fetish 'performance' producer goes - is there a distinction between the fetish performance taking place in a theatre with 100 people paying 10 dollars a piece to watch or 100 people paying 10 dollars a piece buying a 'solid media piece' with the performance recorded or etched, etc into the disk or tape?
if someone owns the disk or tape i guess they can do what they want with it just as the theatre owner can do with their theater what they wish.
i dont see how a contract can attach someones desires to an object once the object has been sold.
Published: January 19, 2009 8:07 PM
Peter Cohen
scott t wrote: "if someone owns the disk or tape i guess they can do what they want with it just as the theatre owner can do with their theater what they wish.
i dont see how a contract can attach someones desires to an object once the object has been sold."
It is not the 'object' that is sold, it is not the tape or the disk. If it were you would have no complaint if you purchased by chance a blank disk or tape. What is purchased is the license to possess a copy, 'that just happens to be stored' on the disk, tape, whatever.
Published: January 19, 2009 8:12 PM
John
newson,
Please pardon the incorrect dating of my statement.
Also, please note that the idea of protecting a published work from copying is at least as old as the mid-Sixteenth Century though, at that time, the term Intellectual Property was not used.
[It seems to be true from the link that the protection of "intellectual property" was perhaps not the primary intention of the law passed. Nevertheless, the idea that a book's contents were property was there and was protected.]
So, while "IP" first made an appearance in 1845, the ideas that gave rise to it are much older.
Published: January 19, 2009 8:15 PM
Preston
Hey folks. Thought I'd add my two cents, without remuneration.
The points Peter Cohen are making are valid, and in a perfect world he would be right. But he knows first hand the world as it is. The world is full of thieves, and we all recognize that, so we make efforts to prevent it. We lock our possessions to prevent their theft, and we carry weaponry to prevent direct assaults on our persons.
And with IP the problem of theft exists also, but the ability to prevent its theft is lacking. Peter himself made several points to the difficulty of preventing piracy. And also points to the difficulty of enforcing the contract associated with his works.
Such is the world we live in. And Peter says it's putting him out of business. And in his place only amateurs will remain. And it sucks. I feel for you, Peter.
But that won't fix the problem. I don't know how to solve Peter's problem, perhaps others do. Maybe ther real problem is that they're really isn't any market for Peter's products anymore. I don't mean to disparage the quality of Peter's work, but when you're selling to a "micro-niche" of people who would just as soon steal your work than pay you for it, that says to me that the market has dried up. And there really isn't any more incentive to devote large amounts of resources to creating it. Perhaps the problem is Peter's marketing strategy, which could be made profitable again with some tweaking. I know if I had loyal customers that are suddenly happy to steal from me, I wouldn't want to keep supplying them with new things to steal.
I can't add much insight to this discussion, so sorry if I wasted anyone's time reading this. I'll admit I'm a fan of fetish porn on occasion, and I'm happy to pay for it for a reasonable price. Maybe someone can offer some marketing advice to Peter to help him. Wish I could. Good luck, guy.
Published: January 19, 2009 8:47 PM
Jim Fedako
Peter,
1. "The demand is being met right now by virtually everyone who wants my product simply stealing it."
I thought you no longer produced your material. Isn't that your claim from earlier in the string? That you are out-of-business.
2. OK. I have a better understanding of your market.
3. The question was rhetorical; I am asking about your idea of crime, not what the state considers crime.
John,
I didn't address the rest of that particular post since it was the same repetitive nonsense. You made your usual strawman claims and then denied them (logical denial). While that may indeed be fun for a group of sophists, I expect more from you here.
"Second, no one is claiming a stake on your mind or your memory."
Sure you are. You believe that you have sole right to any idea that comes into your mind. Should that thought also enter my mind at a later date (or contemporaneously, fo that matter), you own it. That makes you the theoretical companion of the artists from my blog post (Copyrights on NPR) -- staking claims of ownership to any idea that crosses your mind.
John, We are done. We've circled around time and time again, you creating strawmen out of comments I never made.
Published: January 19, 2009 8:50 PM
John
Jim --
I had a nice long response drawn out when I realized it wasn't necessary.
The true crux of the matter, which will shed all the light we need is your answer to this question:
Is the current piracy of Peter's video wrong?
If you have the courage of your convictions, answer it.
Published: January 19, 2009 9:13 PM
Jim Fedako
John,
One more time (in violation of my previous statement):
Peter has a claim against anyone who violated a contract. He has no claim against anyone else.
Simple enough?
Published: January 19, 2009 9:31 PM
Joe S.
As a writer, I've learned that one of the biggest power struggles in the publishing business right now is over when copyright ownership reverts back to the author. With POD, a book technically never goes out of print, and so publishers are claiming that they have perpetual claim to the copyright. What was meant to help the writer is now hijacking control of his work away from him for all eternity. Writers, make sure you read the fine print of your contracts!
Published: January 19, 2009 11:34 PM
newson
to john:
if i find a stack of money in the gutter, i'm not obliged, nor would i feel disposed to hand it in (or investigate where it may have come from) - finders, keepers. if i see someone actually drop the money accidentally, i'll tell them as a courtesy.
the money in the gutter is the file i choose to download. i don't know the person who uploaded it, nor am i interested in their motivations. finders keepers.
Published: January 20, 2009 1:09 AM
Paul Edwards
Jeffrey,
You wrote,
"As I've thought more about their book, it seems that it might suggest a revision in classical-liberal theory. We have traditionally thought that cooperation and competition were the two pillars of social order; a third could be added: emulation. In addition, there is surely work to do here that integrates Hayek's theory of knowledge with the problem of IP."
I lean towards the thinking that although "cooperation and competition" are certainly compatible with, and are an important feature of a refined social order, i would rather characterize as the fundamental pillars of social order being ethical considerations: a widely accepted respect for private property, and the institution of the principles of homesteading and private contracting. I mention this because i think that IP also, is strictly an ethical issue requiring analysis under the lens of property theory alone. It is purely an ethical question, and so it can only be answered purely on the basis of the logic of action.
Because of this, i would further argue that Hayek's theory of information, since it is not a theory of action, is not capable of clarifying, or adding to the IP issue. Just as it did not seem to contribute to the calculation controversy, it seems to me that it also cannot contribute at all to the IP controversy.
Anyways, thanks for the article, it was interesting and good food for thought.
Published: January 20, 2009 2:21 AM
ktibuk
IP Socialist have a problem with differentiating between a property right issue, which is an ethical issue AND protection of property (enforcement), which is a technical issue.
That is the reason they seem to think one owns the IP when one have not shared with anyone, but according to their twisted logic once one shares it with someone all of a sudden, magically property right is gone.
Think of Robinson Crusoe. Does he gain property rights to the stuff he homesteaded if and only when Friday comes to the island? No. When he catches fish on a deserted island, it is HIS fish. When he picks berries they are HIS berries. Property and homesteading is a natural outcome of life. Not some rule people came up with. People only came up with ways about how to protect property and enforce property rules when needed.
Contracts are not what makes a property a property. They are only a way to protect it. Just like DRM's used in digital music.
That is why third party argument is irrelevant.
Yes the one party that breaks the contract is guilty, but this doesn't negate the responsibility of any third party. The IP exists prior to any contract and if third party takes it knowing full well that some one else has produced it and never intended to give it out as a gift, he is as guilty as a thief. There may be instances where someone may take an IP without knowing that it is owned by someone and he may be treated differently in a court of law, but as I said this is a technical enforcement issue.
The pillar of property rights is the homesteading rule. IP Socialist are all confused because their homesteading rule is incomplete. This is actually weird because homesteading rule was perfected before this IP nonsense was an issue by the likes of Locke and Rothbard. And just to fit this IP socialism in an otherwise libertarian philosophy, IP socialists actually weakened the libertarian homesteading rule.
They put " natural scarcity" in the middle of the theory and ignored the individual. Because the only way to get rid of "personal private" property and socialize it is to get rid of the individual. The producer, the creator is nothing. He is irrelevant. Someones fruit of labor is just like some gift of nature, something that is found in the gutter.
Once they put scarcity in the middle something else happened. Law became something people make to better society. Not a natural set of rules of reality that can only be discovered by reason.
