What's Wrong with Theft?
As I noted in Copypats, many non-specialists and proponents of IP erroneously believe that copying is an element of patent infringement--they conceive of the typical patent infringer as some bad guy who knocked off, or "stole," the patentee-inventor's idea. They are usually unaware that proving copying is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove patent infringement. It's not necessary because even an independent inventor can be guilty of patent infringement. It's not sufficient because the patent may be invalid, or the copier may make changes to "design around" the patented invention (which is encouraged by patent policy--that's one reason the patent is published).
But it is common to charge the patent infringer, especially the idea copier, with theft--he stole the idea, it is said. But if we think about standard cases of theft that we all agree are criticizeable, what is it about them that we object to? Is it that the thief now has a bicycle? Or is it that the owner now doesn't have his bicycle?
Of course it is the latter. If you have a bike, or car, or log cabin, or corn crop, and I could gaze at it from afar, blink my eyes, and conjur up a similar bike, car, cabin, or crop for myself, I do not steal your things. But if I take your bike or car from you, or oust you from home and farm, you no longer have the things you formerly possessed and owned. That is the damage done to you by theft. This corresponds nicely to the very nature and function of property rights: the need for them arises when people need to use scarce resources as means to act in the world, and appropriate unowned ones. The scarce nature of these things is such that use by one person excludes that by another; the goods are rivalrous. (More on this in How We Come to Own Ourselves; Defending Argumentation Ethics; Owning Thoughts and Labor.)
But copying or emulating someone else's idea is not "taking" it from them; it is not theft. The originator of a given pattern still has his idea, and is free to use it in guiding his action and using or transforming his own property. This is why all arguments in favor of IP (and reputation rights) ultimately end up falling prey to the notion that there are property rights in the value of property, rather than in its physical integrity. But this view is fallacious, as shown by Hoppe and others.
Comments (83)
anon
"But copying or emulating someone else's idea is not "taking" it from them; it is not theft. The originator of a given pattern still has his idea, and is free to use it in guiding his action and using or transforming his own property."
You are correct in saying that the originator of the idea is still in possession of it - only that someone else has access to it as well (without permission).
This raises all sorts of interesting questions - e.g. is this ethical to begin with? Essay plagiarism in high school is frowned upon - even both students now have the same 'essay'. It is true that students learn through 'emulation' and thus 'copying' to a certain extent - but to pass off a verbatim copy of an essay as one's own work is wrong, regardless of from which end of the telescope you're staring at.
It is also not true that the originator of the idea - although still in possession of the 'idea' himself - is not harmed through copycat activities. If Mr Copycat is a rich capitalist (maybe a state-connected one), with a huge chest of capital - he would be able to exploit the ideas he copycatted better and quicker. Mr Original's chances of making it 'big' with his idea diminishes over time.
Published: February 23, 2009 12:12 AM
anon
Another point which I'd like to make is that consumers would not necessarily reward Mr Original and punish My Copycat. Consumers are greedy humans - most of them would only care about getting value for their buck; they don't care as to who came up with the idea first, nor the ethical dispute between Mr Original and Mr Copycat.
Plagiarism/copycatting/stealing-of-ideas occurs at all levels, in all manner of corporations and institutions (human being human after all). From an ethics point of view it is wrong - although I agree that just because there's a problem, doesn't mean that it can be - or should be - solved via 'legislation' / 'regulation'.
This also makes you wonder as to where's the fine line between 'copycatting' and 'innovation'.
Published: February 23, 2009 12:24 AM
anon
btw what do people make of the pirated goods which China churns out? They are awesome at what they do (ranging from Kipling bags, sculptures to oil paintings - even Disneyland!) - you can practically get any pirated product in China! Virtually indistinguishable from the original product - in fact, so good that they sometimes leave a few deliberate 'errors'.
Published: February 23, 2009 12:29 AM
Gil
I believe, anon, the 'heriocs' of Capitalism is the ability to mass produce and mass deliver products to the masses not inventing a product per se. Hence Mr O is a bonehead if he could create the cure for cancer and not know how to sell it to the masses and rid the world of cancer and he leaves the vial on a shelf and forgets about it. If Mr C finds Mr O's formula and takes it back to his medicine factory and churns out the cancer cure day and night and supplies the whole world then Mr C gets the billions and kudos whilst Mr O get jack.
Published: February 23, 2009 1:23 AM
ktibuk
"But if we think about standard cases of theft that we all agree are criticizeable, what is it about them that we object to? Is it that the thief now has a bicycle? Or is it that the owner now doesn't have his bicycle?"
Neither.
This is your problem Stephan.
Since you don't have coherent property/homesteading theory and you just repeat some memorized lines from Rothbard, you can not see that "theft", "burglary", "assault", "fraud", "trespass", "homicide", "rape" are different and specialized sub concepts for "aggression". And when it comes to ethics "aggression" is what matters, not some specialized legal term.
So it doesn't matter if the aggressor has now a bike, or the victim is devoid of the bike. That is not the question.
What matters is if there was an aggression against a property owner or not. And aggression is not about the bike, or some tangible or intangible object but the the owner and his consent.
But why? Why cant we just look at property rights as a set of rules that aim to solve conflict and better society? Why can't we focus on the object instead of (the whims of the) property owner?
In the case of IP the owner clearly doesn't lose anything.
Because if one does, the logical conclusion is socialism.
Bill Gates has 60 billion dollars and lets say he has it in cash.
Stephan takes 1000 dollars from Gates without his consent.
According to Kinsella's theory this wouldn't be aggression.
What did Gates lose? Nothing that matters. (Why focus on the nominal number assigned to his wealth in money terms? Because of the change in purchasing power, his wealth would fluctuate constantly by itself.)
Since there is no way that Gates can consume all his wealth, there is no natural conflict between him and Kinsella. If there is actually a conflict, it arises from just Gates' whims, and not actual natural scarcity. This means Gates would have no property rights over "his?" wealth that exceeds his need.
If you follow Stephans theory to the logical conclusion, people can only have a right to protect property in what they can consume and if they are trying to protect those excess wealth they are actually creating a conflict not based on natural scarcity but mere whims.
If there is enough for everyone why not share it?
Wasn't this your point regarding IP?
Published: February 23, 2009 2:14 AM
ktibuk
Oh, and I should add one more point.
Proudhon's famous line, "Property is theft" is the logical conclusion of Stephan's property theory. And he would actually utter those words regarding IP, as in "IP is theft"
If there is no right for an owner to protect his property in "some cases" (in this case if the property in question has a potential to be non scarce), then him actually trying to do so is theft since he wouldn't lose anything if he shared and by not sharing he is stopping others from enjoying the good in question.
Of course Proudhon being a more intelligent, although obviously confused, intellectual than Kinsella he took his theory all the way to its logical conclusion and didn't leave it only in the IP subsection of property. But we shouldn't be that hard on Kinsella. I am sure he will get there and become a full fledged socialist.
Published: February 23, 2009 2:26 AM
ktibuk
"I believe, anon, the 'heriocs' of Capitalism is the ability to mass produce and mass deliver products to the masses not inventing a product per se."
No.
The heroics of Capitalism is protecting the property rights of those who create the ability to mass produce and mass deliver products to the masses.
Published: February 23, 2009 2:30 AM
Miklos Hollender
Fine, fine, but all this theoretizing about ethics is useful only so far as it can offer something that works in practice.
Question No. 1: in the absence of IP what protects the small-entrepreneur who has nothing but an idea from competition from a big-corp? I.e. you invest your family savings into researching something and you've done it and now produce it and the big corp says thank you and starts producing the same thing at half the cost (economy of numbers), and then you pretty must lost everything.
How can you sell an idea, capitalize on an idea, turn an idea into an advantage if you cannot own it?
Practical solutions please, not ethical theories. Give me some suggestions how can the small-entrepreneur in this case recover his costs of research and perhaps make some profits.
Published: February 23, 2009 3:33 AM
Drake
@Miklos Hollender
"in the absence of IP what protects the small-entrepreneur who has nothing but an idea from competition from a big-corp? Practical solutions please, not ethical theories."
The original post was on ethics, not practical solutions. That being said, if big corporations are as powerful as you imply, one obvious solution would be to work for them rather than compete against them.
Published: February 23, 2009 5:09 AM
Sovy Kurosei
A thousand dollars.
Small entrepreneurs often don't have the resources to litigate against big corporations with IP laws today if we are going to bring in the real world.
Published: February 23, 2009 5:38 AM
graphics frontier
What if Gates issues circulating paper backed by his commodity holdings, that goes over well, and I copy the design exactly and make myself rich? Gates has no right to the market value of his money or to any unique identifier, correct? It might be unethical but no material substance was taken from Gates. Not my fault that he entered into the easily exploited business of paper money.
Published: February 23, 2009 5:59 AM
Sovy Kurosei
You would be committing fraud by selling people bills that aren't backed by Bill Gate's estate yet would claim to do so. Bill Gates wouldn't be able to sue but the people that you committed fraud against would be able to.
I believe Stephen Kinsella made that argument in his book Against Intellectual Property.
Published: February 23, 2009 6:24 AM
Timothy foster
I agree with the moral side of the argument, here are some thoughts on the practical side.
Wouldn't it be easier for the big business to offer contracts, or pay for the idea's instead of losing out on a valuable source of revenue (the inventor)?
Even if one company is willing to steal (which is a given) they still have to compete with other's and the inventor is able to explain much more than some one who revers-engineers a product.
Finally corporations would be built to help any inventor with a profitable idea (imagine R&D coming to you from all sides of the globe, what a great business opportunity) it would almost be suicide not to pay the inventor.
Published: February 23, 2009 6:27 AM
David Bratton
"Essay plagiarism in high school is frowned upon - even both students now have the same 'essay'."
Yes but the purpose of that policy is not to protect intellectual property. It's to require the student to practice and develop a skill.
Published: February 23, 2009 6:31 AM
Stephan Kinsella
ktibuk:
"Bill Gates has 60 billion dollars and lets say he has it in cash.
Stephan takes 1000 dollars from Gates without his consent.
According to Kinsella's theory this wouldn't be aggression.
What did Gates lose? Nothing that matters. (Why focus on the nominal number assigned to his wealth in money terms? Because of the change in purchasing power, his wealth would fluctuate constantly by itself.)
