Comments (20)

• Andras

  So who is a perfect libertarian?

  Published: January 22, 2009 11:20 PM

• Wayne

  Murray Rothbard of course.

  Published: January 23, 2009 2:36 AM

• Inquisitor

  Any Rothbardian.

  Published: January 23, 2009 6:14 AM

• Brian Macker

  ... and Rothbard was for copyrights.

  Published: January 23, 2009 7:03 AM

• ktibuk

  "Lessig is not a perfect libertarian"

  And this is hilarious coming from an IP socialist. Why isn't Lessig "perfect"?

  Maybe because he didn't endorse outright copying like the IP socialist Kinsella does?

  And Lessig himself doesn't see that the problem (that 70% of teenagers are being thieves) is not "remixing" but downloading whole, untouched works like songs, movies and software.

  70% of youngsters are thieves because their actions do not have consequences as of now. These kids would also sneak into movie theaters and concerts if they knew they wouldn't get caught.

  Published: January 23, 2009 7:34 AM

• Marcelo

  ktibuk is the IP socialist. Oh, look I can call other people names. How old are you? That is so childish.

  Published: January 23, 2009 7:42 AM

• ktibuk

  Marcelo,

  I am not calling anyone names. If you want to socialize private property you will be called a socialist because that is in fact what you are.

  You argue that the society is entitled to someones fruit of labor (just because the end product is not scarce) and you get upset at being called a socialist?

  
  

  Published: January 23, 2009 7:55 AM

• Marcelo

  Nah. You're the socialist. You won't let the free market decide the outcome of IP.

  Published: January 23, 2009 8:12 AM

• Nick

  ktibuk -

  I'm a musician in my spare time. I've come to grips with something over the last ten years:

  Property (like my recorded music) has value because of scarcity. In the past it was difficult to get quality recordings easily and pass them around efficiently so it made sense to sell records, tapes, or compact discs - It was a way to profit from a piece of property that was both scarce and controllable - the scarcity gave it value.

  Today, the reality is different. Anyone with a peecee can make an *exact* duplicate of any recording in a very short amount of time and they can distribute that recording worldwide almost instantaneously. Once I release a recording, there's no scarcity and there's no control mechanisim for it. In other words, there's no value.

  The reality is that I have to come up with a different business model that doesn't involve selling that recording to the general public. Either that, or if I truly wish for my song to remain my private property, I am free to *not* release it to the public. This is reality and there's nothing I, you, or a whole army of copyright enforcement officers can do about it.

  Or do you advocate a police state to protect, and therefore prop up the value of, so-called intellectual property?

  Published: January 23, 2009 8:47 AM

• newson

  ktibuk says:
  "If you want to socialize private property you will be called a socialist because that is in fact what you are.

  none of the anti-ip posters on any of these blogs has advocated that creative works be offered free (ie socialized), merely that it be up to the creator to give scarcity value to his product. as nick says, the market will reward creative entrepreneurs who develop innovation not only in product, but also security measures.

  state-granted ip protection, on the other hand, socializes the costs of unnecessary legislation and enforcement.

  Published: January 23, 2009 9:09 AM

• newson

  ktibuk says:
  "70% of youngsters are thieves because their actions do not have consequences as of now.

  so what is needed is "the surge". colbert is quite right.

  Published: January 23, 2009 9:13 AM

• ktibuk

  Nick,

  I am not concerned with "value" but "property". Two are not the same. If something is mine, other peoples valuations may make it worthless but that doesn't change the fact that thing is mine.

  Scarcity issue is a technical enforcement issue and it never is the main point of homesteading or property theory. IP Socialist like Kinsella may want to put scarcity in the middle by redefining homesteading and confuse some libertarians but property is about the individual.

  Ask an IP socialist about general homesteading and property theory and you wont hear about the individual. You wont get the the only thing that matters the producers labor, the producers time, which he can never get back after he invested in it.

  And listen to their arguments carefully. You will hear even the same examples coming from socialists that want to socialize all private property all these years. Silas Barta exposed this scheme countless times on this blog but never got a response.