People have been working tirelessly for centuries to socialize property. Rob the producers and feed the parasites. Also other people have been working to protect it. It is sad to see this many confused people here try to protect some property while advocating parasitism on the other hand.
I hope you will one day realize that first and foremost important thing is the individual and his creations which are actually extensions of himself.
Published: January 20, 2009 5:49 AM
newson
...and yet, ktibuk, "ip socialism" saw massive flourishing of innovation, enrichment of successful creators, and no widespread social breakdown. the book abounds with examples.
socialism, when applied to real property, had demonstrably negative effects, in every country where it was implemented.
this argues against your view that ideas can be categorized as property.
Published: January 20, 2009 8:57 AM
John
newson said:
Are you saying that we should use a teleological view of rights when dealing with IP? That, when deciding if IP is right or not, we need only take into account its effects on society?
Published: January 20, 2009 9:39 AM
John
Jim said:
Just to clarify then: The activities of the pirates are, in no way, wrong in your opinion?
[Please note that I am not asking about what Peter may claim. I am asking for your opinion on the acts of the pirates (those who are not the original purchaser but who subsequently avail themselves of the copy provided by the purchaser who breaches his contract with Peter).]
Published: January 20, 2009 9:46 AM
John
newson said:
i see two problems with this idea and would like to know if you see them as well or if our worldviews just disagree that much:
Published: January 20, 2009 9:56 AM
John
Sorry. the questions weren't supposed to be in bold. It was an accident of my inexpert html. =/
Published: January 20, 2009 10:02 AM
ktibuk
Newson said,
"...and yet, ktibuk, "ip socialism" saw massive flourishing of innovation, enrichment of successful creators, and no widespread social breakdown. the book abounds with examples."
Yes Newson. Also as of today many organized crime outfits called "governments" are stealing on a mass scale, but humanity keeps getting on.
Productive humans can carry parasites on their backs for a certain time. But they shouldn't have to.
Published: January 20, 2009 1:10 PM
Jeffrey Tucker
By the way, I see that this article dramatically drove up the sales of this book on Amazon. Great!
Except that according to the theory of IP, this is unjust that Amazon--a third party that contributed nothing to my article--should be able to benefit from my writing and I get nothing for it. It is pure intellectual robbery! These are my thoughts and yet some other capitalist out there is reaping the benefit!
According to IP theory, not only have I been robbed but I now feel so demoralize that I swear that I will never create another article again. Why should I, if the benefits are just taken from me by pirates?
Published: January 20, 2009 1:16 PM
Peter Cohen
Jeffery, your assertions are frankly absurd. They are the equivalent of me saying that because I received no remuneration when I helped push a stranger's car out of a snowbank or a friend refurbish their house, that this invalidates property rights. I expect better logic from someone in a position to represent the opinions of the Mises Institute.
Published: January 20, 2009 1:52 PM
ktibuk
Jefferey, what you did was free advertising as a gift. It wouldn't be evil even if you tried to make money out of it.
And I am pretty sure Mises Ins even did make money from an affiliate account at amazon.com, which I am sincerely hope will not be spent on this IP Socialism nonsense but to further the teaching og Austrian Economics.
Published: January 20, 2009 2:44 PM
bigmammal
Jeffrey, nobody stops you from sharing YOUR creations with others. IP gives you a choice between working for free or for profit, while the socialism you promote leaves no choice but working for free. I haven't got an answer to my question yet: if you can live without profit-motivated creators, why don't you just pretend they don’t exist and leave them alone? They are not going to be slaves of your new society anyway (unless you decide to use physical force at some moment). There’s nothing that is slowing down progress right now, because all share-free creations/inventions are already here.
As for the question why your tax money should be spent on protecting IP, the answer is simple: because this whole issue is about freedom and an attempt to take it away.
It seems there’s a kind of pragmatic libertarian who tolerates private property because it works better in practice, but who won't mind tyranny, should it promise to pay better.
Published: January 20, 2009 8:51 PM
Jeffrey Tucker
oh for goodness sake, bigmammal, the very idea that profits and IP are identical is just pathetic. Read the friggin book (RTFB)
Published: January 20, 2009 8:57 PM
bigmammal
They are not identical: no IP --> no profit. By the way, thank you for not answering my question.
Published: January 20, 2009 9:25 PM
Maty
Not a single argument offered in that lengthily body of text withstands careful scrutiny. For instance, the much talked about argument regarding 'non-scarcity' of ideas is an insulting attempt to throw the reader off the logical track and from the subject at hand: of course ideas are not scarce and can be 'accessed' by anyone--for that very reason no one can copyright 'an idea' per-se (say, the law of 'Cause and Effect')—however, if one was to spend time seeking links between ideas (say, how that law is manifested in Economics), and through a lengthily process of investigation developed a thesis (say, on Supply and Demand), which he would have then proceeded to elaborate upon in a manuscript and finally authored a book ('insert your favorite Mises title here'), would this book's existence be as equally 'natural' as that of the initial ‘idea' that sparkled it? Should the book—with the enormous amount of time and thought that went into grouping the information and structuring the chapters; with the creative style and phrasing distinct to that individual author—be as accessible to anyone as the air we breathe? Is it just as metaphysical, for that matter?? Of course not! While an idea, or even a theory, could have potentially been reached by another individual and therefore cannot be copyrighted—a book is an extremely personalized creation that could not have been produced by any other save its author, who is therefore the rightful owner of its content, and thus entitled to collect any fruit it yields. This is what copyrights are meant for (Others could have possibly written a book on the same subject, or even in a similar style—but not that very same book).When you buy a book the physical object is yours—you own it and can do with it as you please; read it; store it on a shelf; use it as a door stopper or as a fire starter—however, what you do not own are the contents. Would anyone here go through the excruciating task of planning and writing a book if the first 'Joe' to buy it could have uploaded it for the entire world to read—or worse, could do so for a profit; selling 'pirated' copies for a lower price??
Even if someone, for some unfortunate case of upbringing, would feel so altruistically inclined, he could not remain an author for long—unless he plans to write his ‘entertainment for the masses’ series between day shifts at the local gas station... How many titles do you suppose Mises would have written had his first been made available for free download on the web...?!
And yet, the author cannot be ignorant of this fact; after all, he is the Editor of Mises.org—the market place of Capitalist ideas… Though the enthusiasm of the piece brings to mind the image of a lost child who, seeking signs of ‘God’ on a dark highway, bows down to the lights of an approaching truck, one must ask himself if in his position the author can afford such naivety. Would it not make him the driver? And though I doubt he has some greater design, I certainly think he has a skewed sense of morality. What was it the article suggested—something about ' "pirates"...not really violating moral law'?! (It may be one thing to suggest as much about some brigade in the in the 18th century that was persecuted by a tyrant and so labeled for their opposition—even then, depending on their actions—but to say so of a kid with a new computer who, wishing to spend his $20 watching a new movie, playing a new game, and buying a new gadget all at once (the conundrum of today’s ‘underprivileged’), decides to do away with prioritizing and rips the first two, depriving their creators of just dues is wholly a different thing…)
However, the creators are not the only ones to get hurt—what about the publisher; the forgotten investor? Remember the whine about companies maintaining royalties after an artist’s death? This is where, as a writer on economics, the author should have screamed in protest and clarified the matter instead of casting it further into the fog—for it can easily confuse a person unaware of the chain of production; of the intricate structure that makes up an economy, and of the cardinal role of the Investor to the whole process; to the market; to the future… Indeed, it is ironic if not tragic that the above argument should have come from a publication that on a regular basis during the recent crisis emphasized the company’s need to secure funds for future expansion (practically scolding anyone who failed to grasp that fact)… It should have been he who would have pointed out that when a publisher invests in an artist he is taking a risk—and as one who puts down the big bucks he is worthy of the big bucks when profits come in. That one’s gain should be proportionate to one’s venture, as in any investment, for whoever staked the most has the most to lose if the project goes south (while the artist may have lost his time on a failed project, the publisher lost whatever capital he invested—the artist’s allowance; the costs of materials and printing; of distribution; of advertising… and once you has finished totaling what it takes to publish a book—why not try a film? Remember, those $50 million productions—what a blow if that fails… Would the man/men behind all this capital not deserve to see a return on their investment? And speaking of future expansion, dear author, what profit would a film like this have to bring back before its investor could afford to sponsor a second? Without copyrights he’d be in the gas station washing cars sooner than our benevolent writer…!)
