Dissecting Boldrin and Levine: An Alternate View of Intellectual Property
On Strike The Root one "John deLaubenfels" criticizes us IP critics.
I'll comment on one argument here:
Copies of an author's work can be made virtually for free; therefore they aren't "scarce"; therefore they have no value that anybody need respect. This line is not heavily stressed by B&L, but it is popular among anti-IP'ers and was apparently originally conceived by their darling, Stephan Kinsella. Nonsense! The actual worth of a work can be calculated as the sum of what each person on earth would willingly pay for a copy, if it could be obtained in no other way. This figure may fairly be said to represent the potential value the author has brought to the world. Subtract the cost of making copies for all purchasers, and we arrive at a return the author may hope to approach in a just society, assuming he's able to reach all potential buyers and is able to guess how much they're willing to pay. Note that this second number goes UP, not down, as the cost of making copies decreases. An interesting question for anyone who buys into the Kinsella argument would be: consider a product which requires physical raw materials to produce. Would it be "not stealing" to break into a store, take one, and leave in exchange only the cost of the raw materials and labor needed to produce it? The idea is as absurd as Kinsella's is for intellectual works.
First, I have stressed repeatedly that property rights are rights in the physical integrity of a resource, not in its value. Libertarianism does not mandate that people "respect the value" of property. Only that they do not invade its borders--use it without the owner's permission. So it is irrelevant whether a work, or copies of it, "have" a "value". The question is: are patterns and information ownable things? Are they the type of things that can be, that ought to be, property? The answer to this question does not turn on whether people value the pattern or information or copies or not.
As for the question: consider a product which requires physical raw materials to produce. Would it be "not stealing" to break into a store, take one, and leave in exchange only the cost of the raw materials and labor needed to produce it?"
Property rights are rights to the physical integrity of owned scarce resources. So it's stealing to take my product without my permission, since I own it. This is true whether or not the object "has value" or not; and it's true whether or not the thief leaves me partial (or even complete) restitution.
This entire line of reasoning is confused.
Comments (49)
Manuel Lora
What is the point of the scare quotes? Do you doubt the existence of the person? Is the name a nym?
Published: January 26, 2009 1:19 PM
Inquisitor
"Have" a "value", hahaha priceless.
Published: January 26, 2009 1:21 PM
Justin
Even so, if I buy an MP3 off the iStore with DRM coding embedded in it, what am I really buying? I'll give you that I'm not buying the "rights" to listen to the music, but I'm really buying the MP3 itself. And the MP3 does actually take up phyical memory on my hard drive (however efficiently minescule that may be), so even the transfer of music data files is still a transfer of phyical assets.
I still haven't made up my mind on IP, but I want to see how you chew on that one.
Published: January 26, 2009 1:44 PM
Mike
"Even so, if I buy an MP3 off the iStore with DRM coding embedded in it, what am I really buying? I'll give you that I'm not buying the "rights" to listen to the music, but I'm really buying the MP3 itself. And the MP3 does actually take up phyical memory on my hard drive (however efficiently minescule that may be), so even the transfer of music data files is still a transfer of phyical assets. "
You're not "buying" anything, really. More accurately, you're paying for a service: you pay them $0.99 to rearrange the data in your computer into a certain pattern. It's not really a "product," any more than paying someone to clean your house is a product.
Published: January 26, 2009 2:06 PM
Dan Mahoney
John deLaubenfels is the intellectual equivalent of a dirty sanchez.
Published: January 26, 2009 2:38 PM
Bruce Koerber
"The actual worth of a work' may "be said to represent the potential value the author has brought to the world."
"the potential value"
When is this realized? Who is the unbiased genius who can trace this back to its true originator when it is finally realized?
What if the origin is the grace of God that 'potentially' is available to every sentient human being?
Once converted into a property right in some form then there is some kind of recourse. No doubt, defining and refining property rights is the monumental task ahead of us as we move towards a classical liberalism civilization.
Published: January 26, 2009 2:57 PM
Silas Barta
And as *I* have stressed even more repeatedly, Stephan_Kinsella, you don't actually believe that. Case in point: radio waves. You support EM spectrum rights -- specifcially, the right to form eletromagnetic waves within a certain frequency band -- which are not rights in any one physical object, but rather, the right to a form a specific pattern. This is exactly what IP rights are!
