Wednesday, April 10, 2013

An Examination Of Hans Hoppe's Anti-IP Case

Last week, I reported on what I believed was a recent statement by Professor Hans Hoppe in support of Steve Kinsella. It turns out that the support for Steve was made earlier. Nevertheless, I consider the comments instructive in advancing the case for IP and will discuss them in this light. 

Note, in this post I am not examining Prof. Hoppe's thinking on IP  beyond his thoughts below. My comments are in bold.  

I agree with my friend Kinsella, that the idea of intellectual property rights is not just wrong and confused but dangerous. And I have already touched upon why this is so. Ideas – recipes, formulas, statements, arguments, algorithms, theorems, melodies, patterns, rhythms, images, etc. – are certainly goods (insofar as they are good, not bad, recipes, etc.), but they are not scarce goods.

This is simply an assertion with an unusual use of the word, scarce. Certainly, I can claim that my "Drudge formula" is scarce as is my EPJ Daily Alert, in the sense that they are not superabundant, an element Professor Hoppe himself has used to differentiate between scarcity and free goods (A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism p. 235 n. 9):

"Only because scarcity exists is there even a problem of formulating mutual laws; insofar as goods are superabundant ('free' goods) no conflict over the use of goods is possible and no action-coordination is needed."

Further, I would advance that conflict, of a certain sense, does exist with regard to the "Drudge formula" and the "EPJ Daily Alert." If a contract is broken and the formula or the contents of the Alert are revealed, I certainly see this broken contract as causing conflict with me if a party C is now in possession of these economic goods and selling them on the market, thus, pushing the price down of the economic goods.

 Once thought and expressed, they are free, inexhaustible goods. I whistle a melody or write down a poem, you hear the melody or read the poem and reproduce or copy it. In doing so you have not taken anything away from me.

Well, simply because more than one person has an economic good, it does not mean these goods are free. Some subscribers to the ALERT admit providing the copies of the ALERT to others, but this does not make the ALERT non-scarce and a non-economic good, as on a daily basis people continue to subscribe to the ALERT, paying up to $138.00 for a one year subscription.

If we are to consider "taken anything away from me," from the view of the acting man in the subjective sense, then indeed my ability to control the supply of the ALERT has been taken away from me, against my wishes via a broken contract.

I can whistle and write as before. In fact, the entire world can copy me and yet nothing is taken from me. (If I didn't want anyone to copy my ideas I only have to keep them to myself and never express them.)

But why should I be limited to keeping it to myself? Why can't I, by contract, limit to whom an idea is divulged? Is there a libertarian objection to this? Is there libertarian support for the ignoring or breaking of contracts?

Now imagine I had been granted a property right in my melody or poem such that I could prohibit you from copying it or demanding a royalty from you if you do. First: Doesn't that imply, absurdly, that I, in turn, must pay royalties to the person (or his heirs) who invented whistling and writing, and further on to those, who invented sound-making and language, and so on?

No, this does not. In a libertarian case, in the manner advanced by Murray Rothbard, independent discovery would be allowed. Thus, if one person learns to whistle and another does so independently, no royalties are due. (In my view, although not stated by Rothbard, I would further argue that "innocent until proven guilty" should be the standard by which independent discovery is upheld.)

Second: In preventing you from or making you pay for whistling my melody or reciting my poem, I am actually made a (partial) owner of you: of your physical body, your vocal chords, your paper, your pencil, etc. because you did not use anything but your own property when you copied me.

This is a strawman argument, a person who holds a copyright or patent in a Rothbardian world can not prevent anyone from doing anything with his physical body, vocal chords, paper or pencil, provided it is independent discovery. It simply prevents the unauthorized use of an idea that has not been acquired directly by contract or independent discovery.

If you can no longer copy me, then, this means that I, the intellectual property owner, have expropriated you and your "real" property. Which shows: intellectual property rights and real property rights are incompatible, and the promotion of intellectual property must be seen as a most dangerous attack on the idea of "real" property (in scarce goods).

Again, there is no expropriation of "real" property as long as independent discovery is allowed. In a Rothbardian world the expropriation takes place if an idea is used that was not the result of contract or independent discovery. There is nothing incompatible between real property and intellectual property. They simply both recognize ownership rights and the limits of those rights given the nature of the type of property.   

57 comments:

  1. 1/3

    "This is simply an assertion with an unusual use of the word, scarce. Certainly, I can claim that my "Drudge formula" is scarce as is my EPJ Daily Alert, in the sense that they are not superabundant, an element Professor Hoppe himself has used to differentiate between scarcity and free goods (A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism p. 235 n. 9):"

    "Only because scarcity exists is there even a problem of formulating mutual laws; insofar as goods are superabundant ('free' goods) no conflict over the use of goods is possible and no action-coordination is needed."

    Your Drudge formula is not scarce. What is scarce are the electrons, paper, ink, computers, and other material goods in which the non-scarce idea has been applied.