And if you wonder why a company should retain copyrights for a certain amount of years after an artist’s death, ask yourself who deserves the first rights to reproduce the work if not the company that took the initial risk and invested in the artist? Moreover, imagine an event where a company makes the initial investment in an artist who dies shortly after publication… would it be fair that the work would now be free for the taking? I am hoping that whoever is reading has agreed by this point that at least the artist is entitled to have his intellectual property—the product of his mind that would not have existed without it—protected by copyrights; yet should those rights die with him, should they not transfer to benefit his next of kin and/or share-holders, as would have been the case with capital property?
Far from the ‘government forced monopolies’ the article presents, the concept of Intellectual Property Rights is in fact contrary to government force, just as are Capital Property Rights—only a society’s recognition of the first is conceptually higher and more symbolic; it is the recognition that the source of creation is man’s mind, not his hands and feet (to paraphrase Ayn Rand), and if there is one thing a free society cannot afford to lose it is this recognition.
The article also suggested as a paradox the fact that the works of Walt Disney are copyrighted while based on popular tales, apparently evading the fact that Walt Disney again invested multitudes of capital and creativity—virtually redefining the field of animation in the process—to bring those fictional outlines to life in ways more thrilling and engaging than any other storyteller did before. Moreover, neither did Walt Disney copyright ‘Aladin’ the common outline—but ‘Aladin’ as created by Walt Disney (Countless other productions in a multitude of mediums retold this story with varying degrees of success—and the fact that it is Disney’s interpretation you are itching to rip only proves how much the ‘common’ tale was endowed)
I’m also having a hard time buying the explanation about the decay of Classical music as a result of enforced copyright laws—plenty of other music has been produced in multitudes of genres under the same restrictions. However, I am certain that life is not made any easier for remaining Classical performers/composers by devout listeners who prefer to download their music illegally than to purchase a CD…
While I am not an IT expert, from my personal experience with open source applications I found they appeared modeled after similar copyrighted applications (Open Office, for instance, almost exactly replicates the MS Office suite at least insofar as interface is concerned) It seems to make sense too; in order to innovate one needs to explore, and to explore one needs time and money… I am not saying open source is a bad idea—it is fine when volitional, and I’m sure developers have their own reasons for going that way (otherwise they will not stay in business for long); however, what I am saying is that one cannot be forced to work for free—nor think for free for that matter!
The article also never touched upon the difference between Copyrights and Patents, which, by their nature as discoveries rather than creations are more limited in scope and cannot be transferred—worse, it seemed to treat both as one and the same…
I do apologize for the long vent, but I hope it may help clear up at least some of the fog induced by this article. I am not saying that Copyright/Patent laws are perfect; in fact, my knowledge of them merely skims the surface, and I would be very glad to see someone with more knowledge and authority than I possess offering a thorough rebuttal on practical grounds. However I do stand fast behind the principle at stake; for it is the very existence of Intellectual Property as such—not their application—that the article (and I assume the book) sought to undermine.
Published: January 20, 2009 10:32 PM
newson
john:
what? the thief is going to write me an anonymous note describing the crime and the victim, while not pocketing the proceeds?
i've tried to explain my personal view on downloading using analogy, it's obviously not been clear. here goes again.
i don't know whether the money in the gutter was a result of crime. i witnessed no crime. i wasn't the perpetrator. i don't feel anything but happy at picking up the loot. i'll not be handing it in to the police. if the loot in the gutter is the result of some breach of contract foreign to me, it's up to the aggrieved party to go after the contract-breaker. not lucky old me.
people get treated at public hospitals. hospitals in many parts of the world (especially in poorer countries) receive donations from criminals. are the patients, guilty of benefiting indirectly from the proceeds of crime, morally obliged to refuse treatment? i don't think so.
Published: January 20, 2009 10:32 PM
Jim Fedako
bigmammal,
If I take a handful of seed corn and throw it in the air, can my neighbor benefit from any seed that takes root on his property?
If I hum a tune while walking down the street, can a passerby benefit if my little ditty takes root in his head?
Published: January 20, 2009 10:57 PM
newson
ktibuk says:
"Productive humans can carry parasites on their backs for a certain time. But they shouldn't have to."
or... creators should not expect taxpayers to build expensive moats around their castles. this should be an ordinary cost of business, and not socialized.
Published: January 20, 2009 11:06 PM
Jeffrey Tucker
on the book question, yes, you own the physical book. But you cannot justly forbid a person from reading it aloud to others. that is what copyright forbids. It is a completely artificial imposition on freedom.
I'm sorry for my impatience above. I've answered about 400 emails on this topic, and it frustrates me to keep saying things that the authors of the book say much better. I just wish that these skeptics and kvetchers would read the book. that's all.
Published: January 20, 2009 11:07 PM
newson
i've come to realize that for randians, this is a major supporting beam in the structure.
Published: January 20, 2009 11:14 PM
Maty
Jeffrey Tucker said:
"on the book question, yes, you own the physical book. But you cannot justly forbid a person from reading it aloud to others. that is what copyright forbids. It is a completely artificial imposition on freedom."
Not quite... Copyrights do not forbid you from reading the book to your child when you put him to bed, nor do they forbid you from quoting a passage in your paper (with due credits mentioned); they do forbid you (I believe) from assembling, say, a class-full of blind people and reading the book to them--though even then, given it's a one time thing, I doubt any author would hunt you down... He would and should though if you decide to turn it into a regular business--charging patrons for your readings--but could you really call it an
'unjust imposition on freedom?'
Jim Fedako said:
"If I take a handful of seed corn and throw it in the air, can my neighbor benefit from any seed that takes root on his property?"
He could probably sue you, given he is not keen on having corn growing in his backyard and could prove that you were the source... but in the context,you cannot equate corn seeds with a product under copyrights since corn seeds are not products of thought--unless you're talking of GMO seeds, which would probably fall under patent laws... and then it's your problem if you 'gave' him the corn (and you're lucky if he won't sue...)
Jim Fedako said:
"If I hum a tune while walking down the street, can a passerby benefit if my little ditty takes root in his head?"
When you hum a tune you take into account that people may hear you and might carry the tune along... You probably won't mind it because humming the tune doesn't take much effort on your part. If you do mind it, you probably won't hum it in the street... The street musician in the corner, he is putting much more effort than you do in his music, but he is also aware that many people might pass-by who will enjoy (benefit from) his music and leave no dimes--however, he is content with collecting from those who do, and doesn't mind the others (somewhat like your open-source developers). Again, if he felt otherwise, he would not have been there, or would have found a different setup where only those who pay could listen. If a musician was to rent a concert-hall for his performance, charging the audience, at the doors, no one would reproach you for hanging around to pick up the faint notes seeping to the street; however, you would get arrested if you tried to sneak in without a ticket. Why? Because this musician, unlike the previous, did not want non-paying patrons and took special precautions to avoid them; making it clear by renting a hall and selling tickets. It's his right.
Did he obstruct your freedom by doing so?
Now, let's say you did buy a ticket--can you record the concert? While the street musician probably would not have minded you're recording his performance (though, it would still be polite to ask) unless he is selling his own CD's, the second musician again made special preparations to put up signs and make an announcement stating: 'no recording'. Why? Because he hired a recording crew to record his concert and plans to release it himself. Again, it's his right. He offers you to enjoy his music under certain terms--you don't like the terms, don't attend the concert (don't want to spend money, don't buy the album).
The bottom line is that it is a matter of rights. He is not 'forcing' you to pay for his concert or album--you will only do so if you really want this material; if you don't, you don't have to buy; if you do, why not spend the money? The point is that he is leaving it up to YOU to decide what is more important for you to have--the money, or his product. But without copyrights, if you could attend his concert or get his album without paying--you don't leave him the same choice; the choice you leave him is: create and I'll decide if you'll get pay or don't create... and, you are the one who is forcing HIM to work for free (or to be at your mercy to the contrary).
which he is planning to record
Published: January 21, 2009 12:31 AM
Maty
Please disregard the sentence in the end, and sorry for the typos (should have previewed the post...)