And furthermore, your claim that "using" "someone else's" frequency violates their rights, is itself dependent upon an assumption that others must "respect the value" of something, not just its integrity. After all, an infinite number of people can simultaneously blast radio waves. The alleged conflict only arises when some people feel entitled to transmit meaningful information in addition to superposed waves. So your criterion here for "what counts as a rights violation" hinges on whether it degrades the *value* of a resouce -- exactly the position you claim to oppose. And an IP advocate could just as easily turn the claim around and make the very same defense of their IP rights: by saying that they don't merely want the right to form the pattern, but the *value* of forming the pattern, which requires excusivity, just as surely as the value of a radio frequency depends on exclusivity.
So far, your ONLY argument to differentiate the two is your arbitrary decision of what counts as a "relevant use". Unless and until you can come up with an argument doesn't require someone to already agree with something just because you believe it, I expect you to either drop your opposition to IP, or begin your opposition to the Big Electromagnetism cartel.
Published: January 26, 2009 3:03 PM
Bob Kaercher
deLaubenfels writes:
"Full disclosure: I am a software author, whose work is available online for a price. It would be possible for any number of clever people to hack my program's security, and thus I have a personal reason for resenting any suggestion that the law should encourage such behavior."
Well, if I used my own money to buy software from him, thus legitimately acquiring title to that particular copy as my property, and installed it onto my computer, to which I also hold title as property, do I not have a right to dispose of it as I wish?
It never ceases to amaze me when pro-IP people assert that my using my own legitimately acquired property as I see fit is somehow "theft" of somebody else.
And those of us opposed to IP are somehow the moral scum of the Earth.
Published: January 26, 2009 3:07 PM
Mike
"And as *I* have stressed even more repeatedly, Stephan_Kinsella, you don't actually believe that. Case in point: radio waves. You support EM spectrum rights -- specifcially, the right to form eletromagnetic waves within a certain frequency band -- which are not rights in any one physical object, but rather, the right to a form a specific pattern. This is exactly what IP rights are!"
Radio waves exist in the physical world, and I think you're reading EM spectrum rights incorrectly. It's not the exclusive right to broadcast in a certain frequency, but rather the exclusive right to utilize certain parts of the physical world around us. If radio waves didn't interfere with one another, there would be no need for exclusivity.
Published: January 26, 2009 3:07 PM
Mike
"The alleged conflict only arises when some people feel entitled to transmit meaningful information in addition to superposed waves."
Also, this is simply not true. Frequencies are homesteadable, and are thus *physically* ownable. Just because you cannot see something doesn't mean it does not exist in the physical world. If a frequency is homesteaded in a certain geographical area, they could blast whatever meaningless nonsense they wanted. Transmitting "meaningful information" is irrelevant.
Published: January 26, 2009 3:13 PM
Silas Barta
@Mike, you're not addressing my point. I never claimed you had to "see something" for it to be physical. What I claimed is that physical rights cannot be the right to a pattern, which is object-independent. Allegedly "non-interfering" transmissions in fact do cross each others paths -- just in a way that different people -- here it comes -- *don't disagree about*.
Specifically, here's where you go astray:
It would be more accurate to say: if radio wave "interference" didn't bother people, then there would be no need for exclusivity.
(I gave an example of such a scenario: people blasting waves just for fun. In such a scenario, they are not interested in transmitting *information*. Therefore, it's not necessary that others decode any message, therefore it's not necessary for exclusiving in any frequency band.)
But then -- yep! -- you can say the exact same thing about IP!
Published: January 26, 2009 3:27 PM
Mike
Oh please. You're being pedantic. Yes, radio waves "cross paths," but not in a way that disrupts the physical integrity of one another.
"It would be more accurate to say: if radio wave "interference" didn't bother people, then there would be no need for exclusivity. "
This is misleading, and no, you couldn't say the same thing about IP.
"It would be more accurate to say: if radio wave "interference" didn't bother people, then there would be no need for exclusivity. "
Not necessary, perhaps, but they would be within their rights to *claim* exclusivity, provided they were the first users. Again, this is due to the physical integrity of the property in question, not due to some subjective valuation.
Published: January 26, 2009 3:33 PM
Mike
That last quote should have been:
"(I gave an example of such a scenario: people blasting waves just for fun. In such a scenario, they are not interested in transmitting *information*. Therefore, it's not necessary that others decode any message, therefore it's not necessary for exclusiving in any frequency band.)"
Published: January 26, 2009 3:35 PM
Silas Barta
@Mike:
Wow, strong refutation there, bro.
Yes, it IS due to some subjective valuation: specifically,the first transmitter's SUBJECTIVE VALUATION of the superiority of the results of being the only one to broadcast at the frequency!