    The fact that there are people who don't know the Drudge formula does not make the formula scarce, any more than you not knowing the number I have in my head right now, doesn't make that number scarce.

    Scarcity of a concept isn't grounded on the number of instances the concept occurs or is occurring. Scarcity is grounded on the concept of rivalry. A good is rivalrous and therefore scarce if it is impossible, IN PRINCIPLE, for more than one individual actor to use that same exact good at the same time and place. The good is not scarce because the physicality of the good is unique and different from all other goods, or few in number.

    "Further, I would advance that conflict, of a certain sense, does exist with regard to the "Drudge formula" and the "EPJ Daily Alert." If a contract is broken and the formula or the contents of the Alert are revealed, I certainly see this broken contract as causing conflict with me if a party C is now in possession of these economic goods and selling them on the market, thus, pushing the price down of the economic goods."

    First, this is not conflict over the idea. This is conflict over scarce bodies and goods, specifically, a conflict over a contract consisting of a promise between two parties not to use their bodies or material goods in such a way that would send information signals out to other parties.

    Moreoever, it is not "conflict" that producer B increases the supply of goods such that the market price of goods that producer A sells, falls in price. The conflict is if two or more individual actors tried to use the same dollars of which the prices are paid, at the same time.

    Other people's money are not your money. If buyers decide to pay you less than what you want, then that is a problem between you and those buyers, not the other sellers.

    When you sign a contract with buyers, you are not at the same time signing a contract on behalf of other sellers and those same buyers. The other sellers are not bounded by your contract.

    "Well, simply because more than one person has an economic good, it does not mean these goods are free. Some subscribers to the ALERT admit providing the copies of the ALERT to others, but this does not make the ALERT non-scarce and a non-economic good, as on a daily basis people continue to subscribe to the ALERT, paying up to $138.00 for a one year subscription."

    It does not follow that because the Alert messages you send out fetch a price, that the ideas in the Alert are scarce. What are scarce are the electrons, computers, ethernet, etc, and your body. They are paying you a price because your body and goods are scarce.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 2/3


    "If we are to consider "taken anything away from me," from the view of the acting man in the subjective sense, then indeed my ability to control the supply of the ALERT has been taken away from me, against my wishes via a broken contract."

    Those others are not bounded by your contract. They didn't agree to it. No property has been taken away from you. Your reduced control over the material property of others isn't you being robbed. It is others being less violated by any enforcement of IP relating to the Alert concerning their own goods.

    You don't own other people's wealth. If the supply of Alerts goes up without your control, what is actually happening is that others are using THEIR OWN property in ways that you just don't like. But you have no promise contract with them, and so you never had any say about how they use their own bodies and goods. Yes, you will see more copies of the Alert, but you're really seeing is just other people's property in a different form. Instead of their property (hard drives) looking like email files from friends, or empty spaces on the drives, their property is now in a different form and shape, which you perceive as "Alert", and then you mistakenly claim that you own a portion of their material property.

    "But why should I be limited to keeping it to myself? Why can't I, by contract, limit to whom an idea is divulged? Is there a libertarian objection to this? Is there libertarian support for the ignoring or breaking of contracts?"

    What contracts? If you sign a contract with B, then that means you and B have a promise concerning your own bodies and goods. This contract has nothing to do with anyone else. If B breaks the contract he agreed to with you, by using his body and goods in a way that he did not promise, then he is liable...and nobody else. If B does not break the contract, but C and D find out about your idea through no fault of B, then B is not liable, and C and D were never liable to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 3/3


    "No, this does not. In a libertarian case, in the manner advanced by Murray Rothbard, independent discovery would be allowed. Thus, if one person learns to whistle and another does so independently, no royalties are due. (In my view, although not stated by Rothbard, I would further argue that "innocent until proven guilty" should be the standard by which independent discovery is upheld.)"

    Independent discovery is an arbitrary distinction. You have no ownership claim over the photons or electrons that leave your control through your activity. They are not yours. The energy is yours as long as it remains in your control. But as soon as it leaves your control, you have given a gift (or nuisance, depending on the case) to others.

    You cannot legitimately claim ownership over the mental images that result from light shining off your body/clothes such that others see you. You don't own the idea of "Wenzel's person" that arise in their minds. The idea that arises from the light that shines off your body are nobody's to own. You own your body, they own their brains.

    "This is a strawman argument, a person who holds a copyright or patent in a Rothbardian world can not prevent anyone from doing anything with his physical body, vocal chords, paper or pencil, provided it is independent discovery."

    Therefore Hoppe's argument is not a straw man after all. You are claiming partial ownership over the property and bodies of others who DID NOT develop the idea independently, even if they did not sign any contract with you promising not to do certain things.

    "It simply prevents the unauthorized use of an idea that has not been acquired directly by contract or independent discovery."

    The term "unauthorized" is just begging the question. You have to SHOW that it is illegitimate for C to use the same idea, despite him not having signed any contract with you NOT to use his body or goods in such a way that the idea is used practically.