Published: January 21, 2009 12:43 AM
Montrealer
I wish that this book had compared the technological progress of the West and the rest of the world in the 18th to 20th century, and correlated these with the existence or non-existence of copyright / patent laws in these regions.
A historical puzzle to me has been: how could the Chinese, who had made important inventions, and had never suffered the equivalence of Europe's Dark Ages, have been so technologically backward, that it was humiliated by the West in the 19th century? One theory: due to the lack of IP laws, Chinese inventors had to hide their trade secrets, causing the slow down, and ultimately the stagnation of their civilization.
If this theory is correct, it would contradict the thesis of the book.
Published: January 21, 2009 6:46 AM
Jim Fedako
Maty,
What's the problem with a yes/no answer?
1. You never even answered -- or attempted to -- answer this question. Can your neighbor reap the benefit of your seed corn that ends up on his property?
2. This response is subjective and muddled. Does someone humming the tune of his creation own every subsequent instance of that tune -- the essence of copyright law. John already said yes. What do you say (in three letters of less)?
Published: January 21, 2009 7:16 AM
jeffrey
You still find books coming out today, by the likes of Pat Buchanan, who attribute U.S. wealth to trade protection in the 19th century. This is just a logical error that mixes up cause and effect. So I'm sure you are right that many people have said that IP is the reason for prosperity; Michael Novak comes to mind.
But think about it. IP is a step away from the division of labor, a step toward autarky. That is the opposite of prosperity. Today China has IP law plus agreements with the U.S. and it has seriously harmed its people's productive capacity. They are forever being threatened with every manner of trade sanction merely for producing things that people want to buy.
Published: January 21, 2009 7:58 AM
newson
monrealer says:
"A historical puzzle to me has been: how could the Chinese, who had made important inventions, and had never suffered the equivalence of Europe's Dark Ages, have been so technologically backward, that it was humiliated by the West in the 19th century?"
most likely it was due to the insecure personal property rights; where i'm intending property to be tangible and physical, not "intellectual". good point, in any case.
Published: January 21, 2009 8:21 AM
John
Jim said:
Good question, Jim. Very good question. I wonder where else it applies . . . . .
Moving on . . . newson said:
Not what I asked. The basis of both questions was what if you directly knew that the thing you were receiving had been stolen.
In the first question, the analogy is an easy one: say for argument’s sake that each of Peter's videos contains a footer listing his website and a copyright notice which amount to notice that this work is his property and as evidence that it was stolen and placed on the pirating site.
In the second question, I specifically posited an instance in which you did see the theft in progress and you saw the mugger subsequently drop the proceeds of his crime.
If the victim were still nearby and you picked up the money, would you tell him/give it back or would you be absolved of all obligation since the money had passed through the hands of a third party?
==============
Why do defenders of an IP-less Utopia resist admitting that you would feel some residual guilt or pang of conscience if you were somehow to come face-to-face with the victim of your piratical theft?
You make arguments about whether or not IP is property etc. but you won't come right out and say "Screw my buddy standing here next to me who had his stuff stolen. I feel no problem whatsoever in screwing him like this since I’m just the receiver of stolen goods and not the thief myself and it's just coincidental that the creator of this product has had his livelihood taken from him, it wasn't my fault."
You guys only ever say things that amount to "I don't feel any problem because all this stuff is ‘just copying’ . . . (and it is anonymous on the Internet so I can do it all in private without having to worry about what others think of me)."
When it becomes personal and you would be standing there telling the victim to his face, you refuse to stand up and defend just how right and moral your actions would be.
(And no, telling Peter Peter Purveyor of Porn-that-you-don’t-watch-anyway that he is wrong to want to protect his products doesn’t count because it is still an anonymous Internet boast of moral consistency.)
So tell me, oh defenders of an IP-less Utopia!, that you would look at the mugging victim standing there, 15 feet from you talking to the police and giving his statement, and that you would simply pick up the money unseen by accusing eyes and walk along your merry way, privately satisfied that it wasn’t a problem since some other guy had done the dirty deed from which you now profit.
And then try and tell me that your mother wouldn’t box your ears for doing something like that . . . .
Published: January 21, 2009 1:05 PM
Maty
Jim Fedako said:
"Maty,
What's the problem with a yes/no answer?
1. You never even answered -- or attempted to -- answer this question. Can your neighbor reap the benefit of your seed corn that ends up on his property?
2. This response is subjective and muddled. Does someone humming the tune of his creation own every subsequent instance of that tune -- the essence of copyright law. John already said yes. What do you say (in three letters of less)?"
Jim,
1. was a yes. Your neighbor can 'benefit' from the seeds you threw into his backyard since you were the one who gave them to him (intentionally or otherwise) However, seeds are not a good example since they cannot be copyrighted. Assuming these were GMO seeds under Patent, all royalities were paid for at the time of purchase by your neighbor--so no issue there. And just for clarification purposes, to equate it for an instance where copyrights would apply; suppose your neighbor bought a 'handful' of albums by a certain artist, threw them in his backyard, and one of them migrated into yours. There is no Copyrights issue with your using the album, since all royalties were again paid for at the time of purchase (per every album as per every seed). As a hearty neighbor though, it would be nice of you to treed around the fence first and ask him if he needed it--respecting the fact that he is the OWNER of each individual album (though not of their contents)
Now, if you would have decided to burn yourself a copy before returning it to him, then you would have violated the artist's copyrights on the content, just as you would have respected your neighbor's ownership of the physical album.
2. was a yes too. When you hum a tune in the street knowing that people can hear you, you probably don't mind them carrying it along given the near-zero-amount of 'effort' it requires. This is the reason you didn't go through the trouble to Copyright it officially. If for some reason you did have a reason to mind it (lets say, if you were working on a tune and afraid someone might use your ideas before it's completion), you probably would not have been humming it for all to hear, or else you would have written down and copyrighted your competed sections...
However, if your neighbor (the one who bought the albums) decided to play them out loud for the entire neighborhood to listen--it was not the artist who decided to 'hum' his tune, but your neighbor who made the decision for him. The artist granted him license to use his music under certain limitations by buying the album; if the man was not happy with those limitations, he should never have bought it.
The point is, again, that the artist respected your neighbor's right to his property (his money) by leaving it up to HIM to decide whether he is comfortable enjoying the album under the limitations, which were known all along--he did not sell him a blank CD under pretense of an album--but your neighbor did not show him the same respect when he 'agreed' to those conditions by purchasing the album, and then violated them. He did not respect the artist's choice.
And that's even before he began ripping them and selling cheap copies...
Published: January 21, 2009 2:24 PM
newson
to john:
i'm not going to entertain your mugging scenario, because it has no relevancy to the debate.
by downloading, i'm depriving the creator not of real goods (ie not mugging), but merely chimerical opportunity profits. heck, if i had to pay for peter cohen's material, i wouldn't be interested.
but it's protectionism to expect barriers to trade to be erected by the government in order to maximize the creator's revenue. tariffs operate in a similar way; domestic players cry that foreign competitors are "stealing" american jobs due to unfairly low operating costs, and it's likewise true that they lose opportunity profits. but there's no stealing in stealing market share.
i'm still curious as to what solution intellectual protectionists actually envisage? the law is in place, and yet enforcement seems totally ineffective as a deterrence.
rather than wallowing in self-pity or gnashing teeth at the terrible injustice of it all, artists are going to have to move into enforceable delivery modes. live, pay for view, custom-made etc
Published: January 21, 2009 6:15 PM
John
newson, I regret that you were incapable of answering my question.
I'm can't say that I am particularly surprised, but I did sincerely wish to get at least one of you guys on record stating things so plainly; I'd hoped you would be the one.
Oh well . . . the wait for someone who truly believes this stuff continues . . . . .
Published: January 21, 2009 7:29 PM
John
Forgive me; that was snarky. I should have taken a break and re-read it prior to posting. I apologize.
What I should have said is this:
newson, if, instead of money, it was the master disc -- the only one existing -- of the victim's new song, worth thousands to him if he (and only he) has it and nothing if he does not, and easily reproducible by you and put on the Internet . . . would you still keep it without a second thought and think it OK because a third person intervened?