Published: January 26, 2009 3:51 PM
bob
My argument on IP has fundamentally rested upon recognizing that the labor required to create IP is indeed scarce, independent of the scarcity of information. Additionally, this labor often isn't motivated simply by the consumer value of the resulting IP, but by the monetary gains inherent in a market economy. These gains are dependent upon excluding people from legal consumer use. Whether this scarcity is artificial or natural is only an academic debate. In reality, without this scarcity, laboring to create IP will become fundamentally less "valued" by society. In other words, people will exchange less bread for information.
This being said, there are a number of better ways to go about this debate.
1) Reform current law to prevent abuse, without altering its basic structure. For instance, copyrights should last shorter lengths of time, and never an indefinite corporate lifetime.
2) Fundamentally change IP law. I am for removing market restrictions, allowing more efficient distributors, etc, to crowd out inefficient first-comers; however, there should be legal entitlements given to copyright holders to receive a portion of the revenues all commercial operations using said copyrighted materials to earn income. This would include ad revenues on distributing websites, etc. Fan sites and distribution to friends would have no legally enforceable dues to copyright holders.
3) Treat IP as "public goods" and fund it through collective means such as taxation. I adamantly detest this approach.
4) Treat IP as simple information protected by no law. I also dislike this approach and feel it would severely retard all IP industries...and even arts but to a lesser degree.
5) Do nothing. Despite all the fuss and abuses, IP is still progressing, and represents a huge industry in America. It would be sad if this were the pinnacle of IP production, but there is no magic looking glass that clearly shows a better path.
Then again, under (4), I admit market solutions may arise that work as I describe under (2). The people who wish to violate the rules in the marketplace may also be willing to violate legal rules.
If enforcement is lax or simply ineffective, we'll get a free market in IP regardless of the law.
Published: January 26, 2009 3:51 PM
Mike
"Yes, it IS due to some subjective valuation: specifically,the first transmitter's SUBJECTIVE VALUATION of the superiority of the results of being the only one to broadcast at the frequency!"
By this logic, all physical property is based on subjective valuation. Is this what you're asserting?
Published: January 26, 2009 3:55 PM
Silas Barta
@Mike: "By this logic, all physical property is based on subjective valuation."
No, by that logic, all physical property (rights) are necessitated by subjective valuation.
You know, exactly the principle invoked by Rothbard, Hoppe, Stephan_Kinsella, etc. when deriving their preferred system of property rights...
Published: January 26, 2009 4:05 PM
bob
this EM waves debate is missing some key points.
first, one homesteads property for a specific use. It is not necessarily up to subjective valuation whether or not this use is for the public benefit or not, only the intended benefit of the homesteader. as an example, suppose a farmer homesteads land and plants crops. not much later, someone builds a skyscraper next to his land, casting a shadow that damages the integrity of his farming. He can reasonably claim that he homesteaded the airways between the sun and his farmland, also serving the purpose of farming. He should have property rights to such, as they fit his homesteading purpose. It doesn't matter if he grows enormous amounts of beets he can't sell at a profit.
The desired use of EM freq space for a given geographic area is to disseminate information. If someone else uses this space in a manner that harms this purpose, it is in violation of property rights homesteaded for a specific purpose, and I believe a jury could easily recognize this.
Blasting noise is generally not the purpose of any homesteader. Furthermore, it is not the profitable intention of any businessman. It would generally not be recognized as purposeful, as the signal creator would most likely be found to be the only desiring recipient. Thus, he could listen to noise without requiring the property of, let's say...the entire EM spectrum.
It would be similar to claiming a right to all the unused airspace over the planet Earth. No new commercial flight paths could be allowed. No new buildings could be erected. For what purpose? There is no possible purpose.
Published: January 26, 2009 4:09 PM
Andras
Thank you Silas. You drove another nail in the IP socialist's coffin.
Published: January 26, 2009 4:14 PM
bob
I also would like to address the subject of unintentional signals as the byproduct of some other industry. Say I have a nuclear power plant that I created before radio stations moved into the area. I homestead these spectrums as part of the use of creating nuclear power. This noise is obviously not in the "public good".
What should happen in a free market would be that a radio station that wants to move into town would buy the rights from me, and I will use a portion of the sale to prevent the EM interference.
If the radio station was first to town, it'd be part of my expenses, as I'd be harming the already homesteaded property of someone else. If I was first to town, the radio station should cover my costs plus whatever I feel is a reasonable profit.