Since there is no way that Gates can consume all his wealth, there is no natural conflict between him and Kinsella. If there is actually a conflict, it arises from just Gates' whims, and not actual natural scarcity. This means Gates would have no property rights over "his?" wealth that exceeds his need."
***
as usual, ktibuk, you miss the point. If I take $1000 of Gates's money, he does not have it. The *reason* he objects to my taking it, is *because* he no longer has it. My argument does not depend on the evaluation of whether Gates's complaint is "good enough". I'm focusing on the nature of the harm done, and the reason owners object to theft. In the Gates hypo, it is undeniable *that there is* a conflict if I take his $1000 without his consent: we both want that $1000; the question is, who gets to keep it? The owner, or the latecomer?
Now, if Gates has a nice Bentley in his driveway, and I see it from afar with a telescope and invent a "matte-printing machine" that lets me conjure up a duplicate Bentley in my driveway, using my raw materials, then I have not taken Gates's car. I have not stolen it. At most, you can say I've copied his car, or his car pattern. But since he still has his car--and his car-patter--obviously, I've "taken" or "stolen" nothing from him.
The point is that when IP socialists like yourself talk about normal market actors' copying, learning, and emulating, being "theft," you are disingenuous and mistaken.
Published: February 23, 2009 7:43 AM
newson
miklos hollender says:
"Question No. 1: in the absence of IP what protects the small-entrepreneur who has nothing but an idea from competition from a big-corp?"
what makes you presume that the advantage would remain with large corporations in a non-ip environment? first-to-market may favour small, nimble operations. the high administrative costs of ip currently favour large enterprises over small.
Published: February 23, 2009 8:23 AM
newson
why haven't i seen an excoriation of the public library by the pro-ip camp?
photocopying is allowed only up to a certain limit? why is this not pure arbitrariness?
can i loan a book to a friend without committing some heinous crime? what if i loan a cd to one hundred friends? crime or good deed?
Published: February 23, 2009 9:08 AM
Egosumabbas
"Wouldn't it be easier for the big business to offer contracts, or pay for the idea's instead of losing out on a valuable source of revenue (the inventor)?"
Every single software company I have worked for operates under this model. I don't own the IP of my own labor--and that doesn't really bother me.
Even independent software contracting work involves selling ideas/labor to a larger company.
It's called "software as a service". Lots more money in that than selling shrinkwrapped boxes.
The market has already adapted to ease of copying.
Published: February 23, 2009 9:24 AM
Egosumabbas
Also I'd like to add that IP "protection" is entirely redundant for any project I've worked on.
Somebody could pirate the software I have worked on, but doing so would be pointless, as the bugs would never get fixed and they would get no customer service. Also the business' reputation would suffer if it were to be known that it was using pirated software, as opposed to a legitimate competitor (that is, a competitor reverse engineered the software and made it better).
Published: February 23, 2009 9:42 AM
Drake
@ktibuk
"Since there is no way that Gates can consume all his wealth, there is no natural conflict between him and Kinsella."
First of all, the claim that there is "no way" to spend $60 billion is utterly erroneous. Second of all, I already answered your point about extreme wealth in my last reply to you (over a week ago). Since you haven't gotten around to responding to it yet, I'll re-post it here (edited):
I am taking the position that first use establishes the right to use. I am not taking the position that first use establishes a "bundle" of rights in addition to use (e.g. subjective value, market value, exclusion, etc.), however, you are welcome to point out how these extra rights can be derived from a natural law foundation.
"You are contradicting yourself. First you said the only requirement for ownership (including the right to exclude others from using it) is natural limits which is the basis of possible conflict. You said there is no place for 'choice' of the owner, and that you found this unethical."
No. What I said was that FIRST use establishes the RIGHT to use. Exclusion comes into play in order to SECURE the right to use. In other words, the right to exclude is a DERIVATIVE of the right to use. Whether or not exclusion is REQUIRED to secure the right to use depends on the NATURE of the resource being used. The right to USE a non-scarce resource may be homesteaded, but others may not be EXCLUDED from using it if their use does not interfere with the use - ACTUAL or POTENTIAL - of the homesteader.
"Then when it came to other examples (the boat example above) I gave, where there wasnt a natural limit, or a possibility of conflict other than the conflict resulting from the choice of the owner, you claimed the opposite position."
Not true. I asked if you needed me to provide you with examples of how the latecomer's presence on the boat would limit the first-comer's use of the boat. With a little imagination you could have come up with a few examples on your own, but I suppose I'll have to do your thinking for you...
Possible Uses of a Boat - And How the Arrival of a Latecomer Would Interfere with Them:
1. Laying down in the boat to sleep: the latecomer might be in the way.
2. Using part of the boat to store fish: the latecomer might take up the area needed to store the fish.
3. Rowing the boat to the nearest island: the latecomer would add weight to the boat, making rowing more difficult and slowing the boat down (let's assume there is only one oar).
Clearly, the presence of the latecomer limits the first-comer's ability to use the boat. This is due, in part, to the fact that the space on any boat is finite, regardless of its size.
"You need to think through your position and what it implies. The natural necessity argument coupled with 'conflict resolution' argument is the basis for socialism not libertarian property theory."
I don't know what you mean by the "natural necessity argument" or the "conflict resolution argument". As I have said a number of times already, FIRST USE establishes the RIGHT TO USE. Necessity and conflict do not establish anything.
"In libertarian homesteading/property theory the individual who homesteads a nature given resource owns it and owning means having total control over the property including exclusion of others based on choice even pure whim."
Control and exclusion are NOT the same thing. For example, you can have total control over your front lawn, but excluding others from looking at it, thinking about it, talking about it, taking pictures of it, etc. requires more than control over soil and grass: it requires control over other people.
"One may even destroy the property if he wishes to do so which means exclusion of every possible human, if he owns it."
The form of things may be changed, but there is no way to increase or decrease the total amount of matter and energy in the universe. In other words, what you are referring to as "destruction" I would categorize as USE (which obviously includes physical manipulation). For example, if you bulldoze your house, you have clearly changed its form but have not caused the original materials to cease to exist.
"You made a distinction between individual goods and a class of goods when it came to scarcity but you didn't give a reason for it when I asked. Why make the distinction."
First of all, it is impossible to homestead a CLASS of goods. You can't homestead every instance of something in the past, present, and future. But let's look at your original post:
"You seem to think that ‘the possibility of non scarcity in the future’ is enough to make something non property."
No. First use establishes the right to use. Scarcity is irrelevant in that regard. Scarcity only determines whether exclusion is necessary to secure the right to use.
"Isn't possibility of conflict (other than conflict based on choice) at the core of this scarcity issue."
USE is the core of the issue. If more use is demanded than is available, who should get the rights to what is available? One answer is to say that use goes to the strongest (might equals right). Another answer is to say that an "anointed" leader should decide (despotism). Yet another answer is to say that usage rights should be determined by vote (tyranny of the majority). Libertarians have come to the conclusion that none of the above positions are satisfactory and instead favor the homesteading rule (first come, first serve). Two noteworthy results of a consistent application of the homesteading rule are a reduction of conflict and an increase in cooperation.
"You claim an apple can only be eaten by one and this is the only reason apples can be property."
Not true. My being the original appropriator of an apple establishes my right to eat it. In that respect it is my property. But if you and the rest of the world can somehow ALSO eat it - WITHOUT diminishing my ability to do so - your eating it does not violate my rights in the apple.
"But what if one person owns billions of apples more than anyone can eat. What kind of conflict is possible, other than his choice."
I am defining ownership as the RIGHT to use. ACTUAL use is not required, except when homesteading (i.e. mixing one's labor with a nature-given factor). Even if the owner of a billion apples has no intention of eating any of them, his RIGHT to eat them is secured by the exclusion of others.
"And if choice is not an ethical requirement for exclusion, what is the logical conclusion of this position?"
The owner DOES have choice - the choice to use (or not use) his property as he sees fit. As I said before, I do not see exclusion as a right unto itself. For the FOURTH time: I challenge you to demonstrate a natural law basis for the right to exclude.
Published: February 23, 2009 10:00 AM
hacksoncode
Ideas, qua ideas, are not "scarce" in the economic sense. However, *new* ideas are. That's, fundamentally, why copyrights (should be, and technically are) and patents are of limited duration. Because once the newness of the idea wears off, it's no longer scarce.
What the original inventor no longer has after someone copies him is the uniqueness of his idea, something he undoubtedly created out of his own resources. He also may (depending on the circumstances) no longer have an effective way to recoup his investment in the creation of the idea (i.e. he no longer has that money/time/effort).
The fact that those things are *abstract* rather than concrete is a difference that makes no difference. It's no different than the notion that a night in a hotel room is an abstract concept.
In general, *trespassing* doesn't deprive the owner of property of anything concrete either. Shall we make that legal? How about borrowing the use of someone's steel mill at night when they aren't using it (assuming you maintain/repair it afterward so that there's not only no loss but perhaps a gain to the owner), without his permission?
For that matter, in general people's time and effort are only abstract things that you can't "take" from them. Ask a plumber to fix your pipes and send him on with only your thanks (without *explicitly* saying you'll pay him, to avoid the "fraud" argument). Shall we go there?
Invention of an idea is just exactly that. Time and effort. Society has tried the trick of just having inventors keep their inventions secret. It doesn't work too well. Much effort goes into maintaining that secrecy that could be better spent on other pursuits, making actual new ideas *even more scarce*.
Take DRM, for example (please).
Now, should someone be prohibited from *truly* reinventing the wheel? I.e. does patent protection against independent invention actually make sense? Hmmm... tricky. I'd say not entirely, in the abstract, but it's almost impossible to enforce/determine. That's where the practicality arguments come in.
It's true that the second inventors' idea isn't new through no fault of his own. It's still not new/unique, though. Depriving him of the ability to use the idea doesn't deprive him of anything concrete, does it? Just a freedom... oh yeah, those are abstract too.
Property is no less property for being abstract. To deny the ownership of *new* ideas is to deny the underlying foundation for *any* property.
Published: February 23, 2009 10:27 AM
hacksoncode
Having just seen the proceeding posting (damn chat tangles), allow me to add:
If someone invents a new idea, by this argument he has the Right to Use that new idea by virtue of being the first to use it. Someone else using it *does* indeed diminish his right to use (or potentially use, or profit from) that idea. Exclusion of others using the idea is merely a means of securing his ability to use the idea.