As for your claim that you are only depriving them of some "chimerical opportunity profits" . . . well, in Peter's case at least you are actually depriving him of all profits.
His business is now finished -- himself out a living, his cast and crew out paychecks -- because he can no longer count on gaining any profits through the production of his movies.
A single act of piracy robs his creation of all monetary value . . . not just some small slice of potential profits.
Are you still so sure that this act harms no one and is so blameless that you would brag to mom about it and she would not think "where did I go wrong with that boy"? ;-)
To me, this is theft, be it physical property or intellectual property.
Published: January 21, 2009 7:49 PM
newson
to john:
all profits, some profits...makes no difference. it's still the cry from the protectionist. this happens also when charities give clothes to poor people in the third world. the local fabric manufacturers up in arms over "free" competing products.
so let's criminalize charity, too.
Published: January 21, 2009 8:42 PM
Maty
John said:
"Why do defenders of an IP-less Utopia resist admitting that you would feel some residual guilt or pang of conscience if you were somehow to come face-to-face with the victim of your piratical theft?"
Good question John, but they'll just keep hiding behind the 'deprivation of potential profits is not theft' argument... So let me pop the real issue again:
Consent.
The man who produced the work (i.e. album) gives the purchaser a license to use it under certain limitations that are known to all parties at the time of purchase. He has taken special precautions to let everyone know that he is not welcoming the use of his work outside those limitations, and left the choice up to each individual whether to buy it or not. You don't HAVE to use his work (no one is forcing you)... you WANT to...
If you decide to purchase the album and then abuse those limitations (burning; uploading; etc.) you violate the terms under which the license was granted--this equals to the violation of a contractual agreement, and called a fraud. You have acquired the item under false pretenses, conning the owner, and by doing so made him relinquish the item against his will (he would not have sold it had you been open about your intentions)
No one forced YOU to buy it if you weren't happy with his limitations...except for your desire to have it--something that he had to offer. And yet, instead of trading with him honestly, you forced HIM to give it to you (for all those who claim that fraud is not equal to theft, I'd like to hear what you'll have to say when you pay for a TV at the local store and wait for a delivery that never comes...)
And so the real question is this: does the creator/owner of a product has the right to decide under what conditions he is willing to trade it?
If your answer is no--I cannot see how you can pretend to support any form of 'property rights', or Free Market for that matter...
Published: January 21, 2009 9:09 PM
bigmammal
newson: "creators should not expect taxpayers to build expensive moats around their castles. this should be an ordinary cost of business, and not socialized"
The author pays income tax, which doesn’t care about the specific sort of goods/services he sells. So the IP has the same rights as any other kind of property. Also, the law protects both parties of the contract.
Jeffrey: “on the book question, yes, you own the physical book. But you cannot justly forbid a person from reading it aloud to others. that is what copyright forbids. It is a completely artificial imposition on freedom.”
If you rent an apartment, can you sublease it to somebody else without landlord’s permission? Your landlord doesn’t allow pets? This is completely artificial imposition on freedom!
Here’s my “gutter question”: I find a key in a gutter and it happens to be the key from your summer house (somebody made a copy and threw it away). Can I live there or even rent it to somebody else? You won’t lose anything - I’ll keep it in the same condition and let you move back next summer.
Published: January 21, 2009 9:50 PM
John
newson -- You're equating voluntary charity with active stealing? Really?
Protecting individual property rights to one's own creation is not the same thing as the candlemakers and you know it.
Peter has never asked to be spared from the works of rightful competition (other porn producers). He asks only not to be in competition with stolen, free copies of his own work.
This is not protectionism. It will never be protectionism no matter how many times you say it.
But I am interested in why you won't acknowledge the moral ramifications in what you believe.
It's simple -- cut and paste the following sentences into a reply with your name at the top and you'll be all done:
"I hereby acknowledge that, because I believe intellectual property to be unreal (and possibly not good for society):
If I saw a man be mugged and the criminal dropped the product of his act (a master disc-only copy of the victim's new song), I would, without remorse in any way
-- take that master recording
-- copy it, and
-- make it freely available on the internet to anyone, and
-- then return the master disc to the victim so as not to have taken a physical item (which we all know is the only thing in this example that might properly be called property).
I would do this even though my actions take what would have been a successful enterprise for that artist (a new hit song) and make it now worthless to him because it is free for all.
In addition, I would proudly tell my mom what I had done, complete with explaining the ramifications of my actions (if she didn't already know).
That's how much I believe IP rights are illusory."
Published: January 21, 2009 10:07 PM
John
It should be noted in my cut'n'paste "Statement of Belief in No IP" above that returning the master tape is optional since you were not actually the one who mugged the guy.
It's just such a nice gesture and maybe you might even be praised for your "honesty" in returning it to him! =D
Published: January 21, 2009 10:14 PM
RWW
Since when is it the proper role of government to make us play nice? Arguing against Intellectual Monopoly is not equivalent to arguing that copying without permission is a nice thing to do on a personal level.
What a puerile argument.
Published: January 21, 2009 10:45 PM
RWW
Since when is it the proper role of government to make us play nice? Arguing against Intellectual Monopoly is not equivalent to arguing that copying without permission is a nice thing to do on a personal level.
What a puerile argument.
Published: January 21, 2009 10:46 PM
RWW
Hey, it said the comment was rejected the first time.
Published: January 21, 2009 10:47 PM
John
RWW - Puerile, eh? =P
Read what I wrote and what I wrote in conjunction with it previously and you might see my point.
I was not saying that, by making that statement, an anti-IP person was undoing any logic or force that might support their arguments for the dissolution of IP regimes.
I was saying that I don't believe that the people making these arguments do not have the courage of their convictions.
They refuse to make a simple statement, consistent with their professed belief that IP is illusory and that only physical object constitute property, which may cause them a pang of remorse, a hint of guilt deep in their psyche which belies the idea that they really believe what they are saying.
They know that their claims are insufficient and that what they would be doing to the mugging victim is wrong.
Published: January 21, 2009 10:58 PM
RWW
If you decide to purchase the album and then abuse those limitations (burning; uploading; etc.) you violate the terms under which the license was granted -- this equals to the violation of a contractual agreement, and called a fraud.
If you explicitly agree to such terms upon purchase and then violate them, you should be subject to whatever penalties the contract stipulates. On the other hand, anyone who benefits from your violation (in this case, by obtaining the music for free) is under no agreement and therefore cannot be penalized in any way, nor withheld from redistributing. This is the weakness in a proper "IP" regime (i.e. a contractual system, not a coercive one like we have at present).
There are a few possible remedies. One is to stipulate harsh penalties. Another is to make the data from each "legitimate" copy of the album traceable in some way. I'm sure there are other possibilities that are not in violation of actual property rights (unlike the current system).
Published: January 21, 2009 10:59 PM
RWW
They know that their claims are insufficient and that what they would be doing to the mugging victim is wrong.
Yes, and I "know" that my neighbor's lying to his wife is wrong, but I wouldn't send armed thugs to stop him. Again, your equation of what is "wrong" with what is criminal is puerile.
Published: January 21, 2009 11:06 PM
RWW
As a side note, you assert:
...my actions take what would have been a successful enterprise for that artist (a new hit song) and make it now worthless to him because it is free for all.
This is hardly an accurate portrayal of the likely effects of my hypothetical (apparently meaninglessly malicious) act on that artist's career, if his unwittingly free song were to become popular. But this is a line of argument that's been hashed out here in other forms already, and I prefer to stick to the principles, personally.
Published: January 21, 2009 11:14 PM
RWW
Anyway, to answer the question of your anti-IP oath: I wouldn't take it, for the same reason that I wouldn't say "Because prostitution should be legal, if given the opportunity, I would sell my sexual services for money," or "Because using cocaine is not actually criminal, if I saw a crack dealer on the corner with a good bargain, I would buy some."
Good night. :)
Published: January 21, 2009 11:23 PM
bigmammal
RWW: "anyone who benefits from your violation (in this case, by obtaining the music for free) is under no agreement and therefore cannot be penalized in any way, nor withheld from redistributing."
So if instead of buying something under a contract, I just steal it, I cannot be penalized because I'm under no agreement?