On the other hand, I could not sue the radio station if it simply decided to start transmitting its radio waves, even in the spectrum and location that I homesteaded. I only have a right to the integrity of the homesteaded property in fulfilling the purpose by which it was homesteaded. So long as a radio station cannot use EM waves to diminish my ability to create nuclear power, I would have no right to sue them.
Similarly, in the farmer/skyscraper analogy, if the skyscraper was designed to be completely transparent, or simply beamed the difference of EM waves that I would lose, I could not sue them, as the integrity of the property in fulfilling my homesteading purpose was unchanged.
Published: January 26, 2009 4:20 PM
Karlos
Although I don't agree with bob's labor argument (even things produced with enormous labor input are absolutely valueless, if nobody wants to buy them), but it gave me some inspiration and serious thinking about what IS scarceness after all? Can we really define scarceness only from the physical perspective or are there some other forms of scarceness as well? Can we say that even an idea is scarce, since there is only one person in the whole wide world who has it? Does the fact that once it gets out, it is virtually impossible to stop copying it, really matters, as far as its scarceness is concerned? Does it change anything?
And now for something completely different, only slightly related - as a part time IT pundit I sincerely believe that much of this discussion would be rendered obsolete by future development, since many of today's IPs are bound to migrate to purely web environment. Movies, music, software, ebooks and games will not be stored in various devices (computer, laptop, iPod), IP producers wil not be selling copyable digital files, but instead only an access to the content stored on their harddisks and mainframes, which will be streamed to our portable or home receivers. The trend is quite obvious and recognizable already and with the further development of high speed internet, it'll prevail and dominate.
That will however not rule out the discussion about industrial patents, which is, at least for me, a damned dilemma (and Boldrin's/Levine's book certainly made a strong impact on me, although it didn't persuade me completely).
(sorry for english, not native speaker)
Published: January 26, 2009 5:11 PM
keia
This is ridiculous.
The group asking 'please give me money for free, I once may I have done something so I now want perpetual redistribution of wealth to me, just because I was the fastest or the one with less principles and ran to the nearest patent-government-office and beg them to SWAT all those who claim to have anything similar to what I registered with my friend the patent register and his buddies the IP-police'!
You remind me of the laziest students who 'argued' that they had 'studied' (or copied) and therefore deserved a perpetual 'job' as civil-serveant'.
You should take a look at the open source community/industry/market.
People create, develop, spend their time and resources and things they put in public domain!
Just because it's the honorable way to go, the best technical way to achieve something (by having more people helping, looking at your ideas, code making suggestions, making patches, fixing bugs...).
There are two types of guys here, those who work and create stuff, and those who steal others with some hypocritical excuse.
It's exactly the same as the economical way and the political way, one creates, the other steals.
Published: January 26, 2009 5:19 PM
keia
karlos, it's not true we are moving to a inet-only access mode, in no way, thanks to those who hurt and block the development of, well, everything using the monopolies they got from the state, thanks to that computer technology is slow, it should be much faster, it could be, it's a shame, a disaster.
So, if you want to talk abut what kind of civilization we are becoming, I will told you. To a one where creation is impossible due to millions of patents and copyrights. Right now millions of us could be rounded and moved to be 'judged' because we could have 'broken' some idea that some 'badword-here' patented. Every patent is an artificial new law, like forcing all of us to walk with only one leg.
If person A is 95% on the development of something, and he get the IP 'rights' for it, he could stop all humanity for using this development forever! (or for only his 80 years lifetime oh).
If person B was 80% on the same development, on his own, when he releases it to the public, he won't be able to, he will be sued, all his work for nothing.
I can't understand it, I tried, but I can't.
Are you being paid to troll here?
Published: January 26, 2009 5:39 PM
JLBryan
How would other kinds of information fit into the IP debate? For example, what if I had your medical records, or your bank account numbers, personal PINs and passwords, etc. and posted them all on a public website, so that anyone who came along could then easily swipe all your money? How would this be a crime in a no-IP world, since nobody "owns" the information involved?
Published: January 26, 2009 5:54 PM
Gil
So what keia? Ever heard of the term 'The Tragedy of Anti-Commons'? It's where someone owns land and uses inefficiently (lang hog/troll) and impeding the progress of humanity yet to deprive of his land rights would be a step in depriving others of their land rights (at least to some). You might as well argue how much do people like the Amish hold back progress by their low-tech usage of their land. Hell, you might argue history has been one of 'land-trolling' because people have preferred superstitious religion over sound science setting progress back for thousands of years.
Published: January 26, 2009 6:08 PM
keia
Why should it be a crime to write numbers in a page?