It's no less true than the "potential use" argument about physical property.
Published: February 23, 2009 10:37 AM
Drake
"If someone invents a new idea, by this argument he has the Right to Use that new idea by virtue of being the first to use it. Someone else using it *does* indeed diminish his right to use (or potentially use, or profit from) that idea. Exclusion of others using the idea is merely a means of securing his ability to use the idea."
Use and profit are not synonymous.
Published: February 23, 2009 11:30 AM
Nonip
@anon "This raises all sorts of interesting questions - e.g. is this ethical to begin with? Essay plagiarism in high school is frowned upon - even both students now have the same 'essay'. It is true that students learn through 'emulation' and thus 'copying' to a certain extent - but to pass off a verbatim copy of an essay as one's own work is wrong, regardless of from which end of the telescope you're staring at."
To pass off a verbatim copy would in this case be FRAUD.
Do you get it?
Published: February 23, 2009 12:57 PM
Oztrian
States ought not repeal IP laws willy-nilly, because that undermines the rule of law - a stable legal framework - and entrepreneurs who have geared up to exploit a patented idea really would have had something taken from them.
Should there ever have been IP laws and should existing IP laws be removed in an orderly way? Stephan Kinsella claims that the historical evidence is that IP laws impede progress, and I believe that's where the debate should be. The evidence seems overwhelming that without property rights, there is violence and idleness.
Published: February 23, 2009 12:59 PM
Peter Surda
> Use and profit are not synonymous.
Indeed. Right to profit is the labour theory of value. In capitalism, noone has a right to profit.
Published: February 23, 2009 12:59 PM
Silas Barta
And by the end of his very first paragraph we see how unfair Stephan_Kinsella is when addressing the issue: he believes that anyone in any way defending intellectual property rights, is necessarily defending the present system exactly as it stands and must therefore justify any and all absurdities that result. Yet he never seems to take the corresponding position, than defenders of property rights must defend the present system of property rights and rulings, and all their absurdities, like government ownership of property, or (briefly) farmers that want to gun down aircraft over their property.
How many anti-IP commenters here go along with that? How many of you seriously think that if you defend IP, you're responsible for defending its current implementation?
Occasionally -- but only occasionally -- Stephan_Kinsella acknowledges that defenders of IP might not actually defending the present system exactly as it is, and then badgers them with "Oh yeah? But what exactly do you object to in this ruling? You must not know what you're talking about if you can't specify exactly how every single case would get resolved in an IP system you do support!" Again, he doesn't turn this around at look at his own failure to specify what he means by property to arbitrary precision (e.g. how much use is enough use for a claim under homesteading? When does passing by become trespass? etc) . There's nothing wrong with that of course, but Stephan_Kinsella selectively cites that as a problem in IP, rather than recognizing it as an inherent part of any legal system.
Is it too much to ask that an IP critic get through one paragraph without a blatant strawman or hypocritical remark?
And, as obvious, I'll make my universal reply: what do you lose when I broadcast at the same frequency? Oh? Your "ability" to do something you wanted? Your use of a "resource'? Guess what, the same can be said of IP.
And I couldn't resist responding to this:
@Egosumabbas: Also I'd like to add that IP "protection" is entirely redundant for any project I've worked on. Somebody could pirate the software I have worked on, but doing so would be pointless, as the bugs would never get fixed and they would get no customer service
It's great to know how flawed the software is in an IP-free environment, and how much businesses rely on it being flawed!
. Also the business' reputation would suffer if it were to be known that it was using pirated software, as opposed to a legitimate competitor (that is, a competitor reverse engineered the software and made it better).
So, IP is completely unjustified, but let's boycott its violators as if it were justified.
Published: February 23, 2009 1:00 PM
Libertarian
"Bill Gates has 60 billion dollars and lets say he has it in cash.
Stephan takes 1000 dollars from Gates without his consent.
According to Kinsella's theory this wouldn't be aggression."
Are you stupid or just naive?
According to libertarianism (and in my opinion to Kinsella) that would be aggression in form of theft.
Bill Gates would have 1000 Dollar less. Against his will. Be being the prey of a thief.
That's not to hard to understand.
If you don't know that or if you don't understand that than you are truly a socialist.
And now get off to Venezuela!
Btw: "Post an intelligent and civil comment"
If a posting does not show intelligence of the poster but only an agenda of socialism as in ktibuks postings than there is no need to be friendly.
Published: February 23, 2009 1:04 PM
Asker
"Now, if Gates has a nice Bentley in his driveway, and I see it from afar with a telescope and invent a "matte-printing machine" that lets me conjure up a duplicate Bentley in my driveway, using my raw materials, then I have not taken Gates's car. I have not stolen it. At most, you can say I've copied his car, or his car pattern. But since he still has his car--and his car-patter--obviously, I've "taken" or "stolen" nothing from him.
The point is that when IP socialists like yourself talk about normal market actors' copying, learning, and emulating, being "theft," you are disingenuous and mistaken."
Now you IP-socialists, do you have ANY argument against that?
Person A has object X. He is the owner of object X.
Person B sees object X. Person B has got a replicator. Person B and Person A don't know each other. There does NOT exist any contract between both.
What if Person B replicates object X at his home?
Is he in your opinion
1) allowed to do that?
or
2) committing a crime (which one)?
Why?
Please answer as concrete as possible!
Published: February 23, 2009 1:12 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Oztrian:
"States ought not repeal IP laws willy-nilly, because that undermines the rule of law - a stable legal framework - and entrepreneurs who have geared up to exploit a patented idea really would have had something taken from them."
Well this is not right. The problem is the state having the ability to change the laws, plus the ability to make bad ones--that is what leads to uncertainty (see my Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society). But this does not mean that the state, having a legislative monopoly, and having enacted unjust laws, ought not abolish bad laws.
Silas Barta:
"And by the end of his very first paragraph we see how unfair Stephan_Kinsella is"
Silas/Person/John Sharp/Richard Harding: my name is not Stephan_Kinsella. You may address me as Dr. Kinsella.
"when addressing the issue: he believes that anyone in any way defending intellectual property rights, is necessarily defending the present system exactly as it stands and must therefore justify any and all absurdities that result."
This is not true. You are free to define the IP system you imagine you support, and to condemn the current system, or its excesses, with me. The problem is you IP socialists never define your own IP system. You oppose abolishing the current one or broad criticism of it, leading to the reasonable assumption that you agree with its basic thrust. Since much of our criticism applies to the basic idea of the modern IP systems, and does not rely only on pointing out certain manifest cases of injustice, our basic argumetns do apply presumptively to your pro-IP stance.
"Yet he never seems to take the corresponding position, than defenders of property rights must defend the present system of property rights and rulings, and all their absurdities, like government ownership of property,"
Because we have a good reason to believe that there would be a private proeprty system absent the state and we can explain what it's like; and because legislation is not needed to create these rights. By contrast, patent and copyright are legislative creations.
Published: February 23, 2009 2:00 PM
Egosumabbas
"It's great to know how flawed the software is in an IP-free environment, and how much businesses rely on it being flawed!"
This may come as a shock to you, but every single product ever made by man has some flaw in it, or a missing feature. Otherwise there would be no such thing progress.
Thanks for using an "attack the messenger" fallacy though, it's appreciated.
"So, IP is completely unjustified, but let's boycott its violators as if it were justified."
The only thing that's unjustified is an oppressive government-ordained IP tyranny that violates pre-existing rights to person and property. However, absent the current system, novel ideas (and the means to implement them) would still have value, and blatant copycats would be shunned.
Published: February 23, 2009 2:39 PM
Silas Barta
@Stephan_Kinsella: Since much of our criticism applies to the basic idea of the modern IP systems, and does not rely only on pointing out certain manifest cases of injustice, our basic argumetns do apply presumptively to your pro-IP stance.
No, at least half your posts involve you pointing out some specific absurdity that you think IP defenders have to defend. And as I pointed out just now, this very post of yours began with a lecture on what the current patent system does protect, in direct contrast to what your opponents were trying to justify protection of!
So, you don't even feel an obligation to attack the real positions of IP defenders when they specified exactly what they were defending! "Won't specify their positions", my foot.
Because we have a good reason to believe that there would be a private proeprty system absent the state
Your personal opinion and refusal to consider the arguments of others do not count as a good reason.
and because legislation is not needed to create these rights.
If enough people are willing to support a legal right, you don't need legislation.
By contrast, patent and copyright are legislative creations.
And property law is a creation of government-funded, -licensed, and -endorsed courts and legislatures. "But it could exist without them!" So could IP. "No, because it's created by the state!" Round and round we go...
@Egosumabbas:
This may come as a shock to you, but every single product ever made by man has some flaw in it, or a missing feature.
And this may come as a shock to you, but it's a *bad thing* when a system crucially relies on releasing flawed products. Not products that could simply be better, but -- as you said your code is -- so flawed that one cannot even capture its functionality without your fixes. You've conceded that without IP, programmers would have to flaw their products in some way in order to milk their dupes for the fixes. And that it would be very stupid to write software (for profit) that is self-contained and well-documented.
Thanks for using an "attack the messenger" fallacy though, it's appreciated.
It wasn't attacking the messenger, and it certainly wasn't a fallacy; it was, "do you actually know what's in your messages?" Or even better, "don't you realize that only certain things can fit inside messages of that length?"
The only thing that's unjustified is an oppressive government-ordained IP tyranny that violates pre-existing rights to person and property. However, absent the current system, novel ideas (and the means to implement them) would still have value, and blatant copycats would be shunned.
Just like violators of physical property rights, you mean? So why do you see a moral difference between the two?
Published: February 23, 2009 3:25 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Silas:
I've asked you not to refer to me as "Stephan_Kinsella" as this is not my name. Dr. Kinsella would be more appropriate.
"at least half your posts involve you pointing out some specific absurdity that you think IP defenders have to defend."
Yes, I have tried to illustrate the injustice of the patent and copyright systems in many ways--in theoretical, principled, rights-based arguments; by noting the utilitarian arguments are flawed; and by pointing to one example after another for illustrative purposes.