Published: January 21, 2009 11:25 PM
John
So, in investigating the book this thread is based on, I find myself watching a presentation at CATO by one of the authors.
About 26 minutes in he says the following:
Wow. What an ends-justifies-the-means approach to the product of someone's efforts. And what a warped understanding of (most) people's motivations.
I got news for this guy: the artist/creator/innovator is has no duty whatsoever to do any of those things.
They may, if they so choose, do those things. Goody for them.
But they may also, with equal moral justification, produce their artifacts -- be it physical or intellectual -- solely for their own enrichment.
Just because society would benefit more from a lack of copyright or patent . . .
Just because the innovator would still be allowed to recoup his or her opportunity costs . . .
This is sufficient reason to say to hell with a person's right to profit as much as he can from his creation . . . we have a society to embetter! [/sarcasm]
Even worse, the author then says the innovator would have to prove a negative!
The creator would have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the government that they would not be able to create their work without protection. Only if they could prove they deserve it (in the minds of the bureaucrats at the Patent Office) would they be allowed to earn monopoly (read: previously unapproved) profits.
Amazing.
I am absolutely stunned that people who call themselves libertarians believe that such an argument of society over the individual is worth defending.
Honestly stunned. =(
[BTW -- to hear some very interesting comments about these idea and this book in particular, listen to Robert D. Atkinson in the second half of the presentation, starting around 29:00.)
Published: January 21, 2009 11:37 PM
Gil
So RWW - if Bert notices car thief Andy in a stolen car, Bert buys the car from Andy and therefore cannot be liable for anything because he didn't do anything to the car owner?
Likewise isn't the role for minimalist government that of justice concerns, hence making people 'play nice' (anarcho-Capitalist need not answer).
Published: January 21, 2009 11:41 PM
scott t
is it then nearly unanimously agreed here that there is no such thing as 'intellectual property' but there are (or should be) types of contracts that can limit ones use of acquired 'real' items in such a way that some expression of an artist (print on a page, etchings on a cd, etc) , scientist, author etc. cannot be spread to others who didn't agree to any initial limiting-use contract in the first place?
i have read that someone says that a software purchase is really only a license purchase - but there is a 'disk' that is owned or acquired.
every apartment or rental car i have had always went
back to someone after a specified period of time.
is a contract then legitimate if no 'material' change occurs to a (real) item but is used in a way that is counter to a contract.
is this the crux of the matter?
i guess this would refer to activities such as reprinting books or copying music or house plans or whatever.
personally...i only believe information is owned
until it is expressed. be that through a song, a disk or an 'ancient chinese secret'.
it also seems there are questions here about how 'artists' and intellectualizers would receive income.
i would think that the market would easily be able to take care of that with various service and consultation fees, foundation support of the arts (through auditions) and venues for individual (paypal for artists) risk-investment of research and risk-patronage (up front patronage for future art, iow).
Published: January 21, 2009 11:51 PM
Maty
RWW said:
"On the other hand, anyone who benefits from your violation (in this case, by obtaining the music for free) is under no agreement and therefore cannot be penalized in any way, nor withheld from redistributing."
Let's make clear that there are two questions here, a moral one, and a legal one.
Some tried to argue up until now that there is no MORAL problem for someone to use ripped content. I'm glad you scrapped that off.
As for the legal matter, while a person downloading a ripped copy of the album was not under contract, neither did he have the artist's permission to use this content--which expressly DID NOT allow to be used without permission, and made it clear through Copyrighting. Why should you have any more right to use this content freely (which was initially obtained by fraud) than you would, say, a stolen vehicle--let alone redistribute it further??? That's like saying you could not only hop a ride with the stolen car you have just found abandoned, but also resell it to the highest bidder...
And just to try and anticipate some responses--the argument that the the stolen car is not the same as the ripped album because the first deprives the owner of his physical item while the second can be replicated infinitely without depriving the 'owner' of the original album is absurd; the man who purchased the Album is the owner the physical disc, NOT the contents. The contents belong to the ARTIST or his company, who did not authorize their use without purchase. Anyone who tries to refute the idea of owning CONTENT is shooting himself in the leg... there must be something YOU want when you ache to burn an album... something you do not have--not even on a blank CD, which is identical to the PHYSICAL medium you claim can only be regarded as property...
Basically what you suggested (as pointed by bigmammal) means that if one was to obtain a good without signing a contract (for instance, by stealing it) he should not be subject to prosecution...
Also, you said that:
"This is the weakness in a proper "IP" regime (i.e. a contractual system, not a coercive one like we have at present)."
Could you please elaborate? Whom and how does the present system coerce?
Thanks!
Published: January 22, 2009 12:16 AM
Maty
scott t said:
"i would think that the market would easily be able to take care of that with various service and consultation fees, foundation support of the arts (through auditions) and venues for individual (paypal for artists) risk-investment of research and risk-patronage (up front patronage for future art, iow)."
Sure--very handy, those 'artists' fellas, aren't they... why not just tie one to a pole--or throw him at the backseat with the window cracked open, and add your dirty laundry too...!
Have people went nuts, or what?! So an artist should be able to make money through any means but his actual art...? And what was it besides 'consulting'--foundation by auditions and patronage?!! So an artist cannot hope to make proceeds from his book, and left to scrap an income by being APPROVED by some elite?? the goes Individualism out the window...literally!!
And as for patronage, why would anyone want to invest in a book (or any work for that matter) that cannot bring in proceeds?! The only organization that does it is the government--and remember, the whole idea is to make them STOP doing that...!!!
Published: January 22, 2009 12:36 AM
bigmammal
scott t: “every apartment or rental car i have had always went back to someone after a specified period of time.”
Actually, there is such a thing as perpetual lease of land subject to various conditions. Software purchase is a perpetual lease with a single payment.
Published: January 22, 2009 12:49 AM
Gil
Or, by the same token, a person doesn't have to sign a contract with everyone else to protect every piece of property. No one would argue a car thief can't be charged because he never sign anything.
Published: January 22, 2009 2:00 AM
scott t
maty says "So an artist should be able to make money through any means but his actual art...? "
there is no reason an artist cant receive money from their art...i dont know why you seem to suggest that i said that they couldnt.
some artist claims they need $10k in for an upcoming project....well, they begin to solicit $10k from people through various means...in the same way other endeavors acquire start-up capital.
this could be done through a combination of live performance revenue and patronage streams.
that is just one example.
persona desiring art gives up money to personb doing art.
was that hard to understand from what i posted earlier?
maty says "And as for patronage, why would anyone want to invest in a book (or any work for that matter) that cannot bring in proceeds?! "
hopefully for the pleasure the content and words bring them.
there wouldnt be anything precluding anyone from purchasing a hard copy 'book' bringing proceeds for a printer or paying fees for an electronic-media provider.
if the good stories dried up because of a lack of patronage or literature investment - well then i guess the market would be speaking that other items were more important.
maty says "left to scrap an income by being APPROVED by some elite??"
i specifically mentioned individual patronage schemes in my post, they can be elite or otherwise.
i mentioned consulting fees in a research funding context.
that may have not been clear.
in an earlier post i mentioned how pharm research could proceed without IP in the pharm research area.
much already takes place from donations and grants for drug research and a non-IP system of open research funding and investment would likely thrive from the above mentioned sources -and- from the likes of insurance companies and hospital corporations. such entities whose interest in better patient health would be first choice for those seeking health care because of close proximity to drug research and trial activities.
there are probably other ways as well which may already exist that i am not aware of but perhaps someone else can elaborate on.
maty says "add your dirty laundry too...!"
i dont understand your dirty laundry comments.
i said earlier that i dont see information (as revealed endeavors of the intellect) as ownable after they have been expressed.
certainly specific information can be attributed to a source. weired sketches to escher, tolkien-world to j.r.r., etc.
as popular sources of information become known it is likely that more information will be desired and this additional information can be facilitated through the methods i mentioned above, probably others too.
i just have doubts about the legitimacy of contracts that prevent the extending of un-ownable information.
i never brought government into my post at all.
Published: January 22, 2009 2:50 AM
RWW
Amazing. Every response to my comment engages in begging the question (i.e. treating an idea as property in order to prove that ideas can be property). Is this really the best you can do?