    "Again, there is no expropriation of "real" property as long as independent discovery is allowed."

    There is no expropriation of real property even if independent discovery did not occur, and the same ideas are used by others.

    "In a Rothbardian world the expropriation takes place if an idea is used that was not the result of contract or independent discovery."

    You are not expropriated of anything. You still have your idea.

    "There is nothing incompatible between real property and intellectual property. They simply both recognize ownership rights and the limits of those rights given the nature of the type of property."

    More begging the question. Not valid.

    .......is that it? Anti-IP still wins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2 Pete^3:

      Why are you cluttering up the blog posts with your thesis-long diatribes? If you can't make your point in 2-3 paragraphs, you should spend more time organizing your thoughts. Spare us these cauldrons of Pete's Weak Sauce.

      Delete
    2. He's tried all of that already, but the pro-IP crowd isn't getting it. Maybe it's because they don't like to read things larger than a couple of paragraphs.

      Delete
    3. Well, Rothbard touched twice on IP issues in two different books...both times in less than 2 pages each and hit a lot of points.

      Brevity is nothing to be ashamed of when making a point, if you you can't be concise then it's no one's fault but your own and you will obviously lose the message.

      Delete
  4. Big fat FAIL! Because one man agrees to a contract, all others he violates his contract to are not bound to it.

    A secret might be scarce to the degree that it stays in the secret holders head, but once released it can spread like wild fire in super abundance, thus zero value in economic terms.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "In my view, although not stated by Rothbard, I would further argue that "innocent until proven guilty" should be the standard by which independent discovery is upheld."

    Actually, in "The Ethics of Liberty" he did state that:



    "Of course, there may be some difficulties in the actual enforcement of Brown’s property right. Namely, that, as in all cases of alleged theft or other crime, every defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It would be necessary for Brown to prove that Black (Green would not pose a problem) had access to Brown’s mousetrap, and did not invent this kind of mousetrap by himself independently. By the nature of things, some products (e.g., books, paintings) are easier to prove to be unique products of individual minds than others (e.g., mousetraps)"

    Regardless, excellent overall dissection Wenzel.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Further, I would advance that conflict, of a certain sense, does exist with regard to the "Drudge formula" and the "EPJ Daily Alert." If a contract is broken and the formula or the contents of the Alert are revealed, I certainly see this broken contract as causing conflict with me if a party C is now in possession of these economic goods and selling them on the market, thus, pushing the price down of the economic goods."

    This is a very bizarre conception of conflict.

    You are unclear between which parties the conflict exists. We already agree that a broken contract is cause for conflict between signatories yourself and B -- both in a pro- or anti-IP world. Therefore you must be speaking of a conflict between yourself and person C who obtained your allegedly scarce Drudge Formula while breaking no contract.

    If the conflict exists because you see it as such, then let me reduce to absurdity: I see conflict in any exercise of IP rights. Therefore, in order to enable human interaction without conflict, we must do away with IP rights. Thus, "seeing it" is too weak and vague of a condition for conflict.

    If the conflict is due to the price of the Drudge Formula dropping on the market, you are asserting ownership over the subjective valuations by other people of your product. But since the subjective valuations exist in their minds, you are effectively asserting ownership over their brains.

    I would define conflict as a scenario in which two acting men attempt to satisfy different ends with a means that cannot be employed to both ends at the same time.

    Even if an idea can be thought of as a means -- a doubtful assertion at best -- an idea that is "out there" cannot by definition be the object of conflict.

    If you disagree, please offer a better definition of conflict.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A conflict is a verb that means an argument or disagreement between to parties. It can be over a thing, an idea, or anything."
      http://ask.reference.com/web?q=What%20Is%20A%20Conflict?&o=100100

      Delete
    2. He means economic conflict, synonymous with economic scarcity. I don't understand why people's brains fall out of their heads on this issue. There is such dishonesty with regard to terms and definitions and their application in this debate.

      Delete
    3. Hoppe and Kinsella could not be any more clear that by "scarce" they mean "rivalrous" and by "conflict" they mean people wanting to put the same rivalrous good to different uses.

      A rivalrous good is a good whose use by any one person for any one purpose necessarily excludes (or interferes with, or restricts) its use by any other person or for any other purpose.

      Because the world is filled with rivalrous goods, and because people are actors who use means to achieve ends, it is possible that people will come into conflict over the use of rivalrous goods.

      Enter property rights, the purpose of which is to answer the question, "who has the right to exclusively control this rivalrous resource?"

      Notice that conflict can't arise over patterns of information. Conflict is always over rivalrous things.

      Delete
  7. Independent discovery is an illusion, it's ultimately a derivative of that of another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Independent discovery is not an illusion, if the context is the *direct* connection between the parties who developed the idea at the same time, for example Liebniz and Newton, who independently discovered calculus, and Jevons and Menger, who independently discovered marginal utility.

      But going back far enough, yes, our ideas are greatly dependent on the first humans and subsequent humans.