"And as I pointed out just now, this very post of yours began with a lecture on what the current patent system does protect, in direct contrast to what your opponents were trying to justify protection of!"
My opponents do not have any idea what they are talking about. Just about the only IP advocate I know of who sets forth a concrete proposal is Galambos, and Schulman, both of whom advocate a radical form of IP that is far worse in scope and extent than even what our states have come up with.
All I know if my opponents seem to favor IP, and oppose our criticism of IP and the modern IP system. Whenever we identify a concrete, obivous injustice with IP the proponents just say, "well, sure, we're not for that." Well, what the heck are you for?
"So, you don't even feel an obligation to attack the real positions of IP defenders when they specified exactly what they were defending! "Won't specify their positions", my foot."
You have no idea what you are talking about, none of you. Just a bunch of jabbering apologists for the state. I have no idea why you feel compelled to call yourselves libertarians, or to pontificate on things you don't understand.
Published: February 23, 2009 3:54 PM
Asker
@Silas Barta\Person
You say that you are no defender of the current IP-socialism. Then illuminate us what your idea of an IP-friendly system would look like.
Maybe you could try the following:
Please read the following example made up by me and answer the the questions at the end of the cited block:
"Person A has object X. He is the owner of object X.
Person B sees object X. Person B has got a replicator. Person B and Person A don't know each other. There does NOT exist any contract between both.
What if Person B replicates object X at his home?
Is he in your opinion
1) allowed to do that?
or
2) committing a crime (which one)?
Why?
Please answer as concrete as possible!"
Published: February 23, 2009 4:03 PM
Egosumabbas
"And this may come as a shock to you, but it's a *bad thing* when a system crucially relies on releasing flawed products."
Duh. I can think of a couple of companies that do that consistently: Microsoft... Apple... funny how those companies are so reliant in using IP as a club to punish innovation.
Published: February 23, 2009 4:19 PM
Cosmin
Pro-IPers here are disingenious and ignore counter-arguments. Dr. Kinsella has it right: every time an article points out an injustice caused by the current IP system, they pop in to oppose that article, but when backed into a corner, they claim that they don't support the current IP system anyway.
Their confusion comes from not understanding what an IDEA is. That is why they use terms like "originator of an idea", "came up with an idea", or "copied the idea".
There is no such entity, physical or otherwise, as an idea. When you understand something about the workings of some object (have an idea), there is nothing that pops up into existence. There is no idea to share or copy. There is still you and your newly-found understanding. Noone can copy or steal your understanding, anymore than they can copy or steal your love for your mother.
They can come up with their own understanding, just like they can love their own mother (or yours), and maybe they would only acquire that understanding after seeing an object you created, but that doesn't entitle you to deprive them of the freedom to use their newly-found knowledge and their resources in the marketplace.
Published: February 23, 2009 4:32 PM
Matt Wing
@Cosmin,
Good post. You hit the nail on the head. When you understand what an idea is, you will understand that it is impossible to steal an idea. Thus, making intellectual property laws inherently unnecessary.
Published: February 23, 2009 5:03 PM
Greego
@Silas: "And that it would be very stupid to write software (for profit) that is self-contained and well-documented."
I do this for a living, as do a lot of software contractors and consultants. We obtain future work based on our reputation for creating 'self-contained and well-documented' software for clients in the past.
Published: February 23, 2009 5:26 PM
nano head
Ideas indeed are physical things that are produced inside one's head. True, they are difficult to quantify/qualify at this time- but they do exist. Ever see a brain being scanned?
This fact does not alter the pro/anti IP arguments though.
Published: February 23, 2009 6:00 PM
Greego
Amusingly relevant: http://xkcd.com/294/
Published: February 23, 2009 6:11 PM
newson
to nano head:
cerebral activity, evidenced by increased blood-flow, can be visible on scans. so what? nim chimpsky's brain scan looks the same as noam chompsky's.
the discussion is about unique, original ideas (intangible). blood-flow is real.
Published: February 23, 2009 7:03 PM
newson
public libraries...student photocopying...any response from the pro-ip camp?
Published: February 23, 2009 7:09 PM
Colin Green
Stephen, I object to the thief having a bicycle that he hasn't earned, as well as the owner losing a bicycle that he earned!
As for matter replicators, why not just replicate gold, and trade that for money (I found it in my ground, honest!), and use the money to buy the Bentley?
That student is a communist, and the Librarian is probably a socialist! At the very least, she'd vote Democrazy! Lock them all up!
Published: February 23, 2009 8:49 PM
Drake
@Cosmin
"There is no such entity, physical or otherwise, as an idea."
I'm assuming that you mean ideal objects do not exist (as apposed to thoughts). Thanks for pointing this out, as it has been the elephant in the room that everyone has been ignoring.
Published: February 23, 2009 9:07 PM
Kitty Antonik Wakfer
A major problem in the discussion here is that information is not an existent of reality - it is not simply "out there" to be sensed/discovered in some manner. It is a creation by human minds (and in more rudimentary form by various animal minds). This is made clear by Paul Wakfer's definition of existent, the first of the definitions after the Introduction of the Natural Social Contract, and with all references to "information" in that same document. http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html
Paul's work is not an attempt to refute (or even make reference to) the current societal methods of governments/States, but was created starting from first principles as a scientist (first trained in physics and mathematics) with a strong background also in philosophy plus human biology and psychology.
Published: February 23, 2009 9:12 PM
Cosmin
My ideal object fits in the palm of my hand and lets me control energy and matter. Alas, it doesn't exist, Drake.
Just kidding. :P
I'm encouraged that you guys understand and share my point of view, since many run away from it in fear.
Watch how pro-IPers will run away and avoid the matter completely, since it pretty much seals the debate. One can no more steal your idea than he can steal your beauty, or your compassion.
Published: February 23, 2009 11:25 PM
Brad
The major flaw in this arguement is you ignore the concept of value. When you
counterfeit a product you may not steal a persons thing, but you do steal its
value. Counterfeit money reduces the value of all other money in existence
as a simplified example, but the person who was victimized still has
his $100 dollar bill. It is the value which has fallen in relation to other
things.
Baseball cards are a wonderful example. Counterfeiting became common and the
value of all other baseball cards plunged. But the person who owns his Roger Clemens rookie card has not been deprived of his 'property', only its value.
The same of course holds true for intellectual property. If you steal software
the software developer is deprived of his revenue. The people who do pay
are also victimized, less capital is available to the firm to invest in future
products and upgrades. The software developer is forced to accept less value (money) for his labor which is traded for other things.
I have seen first hand what happens when crooks steal from entrepreneurs. The
entrepreneur who invested time and money in creating his product, and usually
took the time and care to create a quality product, is diluted in the marketplace.
The value of his product falls and soon the price. Though initially beneficial
to customers they no longer have a source of supply interested in investing money
to improving the product, not to mention copycats rarely have the talent. In
time the entrepreneur begins to devote his time and talent to other areas. In
the short run consumers may benefit (though in my experience copycats are usually
less than honest) but in the long run they are deprived of a quality product that was once
in demand.
When consumers and other businesses steal ip they destroy the market by destroying
the source of FUTURE supply. Countries which refuse to honor intellectual property rights 'stand still' in time.
Published: February 23, 2009 11:45 PM
Co-Autonomy!
I occupy middle ground between the two camps. i think that land ownership is the answer. On my own land, I can do what I like by myself, and to myself. On your land, you can do the same. On the public properties, the co-owners democratically set the conditions, such as issuing licences, etc. Copyright and Intellectual property rights would mean that the holders had the right to advertise on public properties, whilst others would not, and the public authorities would only buy from the licenced holder if they wanted the product or service. There you have it- the land-owners set the rules!
Published: February 23, 2009 11:45 PM
Timothy Foster
In Pharmaceuticals there is very small chance of success (implying scarcity), high cost (implying needs for high level of return), and low customer base (very few people need most medicine) while I do realize they have no right to profit however how does non-IP make these drugs possible?
Published: February 24, 2009 12:10 AM
ktibuk
@Stephan,
"If I take $1000 of Gates's money, he does not have it."
But Stephan that is it. Gates could never own that extra 1000 according to your theory. Remember in this instance there is Gates and there is you and regarding that 60 billion there is no scarcity. So how dare Gates claim ownership and deny you that 1000 dollars? If he does, that means he is the aggressor. Right?
Also since he cant consume all the money, we can say he is not in control of all his wealth. If "use" or "absolute ability to control" is prerequisites of property for Bill, to own things he can't consume and use should be a no no, for you and Proudhon's theory.
"The *reason* he objects to my taking it, is *because* he no longer has it."
Who says? Maybe he would have given it to you if you asked? But he would have definitely given it to you if you provided a service or a good, he values, in exchange?
"My argument does not depend on the evaluation of whether Gates's complaint is "good enough"."
In every conceivable scenario where there is aggression against one legitimate property, there is an evaluation whether the complaint is "good enough". But you wouldn't know that would you? And you call yourself a lawyer?
"I'm focusing on the nature of the harm done, and the reason owners object to theft. In the Gates hypo, it is undeniable *that there is* a conflict if I take his $1000 without his consent: we both want that $1000; the question is, who gets to keep it? The owner, or the latecomer?"
You are not focusing enough. The part you have to focus is the individual not the physical integrity. Every aggression is necessarily against another individual. If an act against a physical good is considered aggression (therefore an issue of ethics) it is done so because another individual is connected to that good, by ownership.
If the good in question (1000 dollars) is nature given first comer homesteads it but if it is someones already, any interaction with it,without the consent of the owner is an act against the owner, thus aggression.
"Now, if Gates has a nice Bentley in his driveway, and I see it from afar with a telescope and invent a "matte-printing machine" that lets me conjure up a duplicate Bentley in my driveway, using my raw materials, then I have not taken Gates's car. I have not stolen it. At most, you can say I've copied his car, or his car pattern. But since he still has his car--and his car-patter--obviously, I've "taken" or "stolen" nothing from him."
Again, the Bentley is "his" car and for you to interact with it against his wishes is aggression. If you concede to the fact that Bentley is in fact his car, but he can not own some parts of the car or his ownership is conditional, (that he can do whatever he wants with the physical car but he cant own the design part) you have a very short way to socialism Proudhon style.