  He even modified the mainly utilitarian calculation argument that Mises made famous, and it wont get a response from IP socialist in a site that is run by Mises Inst. The calculation argument demolished socialist arguments back in the days but it wont make a dent in the 21. century on a site dedicated to Mises' name.

  Tragic really.

  Published: January 23, 2009 9:54 AM

• ktibuk

  Newson,

  You are not being intellectually honest. IP socialists never claimed what you are claiming on their behalf on this post but I am pleased at least you concede that nobody is entitled to someone else's creation.

  Protection of property is a technical issue and protection of IP is not different than protection of tangible property. Owners should bear the costs. Unfortunately today we are living under protection rackets called states and cost of protecting property is socialized. And yes just as for tangible property there are definition problems in IP.

  But trying to reform law is something, trying to abolish property is another.

  Published: January 23, 2009 10:04 AM

• RWW

  Oh, look I can call other people names.

  That kind of tactic really seems to be what the pro-"IP" people always come down to in the end. In another thread yesterday, another of them basically said "I know you are, but what am I?" and stormed off.

  When their arguments inevitably fail, out come the personal attacks.

  Published: January 23, 2009 10:10 AM

• Curt Howland

  Each person owns their own self, first.

  What an artist owns is their own production. What cannot be copied is the performance.

  So without artificial scarcity, the musician performs and gets paid, and recorded music becomes the advertising of this person's skill.

  The artist makes a work and sells it to whoever wants it. Copies become the advertising of this person's skill.

  Without those laws, I fully expect that we will see a flourishing of art created on demand, just like the great works of art of the past. Michaelangelo didn't sell the Sistine chapel ceiling, he sold his labor in its creation.

  Published: January 23, 2009 12:08 PM

• Adam

  If I read a book and then tell my friend about the interesting points, am I a theif? Is he? He did not pay the author for the ideas and information he labored to create, so he is a theif if he enjoys them.

  This is analogous to downloading a copy of a song without paying.

  Anger that an artist maybe, possibly, could have received money for a song had I not downloaded it is not justification for a criminal law.

  Published: January 23, 2009 1:06 PM

• Andy

  ktibuk says:
  "I am not concerned with "value" but "property". Two are not the same. If something is mine, other peoples valuations may make it worthless but that doesn't change the fact that thing is mine.

  Scarcity issue is a technical enforcement issue and it never is the main point of homesteading or property theory."

  I agree that "value" and "property" are not the same. And yes, other people's valuations of my property are irrelevant as to whether I own my property or not.

  However, scarcity (not to be confused with rarity) is absolutely relevant to property rights. Read Hoppe. Ethical dilemmas and conflicts over physical property occur when there is scarcity. We don't live in the Garden of Eden. We have rules over how private property is aquired, held and transferred to other parties freely (rules which I'm sure you understand). However, ideas themselves are not scarce such as physical goods. If you discover something, create a new process, or create a piece of music, I can still aquire that process or work without limiting your access to it. My copying (emulation) of it does not create less of that good. Governmental grants of privilage over non scare goods are detrimental to economic growth AND they are unjustified.

  Remember libertarians should not be "knee jerk property right defenders". Some property rights are nothing more than market socialism. I've come to the conclusion that patent and copyright are market socialism in the same way emmissions trading or school vouchers are.

  Published: January 23, 2009 1:55 PM

• Andy

  *emmissions should be emissions obviously.

  Published: January 23, 2009 2:18 PM

• Josh

  There's a ton of remixes from this interview here:
  http://www.indabamusic.com/sessions/indaba/68873
  

  Published: January 23, 2009 5:05 PM

• BulbousAlsoTapered

  "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Viacom International Inc." Ah, the irony! No surprise that the claim was from a big coroporation rahter than an individual artist. Of course I'll still find a copy (they never manage to suppress these things altogether no matter how hard they try) - it just means I'll have to search for a litle longer . . .

  Published: March 14, 2009 4:09 AM