The crime could be entering without permission in the office where you copy the numbers, that is just breaking into private property.
The company in charge of protecting then numbers could lost some clients.
If you start this path, the line is impossible to draw, what about a security bug? a failure in phone? a default password in some computer? a math algorithm who could be used to crack some crypto?
The way to go is not to sue everyone, there is no right to 'honour' or to prosecute those who post some numbers you value? where is the line? your date of birth? your home address? your bank account?
Published: January 26, 2009 6:16 PM
keia
Gil, it's different, amish do not go in full paramilitary gear knocking doors forcing other to not use that technology.
Published: January 26, 2009 6:35 PM
Mike D.
If people were allowed to own numbers, then Chaikin would own everything that can be represented as a binary sequence. The key concept is that an mp3 recording of a song is not a song - it is just a sequence of ones and zeros.
( Chaikin' s number is formed by writing down the integers in order i.e. 1234567891011121314 etc.
The binary representation of this number contains all finite sequences of zeros and ones, including all mp3 digital files or anything that can be downloaded off of the internet.)
Published: January 26, 2009 7:27 PM
Henry Miller
I suppose I have to go pay the gas station the rest of his money than. He only charged me $2.23/gallon, I would be willing to pay $10/gallon.
Published: January 26, 2009 8:04 PM
Caveman
Silas, you may have a valid point about EM frequencies. If someone wants to homestead an EM frequency it seems it should be encumbent upon the would-be EM homesteader to construct a "fence" to keep random blasts of noise out. If such a fence could be built, would you allow that EM frequencies can be homesteaded?
However, as you imply in your initial comment, all you've demonstrated is that Kinsella is inconsistent in the application of his understanding of property with regard to EM frequencies. You have yet to present a strong refutation of Kinsella's definition of property, bro.
JLBryan, in a no-IP world it wouldn't be a violation of property rights to post on the internet someone else's PINs, passwords and the like. It would only be a violation if one uses the passwords, etc to trespass on the person's property, e.g., enter the person's online bank account.
Published: January 26, 2009 8:31 PM
Silas Barta
@Caveman: Silas, you may have a valid point about EM frequencies. If someone wants to homestead an EM frequency it seems it should be encumbent upon the would-be EM homesteader to construct a "fence" to keep random blasts of noise out. If such a fence could be built, would you allow that EM frequencies can be homesteaded?
You misunderstand. I already believe EM frequencies can be homesteaded, *and* I believe IP is a perfectly parallel case. Furthermore, there are ways to "fence" frequencies, once you keep in mind that the purpose of a fence is not to be an impenetrable barrier, but to clearly indicate a claim. Registries of spectrum ownership accomplish this, such as the FCC's and military's, even if we would prefer it be more organic and privately-run. So someone wanting to broadcast at a particular frequency -- which happens quite often for designers of devices that transmit radio waves short distances -- can in fact find out easily if doing so would collide with someone else's private property rights. (Or the government's claims...)
Likewise, it's entirely theoretically sound for there to be a similar registry of homesteaded "intellectual frequencies" -- patterns of motion not used before and meeting other requirements for homestead-ability. The fact that there is no such registry that is designed to be as easy to use as a property registry, is a statement about government's inefficiency, *not* about IP's theoretical unsoundness.
However, as you imply in your initial comment, all you've demonstrated is that Kinsella is inconsistent in the application of his understanding of property with regard to EM frequencies. You have yet to present a strong refutation of Kinsella's definition of property, bro.
Well, first of all, this is not limited to Kinsella's theorizing; libertarians pretty universally grasp why radio frequencies -- despite being "merely" a pattern of motion that can be instantiated in many substrates -- are scarce *in the relevant sense* an thus ownable. With just a little extra thought, all of those libertarians can just as well grasp why there's a relevant scarcity with respect to intellectual works. Of course, my argument has, a few times, had the opposite effect, of making anti-IP libertarians also oppose spectrum rights. Yikes! See the link below.
Second of all, in making this argument I certainly have drawn out the flaws in Stephan_Kinsella's arguments against ownership of the right to instantiate ideas, which I think was what you meant by his definition of property (don't mean to be pedantic, but Stephan_Kinsella will leap at any technicality as a change to avoid damaging criticisms, no matter whether he's right about the technicality).
Specifically, as it turns out, Stephan_Kinsella's theory of property crucially relies on assigning a "relevant use" to all resources, which he has arbitrarily chosen in a way that supports his case, and which in fact cannot be anything *but* arbitrary. Please refer to my blog post, The Shortest, Safest Libertarian Case for IP. It links to Stephan_Kinsella's devastating admissions -- and even more devastating decision to trudge ahead with an argument he now knows to be indefensible.