Libertarian property theory does not put any conditions to ownership. According to libertarian property theory the key is homesteading. After one homesteads a property he is the absolute owner of that property and he can do whatever he wants with it unconditionally.
The reason for this is the nature of man and nature of the universe he lives in. As a categorical imperative there can not be interspecies parasitism (the way you suggest regarding IP) and the only other way (the only sustainable way) for humans to interact with each other is voluntary trade of their property, including their labor and all the fruits of their labor.
Published: February 24, 2009 12:15 AM
ktibuk
@ Cosmin and @ Drake
"I'm assuming that you mean ideal objects do not exist (as apposed to thoughts). Thanks for pointing this out, as it has been the elephant in the room that everyone has been ignoring."
Well he is in fact talking about ideal objects and it is not an elephant but irrelevant.
The key issue of property is homesteading and the link it establishes between the individual and the property.
If Cosmin replaced "idea" with "harry potter novel" in his post, he would see how absurd his position is, and he might begin to think the differences between copying something and originating it.
And Drake I will respond to your post but I am short of time right now. Although I think I partly responded to you as well with my response to Stephan.
Published: February 24, 2009 12:41 AM
ktibuk
@Drake
"I am taking the position that first use establishes the right to use. I am not taking the position that first use establishes a "bundle" of rights in addition to use (e.g. subjective value, market value, exclusion, etc.), however, you are welcome to point out how these extra rights can be derived from a natural law foundation."
I am taking the position that ownership implies absolute ethical control (say) and it is unconditional. First use establishes a link between the resource and the individual and this link can only be broken by the individual owner himself.
This absolute control is derived from the nature of man, not nature of the resources he homesteads. As I said before, individuals voluntarily exchanging homesteaded resources is the only way that fits human nature.
Even if there were no external natural resources (tangible or intangible) but mans labor, this would still be true.
Interspecies parasitism, which means some are feeding off of others, is unnatural for man. Because of categorical imperative if some men are feeding off of others, then those that are parasites can not be categorized as man. Which would be again unnatural because becoming a parasite for man is choice.
"Whether or not exclusion is REQUIRED to secure the right to use depends on the NATURE of the resource being used. The right to USE a non-scarce resource may be homesteaded, but others may not be EXCLUDED from using it if their use does not interfere with the use - ACTUAL or POTENTIAL - of the homesteader."
Why is that exactly? Without the homesteading, there would be no property. Nothing that the excluded can use, unless he himself homesteads it then there is no problem. You are telling me I created something, without my homesteading it there wouldn't be anything but I can not execute my ownership to exclude others from using it.
"Not true. I asked if you needed me to provide you with examples of how the latecomer's presence on the boat would limit the first-comer's use of the boat. With a little imagination you could have come up with a few examples on your own, but I suppose I'll have to do your thinking for you...
Possible Uses of a Boat - And How the Arrival of a Latecomer Would Interfere with Them:
1. Laying down in the boat to sleep: the latecomer might be in the way.
2. Using part of the boat to store fish: the latecomer might take up the area needed to store the fish.
3. Rowing the boat to the nearest island: the latecomer would add weight to the boat, making rowing more difficult and slowing the boat down (let's assume there is only one oar).
Clearly, the presence of the latecomer limits the first-comer's ability to use the boat. This is due, in part, to the fact that the space on any boat is finite, regardless of its size."
There are many instances where your scenarios wouldn't apply but still the homesteader, the owner could exclude. Like the boat being big enough to all of your possible uses and leave space for the other guy. And you could take turns rowing the boat. Unless you convert the term "use" to "whatever whim and excuse", it also applies to IP:
But the more important point is, after one homesteads a resource does he have to convince others that he is in fact using (what ever that implies) the resource to keep his ownership? According to your property theory he seems to. Since what he gains is not ownership but a "right to use" this means he has that right only as long has he uses the resource and the property is no actually his per se but loaned to him.
"Control and exclusion are NOT the same thing. For example, you can have total control over your front lawn, but excluding others from looking at it, thinking about it, talking about it, taking pictures of it, etc. requires more than control over soil and grass: it requires control over other people."
No, it requires the control over other people regarding your property. Which is what ownership implies. If I own a car I can control your actions regarding that car. If I own a theatrical play I can control other peoples actions regarding that play.
If others don't want me to control their actions regarding my property, they are welcomed not to interact with it and leave me alone.
"The form of things may be changed, but there is no way to increase or decrease the total amount of matter and energy in the universe. In other words, what you are referring to as "destruction" I would categorize as USE (which obviously includes physical manipulation). For example, if you bulldoze your house, you have clearly changed its form but have not caused the original materials to cease to exist."
We all know that you can not create or destroy matter and energy, but that is totally irrelevant.
I may not destroy all the matter and energy that went in the house but I can cause the house to cease to exist. Which is my right because the house is mine. If I only had a "right to use" when it came to the house, I don't think destroying the house can count as using. Bulldozing the house may be "using the raw materials" that went into the house but it is not "using the house".
If house and the raw materials that went into the house mean the same thing to you then there can not be any homesteading in the universe because homesteading means changing the nature given resources (raw materials that went into the house) to something else (the house). If both instances are the same then there is no change thus no homesteading.
"Even if the owner of a billion apples has no intention of eating any of them, his RIGHT to eat them is secured by the exclusion of others."
Exactly. This is the exact right I want for IP. Even if the owner doesn't lose anything by sharing, he has the right to exclude others. And you should realize already that, claiming the right to copy because the owner doesn't lose the original is the same thing as claiming the right to take something tangible from someone because he would not actually use it.
Published: February 24, 2009 7:07 AM
Stephan Kinsella
ktibuk:
Ktibuk, are you disingenuous, or just stupid? I have over and over and permeating my writings made it crystal clear what I mean by scarcity and what is my test for ownership: scarcity is the property of any particular resource that it it rivalrous--that use by one person excludes that by another: that if two people try to use it then there is conflict. And the owner of such a resource is the initial appropriator or his recipient. The $1k in question is scarce, and Gates is the owner. End or story. Your cryptic, mystical claim that "as regards the 60 billion" "there is" "no scarcity" is utter and and complete foolishness and confusion. You have no earthly idea what you are talking about.
No. You are deluded. Gates is the owner.
You want to put into my mouth a hodgepodge of ideas you've heard a variety of welfare-statists urge, to then knock them down, but they are not my ideas. First, I would never say he's not in control of his wealth, nor that he couldn't consume all of it. Nor do I think this is even relevant--I'm not a Georgist or mutualist for God's sake. The only question is: who has a prior claim to that particular resource? It is Gates. End of story. Your thrashing here in search of coherence is pitiful to watch.
Yes--as I thought, you are now importing mutualist ideas to me. I don't need to answer for this. If you think the Lockean idea that we identify ownership of scarce resources in accordance with the resource's first user is Proudhonian, you are even more confused than I thought.
"The *reason* he objects to my taking it, is *because* he no longer has it."
Who says? Maybe he would have given it to you if you asked?
Sophistry. We are presupposing an act of theft, which implies a taking of an owner's property without consent. The question is, what about an act of theft is objectionable to the owner? Why would he NOT consent? Because if the second guy gets the thing, then the owner no longer has it or its serviceableness. This is in the nature of scarce resources; and in the nature of property.
"My argument does not depend on the evaluation of whether Gates's complaint is "good enough"."
In every conceivable scenario where there is aggression against one legitimate property, there is an evaluation whether the complaint is "good enough". But you wouldn't know that would you? And you call yourself a lawyer?
ktibuk, like Person/Silas, and others like Galambos and some hyperRandroids, you've shown you've an obsessed monomaniac in the grips of an idée fixe, leading you to crankish and bizarre insults that are meant to distract people from noticing your ever frantic thrashings, of your incoherence spinning out of control.
Every aggression is necessarily against another individual. If an act against a physical good is considered aggression (therefore an issue of ethics) it is done so because another individual is connected to that good, by ownership.
If the good in question (1000 dollars) is nature given first comer homesteads it but if it is someones already, any interaction with it,without the consent of the owner is an act against the owner, thus aggression.
Yes, and this is Gates, per assumption. Coherence FAIL.
"Now, if Gates has a nice Bentley in his driveway, and I see it from afar with a telescope and invent a "matte-printing machine" that lets me conjure up a duplicate Bentley in my driveway, using my raw materials, then I have not taken Gates's car. I have not stolen it. At most, you can say I've copied his car, or his car pattern. But since he still has his car--and his car-patter--obviously, I've "taken" or "stolen" nothing from him."
Again, the Bentley is "his" car and for you to interact with it against his wishes is aggression.
Ah, and now we start to get to the gravamen of the IP socialists' confusion: so now, ownership of the car does not mean the owner has the right to control who uses it--it means he has the right to control who "interacts with" it--notice how our demented IP socialist sneaks this term in there, slyly replacing use with interacts with? This is because he knows that sticking with the Lockean/libertarian private property concept of use doesn't get him anywhere--my learning things about his property is not a use of it. This is easy to see--if I take his car then he can no longer use it himself. But if I see him driving his car around and remember the design and notice certain things about how it operates, he can still drive it around--my learning about it, observing it, is not a "use" of it.
But it is an interaction with it, I suppose, whatever this loosey goosey liberal arts term means. In fact, due to gravitational effects alone, every person "interacts" at all times with every other physical object. I suppose by merely existing I am now violating the ktibukian property rights of owners by "interacting" gravitationally with their objects. The desperate creativity you are resorting to to prop up your increasingly rickety demented edifice is a wonder to behold.
Published: February 24, 2009 7:11 AM
Stephan Kinsella
Brad: "The major flaw in this arguement is you ignore the concept of value. When you
counterfeit a product you may not steal a persons thing, but you do steal its
value. "
Thank you for nicely illustrating my contention that "all arguments in favor of IP (and reputation rights) ultimately end up falling prey to the notion that there are property rights in the value of property, rather than in its physical integrity. But this view is fallacious, as shown by Hoppe and others".
Apparently you didn't even read my post closely, and didn't follow this link--but others can. Thanks, again, for being a useful illustration.