      Delete
  8. Good points generally. One quibble, though; it is not "unauthorized use of an idea" that is prohibited by copyright, patent, or trademark. None of those types of IP apply to ideas at all. Copyright applies to expressions, not ideas. Patent applies to new and non-obvious machines, processes and materials only; abstract ideas are specifically excluded.

    You are right that Hoppe's argument saying copyright gives ownership over another's body is a straw man. The right to forcible eject a trespasser from your home does not give you ownership over the trespasser's body -- even it it does grant a sort of right to control another for a limited time and purpose. So it is with copyright. Which, by the way, should also be limited in time.

    However IP is not property in a natural rights sense. You should not be permitted to use deadly force to defend your IP from mere infringement, for example; neither should IP be perpetual. Rather, IP should be thought of as a sort of commercial privilege granted for a limited time to creators and innovators in exchange for publication of their works and inventions. That is supposed to be the foundation in the US constitution although the reality has strayed from the ideal somewhat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The right to forcible eject a trespasser from your home does not give you ownership over the trespasser's body -- even it it does grant a sort of right to control another for a limited time and purpose. So it is with copyright."

      You're basically conceding Hoppe's point, right to control is ownership.

      Delete
    2. Hoppe's point was that copyright entails ownership of another's body, which is a strawman because property rights in general (e.g., real property) entail such so-called "ownership of another" when enforced, so Hoppe's argument proves nothing. What point are you trying to make? Are you opposing all forms of property rights?

      Delete
    3. You're almost there Jonathan! Whether Hoppe's argument proves anything isn't my point, just that you've completely ceded it to him, like it or not.

      Hoppe's starting point is that you own yourself and physical property. If you disagree with that, then it's all moot.

      If another violates your property - say, walks on your lawn - he has violated your rights. You thus have a legitimate right to stop him.

      Copyright (and patent), in contrast, give the holder a veto power over others. Not just on the holder's property, but on all other's as well.

      So, no, real property doesn't entail "ownership of another" anymore than defending oneself from a mugger does. You just need to check your foundations.

      And again, no. Neither I, nor Hoppe, am opposing all forms of property, instead we are trying to secure real property to its fullest.

      Delete
    4. Sigh @ Tak Tak:

      You guys are stuck in the same circular argument. You assume IP is invalid. Then you go on with this. If someone violates your property, he has violates your rights, and you have a legitimate right to stop him. But, if someone violates your copyright, he has done nothing wrong, because IP is invalid. Therefore, if you enforce it, you are violating his property. Since you need to violate his property to enforce IP, IP is invalid.

      You are spinning around in a tautological nutshell of your own making.

      Delete
    5. Ed,

      You are further off than our friend Jonathen. So let me help you.

      "But, if someone violates your copyright, he has done nothing wrong, because IP is invalid."

      You'd be right about it being circular if that assmption was being made, thankfully it is not. Since we're all honest here let's not make a single assumption about the validity of IP, as that is the discussion at hand. But we do need assumptions, so...

      Assumption: property in tangible things is valid. (Most people here claim to be libertarian, so that's an obviously safe assumption.)

      From that assumption is where the conclusion on IP should be drawn.

      Delete
    6. Sigh @ Ed Ucation:

      You guys are stuck in the same circular argument. You assume IP is valid. Then you go on with this. If someone violates your property, he has violates your rights, and you have a legitimate right to stop him. But, if someone violates your copyright, he has not done nothing wrong, because IP is valid. Therefore, if you enforce it, you are not violating his property. Since you need not violate his property to enforce IP, IP is valid.

      You are spinning around in a tautological nutshell of your own making.

      ------------

      See what I did there? You're describing your own silly pro-IP view, and you're *projecting* that onto anti-IP, *when anti-IP is not derived that way at all*.

      Delete
  9. Roberta,

    Could you differentiate between the scarcity of the access to your head (or your drudge report formula) and the scarcity of the idea itself? I'm not sure you can even prove the scarcity of the idea, given your inability to know the sum of everyone else's thoughts. Also explain how C would be held to a contract that he wasn't party to. Would you be able to sue C for damages? Access to the idea is what's being sold. Also, given that the only one who has proposed a definition of scarce beyond Hoppe's is you, would you agree that the unusual use of the term is yours, not his?

    Another way to view this is how ideas are experienced differently by different people. You could describe your formula to a computer illiterate, and it wouldn't matter because that person couldn't act on it anyway. In the same way, you could whistle to me and I may only see your lips move because perhaps I am deaf. What you claim is the right not only to limit access to the idea, but also limit access to the way someone may interpret it, reshape it, and use it again, even if someone is not party to your contract, or improves upon the idea. This isn't independent discovery, this is just how the world works, people react to stimuli differently. That's why Hoppe says you claim partial ownership over someone else's body through IP. The idea isn't scarce, you can't prove it only exists in your head, but the access is scarce.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Well, simply because more than one person has an economic good, it does not mean these goods are free. Some subscribers to the ALERT admit providing the copies of the ALERT to others, but this does not make the ALERT non-scarce and a non-economic good, as on a daily basis people continue to subscribe to the ALERT, paying up to $138.00 for a one year subscription.