Published: January 26, 2009 11:17 PM
Caveman
Silas, unlike property IP can be replicated ad infinitum. That's why you, I and everyone else calls it IP and not property. If this weren't the case, we'd just call it property and there'd be nothing to argue about. One can neither trespass upon nor steal that which can be replicated ad infinitum.
Published: January 27, 2009 12:54 AM
ktibuk
Caveman,
IP stads for "intellectual property".
Published: January 27, 2009 2:58 AM
ktibuk
I have been debating with people over here on the comments sections for a while and all the ideas are so sporadic it is very hard to keep a line of thought in tact. I think Bob's format is a good one, although I don't agree with his points.
1. Everyone should acknowledge that who ever produces something, owns it. This could be a tangible good or an idea.
2. Everyone should also acknowledge that copying without the consent of the owner is aggression, since aggression has nothing to do with the integrity of a tangible thing on the atomic level, but everything to do with the consent of individuals.
3. Anyone who owns and idea has to bear the cost of trying to protect his idea.
4. Anyone who thinks he fell victim to the act of aggression called "copying" has to take his case to court and should prove "an act of copying" indeed has taken place. If the accuser "wins" in court he should be compensated.
All IP laws should be reformed according to the above rules.
This means there would be no patent laws, and patent registiration offfices and courts would handle all IP disputes, just as they handle all tangible property disputes. Since the main crime is copying, "first comer" would be no bearing on the case.
This also means the current copyright contracts should be only a subsection of general "lease contracts". Example, buying a copy of Harry Potter.
There would also be "sale contracts" where all the rights of one IP would change hands the and previous owner would give up all the claim on the property. Example, buying all the rights of Harry Potter.
This also means there would be "partial sale contracts" where certain rights regarding certain explicit sale channels (or media) could be sold separately where the owner relinquishes certain claim of the property. Example, buying the movie rights of Harry Potter.
This also means there would be no expiration of IP rights. IP would, just as tangible property, pass on to heirs or to companies.
This also means anyone aggressing against the owner of an IP by copying his property would have to bear the consequences whether he entered into contract with the owner or not.
If a third party aggress against ones property he should be made to compensate for his aggression against property. Just like for any aggression against any property, the accidental damages should be separated from intentional aggression.
The second party, the person who knowingly breaks an "IP lease contract", should both compensate for aggression and if there were other explicit penalties in the contract, he should be made to pay for those too.
This also means trademark infringements should also be handled as aggression.
Published: January 27, 2009 3:22 AM
ktibuk
I should also clarify one more point.
Property is about natural rights and it doesn't require a state or a similar authority to recognize and issue a piece of paper for it to exists.
This means land is a legitimate property before and "land titles" and/or "land lease contracts".
Some people keep insisting that patent registration and/or copyright contracts "create IP". And they keep arguing against that point.
If the IP socialists arguing repeating this issue claims to be a libertarian anarchist it is a blatant contradiction.
If not I can understand their main problem but then argument is not especially about IP but natural rights, and politics in general.
Published: January 27, 2009 4:12 AM
Peter Surda
> Copies of an author's work can be made virtually for
> free; therefore they aren't "scarce";
This is untrue. Copies may be cheap but they are scarce, their supply is not infinite.
> Subtract the cost of making copies for all
> purchasers, and we arrive at a return the author
> may hope to approach in a just society, assuming
> he's able to reach all potential buyers and is able
> to guess how much they're willing to pay.
You also need to subtract the business costs. The same argument is used by the way in the Marxian economic theory: the workers should own the produce of the factory.
> Note that this second number goes UP, not down,
> as the cost of making copies decreases.
This depends on the price elasticity of demand, among other things.
> Would it be "not stealing" to break into a store,
> take one, and leave in exchange only the cost of
> the raw materials and labor needed to produce it?
Doing this affects the right of the author/owner to use it, whereas unauthorised copying does not.
PS. Downloading software without without author's approval is not illegal.
John deLaubenfels is obviously neither an economist nor lawyer.
Cheers,
Peter
Published: January 27, 2009 6:13 AM
heuristic
"You should take a look at the open source community/industry/market.
People create, develop, spend their time and resources and things they put in public domain!
Just because it's the honorable way to go, the best technical way to achieve something "
But actually Linux is not as desirable a desktop OS as Windows XP, according to the purchasing "votes" of most consumers.