Published: January 22, 2009 7:25 AM
John
RWW -- as if your belief that only physical things can be property is not, itself, an assumption that begs the question. Amazing. ;-)
Published: January 22, 2009 7:31 AM
John
I had an idea for an analogy. Please examine and tell me its flaws.
==============
Let's say you are in a high-jump competition. If you win, you get $100,000,000. If you lose, $0. If you tie, $100.
So you train and train and train. Years and years. Hundreds or thousands of hours of blood, sweat, and toil put into becoming the best high jumper in the world. All because you know that if you win, you will reap generous rewards and fame!
The day finally comes and you JUMP!
Wow! The highest ever recorded. You have beaten all your competition.
But wait . . . there seems to be a problem . . . an identical mark is up on the board next to yours. Someone has tied you!
You jump again. A new record!
And yet, a few seconds later . . . there's that tying mark again up on the leaderboard!
Then you realize: the scorers are seeing the replay of your jump, and counting it as an official jump!
You scream! You cry! You spent so long training and working and now, in an instant, it is all taken away from you because of an electronic copy of your achievement counts exactly the same as what you really did.
==============
So, were you actually robbed of anything?
It was only a copy made easily reproducible by modern technology. And your original jump has not been affected by it.
You still have that memory and knowledge of your accomplishment; it's still in the record books that you were the first person ever to jump so high. You did get $100 after all. And you still have the satisfaction of (actually) being the best (physical) high jumper in the world.
Shouldn't that be enough?
And I’m sure you could figure out a way to simply “be a better high jumper/sprinter” to earn the money against any such illusory competition.
But somehow, you don't get the rewards promised you because someone else produced a copy which others took to be the real thing.
Is this fair competition?
If you insist that the replay not count in the official scoring, is that protectionism because you want to be shielded from what is essentially just a little competition?
Also, would you put in the same effort next time, when the competition was the 100 meter dash and you know that you could also do that better than everyone else if you just spent years and years and trained as hard as you could?
Published: January 22, 2009 7:51 AM
John
Sorry . . . I moved some stuff around in that last post and forgot to re-edit the remaining parts.
The paragraph after "Shouldn't that be enough?" should read:
"And I’m sure you could figure out a way to simply “be a better high jumper” to earn the money against any such illusory competition."
Published: January 22, 2009 7:56 AM
RWW
RWW -- as if your belief that only physical things can be property is not, itself, an assumption that begs the question. Amazing. ;-)
Please do show me where I have used an assumption to demonstrate itself. The fact is, following the proper approach, I have been refuting the pro-"IP" arguments rather than trying to prove a negative (the nonexistence of "IP").
Now, to address your newest analogy. Your ability to analogize seems, as before, sorely lacking. In the real world, it is fairly simple to document that you were the source of whatever works you have produced, just as, in your unfitting analogy, it would be easy for the jumper to show that the second "record" is a mistake. Public acknowledgment of intellectual achievements is probably the least worrying of the possible objections to removing the "IP" regime.
Published: January 22, 2009 8:33 AM
John
It is unfortunate that you cannot find a way to comment on my thoughts without being insulting.
Please do show me where I said that it was not a mistake that the second "record" counted as real as the first one.
I said that it was counted the same, not that such a counting is correct.
The practical effect, even though wrong, is that you are denied your prize through the introduction of a copy of your achievement.
===================
On the other note, I apologize . . . I assumed from what seems to be your position (anti-IP) that you do not believe that intellectual property is truly property.
So, to clarify, do you believe that only physical things can be rightly considered property and that ideas and creations of the mind are not property and so not to be protected through property rights?
That presumed belief seemed to be the source of some of your comments. I apologize if I got it wrong and this is not the source of your skepticism of IP rights. Was I wrong? Is something missing from that statement?
Published: January 22, 2009 8:51 AM
RWW
John, it's hard to restrain myself from insults when you don't take the time to read (in addition to your terrible analogies, of course).
Published: January 22, 2009 9:10 AM
John
Nice, RWW. Very nice.
Care to answer my question and put your belief in writing?
Published: January 22, 2009 9:15 AM
Michael Smith
Jeffrey Tucker wrote:
By the way, I see that this article dramatically drove up the sales of this book on Amazon. Great!
Except that according to the theory of IP, this is unjust that Amazon--a third party that contributed nothing to my article--should be able to benefit from my writing and I get nothing for it. It is pure intellectual robbery! These are my thoughts and yet some other capitalist out there is reaping the benefit!
According to IP theory, not only have I been robbed but I now feel so demoralize that I swear that I will never create another article again. Why should I, if the benefits are just taken from me by pirates?
The comment above illustrates confusion over intellectual property theory. Let’s review what I posted earlier:
IP theory states that when a man creates the content of a work of art -- a book for example -- or creates a design for a new invention -- or creates a formula for a new material -- the content, the design and the formula become his property -- his property by right of the fact that he, and he alone, is causally responsible for bringing the content, the design or the formula into existence.
IP theory further states that since every subsequent copy of the book, or instance of the invention, or batch of the new material makes use of the creator’s property -- namely, the content, the design or the formula -- and since it is only the content, the design and the formula that gives value to each subsequent copy of the book, the invention or the new material -- the creator is the only one rightfully entitled to collect those values. (See my comment of January 19, 2009, 7:31 A.M. for a fuller explanation of this theory.)
IP theory does not say the creator has the right to dictate what the value will be -- the market of individuals willing to trade their money for the creation determines the value -- IP theory only says that whatever the value is, it rightfully belongs to the creator.
Now, in the present case, if the creator (the authors of the book) chooses to allow Amazon to sell his IP, thereby giving Amazon a portion of the stream of values made possible by his IP, that is his privilege. And the terms and conditions of that relationship are strictly between the creator and Amazon. No injustice there.
The actions of another party -- such as Jeffrey in this case -- may change the market’s perception of the value of the creator’s property up or down; it may increase (or decrease) the number of individuals willing to purchase the creator’s property, thereby increasing or decreasing the stream of values going to the creator. This does not change the fact that what the market is purchasing with their dollars is what the creator brought into existence -- the content of the book in this case. They are not purchasing anything that you, the third party, created. That’s why you, the third party in this example, are not entitled to any of that stream of profits, but Amazon, who has a deal with the creator, is entitled to the contractually stipulated share.
Essentially, you have voluntarily mounted a marketing campaign for this book. There were potentially two paths open to you to make money on this campaign. One would be for you to work out a prior arrangement with the authors to compensate you for your efforts by, for instance, giving you some cut of the increase in sales (if any) that your campaign creates. The authors may or may not have been willing to reach such an agreement; it would be a matter of negotiation between you and them. The other method is to put your campaign in book form and collect the sales revenue under IP laws.
The fact that you voluntarily chose to forgo both of these methods is not an injustice, because justice demands that your time belongs to you, and you alone have a right to decide how to use it. Nor is it “intellectual robbery”, because you voluntarily contributed the words of this campaign by putting them here instead of in a copyrighted book; your words have not been used against your will.
Has Amazon profited by virtue of your efforts? Yes. Has Amazon used your property without your permission -- the way a copier uses a creator’s IP without his permission when he makes and sells unauthorized copies of a book, an invention or a new material? No.
So there is nothing in this situation that contradicts IP theory or practice. I again refer those interested to my comment of January 19, 2009, 7:31 A.M. for a fuller justification for IP.
Published: January 22, 2009 9:27 AM
RWW
You're serious? No, I do not believe in "intellectual property." Hopefully this will help you to answer my request. As for yours,
Please do show me where I said that it was not a mistake that the second "record" counted as real as the first one.
I'm not sure what to make of it, as it has no connection to my previous comment. If your goal is to confuse me into silence, you're actually close to accomplishing it.
Published: January 22, 2009 9:28 AM
James Schaeffer
I must read this book. My father was a lawyer. He helped two inventors incorporate and begin manufacturing an industrial tire for hazardous environments. He filed for a patent. It was denied. He took it to the best patent attorney he could find and after about 5 years a patent was issued. By then their were 4 companies manufacturing the product. One of the inventors had sold his ownership in the company to my father and had gone on to help start one of the other 4 companies. Like the Watt & Pickard situation one of the other companies had obtained a patent on a feature that all four were using. Three companies survived through cross licensing agreements. My father told me that the whole idea of patents was a bad thing. He said all parties should have just devoted their energy and resources to making the best product and marketing it as best they could. Society would be better served and so would the innovators. If patents exist you are forced seek a patent for any thing that can be patented or you may find your efforts stopped or shaken down by some patent holder.