    If we are to consider "taken anything away from me," from the view of the acting man in the subjective sense, then indeed my ability to control the supply of the ALERT has been taken away from me, against my wishes via a broken contract."

    You are confusing two different things here. The economic good which is bought and valued as at least 138$ is the email received by the recipient. Obviously, this is scarce.

    On the other hand, there is the information contained in the alert. It is important to note that the information does not actually exist. What does exist is the electrical signals in your brain, the scribbled note, the emails sent out, the pixels on the screens of the readers. These are particular incarnations of the information. The term "information" is a linguistic abstraction that allows us to group together the particular incarnations based on the experience they can generate in the human mind.

    Let us call the information "contained" in an alert message, the alert information.

    You cannot control the information because it is a mental abstraction that does not exist. What you can (attempt to) control are its incarnations.

    Thus, if you say that when someone breaks contract and shares the alert service, you lose the ability to control the alert information, you are being nonsensical. You never had that ability in the first place.

    On the other hand, if you are saying that you lose the ability to control all the information instances, you are correct. But you lose this ability the moment you send out the alert emails. That is, before the contract is broken and not after.

    Thus, if someone breaks the alert contract and shares his or her alert email with a third party, they are guilty of contract breach, but you do not lose anything you had immediately before.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "But why should I be limited to keeping it to myself? Why can't I, by contract, limit to whom an idea is divulged? Is there a libertarian objection to this? Is there libertarian support for the ignoring or breaking of contracts?"

    Both pro- and anti-IP advocates support contract rights. The point of contention is whether C, who broke no contract, can be compelled against his will not to use or sell an idea originated by A and leaked to him by B in breach of contract. Pro- and anti-IP advocates are not arguing a different conception of contract rights, they are arguing a different conception of property rights. Person A cannot sign a contract with person B to lynch person C and go through with it and use the contract for justification.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "No, this does not. In a libertarian case, in the manner advanced by Murray Rothbard, independent discovery would be allowed. Thus, if one person learns to whistle and another does so independently, no royalties are due. (In my view, although not stated by Rothbard, I would further argue that "innocent until proven guilty" should be the standard by which independent discovery is upheld.)"

    So if I can prove that I am the heir in title of the English language and there was no independent discovery of the English words (except for maybe a few) or grammar, then you can be legally compelled to quit using it? I agree that it is a big qualifier ... but shouldn't this conclusion be absurd regardless of the qualifier? The point extends to common songs, story plots, names ... Do you require Google's permission before you tell someone to google something?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "This is a strawman argument, a person who holds a copyright or patent in a Rothbardian world can not prevent anyone from doing anything with his physical body, vocal chords, paper or pencil, provided it is independent discovery. It simply prevents the unauthorized use of an idea that has not been acquired directly by contract or independent discovery."

    This is the completely wrong reason why Hoppe's point here fails. It is predicated on dependent discovery, so from that point of view the point is valid.

    The reason why it fails is because Hoppe is using his own conception of property rights to that the alternate conception is wrong. He does not misrepresent the alternate conception of property rights. It is not a straw man argument but a circular one.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "...Only because scarcity exists is there even a problem of formulating mutual laws; insofar as goods are superabundant ('free' goods) no conflict over the use of goods is possible and no action-coordination is needed."

    Nice quote, it makes the case against IP perfectly. "No action is required" means no laws are needed when something is in such abundance that everyone can virtually have it. Your news letter, once released, can be replicated for every human being in the world. No one needs to go without. The people who pay you to formulate views and cometary are paying for your initial and immediate release of your written views. Once you have emailed them, these comments can be copied and mailed to anyone, anywhere, at anytime. They are not scarce out of your head.

    ReplyDelete
  15. We are still having this discussion asserting this and that and declaiming somebody else is wrong because at the moment the whole thing is unprovable. Its very much like a discussion of 16th century battles between religious types over predestination or other such things.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Would any one buy a car if the dealer asked you to sign a contract that stated no other person could drive this car but by the permission of the manufacturer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Condos, timeshare, franchises, restrictive covenants on land are all examples of limitations on the use of private property.

      Delete
  17. "I certainly see this broken contract as causing conflict with me if a party C is now in possession of these economic goods and selling them on the market, thus, pushing the price down of the economic goods."

    So if another person takes actions which diminish the market value of my own goods then I have a claim against them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. but you as the seller as dimishing the market value of your product by putting these conditions on the sale of the product. its like that libertarian program based in LA (in ther 50s or 60s that was meant to be really great but was worthless because no one was allowed to talk about it.
      Rob has said himself that for the EPJ alerts that he would ban financial industry guys by running a background check but would be hardly worth doing if he did that so in effect IP in a free market would rest on the principle of unequal value that you value something else more than what you have and if those restrictions are just that bit too onerous, then its not worth doing.