Published: January 27, 2009 7:01 AM
heuristic
An attorney (Kinsella) arguing against a government granted franchise. That has to be so ironic.
Published: January 27, 2009 7:04 AM
I Hate Taxes
Mike,
I always considered files as an "object", well some sort of "object", kind of...
You can move them, transfer them and destroy them and copy them. They look and feel pretty much like an object for me and something I buy, LOL "
"any more than paying someone to clean your house is a product."
Well, you can't copy the cleaning for free and you can move the cleaning from your basement to your living room. And once the cleaning is done it starts getting dirty again.
If cleaning was like a file, I would only need to clean my living room, then when I would move to a dirty room in my house, I would move the "cleaning" from the living room to the other room. I would never need to clean again.
It's obviously not like that in cyberspace. So I consider files to be an object since they retain their integrity over time and can be moved, copied or destroyed.
I would really like to make a "file" out of cleaning, I could then upload the cleaning to my house and it would never be dirty again.
I understand your point about the service.
The part where you buy the music is the part where you buy a service. But once that service is rendered, the music is a virtual "object" in itself.
Published: January 27, 2009 7:18 AM
I Hate Taxes
ktibuk,
On which premise shall you consider first ownership of land ?
Is it on the premise of first come first owner ?
Is it on the premise of agricultural work ?
Suppose a person first finds a virgin island. Since he was there first, is it his Island now ?
Suppose a person finds a fertile soil and starts working hard to cultivate crops. Is it his land now since he worked hard to cultivate the crops ?
In actually, there is no "natural" rights to ownership of land.
The only way to truly own something is to have the force to prevent others from taking it away from you.
If you can't defend it, you don't own it.
In our society, pieces of paper called "titles" entitle you to use the power of the state to expell intruders from your land. Therefore you need society to own your land.
Ownership really requires the brute force to expell intruders or squatters.
Of course, this also means that if you are strong enough, you can invade other's land and then claim it your own and since they would not have the power to expell you, they don't own their land anymore.
It all boils down to this: Might Is Right !
What our advanced society with hundreads of millions of people have made is to civilize and procedurize and regulate this use of might and recognition of right.
Nature is NOT libertarian, nature is brutal and knows only one law: MIGHT !
Therefore, Libertarianism is not a natural nor basic system.
Libertarianism is only possible in highly advanced societies and we are not there yet.
In nature, ownership does not exist, the only thing that exist is control and might.
You control your land, you control your ressources but you don't own them, because if you're not vigilant then others might take it away from you.
So ownership is not something static, it's something brutal and it's a constant struggle for control.
You don't even own your own wealth because it is constantly depleted by the government.
Therefore you need to struggle at work, in the stock market, cut expenses just to keep what you're worth etc.
It all boils down to might and control, and even in our advanced societies we haven't got rid of this way of doing things.
Therefore if you are to "own" something, own MIGHT and you will own everything and everybody else.
Published: January 27, 2009 7:30 AM
ktibuk
I hate taxes,
I can understand your nihilist approach, I myself feel the same way sometimes but we are talking about ethics which is about "ought".
There is also "is" and "is and ought" have some different relationships.
You may derive "ought" from "is" (which I myself do) or you may disregard "ought" all together and take "is" as a given.
But then you don't need to complain, especially about taxes, do you?
And to answer your question about land, what makes the land yours is the work and time you put in it and since others can also put work and time in the same land, you also have to take the "first comer" into account.
So it is both.
But when it comes IP "first comer" becomes irrelevant.
Published: January 27, 2009 7:47 AM
Silas Barta
@Caveman: Silas, unlike property IP can be replicated ad infinitum. ...
Caveman, in a discussion like this, you need to be more careful with your terminology so as to avoid equivocation. In common parlance, "property" can refer to either a) objects, or b) objects plus legal rights to the objects. For this reason, I distinguish the two, and make a parallel distinction between intellectual works (i.e. the informational content of a book, song, etc.) and intellectual property (the intellectual work PLUS the exclusive legal right to instantiate that information).
Now, making the appropriate apples-to-apples comparison:
Intellectual *works* can be replicated ad infinitum. Intellectual *property* -- the exclusion rights -- cannot. Regardless, this point doesn't refute my comparson to radio waves and EM spectrum rights. Keep in mind that a radio frequency can also be replicated ad infinitum. In other words, it's possible for every single person on earth to blast radio waves at the same frequency. Sure, you can't extract an intended message therefrom, but you can transmit.