Published: February 24, 2009 7:18 AM
newson
to timothy foster:
you must have missed this debate earlier, when boldrin and levine's book was discussed. (http://blog.mises.org/archives/009380.asp)
Published: February 24, 2009 9:06 AM
Drake
@ktibuk
So, you're a Randian... Why didn't you say so before? ;)
"Again, the Bentley is 'his' car and for you to interact with it against his wishes is aggression."
Looking at a car through a telescope is NOT interacting with it; it is interacting with the light that bounced off it.
"Well he is in fact talking about ideal objects and it is not an elephant but irrelevant."
Actually, the question of whether ideal objects exist or not is highly relevant. If they do not exist, the discussion ends right there. That is, of course, unless you want to claim that it is possible to homestead something that does not exist...
"Interspecies parasitism, which means some are feeding off of others, is unnatural for man."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be implying that A may not ethically benefit from any of B's actions without B's permission, because to do so would be "parasitism" which is "unnatural". Please let me know if that is your actual position.
"You are telling me I created something, without my homesteading it there wouldn't be anything but I can not execute my ownership to exclude others from using it."
Only nature-given resources can be homesteaded (matter, energy, space). Ideal objects DO NOT EXIST. They cannot be created, destroyed, OR homesteaded.
"the owner could exclude. Like the boat being big enough to all of your possible uses and leave space for the other guy."
Just as stealing a penny is a total rejection of the owner's right to use their penny, huddling in an out of the way nook on a big boat is a complete rejection of the owner's right to use their nook.
"after one homesteads a resource does he have to convince others that he is in fact using (what ever that implies) the resource to keep his ownership?"
No. The "Right to Use" means the RIGHT to use. Check the dictionary.
In my last post to you, I said:
Control and exclusion are NOT the same thing. For example, you can have total control over your front lawn, but excluding others from looking at it, thinking about it, talking about it, taking pictures of it, etc. requires more than control over soil and grass: it requires control over other people.
"[IP] requires the control over other people regarding your property."
Are you saying that you have the right to use force against someone to prevent them from looking at or thinking about your property?
"If house and the raw materials that went into the house mean the same thing to you then there can not be any homesteading in the universe because homesteading means changing the nature given resources (raw materials that went into the house) to something else (the house). If both instances are the same then there is no change thus no homesteading."
What on earth are you claiming here? That materials remain unowned right up until the very moment that they are physically part of the house? That they are owned only as long as the house is standing? That anyone can ethically remove the materials from the construction site before they are physically attached to the house? That anyone can ethically take materials that become detached from the house? That all the materials that went into the house are "up for grabs" as soon as the house is bulldozed?
Please clarify your position, because it appears to be getting stranger by the minute.
"claiming the right to copy because the owner doesn't lose the original is the same thing as claiming the right to take something tangible from someone because he would not actually use it."
Stealing removes the very POSSIBILITY of use and, therefore, is a violation of the RIGHT to use. Copying does no such thing.
Published: February 24, 2009 9:39 AM
ktibuk
Stephan,
In the very post you linked (http://blog.mises.org/archives/007614.asp) while answering Brad you admit you are not accepting the Lockean property rights theory.
You seem to be very confused.
You are clearly a Proudhonian, but a shy one. Just like Drake, you only talk about "right to use" not property rights, which gives the owner ultimate decision (not just right to use) over property.
The difference between Lockean/Rothbardian property theory and your Proudhonian property theory is the concept of ownership and what it implies.
Proudhonians like you put conditions on property rights, while Lockean/Rothbardians give ultimate decision making over property to the owner.
Right to exclude is a very important part of property rights, because without the homesteader there wouldn't be any property thus the others would be naturally excluded.
If there weren't an author called a Rowling there wouldn't be a novel called Harry Potter, therefore everyone would be excluded from that novel.
If there is a novel called Harry Potter, it is because Rowling homesteaded it and she owns it. Because she owns it she has every right to exclude others from it.
Published: February 24, 2009 10:34 AM
hacksoncode
This whole notion that people only have property rights in physical objects is entirely silly. I will go so far as to say that no one (who has given it any thought at all) actually believes this.
Money, in a modern society, is not a physical object. It's an idea. That $1000 we keep talking about stealing from Mr. Gates? Probabilistically speaking, it never existed anywhere as a physical object. It's only a reference to some value that Mr. Gates owns.
If I'm his banker and I move a number from his account to mine, all I've done is move an idea. Unfortunately for me, and proponents of this argument, Mr. Gates *does* indeed own that conceptual non-physical object, and is allowed to restrict others from appropriating it.
The argument has a foundation of sand. Who homesteaded this so-called money?
Published: February 24, 2009 10:42 AM
Stephan Kinsella
ktibuk:
This is false. I simply deny that he needs to make the superfluous and confusing argument that we "own" labor. But I of course accept his basic idea of homesteading by appropriation of unowned property.
Property is the right to use, to control. See Property in the Law:
Nonsense. You think that the right to own includes some mystical right to control all "interactions" with it. Nonsense. This is not what libertarianism or property rights is or was ever about.
The right to control includes the right to exclude and also the right to permit or invite or sell or abandon. The right to exclude is just a consequence of having the right to control. The right to control is the primary right. It is what ownership is all about.
But-for causation has nothing to do with the right to control a scarce resource. You are terribly, terribly confused. Are you making this up as you go along?
hacksoncode:
Money ... is an idea? I thought it was a medium of exchange.
No further replies to such amateur nonsense are needed.
Published: February 24, 2009 10:59 AM
ktibuk
@ Drake
I use a Kantian concept, categorical imperative, and you call me a Randian :-) I am not a Randian, although I don't reject Objectivism completely.
"Looking at a car through a telescope is NOT interacting with it; it is interacting with the light that bounced off it."
The issue is not looking. It is copying. And copying is interaction. Without acces to the the car the act of copying can not take place.
Copying the shape of a Bentley and copying an aspect of a rock is not the same thing. One is a man made object with a legitimate owner, and the other is nature given.
If you are interacting with something man made and owned, this means you are interacting with another individual and the general rules apply.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be implying that A may not ethically benefit from any of B's actions without B's permission, because to do so would be "parasitism" which is "unnatural". Please let me know if that is your actual position."
It doesn't have to be formal permission for every action but there has to be consent, so yes that is my position.
"Just as stealing a penny is a total rejection of the owner's right to use their penny, huddling in an out of the way nook on a big boat is a complete rejection of the owner's right to use their nook."
Exactly. So the remaining state of the original is irrelevant after it has been copied. Copying something that belongs to someone else is complete rejection of the owners rights.
"No. The "Right to Use" means the RIGHT to use. Check the dictionary."
What the hell does "use" mean? If it doesn't mean the ultimate decision making over property, it must mean there is some condition attached to it. If there is a condition to be met, there has to be someone else that evaluates the condition and if it has been met or not.
Notice how you declare Harry Potter is not property. You are "the someone else" that evaluates and gives judgment. In natural rights theory of property rights there is no such thing. The owner has ultimate decision making rights regarding property and that is that.
"Are you saying that you have the right to use force against someone to prevent them from looking at or thinking about your property?"
Again, "looking" is not interaction. Interaction is necessarily an active act, not a passive one like "looking". Copying is.
And I can prevent people from looking at my property. I have right to build high wall around my house, or keep a painting in vault and exclude you from looking. You don't have a right to look at what I own even though you looking doesn't effect physical integrity of the good in question.
Published: February 24, 2009 11:11 AM
Libertyforall
"But Stephan that is it. Gates could never own that extra 1000 according to your theory. Remember in this instance there is Gates and there is you and regarding that 60 billion there is no scarcity. So how dare Gates claim ownership and deny you that 1000 dollars? If he does, that means he is the aggressor. Right?"
You do not understand the concept of scarcity.
Scarcity means, there is an object X (a 1000 dollar banknote) and about it there is the discussion who owns it, because it cannot be present at two locations at the same time.
Someone wants it in his house, another one wants it in another house. Who can have it in his house? This scarcity and the solution to it is the reason why there a thoughts about property (who has the right to decide where the banknote should be).
But you don't have the right to decide where copies of this object should be just because you own the object.
Do you understand this?
Published: February 24, 2009 11:15 AM
Libertyforall
@ktibuk
"But Stephan that is it. Gates could never own that extra 1000 according to your theory. Remember in this instance there is Gates and there is you and regarding that 60 billion there is no scarcity. So how dare Gates claim ownership and deny you that 1000 dollars? If he does, that means he is the aggressor. Right?"
You do not understand the concept of scarcity.
Scarcity means, there is an object X (a 1000 dollar banknote) and about it there is the discussion who owns it, because it cannot be present at two locations at the same time.
Someone wants it in his house, another one wants it in another house. Who can have it in his house? This scarcity and the solution to it is the reason why there a thoughts about property (who has the right to decide where the banknote should be).
But you don't have the right to decide where copies of this object should be just because you own the object.
Do you understand this?
Published: February 24, 2009 11:16 AM
ktibuk
Ktibuk
"If there weren't an author called a Rowling there wouldn't be a novel called Harry Potter, therefore everyone would be excluded from that novel."
Stephan
"But-for causation has nothing to do with the right to control a scarce resource. You are terribly, terribly confused. Are you making this up as you go along?"
Prey tell me, what has, if "causation" doesn't?
Published: February 24, 2009 11:18 AM
hacksoncode
Money ceased to be *simply* a medium of exchange and become a form of (abstract) property itself a *long* time ago. About the time when it ceased to be solely a physical commodity.
The point of my argument, which you can choose to dismiss as amateur if you like, is that any absolute definition of property as only being physical objects is utterly absurd.
Humans value non-physical things. We treat them exactly like physical property all the time. The only reasonable question to ask is *which* non-physical things should be accorded status as property.
Absolutes are very rarely an accurate representation of the world. Now, just because I'm saying that some non-physical things are, and deserve to be, property, doesn't mean that I think *all* non-physical things are property. It's just nonsense to say that they can't be.
Even physical property has never been considered absolute by any society in history, nor is that possible. Take easements, for example. I don't think even the most obscene anarcho-capitalist libertarians (and I'm a minarchist libertarian) would agree that it would be ok for me to buy all the land around your house and erect a hundred-foot-tall barbed wire fence around it (all on "my" property, of course), in the middle of the night, trapping you within, and passively (without any direct aggression) condemning you to starve.