      Delete
  18. "I can claim that my "Drudge formula" is scarce as is my EPJ Daily Alert, in the sense that they are not superabundant, an element Professor Hoppe himself has used to differentiate between scarcity and free goods"

    Undistributed middle.

    Also, that independent discovery is allowed means there's no right to stop C in the event of a breached contract because there was no right to stop C in the first place. Contracts don't create new property rights so the only rights you can have are the ones you had before or someone else had but transferred to you.

    If Wenzel had the right to exclude C in the first place before any contract was made, then C couldn't use the formula without Wenzel's permission. Since C doesn't need Wenzel's permission before any contract is made by Wenzel, it must be concluded that Wenzel had no right to exclude C in the first place.

    Take the Hertz car example. Hertz is only invoking a right they had before the contract and never gave up when they exclude C from using the car. The contract breach isn't the source of the right to repossess the car.

    Unlike the Hertz car, there's no "exclude C from using Drudge formula" for Wenzel to invoke. The conditional agreements only bind the people who agreed to the contract and only deal with their own property. There's no right to the idea created, only property rights in real, so to speak, property being transferred. And, like I explained above, there's no right to the idea to retain or transfer.

    ReplyDelete
  19. There are so many holes in Wenzel's responses it's breathtaking:
    On scarce goods - Wenzel continues to claim that his "Drudge formula" is "scarce". Let's consider the thousands of supposed ideas that have claimed to be scarce in IT (Amazon's One Click, or bouncing scroll bars for example). The overwhelming majority if not all have either been obvious or trivial.

    "Only because scarcity exists..."

    There is no scarcity when something can be replicated ad infinitum or obvious (like ideas). Note that things that are really scarce like commodities, water, etc cannot be replicated in this manner. That's why they are rivalrous.

    "Further, I would advance that conflict, of a certain sense, does exist with regard to the "Drudge formula" and the "EPJ Daily Alert..."

    So now you're pretending that conflict exists in relation to your daft formula. Let's say that in relation to EPJ Daily Alert that your contract has been broken by it being passed to a third party who passed them on to someone else for free (sort of like what happens with music and films on the internet - note how this is a REAL WORLD EXAMPLE). Who are you going to pursue in court? The third party?!? What's he done wrong? He or she doesn't have any agreement with you? Maybe you can become like the RIAA and try to implement some law globally "protecting" the EPA Daily Alert.

    "Well, simply because more than one person has an economic good, it does not mean these goods are free..."

    "from the view of the acting man in the subjective sense, then indeed my ability to control the supply of the ALERT has been taken away from me..."

    Something that can be replicated ad infinitum cannot be considered scarce. That individuals want to pay you for your EPJ Alert is their choice. That you have difficulty enforcing your contract is your problem (since you don't want to take them to court and risk alienating your readers).

    "But why should I be limited to keeping it to myself?.."

    Because once an idea is expressed and communicated, it can be copied ad infinitum and (note once again your recourse to contract law) you don't seem to grasp that 3rd parties who are exposed to your idea have no liability to you for what they do with what they have been exposed to the expression of the idea. One doesn't have to support to the idea of ignoring or breaking contracts to recognize that only with connivalence from the government (like what the RIAA are trying to do) do you have any hope of enforcing your supposed IP on third parties.

    "No, this does not. In a libertarian case, in the manner advanced by Murray Rothbard, independent discovery would be allowed..."

    As pointed out in the previous statement that third parties exposed to the expression of your idea can copy and express it as much as they wish since unless you want to do an RIAA, you have no hope of enforcing it. That you try to distance yourself from organisations with methods that you maybe find less than palatable is neither here nor there.

    "This is a strawman argument..."

    Again see two previous statements.

    "Again, there is no expropriation of "real" property as long as independent discovery is allowed..."

    The so-called Rothbardian concept of IP has its roots in contract law between two individuals irrespective of whether Wenzel wants to admit it or not. That he then tries to come up with an example based in IT where the overwhelming examples of IP in the digital world are for the most part trivial or obvious (since they generally tend to be digital expressions of everyday ideas like the use of shopping carts).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the "Drudge formula" is not scarce, please supply the formula. Remember, Hoppe says for a good to not be scarce it has to be superabundant, so what is the formula?

      Delete
    2. jackweil: In order for something to be scarce, it must exist.

      The Drudge formula does not exist.

      What does exist is Mr Wenzel's brain's electrical signals, the scribbled note he was talking about during the debate and the sound he makes if he speaks the idea. The term "Drudge Formula" is a linguistic tool that allows us to put these three separate things into the same category based on what effect they can have on a human mind.

      Delete
    3. He wrote it down, so it exists, so what's the formula?

      Delete
    4. That merely proves the existence of the paper.

      Delete
    5. And the fact that he is able to write it down, proves the existence of the electrical signals in his brain.