So are you willing to bite the bullet and also say that it's impossible to infringe on spectrum rights since, hey, everyone can blast off waves at the same frequency. No, because you're smarter than that. Now, apply that insight to the parallel case of intellectual property. Sure, infinite people can instantiate the same idea/same frequency wave, but ...
Published: January 27, 2009 9:55 AM
heuristic
Doesn't it come down to the ability to use force to defend whatever you define as property? And isn't that in turn a function of the current technology?
Published: January 27, 2009 1:36 PM
lukas
I'd have to disagree here. My copying something of yours without your consent is not aggression, just like enjoying something of yours or criticizing it without your consent is not aggression. Let's break the process of copying down: First, I have to perceive the object or process I am going to copy, using my senses, and commit it to memory. You can, of course, prevent this from happening by hiding it from me, but if it is in plain view, you can not make this process illegal by withdrawing your consent. "You must not remember anything of mine that you see, unless I consent" is an unrealizable, and thus nonsensical, stipulation.
In a second step, I will make use of my mind and my memories in order to reproduce what I remember. This, however, does not involve you or anything of yours, so your consent is irrelevant here too.
Thus, absent contractual arrangements to the contrary, copying without the owner's consent can not be construed as aggression unless one presupposes the idea of intellectual property rights.
Published: January 27, 2009 2:46 PM
PR
Even in the absence of EM spectrum property rights, I would think that listeners would still have a valid claim against the rogue broadcaster. The second signal interferes with everyone else's pre-existing use of their radios to receive the original signal. Is there an analogous claim in the IP world?
Published: January 27, 2009 2:58 PM
aleksandar
Lets assume physical laws are absolute.
The concept of value is central here. The formalism to articulate a value system (The Law) is necessary to define artificial borders within natural laws (the physical world) that suit a large community of humans. If we humans agree what "value" is (what suits us) and define it within the laws of physics we are adding a human-centered quality to our knowledge system. The concept of value is more than just physical laws then since it emerges from them by the collective, coherent, action of our minds. It is not subject to the same laws unless we take the reductionist view and also reduce our minds to computing machines subject to physical laws. Since we refuse the reductionist view, we need a non-physical system of laws for humans i.e. The Law.
If we agree on that, then the question of IP is immediately answered. IP is "value" because in the current mindest, i.e. capitalism with money as incentive to create, the nature of IP is "making money". We agreed to define "value" within the physical universe and according to the current human collective mindset as "money" (or potential income of money). If we have an open-IP world where "value" is equal to money (whether gold or fiat it doesent matter at this point), there will be no incentive to create the IP and it will become very scarce but simultaneously worthless. An open-IP will only work if we humans redefine "value" within the system of physical laws as something else than money.
Here we can immediately ask why many things do not work out well in the physical world for many people: maybe our definition of "value" is not collective. E.g., unless there is a percieved "value" in battling climate changes, it will not happen.
It is all just a matter of collective agreement (human cognitive coherence) what "value" is and indeed what the current Law is.
Published: January 27, 2009 6:21 PM
newson
i think the case for a totally private radio spectrum was made well in this article: mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1662
radio wasn't always regulated in the past, and yet still was viable.
including em spectrum in the debate only means jettisoning the definition of property as "tangible", and using "physical". "perceptible" becomes "detectable".
how does this strengthen arguments in favour of ip?
Published: January 28, 2009 12:57 AM
IPUP
@ newson and anyone else who's not blinded by creation-worship.
After a lot of thought, I've come to the conclusion that an object is equal to the sum of its properties, whereas, what we commonly refer to as "information" is, in fact, a particular SUBSET of those properties (e.g. size, shape, mass, etc.).
Not sure where that will lead, but I'm throwing it out there as food for thought.
Published: January 28, 2009 10:31 AM
jeffrey
The biggest problem with the article you linked is that it partakes of a kind of IP central planning: the state should do this but it shouldn't do that. It should get rid of patents but it should keep copyright under the following conditions etc. etc. He doesn't seem to realize that IP is reflects special interest manipulation of power to violate individual liberty. They are not neutral. They are established precisely to benefit some at others' expense. To say that this IP is good and that IP is bad is really no different from saying that price controls on eggs is bad but price controls on bacon is good. The beauty of the B/L book is its consistency in application. And the beauty in Kinsella is the consistency in theory.
Finally, he says that it is very unlikely that someone else would come up with the same book or music as someone else. He obviously hasn't followed the litigation on this subject. I'll say again, there is no such thing as absolute originality. For the state to pretend that there is introduces no end to trouble.
Published: January 28, 2009 2:36 PM