Published: February 24, 2009 11:21 AM
Libertyforall
@hacksoncode
"If someone invents a new idea, by this argument he has the Right to Use that new idea by virtue of being the first to use it. Someone else using it *does* indeed diminish his right to use (or potentially use, or profit from) that idea. Exclusion of others using the idea is merely a means of securing his ability to use the idea.
It's no less true than the "potential use" argument about physical property."
You are wrong. That would be against the homesteading principle and the principle of property.
If someone owns an object for a long time and someone else "invents" a use for that object in your point of view the former would not be allowed to use his object in a certain kind of way because the latter "invented" this use.
That is pure nonsense and no way libertarian.
You are truly a socialist. Please live in North Korea!
"Money, in a modern society, is not a physical object. It's an idea."
Yeah a proof that you are truly either stupid or a socialist.
A banknote is a physical object.
Try to go into a shop and spend your idea. Maybe they gonna bash you up and put some brain in your head!
I hate those socialists.
@ktibuk
"The issue is not looking. It is copying. And copying is interaction. Without acces to the the car the act of copying can not take place."
You are a liar. There is no access necessary if someone wants to copy the physical resemblance of an object. Looking itself is enough.
Someone looks on a painting and if he is skilled enough as an artist that would be enough for him to copy it.
So if someone else is presenting his objects to others he has no right over their representations in the heads of the viewers and what they make of this representations.
No, YOU don't have any right about what others make of object representations.
If you insist on the possession of others minds you are either a totalitarian (a socialist) or just plain stupid.
What would it be?
Please don't think of yourself as a libertarian. That would be a disgrace of all true libertarians. In your own "little world" you were not allowed to call yourself one.
Published: February 24, 2009 11:28 AM
Publisher2090
@Dr. Kinsella
"The right to control is the primary right. It is what ownership is all about."
That is so true.
And this is what IP-socialists do not understand: They want to abolish this primary right by bringing in some kind of "the owner of an idea controls everything"-mambozambo.
@defender of "IP":
Please answer the following question:
Person A sees a painting on an advertisement board.
Person A copies this painting on a canvas that he owns which he has in his house.
Is Person A in your opinion allowed to do that?
Why (not)?
If not: Why can someone else decide what Person A is allowed to do in his house with his property?
Please answer only to the above questions!
Published: February 24, 2009 11:37 AM
Stephan Kinsella
ktibuk:
Thanks so much, ktibuk--this makes my time spent on this worth it--I have flushed you out. Now all on the fence can see the end result of the IP mentality: it means that owners of physical things have the right to stop others from "interacting" with these things, and "accessing" these things, which apparnetly means. ... observing them or learning about them.
Thanks, ktibuk, for being honest enough to admit this, to reveal the utter absurdity of your views. This will be very helpful to those on the fence about IP.
Yes... and this is not question-begging at all. Not a bit.
Again, "looking" is not interaction. Interaction is necessarily an active act, not a passive one like "looking". Copying is.
So... if I LOOK at your Bentley, tha'ts okay--it's not "interacting" with it, and it's not "accessign" it. But if later on, in my garage, I make a car, according to the Bently-patterns in my memory... THEN I am "accessing" your car, and "interacting" with it. Even if your car is now destroyed--hm,, I must be "interacting" with its Platonic essence.
VERY intresting theory you are cobbling together on the fly here, ktibuk--keep going, this is a riot!
Published: February 24, 2009 11:42 AM
Brad
Stephan I did not ignore his arguement, I attempted to refute it at the beginning.
He claims that proponents of IP are attempting to protect their value, not their
property. That property is a claim on a thing; not a value. I attempted to
refute that with a very simple example: a $100 dollar bill has two components,
the ink and paper and as a medium of exchange. Its value does NOT derive from its
tangible components, but from its intangible components. If the government
counterfeits and doubles the money supply each holder of a $100 dollar bill still
has 100 dollars. But they no longer have the same 'thing'. His arguement is
fallascious. The entrepreneur does not set out to create a thing, he sets out
to create a thing of value. Deprive a person of their value, you deprive them
of their thing. They will cease to invest and produce.
I will give you a few recent examples. Home builders are currently complaining
that they are unable to build houses - because they cannot compete with excess
supply. Do you believe that? Any homebuilder today can build a house. What
they cannot create is a home of value. Without value the homebuider has no incentive
to create the thing. They are linked. Of course in this case the marketplace is
working. Supply greatly exceeds demand at current prices.
Another recent example (from the real world): Wall Street analysts expected Home
Depot and Lowes to benefit from the housing bust. Their reasoning which displayed
no knowledge of economics was that homeowners would invest in their houses rather
buy new ones. They ignored the concept of value. A homeowner has NO REASON to invest
in a home: the money put into the house will create no value. All investment is
NOT an attempt to create or maintain a thing, but to create and maintain a thing
OF VALUE. Destroy the value, you destroy the thing.
A car is another example. My car has crashed in value. If it breaks down I will have
no incentive to invest beyond a certain point.
Hobbes is attempting to say that ip is designed not to protect the thing, but to
protect the value. Exactly. Without that you cannot invest in the thing, invent
the thing, maintaing the thing, etc. That is the entire PURPOSE of the marketplace.
To assign relative values using a medium of exchange. Counterfeiting distorts the
pricing mechanism which creates investment and production.
The Soviet Union could create things. It could not create things of value.
Published: February 24, 2009 11:43 AM
Publisher2090
@ktibuk
"Notice how you declare Harry Potter is not property. You are "the someone else" that evaluates and gives judgment. In natural rights theory of property rights there is no such thing. The owner has ultimate decision making rights regarding property and that is that."
The owner of a sheet of paper has also the ultimate decision making rights regarding his property.
If he decides to write a story in it, that he heard than he has the right to do so.
And if that story resembles that of Harry Potter or is the story of Harry Potter than he has every right to use HIS property to write that story down.
This is also your opinion. Else you would not state that the owner of a property has ULTIMATE DECISION MAKING RIGHTS!
"Again, "looking" is not interaction. Interaction is necessarily an active act, not a passive one like "looking". Copying is."
No. Looking is active. Every action is active.
By looking you make a copy of something in your brain.
By drawing you make a copy of something on a sheet of paper.
You are not the one to decide what should be allowed or what is active and what is passive.
That is socialist thinking of you!
"And I can prevent people from looking at my property. I have right to build high wall around my house, or keep a painting in vault and exclude you from looking."
Yes, this right you have with your property.
If you do not show it, than nobody will see it and nobody could directly copy it.
Nobody here denies you the right to decide what should be done with your exemplar of a drawing!
"You don't have a right to look at what I own even though you looking doesn't effect physical integrity of the good in question."
If you show it that someone else has the right to look at it because he has the right to his own body (self ownership).
Therefore he is ALWAYS allowed to use the information his body gives him (if there does not exist a contract).
And if the person who saw what you showed decides later on to write that down or draw a copy of it on a sheet of paper he owns or has the right to than he is allowed to do that because he is his self owner and can use the information he stored in his body.
So again: Why do YOU want to abolish the rights of property owners?
If you do not want for direct copies to exist than you have to store the original in a vault.
But if you show it or someone else does others are allowed to copy it. There is no right to own information and ideas.
It is just that simple.
Published: February 24, 2009 11:46 AM
Drake
@Kinsella
"I must be 'interacting' with its Platonic essence."
LOL
Believers in IP (Imaginary Property) do depend on the existence of an otherworldly realm of platonic forms (ideal objects). Lacking any evidence for this mystical realm does not appear to trouble them, though.
Published: February 24, 2009 12:37 PM
ktibuk
Look Stephan,
We libertarians are necessarily individualists. We believe in the negative rights that no one has to pay for and all these rights stem from property rights.
There are simple mental constructs that we can use if you are having trouble comprehending.
All the legitimate rights of an individual, the right must manifest for an isolated individual, like Robinson Crusoe.
For example,
Can Crusoe have right to free speech? You betcha.
Can he have a right to health care? No, unless he administers health car.
Can Crusoe have the right to do whatever he wants with the fish net he made, including destroying it so that it ceases to be a fish net? Yes of course he can.
Can he have right to free education? No.
Can he have right to copy some other individual creation? Hell no.
Is this helping you Stephan?
Published: February 24, 2009 12:52 PM
Drake
@ktibuk
“copying is interaction. Without acces to the the car the act of copying can not take place.”
Without access to information ABOUT the car (encoded in the light that reflected off it) copying cannot take place. Interacting with the light that reflected off the car is not the same as interacting with the car itself. WHY DO I EVEN NEED TO POINT THIS OUT? lol
I said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be implying that A may not ethically benefit from any of B's actions without B's permission, because to do so would be "parasitism" which is "unnatural". Please let me know if that is your actual position.
“It doesn't have to be formal permission for every action but there has to be consent, so yes that is my position.”
If you paint a picture, do I need your permission to look at it? Is it aggression if I let the light that reflected off your painting enter my pupils? Must I close my eyes or be subject to violence?
I said:
Just as stealing a penny is a total rejection of the owner's right to use their penny, huddling in an out of the way nook on a big boat is a complete rejection of the owner's right to use their nook.
“Exactly. So the remaining state of the original is irrelevant after it has been copied.”
Are you seriously claiming that stealing a penny is the same as copying a penny?
“What the hell does ‘use’ mean?”
Thanks for highlighting my vagueness here. For the time being, I will define use as “physical manipulation or occupation”. An example of manipulation would be picking an apple off a tree. An example of occupation would be sleeping in a cave.
“Notice how you declare Harry Potter is not property.”
I don’t remember declaring that. Before I make any claims regarding “Harry Potter”, you will have to explain exactly what you mean by it. Are you referring to something that exists or something that does not?
I asked:
Are you saying that you have the right to use force against someone to prevent them from looking at or thinking about your property?
“Again, ‘looking’ is not interaction. Interaction is necessarily an active act, not a passive one like ‘looking’.”
What about thinking? Shall we call thinking “passive” in order to support your argument?
“Copying is [active].”
Here’s how the world actually works. Light reflects off your Bentley encoding information about some of its properties. The light then enters my eye. The information in the light is transferred to my brain where it is converted into a mental image. Afterword, the image is stored in my memory. Any succeeding interactions I have will be with MY memory, not YOUR Bentley. In fact, the ONLY thing that interacted with your Bentley was the light that originally bounced off it.