      Delete
    6. @jackweil, I think you miss the point. What I'm saying is two fold. First it is most likely obvious (meaning that one of the main principles of user interaction is to minimise the number of clicks that a user needs to make to complete a task). In the case of Amazon's one click for payment, one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. You can implement (or express) the same ideas in a number of ways dependent upon the requirements of your site (like how parking apps, let you extend your time by only needing to re-enter your CV2 code).

      Second, it can be replicated ad infinitum (meaning that any site doing e-commerce will logically attempt to do exactly the same thing without recourse to the wonderful "Drudge Formula") and for 3rd parties who haven't paid up to use the "Drudge Formula" their exposure to that type of interaction (like seeing Amazon's One Click), they immediately grasp that it makes sense to do that and will not purchase the Drudge Formula but will do the same thing themselves.

      So in that case, where's the IP? There is none because there is basically no property to be protected. Everyone can use it, except the ones who decided to pay Wenzel are limited by the terms of the contract with Wenzel with what they can do with the information.

      This applies in other areas as well. I write a song like about loneliness, other artist may hear it and decide to write their own songs about loneliness. Let's say that their way of playing guitar is similar to my own. There's no way to intellectually justify IP in these cases. All that is applicable is contract law in terms of determining what the purchaser can do with THE EXPRESSION OF YOUR IDEA!!! What Rothbard tried to do was to come up with an intellectual framework for what is basically a contractual agreement between parties. Since Wenzell worships Rothbard and believes him to be infallible, he's gone about trying to defend him using an example that if he had a little bit more knowledge of IT and the battles that have been fought in this areas (especially at the European Parliament level AGAINST PATENTS FOR SOFTWARE!!!) he would stop with his crazy crusade.

      Delete
    7. jackweil:

      "If the "Drudge formula" is not scarce, please supply the formula."

      If the number in my head is not scarce, please supply the number in my head.

      You pro-IP guys are so clueless. You keep harping on this same point as if it is a knockdown argument. It isn't. It's been exposed as an empty shell over and over again.

      The fact that I do not have the Drudge formula in my head at this moment, does not make the Drudge formula scarce. Scarcity, again, for the millionth time, does not derive from the quantifiable instances that the concept is perceived. Scarcity is derived from principle. From asking whether or not the concept is rivalrous, namely, whether or not it is possible for more than one individual actor to use/have the same concept at the same time, *if more than one individual actors attempted to use the same concept at the same time*.

      Delete
  20. I sent Mr. Hoppe your "crushing" critique. Hoppe he responds...

    ReplyDelete
  21. To bad Murray Rothbard is no longer around to show Hans Hoppe the errors of his ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too bad Rothbard is not around so that Hoppe can show Rothbard the errors of his ways.

      Delete
    2. Nothing is more un-Austrian than to treat cost and scarcity as an inherent attribute of things, and not as a necessary relationship between a mind and the objects of his actions, so necessary that without it there can be no economic theorizing at all.

      To be sure, the most blatant fallacy here, which no properly trained economist would commit, is to make "scarcity" dependent on "rivalry", as if Robinson Crusoe faced no "scarcity" before meeting Man Friday;

      but the most un-Austrian is to contend that "rivalry" could not arise from betrayal, from an act which was expressedly forbidden by mutual agreement
      -- a materialist denial of the true nature of costs which is more often found among the Neo-Classical Economic Quacks, who suffer from the same kind of logical blindness in their rationalizations of antitrust policies.

      Mr Kinsella's sophistry rests on such blatant denials of the obvious that one can only suspect that they are but another instance of his now fairly documented dishonesty, and unfortunately Hans Hoppe's superficial training in economics, which is apparent to any professional economist who reads him, sometimes leads him into errors which Rothbard would have pulverized within seconds.

      Delete
  22. @ alan.szepieniec

    "The Drudge formula does not exist.

    What does exist is Mr Wenzel's brain's electrical signals, the scribbled note he was talking about during the debate and the sound he makes if he speaks the idea. The term "Drudge Formula" is a linguistic tool that allows us to put these three separate things into the same category based on what effect they can have on a human mind."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wecrgK7N9ec

    ReplyDelete
  23. "There is nothing incompatible between real property and intellectual property. They simply both recognize ownership rights and the limits of those rights given the nature of the type of property."

    Well said, and nothing that has been written or said during the entirety of this discussion has demonstrated to me otherwise. The more I have witnessed the dialogue the more convinced I have become of this.

    The product of labor; the product of muscle...why should these be treated differently from a property rights standpoint?

    There is no good answer....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. The issue is now largely about after a contract is made between A and B, and because of a breach the info is now with C, who should suffer the loss - A or C?

      I say anything less than independent discovery means C is in receipt of stolen goods. It would be unfair to make A suffer the loss because he invented the secret. Why should C get a windfall when C never put any effort into the invention?

      Delete
    2. depends on how much time and money you want blow in court rather than inventing, like Eli Whitney.