My field computer software fell under the copyright law. The original idea behind patents and copyrights was that a short period of monopoly would bring much useful things into public domain. Now the short period could be 100 years. No software will be useful for such a period.
Published: January 22, 2009 9:31 AM
John
You said:
Then, in response to my asking where I said it was a mistake, you said:
Sure it does. If I did not say it was a mistake, then your comment that "it would be easy to show it was a mistake" is irrelevant.
This makes your subsequent claim that my request for "where did I say it?" has "no connection to your previous comment false as well.
Whether or not it is a mistake is not the issue. The fact that it counts as real as your jump and you are out yoru winnings, is.
===============
You also said
Would you mind offering a brief explanation as to why you do not believe in IP?
The reasons I was guessing you would give were the original source for my statement that you were begging the question.
Thus, I am highly interested in the reasoning behind your rejection of IP.
Published: January 22, 2009 9:53 AM
RWW
John, first you say
Please do show me where I said that it was not a mistake that the second "record" counted as real as the first one.
Then, you say
...in response to my asking where I said it was a mistake...
and
If I did not say it was a mistake...
I honestly cannot even follow you, so I'm going to stop trying. The short story is that your analogy is asinine. The electronic copy of the jump is no more real than the supposed "theft" involved in copying a music CD. To judge the copy of a jump to be real would be to make the same kind of error as someone who considers the copying of music a form of theft.
Would you mind offering a brief explanation as to why you do not believe in IP?
No one has convinced me of it. Would you mind offering a brief explanation as to why you do not believe that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit?
The reasons I was guessing you would give were the original source for my statement that you were begging the question.
Unbelievable.
Published: January 22, 2009 1:49 PM
John
Yes, you are.
Sorry to see that you cannot offer support for your own views other than to say that you don't like other ideas. That's too bad that you haven't thought through your beliefs like that.
Have a good one. I'm done with you.
Published: January 22, 2009 2:29 PM
James Redford
To rephrase William S. Gilbert:
When I sally forth to seek my prey
I help myself in a royal way:
I download a few more files, it's true,
Than a well-bred monarch ought to do;
But many a king on a first-class throne,
If he wants to call his crown his own,
Must manage somehow to get through
More dirty work than ever I do,
Though I am a Pirate King!
Published: January 22, 2009 7:48 PM
Maty
I think that on the level of principles the problem is that we all use the general word ‘ideas’ here to denote different things—the anti-IP people take it to mean concrete instances of knowledge and therefore rightfully reply that no one can ‘own’ what’s in their heads, while the pro-IP people take it for anything that is non-physical—and hence the confusion.
So why not simplify it?
As I mentioned in a previous post, no can own or copyright an idea per-se—nor can one do so with knowledge. Property is the result of work; either one’s own, or someone else’s. However, when one takes isolated ideas and groups them together in a certain way; in a particular order and fashion that is distinct and personal to him—he creates a new unit. All those ideas that have been previously isolated and continue to be so outside of his work, once formulated by the power of his mind, constitute a new whole. This does not mean that the individual ideas, concepts, information, or knowledge used therein are his property and cannot be used by others—what it means is that the new whole, the particular combination he has attained, is his property and cannot be replicated without consent.
Just because an author is using concepts—non-material units—for raw materials and not steel, concrete or any other physical commodity does it mean that he should not own the end result of his effort? And can you really claim that the end result of his work is only the PHYSICAL book and naught more? After all, what has he been toiling over all those years—binding and pressing papers, or contemplating concepts and grouping them into logical units, glued together by coherence and his unique style of expression?
Just as the mason, whose workplace is physical, would own the house his hands have built—should not a writer, whose workspace is conceptual, own the structure his mind erected?
So if you have worked hard to infer certain truths which the author happened to demonstrate in his book, or even if you have exerted your mental faculties to grasp the contents of his very book, it does not mean that the author now owns the ideas in your mind—you obviously own them because you have worked to put them there, and you are free to use them and express them in any way you wish. However, you are not free to appropriate the author’s expression—even if you memorized his entire text.
Ideas DO NOT equal their expression, formulation, or presentation—even though many of us may hold the same truths in our minds, we all have our own way of explaining and expressing them. If we wish to repeat or paraphrase someone else’s expression—would cite or credit them. Why? Because we acknowledge their work and the fact that even though the idea is equally ours—the expression is theirs.
The thing that concerns me most about the anti-IP arguments presented herein is that they all seem to do away with the process of creation and its significance--regarding man-made creations once revealed to the world as equally metaphysical as the rocks and leaves…
Now, as a foot note, I do hope that this post is going to be answered intelligently and not ignored as my previous lengthily posts. Up to this point I have approached this debate as an exchange of ideas where everyone engaged is seeking to reach the truth, and gave most comments due time and consideration. Others arguing in favor of IP seem to have taken a similarly mature approach, taking the time to consider comments and trying to reason through them (even if not always successfully). However, those arguing against IP seem to have (mostly) confined themselves to being dismissive (bordering on elusive), while at times seemingly aiming at ridicule rather than intelligent discourse.
As for myself, I have been curious to hear the case for anti-IP and was open to challenging my own convictions. However, none of the arguments offered thus far withstood my deconstruction, nor were my counterarguments counteracted. Seeing as much confusion on both side has resulted from the use of analogies on the practical lever—I have sought in this post to bring the matter down to the level of principle, and to two fundamental questions:
1. Is a man entitled to the result of his work, and
2. Is he then entitled to set the terms under which he is willing to trade it?
These questions are at the root of the discussion, and I think that at this point, if we are not to talk in vain, we should strive to focus on the roots.
This would my last attempt to engage in this discourse intelligently, and if again it goes unanswered, I can only conclude that those arguing against IP simply have no answers and stop wasting my time. Those who care can keep on playing in the sand box…
====================================
jeffrey said:
"Would Rowling be poorer or richer? I don't think there is any way to know. But the main thing is that the world be a better place."
So much for the 'individual' as the standard of value...
Published: January 22, 2009 11:20 PM
Prakash
I think there might be 2 issues which are getting confused here. One is the idea of IP and paying the creators of new patterns (because that is what a thing without its physical materials is, a pattern) a sufficient remuneration for their work. The second issue is the PRESENT SYSTEM OF IP PROTECTION, which involves copyrights and patents, both of which are based on intellectual monopoly.
I think this debate can be enriched by considering alternate ways of protecting IP, like the innovation clearing house "tree" structure described by Robert Klassen. In the tree structure, people can independently arrive at the same result and have no IP conflict because all they put in their IP filing is the prior art they used. It is possible for 2 teams to use the same prior art and come up with incredibly similar products and neither would be in conflict with the other, but both would be paying dues to the people who created their prior art.
Now, a person under this structure who would seek to modify or hack a present product would simply mention that product as prior art and move forth instead of trying to get to understand all the prior art behind that and mentioning that in his filing.
eg. A, B are prior art for product C. A person seeking to create a new version of product C would simply mention C as prior art instead of A,B because his royalty payment might end up as pretty much the same either way
Published: January 23, 2009 2:19 AM
E.B.
Jeffrey:
. . .And you want to know the REALLY funny part? Most of the government-created, government-protected business collectives to whom such IP rights have been granted HAVE NO such *actual* 'rights' under the supreme law of THIS land.
Everybody, let's play "Find-the-Word-Corporation-In-The-U.S.-Constitution."
That's right, it ain't in there--and such 'persons' wouldn't exist at all had it not been for the SCOTUS usurpation of 1886. You know, the one where the Court *decided that it had been given the right to declare such business collectives 'persons' with all the rights and protections granted thereto? Capitalism/free enterprise have been going down the crapper ever since. In short my esteemed friend, how far down do you want to pull this curtain? It gets ugly from here. :-)
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
Published: July 14, 2009 9:43 PM