To recap: I DID NOT INTERACT WITH YOUR BENTLEY. If you have doubts about this, please check the definition of “interact”.
“You don't have a right to look at what I own even though you looking doesn't effect physical integrity of the good in question.”
If I can see your property without trespassing (in other words, if light reflects off your property and onto mine) I certainly DO have a right to look at it.
Published: February 24, 2009 12:57 PM
Stephan Kinsella
ktibuk:
No, it would help if you would post this on the other post, to help illustrate my point.
Published: February 24, 2009 1:15 PM
Michael A. Clem
If the government counterfeits and doubles the money supply each holder of a $100 dollar bill still has 100 dollars. But they no longer have the same 'thing'.
Counterfeiting does not deprive other people of property, true, but fraud is still fraud--it's a different type of rights violation, not a violation of IP.
Humans value non-physical things
All valuation by humans is abstract and non-physical, even the value humans put on physical things. Something having value to a human isn't sufficient to make it property. That's the whole point of the scarcity argument. Do you not value friendship, trust, or love?
Published: February 24, 2009 1:20 PM
Stephan Kinsella
You are getting more and mor moronic. Just b/c you identify some but-for cause of some thing or phenoneom does not establish ownership idiot. If it did then Bill Gates' mom would own Microsoft. Jesus.
Published: February 24, 2009 1:37 PM
Cosmin
Exactly, Drake! That's what they think and it's why they are so confused. They're hilarious actually. Let me extract some of their quotes here:
"Money, in a modern society, is not a physical object. It's an idea."
What he means: Whoever had the idea for a medium of exchange is being trespassed against every time we use anything other than direct barter in our transactions!!!
"You don't have a right to look at what I own even though you looking doesn't effect physical integrity of the good in question."
What he means: Even though I could build a high wall around my house or keep my painting in a vault, I don't need to do that since I can just force you to keep your eyes on the ground and I have the long arm of the law behind me on this.
"If there is a novel called Harry Potter, it is because Rowling homesteaded it and she owns it. Because she owns it she has every right to exclude others from it."
No, kitbuk, if there is a novel called Harry Potter, it is because someone manifested Rowling's idea using ink and paper. Her idea and the physical novels one can buy are two separate things. All others are excluded from her idea, even if they read the Harry Potter book. Her idea will die with her. It didn't transfer to the book. There is no idea imbedded in objects.
Let's say I get an idea and build a battery. Then, I lose it somewhere on my travels. Someone from a tribe that had no contact with civilization finds my battery. He doesn't automatically acquire the idea of the battery. He may use it as a paperweight. Someone else from my neighbourhood finds his paperweight and because his experiences are more similar to mine, he develops, for himself, and idea about how that object can be used as a battery.
You see, since we don't have a hive mind controlling us (as far as I can tell), all discoveries are in actuality independant discoveries. All our ideas are separate, even when they reference the same object in a roughly similar way.
Published: February 24, 2009 1:39 PM
hacksoncode
""Money, in a modern society, is not a physical object. It's an idea."
What he means: Whoever had the idea for a medium of exchange is being trespassed against every time we use anything other than direct barter in our transactions!!!"
Way to attack a straw man. That's not what I mean at all. What I mean is that money is a contractual agreement more often than it is a physical object in modern society. You can still own it.
Seriously: if I break into your bank's computers and delete a number from your account and add it to mine, are you *seriously* going to say I haven't taken your property? But it's just a number!!! I may have committed trespass against the bank's property (or maybe not... perhaps I attacked it electronically, since we're not counting abstract property as property). Surely, since money is only a physical object, I have not stolen anything from you?
See how absurd that sounds?
But enough about abstract property. Let's, instead, talk about contracts.
I think most people, libertarians included, would argue that in order to preserve the ability for people to freely contract, we must prohibit/punish tortious interference in contracts, no?
I.e. if I interfere with someone delivering a service to you that you have contracted for, I have harmed not only him, but you as well, and may have a liability towards either or both of you, depending on the circumstances. Typically, the liability would be to the party that took a loss due to the interference... particularly if the other party consented to it (e.g. as would happen if a contractor took a payment voluntarily from me in exchange for cheating you).
So let me ask you this: suppose that an artist created a sound recording, and only sold it to people on the condition that they will not allow it to be copied. Perhaps we should call this "licensing" rather than sale, but it's just a contract either way.
If you come along and copy the buyer's copy, with or without the consent of the buyer, have you committed tortious interference on the contract between the artist and the buyer? I don't see how you can conclude anything but that you have.
Whether you would have a liability to the buyer or the artist would probably hinge on whether or not you had the buyer's permission. Certainly the buyer will have failed in his contractual obligation to prevent copying, resulting in some kind of forfeit.
In fact, such a contract could (probably would) continue in perpetuity, rather than the recording reverting to the public domain after a time.
A copyright is merely a boilerplate version of that contract that applies to expressions of ideas by default. And, hey, as a bonus to society, it comes equipped with an expiration date.
Would we really be better off in a world where copyrights didn't exist? In point of fact, they are a *limit* on an artist's ability to perpetually control their idea. Perhaps you'd like to argue that copyrights *themselves* are therefore an interference in contracts. That would be an interesting twist.
Patents, I'll grant, are a different sort of beast, and their merits may be argued either way. I find them to be a *practical* exception to natural property rights rather than a natural consequence of them, most of the time.
It's really tedious and disadvantageous to progress to not offer this privilege to inventors, as they spend more time protecting the secrecy of their invention than they do inventing it. Trade Guilds were a really pernicious consequence of that prior to the founding of the US, which is one reason patents were enshrined in the US Constitution.
But I won't insist on them.
Published: February 24, 2009 10:36 PM
Cosmin
hacksoncode said in reply to me:
"""Money, in a modern society, is not a physical object. It's an idea."
What he means: Whoever had the idea for a medium of exchange is being trespassed against every time we use anything other than direct barter in our transactions!!!"
Way to attack a straw man. That's not what I mean at all. What I mean is that money is a contractual agreement more often than it is a physical object in modern society. You can still own it."
I didn't attack a straw man. I attacked your statement. It's not what you meant? Not my fault that you did a shoddy job in selecting the terms you used. Money, even when it's just zeroes in a computer, is a physical object. Don't equate it with an idea, especially after I point out that ideas are a figment of one's own mind and can't be extracted, shared, stolen or exchanged.
Also, electronic and abstract are not synonyms!
To adress your sound recording example, I say that your license should impose on the buyer the condition that he will not allow it to be seen or heard. The moment a third party, unbound by any contract, hears the recording, he forms an idea in his head and he has the freedom to act on it in any way he wants.
As for patents, Stephan Kinsella had a bunch of articles on how they actually stifle innovation and are impractical and even detrimental to their stated goal of increasing research.
My position is that the fact that they are not derived from natural property rights and need a state to create them and enforce them makes them loathsome.
Published: February 24, 2009 11:31 PM
hacksoncode
"Money, even when it's just zeroes in a computer, is a physical object. Don't equate it with an idea, especially after I point out that ideas are a figment of one's own mind and can't be extracted, shared, stolen or exchanged."
Now you're just getting metaphysical. If you think an idea is anything other than a bioelectrical configuration in your brain you're kidding yourself.
An brain-embodied idea is no more, and no less, a physical object than an idea comprising a pattern of 1s and 0s in a computer. Be careful where you take that argument. You might not like the consequences.
Published: February 25, 2009 11:25 PM
Bill
I have only just begun to look into and learn about the subject of IP, and while my ideas are not based on an assimilation of all available knowledge, I think that a middle ground may in fact exist. It seems the largest problem supporters have is with the issue of direct copying, and how it detracts from the value of an object and thus it’s owners. (I understand that the term “value of an object” is also something of great debate, but like I said, my view is far from complete.) While I do not agree that ideas are tangible objects subject to ownership and monopoly power, I can see how it is something of concern for those supporting it. I do agree that directly copying something is wrong, not because it should be illegal, but because it is morally wrong. It is improper, in my opinion, to essentially take someone’s work without their permission and benefit from it. Thus permission for exact replicas would not be something I would oppose. In the same vein however, protecting an object’s inner workings and such, so one could be the sole benefactor regardless of another person’s ability to enhance the object, is also morally wrong. So I see things like this, when an object is created, the way in which it was created and the way in which it works should be made public. If someone whishes to make an attempt at producing a superior object than they should be supported for it, if they find that they cannot, permission should be sought from the inventor for making a copy. Of course, this theory would only exist in a world where people were fair, ethical, and understanding and embracing of the idea that when technology advances; we as a people are better off because of it. I have only dealt with objects here, since I find trying to claim ownership for a particular way of doing something (such as a harvesting method or low-pollution method of production) to be uncalled for.
Published: February 26, 2009 8:58 AM
Cosmin
hacksoncode,
I wasn't getting metaphysical.
Since you finally came to the conclusion that an idea is nothing other than bioelectrical configuration in one's brain, explain to me how it can be stolen, copied or exchanged.
It's on the same level as compassion, pride or love. They are just as much bioelctrical configurations in one's brain. How can they be stolen?
Published: February 26, 2009 2:32 PM
Cosmin
hacksoncode,
Money in a computer is not an idea since computer's don't have ideas. Drop this erroneous and ridiculous allegory.
Brains have ideas as a function of the knowledge stored therein. Copy the configuration that refers to an idea into a brain that doesn't have the same knowledge and experience and your "configuration" is worthless.
Published: February 26, 2009 2:49 PM
hacksoncode
Fine, define ideas any way you want. Intellectual property law, and indeed the very *notion* of intellectual property explicitly excludes this very narrow concept of "ideas" anyway. Call them abstract concepts if you prefer, or even processes upon, and configurations of, matter.
You're allowed to think anything you want.
It's when you go to take the abstract concept comprising the idea and embody it into physical form that IP law takes effect.
And "money" (again, in a modern society) is *vastly* more often a contractual obligation that has no real physical embodiment than it is little pieces of metal and paper.
Hell, forget about money if you don't like that particular example. A verbal contract that exists nowhere except in the minds of 2 parties is something that (assuming the contract allows it) can be bought, sold, and in all other ways treated exactly like property. Freedom to contract requires this.
Published: February 27, 2009 10:02 AM