      Delete
    3. Umm.. where did B go? If anyone is responsible he must bear full responsibility. And once C tells 20 others are they all to be incarcerated as well? How about 40 others? Do you not understand that to try and investigate and incacerate breach of IP further than the A and B contract would be so enormously costly that only a State would be nessacary to persue such foolish actions. And foolish it would be if the IP holder wished to pay out of his pocket to procecute everyone who heard or seen his IP - he would be broke - Both in time and money.

      So, in reality, the current idea of IP can't survive without the state to offload the expense on helpless tax surfs who foot the bill for the "intellectualls" privilages.

      Delete
    4. “…depends on how much time and money you want blow in court rather than inventing, like Eli Whitney.”

      But what does this have to do with my point? Businessmen make decisions every day about what and where they want to invest time and money. The practicality of enforcing intellectual property rights is not an issue for libertarian debate. It is an issue for an individual businessman to decide.

      “Do you not understand that to try and investigate and incacerate breach of IP further than the A and B contract would be so enormously costly that only a State would be nessacary to persue such foolish actions. And foolish it would be if the IP holder wished to pay out of his pocket to procecute everyone who heard or seen his IP - he would be broke - Both in time and money.

      Why is this your concern? So what if a businessman wants to spend his time and money this way? Do you propose a government program that disallows businessmen from making dumb decisions?

      “So, in reality, the current idea of IP can't survive without the state to offload the expense on helpless tax surfs who foot the bill for the "intellectualls" privilages.”

      No, in reality the market would decide which specific items of IP were worth protecting privately and which were not. Why is this such a difficult concept for libertarians / Austrians to grasp?

      Delete
  24. Question for the dotCommunists:

    I get that you guys believe that copying someone's original work without his/her permission should be legal. What I am wondering is, do you also believe that it is morally justified? For example, no one believes that cheating on your girlfriend should be made illegal, but most people would agree that such behavior is unethical. Do you believe that this is the case with IP, or do you think it is ethical to copy other people's work without their permission?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Answer for GoodsAndBodyCommunist:

      "I get that you guys believe that copying someone's original work without his/her permission should be legal."

      The term "permission" would imply that the original creator has partial ownership claim over every body and material in the world such that other individuals have to acquire the sanction of said originator as they use their own bodies and materials.

      "What I am wondering is, do you also believe that it is morally justified?"

      You mean is it morally justified for me to use my own body and my own materials in ways I see fit, without depriving you of your body and your materials?

      Yes.

      "For example, no one believes that cheating on your girlfriend should be made illegal, but most people would agree that such behavior is unethical."

      Most would also consider it to be behavior that doesn't justify initiating force against the cheater (provided there is no contract signed by the parties that would sanction such activity).

      "Do you believe that this is the case with IP, or do you think it is ethical to copy other people's work without their permission?

      The term "permission" implies already existing partial ownership of all bodies and all material goods.

      Thinking of a concept, namely, the existence of a pattern of matter (i.e. the pattern of your brain), does not imply that you suddenly become partial owner of all other matter that is in principle capable of maintaining that same pattern. You can't own the pattern, because that same pattern can be perceived in other matter without degrading the existence of the pattern itself.

      You have an idea. An idea is a pattern of your brain. That pattern can be found in other matter, without degrading the pattern in your head. The pattern in itself is not rivalrous, even if it doesn't exist everywhere, meaning even if the pattern isn't the whole universe.

      When people talk of the same idea, what they're really talking about is different bodies that have similar form. You can't own the form. The form is how all physical bodies are perceived.

      Pro-IP is really a backdoor attempt to own other people's property, by claiming ownership over perception. Since it is impossible for pro-IP advocates to control everyone's perceptions, they settle for "only" controlling other people's bodies and property.

      Delete
    2. @ Pete^3:

      I guess your friends don't tell you any secrets, since you feel free to spread secrets around without their permission, because you can do whatever you want with your body.

      This quote from Bastiat comes to mind:
      “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it”

      Delete
    3. Ed Ucation,

      I would say that secret telling cannot be viewed separately from the implicit contract. "I'll tell you this secret if you promise to tell no one else." As already established, anti-IP does not mean anti-contract. The fact that the contract is most of the time implicit, makes it morally reprehensible to share the secret instead of legally wrong.

      As for your Bastiat quote, I don't see the relevance to the anti-IP position. Because we have been living in an anti-IP world for hundreds of years, we have enshrined the the abhorrent anti-IP code into our legal system. Sounds much more like something that's applicable to pro-IP.

      Delete
  25. I would be happy with social power over intellectual copying, but no laws. Plagerisim is a great example of intellectualism self policing itself.

    Communisim was a disease of the intellect trying to invalidate property in physicaly scarce things. "dotComunisim" as you like to smear with is your attempt to make things that are easily made abundant into scarce physical property. You claim the right over the physical actions and bodies of any one who would come to know what you claim is thought property.

    Mises could help out a bit here..." They called free goods things availible in superfluous abundance which man does not need to econimize."

    You can control an idea by never telling a sole. But once you release it you loose all control over it. IP is an attempt to have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete