The theoretical issues regarding IP previously were not terribly important to me – as we have discussed, what mattered most to me was the issue of enforcement.
However, the more I read from the anti-IP types (I used to refer to them as anti-IP libertarians, but I no longer feel this is appropriate), the more I conclude that property rights and private enforcement of same is a meaningless, if not baffling, concept to them.
They have no way to enact their dream-world absent either a) advocating for force via a super-agency (call it the state), b) advocating for the violation of private contracts, or c) advocating that the one whose private-contractual rights were violated has no rights to rectify the situation.
Thank you for elevating the temperature on this topic.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
"I no longer refer to anti-IP types as anti-IP libertarians"
An EPJ reader emails:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What a straw man. Anti IP libertarians are not against trade secrets through contract... the point is you can't enforce your contract on a third party that didn't consent to the contract.
ReplyDeleteThx, clearest summary of the Anti-IP position I've seen yet.
DeleteYou are not enforcing the contract, you are enforcing the property title transferred by the contract. A property title applies to everyone.
DeleteEver heard of adverse possession?
DeleteUnconscionable contracts are not enforced. Neither are contracts to murder and a host of other types.
DeleteProperty titles are not even absolute. Adverse possession?
You are over simplifying the issue.
Okay, so two parties have a contract for trade secrets but a 3rd party sneaks into the office one night and steals them... Oh but wait, the trade secrets *weren't* property so nothing was actually stolen, right? The 3rd party isn't guilty of any wrongdoing and no matter how much economic harm is caused to the rightful owners of the trade secrets, oh well, no sense in crying over spilled milk... What nonsense.
DeleteThe 2nd party is responsible for the losses, he signed a contract saying he would keep the secret, he failed to do so. The 3rd party could be charged with breaking and entering and trespassing, but you cant return knowledge and the 3rd party is the rightful owner of his own brain, so beyond that, nothing can be done.
DeleteThe party that signed the contract is responsible for the losses or the unauthorized access to the information.
And the 3rd party would be responsible for breaking in to someones property and tresspassing.
You still have your knowledge though, and he physically cant erase his, so theres no theft, you still have the right to use your knowledge uninfringed.
Like I say, the anti-IP proposition is pro-theft. If you can't see that the robbery inflicted economic harm on the rightful owners of the trade secrets, there is no hope for this debate. Your moral compass is clearly broken.
DeleteIt's not a question of "owning his mind." It's a question of his ACTING on the criminally obtained information and profiting from it. If he steals the trade secrets and never acts on the information, then no harm as been done. But don't say you're anti-IP when in reality you are pro-theft.
Plenarchist,
DeleteIt is seen that the robbery inflicts economic harm, the criminal can be prosecuted fully, I believe Kinsella grants that in AIP. (See the part about Cooter)
It's the criminal's neighbor, or brother, or cousin, whomever he blabbed the secret to who cannot be prosecuted.
And contrary to Wenzel's claim of it depending on criminal activity that need not be the case. It could be as simple as the formula being blown of your desk by the wind and landing on my lawn. No crime committed, yet the secret is still out.
@Kurt -
Delete"I believe Kinsella grants that in AIP."
What is AIP? Is that different from IP? But regardless that's not my understanding of Kinsella's position on IP. He would not see the "theft" of IP as theft because IP is "not scarce" and thus has no value by his definition.
"It's the criminal's neighbor, or brother, or cousin, whomever he blabbed the secret to who cannot be prosecuted."
Maybe. If the neighbor discovers the information is a trade secret and was obtained illegally, then I say he becomes a party to the theft if he fails to act - he becomes an accomplice.
"It could be as simple as the formula being blown of your desk by the wind and landing on my lawn. No crime committed, yet the secret is still out."
If the owner of a trade secret allows for the information to become public through his own negligence, he loses all claim to it. That's not the issue. If someone breaks into his office and takes the trade secret, that is theft.
The problem here with the anti-IP position is that the thief only gets in trouble for the trespass and not for the maybe millions of dollars of losses caused to the IP owner.
AIP - Against Intellectual Property - the monograph Kinsella wrote. Your understanding seems to be a bit shallow.
Delete"Maybe. If the neighbor discovers the information is a trade secret and was obtained illegally, then I say he becomes a party to the theft if he fails to act - he becomes an accomplice."
What do you mean maybe? Assume, for sake of clarity, that the neighbor received the formula under the idea that it wasn't gained illicitly at all. Is there any legal recourse that can be taken against him or not?
"The problem here with the anti-IP position is that the thief only gets in trouble for the trespass and not for the maybe millions of dollars of losses caused to the IP owner."
And again, that isn't the case, read AIP, as well as, I believe, he touches on tort law like that in an article on estoppel. Basically, if you can prove that you were going to receive money before the formula was stolen then you are entitled to it still.
LOL! A thing that most of you who are for IP in ideas don't seem to grasp is that one doesn't have to steal or do anything sneaky to necessarily grasp how an idea was implemented once you are exposed to it in a benign way.
DeleteA couple of examples should elucidate this. A very good musician can in many cases grasp how to play a melody once they have heard it. A very good programmer can see a page using something like Wenzel's daft Drudge algorithm (whatever this would be I'm utterly clueless about since those of us in IT already fought this battle for the non patentability of algorithms at the level of the european parliament and won the battle years ago) and understand how to implement the same thing themselves and often even better without knowing the details. And finally here's an example which shows that unlike the ravings of Plenarchist, ideas that are freely exchanged end up fostering more competition in that particular area benefitting all. Sports. How many pro football teams have come up with novel defensive or offensive formations that have been freely copied by their competition, how many basketball teams come up with plays or formations that have been copied by their competition, how many european football teams (i.e. soccer) have come up with unique philosophies for how to play football that have been copied by their competition. (Sometimes, it even the originator or one of the original purveyors of the idea who then takes the concept to another team. Innumerable. And yet the damage to those different sports? None. Nada Zero. Why? Because it fosters competition. The result? Major increases in revenue and wealth to those involved in the particular sport. Sounds very immoral to me!?!
@Kurt - "Your understanding seems to be a bit shallow."
DeleteYeah, my understanding of abbreviations given without context. I've read the book and as you can tell it didn't leave a lasting impression.
"What do you mean maybe? Assume, for sake of clarity, that the neighbor received the formula under the idea that it wasn't gained illicitly at all. Is there any legal recourse that can be taken against him or not?"
How is this germane to the debate of pro v con on IP? You're making minor distinctions in a debate over the principle of IP rights. But in general, the same legal conventions for physical property apply to IP because we are defining IP as property.
@thb - It would help for you to actually understand what IP is before posting an opinion about it. By owning a team in the sports league, you have already agreed to NOT copyright your plays nor could you claim one as far as I know.
DeleteBut try starting your own football league and call it the NFL and see what happens. Does the fact that you can't prevent you from starting your own football league? No. But you have to call it something suitably different to avoid confusing the public. So you would consider this raving? Go back to your Xbox please.
"Yeah, my understanding of abbreviations given without context. I've read the book and as you can tell it didn't leave a lasting impression."
DeleteMy friend, the context was given as soon as as I said Kinsella. I'm not doubting that you read it, just that you are raising point already mentioned in it (as well as other places), I'm trying to save you time here.
"How is this germane to the debate of pro v con on IP? You're making minor distinctions in a debate over the principle of IP rights."
Minor? That is the place where the principle lies. If it's "no, the neighbor/brother/cousins/etc.. cannot be prosecuted" then we are pretty much in complete agreement if you say "yes, even if the neighbor/brother/cousin didn't violate any contract they still may not legally use the that formula" it becomes messy. As the two cannot stem from the same conception of private (tangible) property.
"But in general, the same legal conventions for physical property apply to IP because we are defining IP as property.".
Okay... so... from that the million-dollar question arises: why exactly are we defining IP as property?
@Kurt -
DeleteTo answer the million-dollar question, we define property to create a more just and civil society. Where ambiguity lies over who owns what, conflict will arise or we will be poorer for it. We humans are possessive by our nature. We also innately believe that what we produce with our hands is ours. This is true for all physical property, agreed?
Property though is just a legalism. A logic device like the rules of a game only this game is called Society. Property is irrelevant to a man living alone on a desert island.
The rules of the game of Society then should be constructed to create a healthier, happier, and thus more fit society (slipping into Spencerism here). That means less conflict and more production.
If the labor spent making widgets is valued enough that the widget maker is recognized as the rightful owner of the widget to sell or use - then what of the labor by the IP producer? Isn't his labor valued? If not and IP is not property, then either the IP never gets produced or conflict arises over the injustice of denying the IP producer his compensation.
So the law is what we make it and property is what we make it. Then what is the proper arrangement for the kind of society we want for ourselves? Mine is to honor IP rights so that the IP producer is treated like other producers because I think we are far better off with his products than without.
??? This entire post is nonsense.
ReplyDeleteThe if I make a chair in my house that you made first -- the only way you have to stop me from making "your chair" is to point a gun at my head and physically stop me from using my own wood, property, hands, and brain from building it.
The Pro-IP side is the side that requires a fascist dictatorship to enforce IP.
Tracy
Yeah, and if you have a restrictive covenant on your land that prevents you from destroying a historical artifact on the land, the only way to stop you is to point a gun at your head and physically stopping you from using your land the way you want. Are you opposed to conditional title transfers, such as easements, restrictive covenants, equitable servitude? What about bailment? Licensing? Rental agreements?
DeleteStop arguing that there are no restrictions on property. That's silly.
¿When, where, and how did a third party with access to the idea accept the conditional transfer?
DeleteMe listening a radio song ¿when did I accept not sign the song again where I please?
Stop arguing that ideas are property, THAT's silly.
skyorbit, perhaps on your planet there is no such possibility of the private enforcement of property rights. Otherwise I do not understand why the concept of defending a private right requires the assumption of a fascist dictatorship.
DeleteIf libertarians cannot grasp and explain private means of rights enforcement, libertarian theory is bankrupt.
hey bionic mosquiter,
Deleteyou dont have a right to someone elses brain in a free society.
how, in a free society, do you claim the right to prohibit someone else from use their own property (their body), in their own property (their land), with their own property (resources, tools, etc), without claiming some type of property right to all these things over that individuals right.
who's property is my brain?
also, if i was my body, land, and tools to make something, what is the theft? you still have your idea, your body, your land, and your tools, and he freedom to use them uninfringed.
Youre the one infringing my ability to use my body, my land, and my resources, therefor youre the one initiating the useof force, very unlibertarian of you.
Anything else?
@Skyorbit -
Delete"The Pro-IP side is the side that requires a fascist dictatorship to enforce IP."
No more so than the one you depend on to protect the monopoly you currently enjoy on your physical property and your person.
But there's no reason a voluntarist society can't agree to make rules supporting IP rights, right? If the context is force over consent, then all libertarian theory fails under the present regime.
If you have a voluntary society in which all property rights (including IP) are voluntarily subject to enforcement, then coercion is not an issue.
The debate over IP needs to separate out the whole coercion thing because the same issue exists with physical property.
The essential matter of consideration with respect to IP is how can IP producers be justly compensated for their labor and expense and in an equitable manner. That's the whole issue of IP as far as I'm concerned.
Plenarchist:
DeleteNonsense.
What gives you the right, to barge into my house and tell me I can't build a chair, in my house, with my own 2 hands, my own nails, my own wood, and my own brain?
Just because it's identical to one that I saw (and therefor now in my brain) doesn't give you the right to infringe on my private property.
You're infringing on MY private property by telling me what I can or can't do with it.
I'm not the one bring up the enforcement issue. The OP is. I'm saying he's wrong, on his own merits. It's the pro-IP side that requires massive enforcement.
Ed: If I just happened to see the chair, I didn't sign any covenants or any other contracts. Unless your special chair was hidden from view and the only way a person was allowed to see it OR use it was that they signed a contract, nobody is bound by it.
Your argument is ridiculous.
Tracy
@Skyorbit -
Delete"What gives you the right, to barge into my house and tell me I can't build a chair, in my house, with my own 2 hands, my own nails, my own wood, and my own brain?"
What gives you the right to claim your house as your house? Or your chair? Or your brain? And how, if those things are, do you expect to protect those claims? Are you saying you should have a state-enforced monopoly on them? If so, isn't that just a tad inconsistent?
"Just because it's identical to one that I saw (and therefor now in my brain) doesn't give you the right to infringe on my private property."
Sure it does if you are in possession of stolen property. If you stole a TV and took it into your home, if it was discovered you had it, someone with a badge should be paying you a visit. You'd want the same if your neighbor stole your TV.
With respect to IP, if you are printing counterfeit copies of the yet to be released next Harry Potter novel in your basement, expect your private property right to be trumped by the IP owner's right.
But your example of the chair is not an example of violating the right of IP. It would be helpful to the debate if the anti-IP people would educate themselves on what exactly IP actually is. If you make a chair from a design patent say for your personal use, I don't think the patent holder has a claim or wouldn't make one because there is very little economic harm.
If on the other hand, you open a factory and start producing 1000's of the patented chairs, then the IP owner has a claim.
Why is it that the anti-IP crowd always seems to come up with the most inane and absurd examples that have nothing to do with the substance of the debate? It truly is wondrous to behold.
"They have no way to enact their dream-world absent either a) advocating for force via a super-agency (call it the state), b) advocating for the violation of private contracts, or c) advocating that the one whose private-contractual rights were violated has no rights to rectify the situation."
ReplyDeleteHuh? Did the author mean to aim these points towards pro-IP people? I'll assume not, in which case it's difficult even making sense of this. First off, this "dream world" is exactly what the *real world* was, prior to IP law. Some guy/gal invented the wheel before IP existed. I wonder what incentive they had to expend the effort/energy knowing that someone else could come along and make use of their idea without compensating them.
Now on to your reader's points:
a) Anti-IP people are somehow advocating force via the state? Again, this is the pro-IP position, not the anti-IP position.
b) Advocating for violating contracts? Nope. The anti-IP position is completely in favor of contracts. By all means, make a contract between inventor/seller A and buyer B. But if your contract goes too far in its restrictions don't be surprised if buyer B decides to walk away from the deal.
c) If you have a contract, of course you have rights. But don't use force against person C who comes on the scene with an invention that looks an awful lot like yours. Your contract didn't bind anyone other than buyer B.
"But if your contract goes too far in its restrictions don't be surprised if buyer B decides to walk away from the deal."
DeleteCorrect. Is this a problem somehow?
"Your contract didn't bind anyone other than buyer B."
Yes, that was the same argument that the squatter used when I found him camped out in my living room. He didn't sign no stinkin' contract...
I find a lack of understanding of contract and property rights in many of the posts here.
Hey bionic boy, the squatter is trespassing, your house is private property and he has no right to be there, has nothig to do with contracts.
DeleteTell me why i should be prohibited from buiding myself a chair with my own body, wood, nails, and tools, just because you had the idea to build a chair first? do you own the thoughts in my head? whose property is my brain? whats the theft here?
IP is anti competition, its anti free market, and its anti private property.
you have no right to profits, if someone uses your idea to make a better product for cheaper, and wins the customers and profits, this is a good thing for the marketplace, state granted monopoly powers is not.
@Jones - "Hey bionic boy, the squatter is trespassing, your house is private property and he has no right to be there, has nothig to do with contracts."
DeleteYes it does. By what right do you make claim to your house? Is it "private property"? How is it private property? Because you said so? Or because there is an implicit contract with everyone else in society?
If property is defined only by possession then if you leave your house and someone enters while your gone, you just lost your house!
How do we know it's your house? Because you have TITLE to it. And what is the title? Proof of purchase. And why is that important? Because as a society, we hold that proof of purchase makes you the rightful owner of the property. This is an IMPLIED contract that is currently enforced by the state. Get over it already.
That implied contract though applies to IP also. Is that a form of coercion against you? Yes it is as it is with respect to physical property.
Can it be a voluntary arrangement? Yes it can under a different political arrangement. But that can also applies to IP.
The issue with IP HAS NOTHING TO DO with monopoly or scarcity. It has everything to do with whether we value the work product of IP producers and believe they should be justly compensated and have control over their work product.
You want that to apply to your physical property but not to their IP. I call that hypocrisy.
You would still have the issue of identification and individuals simultaneously holding the same work or concept. All physical property is unique. The house on the bill of sale can be matched to the receipt by location, size, materials, etc.
DeleteOne cannot differentiate between two copies of a work. When works were tied to a medium this didn't matter but now copying has become trivial in many cases. Setting aside data corruption, a copy of an ebook on my hard drive would be identical to one on a server. Did I purchase it or was it stolen from me?
Prototypes and design flaws could be traced back to an individual. When you go beyond specific designs and into basic concepts, inventors are going to be coming to the conclusions especially when they are using the same tools, references and guidelines.
One can not take a code of laws written for physical property and apply it to IP. Additional effort by the author/creator to maintain legal standing of the IP should be a minimum.
If protection and compensation for authors, inventors and creators can be obtained through contract law then that should be enough.
"You would still have the issue of identification and individuals simultaneously holding the same work or concept."
DeleteThat's not a problem. Already resolved by the rules governing IP. In the US, whoever can prove first to discover, he gets the prize. This can be rearranged to make IP more equitable - but it doesn't undermine the benefit of IP itself.
"One cannot differentiate between two copies of a work."
Exaclty, which is why a record of the invention (the title in form of patent for instance) is used. In that way ALL copies belong to the one holding the title to the idea.
All patents are based on documentation, documentation, and more documentation.
"One can not take a code of laws written for physical property and apply it to IP."
And no one suggests we should. IP is IP, mineral rights are mineral rights, land is land, and so and on. All must be treated in accordance of their unique qualities.
"If protection and compensation for authors, inventors and creators can be obtained through contract law then that should be enough."
There is a way but not without a complete reconstruction of our political system. But within the context of our current political system, this is not feasible in the same sense that your ownership of land is not possible via contract law. In fact, a contract is itself a form of IP that is enforced by the state.
Well I was approaching the argument from the point of addressing IP in a libertarian society. More specifically from mutually agreed arbitration without state involvement.
DeleteFrom where I stand: if governments were to repeal IP laws tomorrow then individuals , working cooperatively, would ensure that authors and creators are compensated and protected. There is no need to push IP as a concept.
Delete@Joseph - "Well I was approaching the argument from the point of addressing IP in a libertarian society."
DeleteSo am I. A libertarian society requires the law and the law requires the state.
"From where I stand: if governments were to repeal IP laws tomorrow then individuals , working cooperatively, would ensure..."
That's wishful thinking. We can't even agree on what that should be on a libertarian blog between libertarians...
"A libertarian society requires the law and the law requires the state."
DeleteThank goodness the law of gravity doesn't. We'd all be in big trouble if it did.
"That's wishful thinking. We can't even agree on what that should be on a libertarian blog between libertarians..."
All joking aside, I fear you hit the nail on the head here.
"That's wishful thinking. We can't even agree on what that should be on a libertarian blog between libertarians..."
DeleteCan I safely assume that is your position regarding protection of property and contracts as well?
@Joseph -
Delete"Thank goodness the law of gravity doesn't. We'd all be in big trouble if it did."
There is no "law of gravity" - just gravity that we humans try to describe with physics.
"Can I safely assume that is your position regarding protection of property and contracts as well?"
If you are asking if I want laws to enforce contracts and other forms of property, then yes it is. But in a voluntary state - a state without government.
Ah. As soon as somebody starts talking about TWUE ADHERENTS we know we're dealing with a cult.
ReplyDeleteLibertarian is a person who holds non-aggression principle to be a moral imperative. There's still quite a lot of room for honest debate on application of that principle, especially when quite a few people do not find arguments of their opponents convincing. This means there's a need for finding better arguments, from both sides.
Dividing people into "true believes" vs "heretics" is usually a recourse of the side which loses rational argument.
@averros -
Delete"Libertarian is a person who holds non-aggression principle to be a moral imperative."
Exactly, which is why I support IP rights. I believe IP producers have created property with economic value and should be justly compensated.
How do you propose to do this if IP isn't treated as property? Or do you think it's OK for IP producers to get screwed over? That to me is a violation of the NAP.
Bob, everyone will soon realize what a pathetic joke you are, if they don't already know. Ha! Here is Kinsella commenting on you at his site (though I'm sure you've already read it).
ReplyDeleteStephan Kinsella April 3, 2013 at 1:05 pm
"yeah, that was predictable and funny. Wenzel is a shadowy character. Who knows where he came from. Some former Lyndon Larouche type? Who knows. What are his credentials? his background? Given his tendency to oversell and exaggerate himself (claiming he charges $750 for a 10 minute phone consultation… yeah …. right) if he had any actual relevant degrees or experience you would think it would be on his site and trumpeted to high heaven. That he doesn’t … raises questions. So I am assuming he has never gotten any real or notable formal college education, and thus doens’t know calculus. So I tweaked him on that by mentioning the limit in calculus (to try to explain to him why he is wrong in his confusion about the “superabundance” idea) and he was probably furiously googling about this and decided later to just out of the blue ask me… in a discussion about IP … whether I know “multivariable calculus”. I mean … wow. just wow. And I tried to point out that I probably used to know it (I don’t hide the fact that my college stuff was 20 years ago and I’ve forgotten some or am rusty on it) and in fact took calculus I, II, multidimensional calculus, differential equations, and many related courses and applications thereof (in electrical engineering BS and ms), and he then just changes the subject. It’s quite an amazing display."
My feelings exactly. I could not have said it better myself.
ReplyDeleteI have not reached a definitive conclusion on this issue, because I need to delve into it more before I really try to form my own opinion, but I must applaud Bob for bringing this IP issue to the forefront a bit.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason I probably never gave it too much thought was because I had never really heard a strong libertarian case for IP, meaning an IP that exists outside of State monopoly. I am now beginning to consider the possibility, just as I have with private property in other areas, that private IP could certainly exist and be enforced in a stateless society.
Whether or not I end up agreeing with Bob or Kinsella or something in between, we should all be grateful that the standard "Kinsella view" - EVEN if we think it is correct - is being challenged in this way.
Even , and especially I would argue, views we hold deeply should withstand challanges, and if or when they don't , it's time to rethink them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"The theoretical issues regarding (fill in the blank) previously were not terribly important to me...what mattered most to me was the issue of enforcement."
ReplyDeleteWhy would you care about enforcing something that you weren't sure was right or wrong?
Pro-IP is naked aggression against other people's property rights.
DeleteOf COURSE Pro-IP advocates care little about the theory. They just want to use force against others who use their own minds and property in ways the Pro-IP crowd does not agree with.
Depends on how you define property. I define IP as property. And as property, its value is in the induced scarcity of it. By copying and distributing it, you have in effect stolen from the IP owner. And stealing is a bad thing.
DeleteI found this gem in Kinsella's book (.p 46 of Against Intellectual Property):
ReplyDelete"A parcel of land binds everyone to respect my property, even if they do not have a contract with me. A contract, by contrast, binds only parties to the contract."
I thought a contract was a transfer of property title. So why wouldn't the contract bind everyone to respect the transfer of title, along with the restrictive covenants assigned to the title?
Thats ok.
ReplyDeleteI dont consider pro IP types as libertarians. These are anti-private property, anti free market, authoritians. There's nothing libertarian about IP.
Monopolys only exist through state force, theyre state created, someone cant claim ownership of any idea without claiming ownership of a persons brain. Whos property is the brain?
IP is statism, it cant exist without the state.
Another pro-IP email, another series of false arguments.
ReplyDelete>They have no way to enact their dream-world absent either a) advocating for force via a super-agency (call it the state)
ADVOCATING FOR FORCE IS WHAT PRO-IP REQUIRES.
Anti-IP requires no state, no private enforcement agency, indeed no force from anyone, to coerce or compel people into using ideas. No guns, no weapons, no aggression whatsoever is required for A to use idea X that B originated. What incredible ignorance! And Wenzel posted it! That means Wenzel is ignorant.
Pro-IP requires force. Force is required to stop A from using idea X that B originated.
>b) advocating for the violation of private contracts
Nonsense. Anti-IP is not against A contracting with B to keep idea X a secret.
>or c) advocating that the one whose private-contractual rights were violated has no rights to rectify the situation.
More begging the question. Violating rights presupposes there is a legitimate right in the first place. Yet that is precisely the topic of debate. It can't be assumed like everyone agrees.
>Thank you for elevating the temperature on this topic.
Thanks for showing the intellectual bankruptcy of Pro-IP all you Pro-IP crowd people! You're doing our job for us!
I'm quite bemused. I would characterize it just the opposite. Intellectual communists is a good label. You folks are arguing the sky is green when it is clearly blue. It makes my arguments with my progressive liberal relatives pale in comparison to the nonsense here.
Delete@ Pete Petepete
ReplyDeleteI have yet to see a post from you that does not include some kind of ad hominem attack on somebody. I encourage you to evolve.
Now, as to your argument. Let me make an analogy. Anti-land ownership requires no state, no private enforcement agency, indeed no force on anyone to coerce or compel people into using land. No guns, no weapons, no aggression whatsoever is required for A to use land area X that B originally occupied. Pro-land requires force. Force is required to stop A from using land area X that B originally occupied.
I mean, really, what's your point?
"Anti-land... No guns, no weapons, no aggression whatsoever is required for A to use land area X that B originally occupied" Dead wrong, how is A suppossed to use B's land without using force? physically imposible for A and B to be in the same land at the same time. A has to evict B from his land by force. A is intiating violence, B is just defendig (your pro-land part)
DeleteNow, can you care to explain how A is initiating violence agaisnt B by copying something that A saw B doing?
Then you must be pro-theft. If I steal your car in the middle of the night, did I commit an act of violence against your person? No? Then you must be pro-theft by that logic, right?
DeleteIf you aren't pro-theft, assuming A has a rightful claim to a novel process that has economic value and B copies that process - B has deprived A of the value of his invention. That is called stealing.
All I'm saying is your analogy doesn't apply to IP.
DeleteIn order for A to use B's physical property (land, car, etc.) force hast to be employed. Because B has necessarily to be evicted from the property.
In order for A to use B's ideas no force at all has to be employed. Oddly in this case, thanks to IP law, B is the one initiating violence against A.
Don't you see you have your analogy backwards? with actual property A is initiating violence, with IP mental constructed property B is the one initiating it.
You recognize that not all the actions who diminish the economic value of another person property are necessarily theft?
First, if we're going to debate IP then let's keep it about IP, K? IP is not physical property but it is "treated" like physical property for a reason.
DeleteIP is not about you using a copy of my ideas. Stop with that already!?! IP is about someone PROFITING from my IP. In other words, the wealth that I would otherwise earn from the market goes into his pocket. (Which is why I don't agree with IP owners going after the guy who downloads songs for his personal use. It's the download site that is the offender.)
And yes, if some guy is DISTRIBUTING my IP, I should have every right to use the state to shut him down and seek remedies. By stealing my IP, he is the first aggressor.
So this is as B/W as it gets but the anti-IP crowd either still doesn't get it or are being deliberately oppositional.
Here's the IP issue in a nutshell -
1) I mix my labor and my resources to create economic value in the form of IP (basic Locke here).
2) I put that IP on the market in order to profit from MY creation. (Is it just an incremental improvement on other's work? Likely yes. Get over it.)
3) The money I receive is due to the ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY of my IP. If no one wants my product, I get nothing but if everyone wants it I get rich. This is called capitalism.
4) But this guy decides to STEAL my IP and produce millions of knockoffs. How do I know it's stealing? Because I'm the one who ORIGINATED the IP product and have the title (copyright, patent, whatever) to prove it - not him.
5) Due to his INFLATING the number of product units in the marketplace, wealth is being transferred from me to him. And transferring wealth from person A to person B without person A's permission again is called STEALING.
6) In recognition that this is in fact an illegal act, the state sends enforcers onto his property to stop him from stealing and we meet at a courthouse and have a lovely time with our attorneys and a judge. He goes to jail and I continue receiving my rightful reward.
This is IP. This is why IP is treated as property - to INDUCE scarcity. This is because the people who labor to create all these cool things for us deserve to receive financial reward from the marketplace or (and you better sit down for this)... they won't create all these cool things we enjoy.
This is not a difficult issue. It is made difficult by people with dubious motives or people so buffaloed by those people that their cognitive faculties are in vapor lock.
So theorize, hypothesize, and philosophize all you want. It changes nothing. IP is about compensation for value creation. That's it. And being on the wrong side of that position - the anti-IP side - is NOT very libertarian.
I'm gonna regret jumping in here before I have a full understanding of the issue, but doesn't every contract bind third parties in this way?
ReplyDeleteLet's say I create a chair on contract and sell it to somebody. If that contract only applies to two people, why can't his neighbor just pick up the chair and take it when it's done?
His name wasn't in the contract, so he isn't bound by it. So he can ignore the ownership provisions of any agreement that doesn't explicitly include him?
We keep stumbling over the unique nature of Intellectual Property. Because these things can be copied, people are asserting that they SHOULD be copied, freely and without reservation.
I look at it in terms of value creation. If you create something of value, you have the right to protect it, whether it's a chair, a song, or a crop grown on settled land.
If we can deny ownership based on the idea that the value of a thing is not destroyed by the process of copying, couldn't we apply that same logic to farmland?
Land retains the ability to produce crops even after one particular crop is harvested and sold. The value of that land is not "destroyed" by the process of growing crops on it, so is it wrong to claim ownership of land?
Libertarians already acknowledge that the value of land is not in the land itself, but in the value of the labor put in to settling and cultivating it.
This seems like a good foundation for other kinds of value creation as well. If I put X amount of effort into writing a song, why does my neighbor who put in zero effort have the same rights to it that I do, simply because he heard it and can hum the tune for free?
It's trivially easy for him to appropriate my work, but he didn't put in the effort for it. He didn't create the value.
It's also pretty easy to steal potatoes. It's easy to pick them up and walk away with the final product, even if somebody else did the digging, the planting, and the watering.
And the land is still capable of producing more potatoes, even after you steal one. So should stealing potatoes really be a crime?
"I look at it in terms of value creation. If you create something of value, you have the right to protect it, whether it's a chair, a song, or a crop grown on settled land."
DeleteThat's neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for that right. If you dig a hole in a plot of unowned land not because you want the hole but because of the exercise, you still have the right to protect that hole -- though you may have no desire to. On the other hand, if you cultivate land which I already own but put to other (less valuable) uses than farmland, that does not give you the right to protect my land from me.
A justification for any sort of law ought to be more fundamental than "value creation", whether pro-IP or anti-IP.
"Land retains the ability to produce crops even after one particular crop is harvested and sold. The value of that land is not "destroyed" by the process of growing crops on it, so is it wrong to claim ownership of land?"
There's a distinction between 1) land, and 2) the produce of land. The capital value of land does not diminish after each use (or does diminish but only marginally), similar to an idea. However, here's the crucial difference: the employment of the land by me to produce crops implies the non-employment of the same land by you for your ends. Whereas the employment of the idea by me for my ends does not imply the non-employment of the same idea by you for your ends.
Who the hell cares what he thinks? BTW, his point (a) is exactly backwards.
ReplyDelete"Who the hell cares what he thinks?"
DeleteCome on Fetz, do you really wan to to be one of those guys that is going to attack people instead of ideas?
The internet is the great equalizer. Ideas should be judged on their merit, not on the list of State authorized credentials one has stacked up after their name.
I can see that Kinsella is headed in that direction too. He's going to start attacking people based on their education, or lack thereof instead of focusing on the arguments & ideas.
It's disgusting. Not only is it disgusting, it's not gracious. It comes straight out of the Paul Krugman style of argument.
If you want to rule out a segment of society based on what state sanctioned degrees they have or similar criteria get ready to rule out the autodidactics- much to the loss of critical thought and their contribution throughout history.
It's also a sign when people start with this combination of appeal to authority/ad hominem that their argument is not holding up to scrutiny.
The argument has already been put forth, it's there. That's the whole point! The burden is not on us, it is on you to give a positive theory of IP and show it to be compatible with libertarianism (i.e. private property and the NAP). I have yet to see anybody do that without begging the question.
DeleteAlso, I didn't attack you, I asked the question "who cares?", as in that your opinion of whether or not I or anybody else is a libertarian is irrelevant. But since we're talking about disgusting behavior, is it not disgusting to falsely attribute conclusions to a position without a rational basis to substantiate the claim? Merely saying something does not make it true.
I'd love to see you tell Hoppe or Block that they're not libertarians because they're against IP (they clearly are anti IP). Would you attribute such conclusions, as you've done here, to their position, as well?
I don't agree that the burden is on the pro-IP side given that IP does create economic value. This is indisputable. And if it does, the producer of that value is entitled to be compensated.
DeleteThe burden is on the anti-IP side to demonstrate why the act of theft is justified with respect to IP. The aggression you are decrying is in response to the initial act of theft.
Just turn your argument around for physical property. The burden then is on you to justify aggression against me for trespassing on your land.
And I don't describe anti-IP libertarians as not libertarian - just confused libertarians. Their heart is in the right place but their thinking with a different part of their anatomy than their brain. Same goes for the "no state" anarchists.
"Also, I didn't attack you, I asked the question "who cares?", as in that your opinion of whether or not I or anybody else is a libertarian is irrelevant."
DeleteAh, I see. Thank you for the clarification-I misunderstood. Btw, it wasn't "me" that made the statement above...I was just defending the idea that they should be listened to regardless of their background, so hopefully you take that understanding as well in the application of your further points.
As far as branding anyone "libertarians" or not, I think it is important to understand the framework someone is operating from logically in discussions...but there shouldn't be slights associated with that discourse.
As far is the issue of having to have a "positivist" theory on addressing the fallacies surrounding Kinsella's anti-ip theories...well that's pure poppycock.
Whether someone has a "better" idea or not as to how ip should work smacks of "central planning" to me, that's not withstanding the way you find out if "theories"(like Kinsella's) hold water is by "throwing stones" at them.(and I don't mean personal attacks, I mean attacking the ideas)
This is why scholars write "peer reviewed" academic papers. It's obviously old tradition and reasonable, even though sometimes institutional issues/personalities come into play and it doesn't work as well as it should at times-the concept is still relatively robust.
Nick Badalamenti said:
Delete"As far is the issue of having to have a "positivist" theory on addressing the fallacies surrounding Kinsella's anti-ip theories...well that's pure poppycock.
Whether someone has a "better" idea or not as to how ip should work smacks of "central planning" to me, that's not withstanding the way you find out if "theories"(like Kinsella's) hold water is by "throwing stones" at them.(and I don't mean personal attacks, I mean attacking the ideas)
This is why scholars write "peer reviewed" academic papers. It's obviously old tradition and reasonable, even though sometimes institutional issues/personalities come into play and it doesn't work as well as it should at times-the concept is still relatively robust."
You are not understanding why I say the burden is on the pro-IP crowd, the arguments of Kinsella are totally irrelevant in this regard, as is the process of peer-review, as well as the ideas being thrown around for or against IP.
In theoretical analysis you basically start at point zero with no axioms or theory. You then begin to establish axioms and then build upon them until you form a theory. For instance, when coming to a theory of property you do not automatically assume that property exists, you first start with statements that are apodictically true to establish axioms, such as matter exists, or humans exist, or humans act, humans interact with nature, etc, then you build upon these to eventually establish a theory of property and property rights.
All of this has already been done to establish positive theories of property and property rights of the physical world, and many of these theories are logically sound (and some better than others). However, nobody has done this with regard to intellectual property, and if they have, it hasn't been logically sound or positive. So even if you completely demolished Kinsella's case and proved him to be out to left field with his theory, you still haven't established that "ideas are property" is a logically sound position.
That is why almost all pro-IP arguments are merely begging the question, because they're already assuming that intellectual property exists, even though they have no positive theory proving that they do. So until then, all of this arguing cases or the other's position is nothing more than intellectual masterbation.
"you still haven't established that "ideas are property" is a logically sound position. "
DeleteActually Bastiat has, and done so quite effectively. I'm am content with it. You can see my links to it in the later debate topics if you are interested or get an online copy of it, "Economic Harmonies".
No sense in re-inventing the wheel.
You sell your Drudge formula to twelve people. One of them undoes the watermarking and puts it on bittorrent. Now 10000 people have your Drudge formula. In a pro-IP world where the claim "you got that via a broken contract, quit using it" isn't bogus, how do you want to coerce those 10000 people without a state monopoly on violence?
ReplyDeleteContrast that to the one car that was sold in violation of the rental contract, which will at all times stay just the one car.
You, pro-IP guys, know that there is not copyright in the fashion industry, right?
ReplyDeleteGee, those communist!!!
Gucci, Givenchy, Christian Dior, Ralph Lauren, etc. etc. all those communist icons!!!
By the way... the fashion industry doesn't move big bucks right? because they don't have those wonderful IP laws to protect them, right?
Sure there is. It's called a design patent. A fashion designer can protect a novel fashion in this way.
DeleteHere's one for a Gucci handbag -
http://www.google.com/patents/USD564224?dq=inassignee:Gucci&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_51dUf3xNYji2QXdkYHYDA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg
No, there is not.
Deletehttp://learcenter.org/pdf/RTSJenkinsCox.pdf
From that paper and regarding your reply: "This is not to say that certain fashion houses have not tried to obtain intellectual property protections for their designs, for valiant efforts have been made in this regard. While these efforts have succeeded in protecting limited design elements, however, fashion design as a whole receives little to no protection. Knockoff goods are a huge part of the fashion industry and are accepted as common practice."
And in that same page: "Both policymakers and courts have been guided by compelling policy reasons to limit design protection.5 They have expressed concerns that, while such protection might benefit certain designers, it could create monopolies in the fashion industry that would stifle the creativity of future designers, hinder competition and drive up prices for consumer goods."
IP might create monopolies, stifle creativity, hinder competition, and drive up prices!!!??? these nuts communist... Bob, brother, go tell them the true.
So what? First, the IP DOES exist in the form of a design patent. Look at the link I gave you. That is just one example of IP created for fashion design. Whether the courts uphold it is another matter.
DeleteFrom the pdf you linked on the design patent, "First, there are few elements of clothing design that are novel and nonobvious enough to be distinguishable from previous types of clothing."
That should make you happy! It's hard to get IP in the fashion industry but the IP still does exist for fashion designs like it or not.
"While clothing manufacturers generally have not been able to take advantage of design patents due to the demanding novelty and nonobviousness requirements, athletic shoe manufacturers have been able to obtain design patents and have been responsible for much of the design patent litigation in the fashion context."
Looks like MORE fashion IP to me. And gosh, there's just no creativity in the tennis shoe market, is there?
It appears that IP in the fashion industry is relatively new. New things need time to work themselves out. But the knockoff industry somehow spurs innovation? How's that?
So by your inverted logic, by removing the incentives to innovate and create, somehow that spurs innovation and new creations? Please do tell...
This debate has become very boring to me but it has been instructive. It has opened my eyes to the possibility that libertarians maybe aren't so principled after all. That these anti-IP libertarians such as yourself are collectivists masquerading as libertarians. That they are all principled on the NAP except when it can personally benefit them in petty ways like ripping music and movies from the Internet. Then their principles just become too inconvenient. If people like you ever have power, I suspect you'd likely forget about all that "libertarian NAP crap" you ever talked about, right?
So have fun with your ravaging and plundering of the creators, inventors and innovators while you can because if and once IP rights do disappear, the world will become just one grey dull knockoff of itself.
So pro-ip guys answer me this....
ReplyDeleteDo you have the right to invasively aggress against my body and physical property, based on subjective whims and feelings about your 'idea and thoughts' being used?
It is the opposite of what the EPJ reader was quoting. Enforcing IP rights, or claims to property based on idea's and thoughts, will lead to never ending property rights violations, it will lead never ending subjective and arbitrary claims against others real and tangible property.
Pro-IP argument always follows the same pattern:
ReplyDelete1. take anti-IP argument;
2. substitute car/parcel of land/any other commodity for idea/recipe/any other product of mind;
3. show that resulting argument is complete communist non-sense;
4. ergo, original argument is non-sense as well.
Can anyone in pro-IP community see a problem with this logic?
The problem with your logic is your logic. Mischaracterizing someone's argument isn't an argument.
DeleteHere's one - why is it OK to rob someone of just compensation who writes a book after years of toil and sacrifice?
That if someone snatches a manuscript of an upcoming JK Rowling novel, prints and distributes million of copies and she receives nothing for her effort, such an outcome is just peachy with the anti-IP crowd. I see gross injustice and they shrug their shoulders and go "Boo hoo..." :( for Ms. Rowling.
A world with IP rights has great novels, video games, useful software, new innovations, and on and on - and a world without IP rights doesn't. I prefer the former.
Plenarchist, you're begging the question! Why is the (deprived) compensation just? Certainly you're not relying on the labor theory of value?
DeleteYour logic seems similar to that which considers tax cuts to be government expenditures.
@plenarchist
Delete"Here's one - why is it OK to rob someone of just compensation who writes a book after years of toil and sacrifice?" - Are you a proponent of labor theory of value? What "just compensation" has to do with IP rights justification?
"That if someone snatches a manuscript of an upcoming JK Rowling novel, prints and distributes million of copies and she receives nothing for her effort..." - See? You are doing it again. A manuscript is not the ideas expressed in it. "Snatching manuscript" is theft. Pure and simple. Nobody supports theft.
"A world with IP rights has great novels, video games, useful software, new innovations, and on and on - and a world without IP rights doesn't." - are you sure it is true? Great novels where written and great music was composed before any IP laws existed. Software was developed before Bill Gates started copyrighting his. How do you explain Open Source Software than? Fashion industry functions well in the absence of IP laws.
Do you think that utilitarian arguments have any bearing on IP rights justification?
@JTG & Andrew -
DeleteIf by LTV, you are suggesting people are receiving compensation for toiling and not for the actual value they create - then no I'm not. The market works for IP. If a writer spends 20 years toiling on a crappy novel, no one will buy it no matter how scarce it might be. The market determines the value of the IP.
You know this so why more red herrings? Is it red herring season in anti-IP land?
""Snatching manuscript" is theft. Pure and simple. Nobody supports theft."
But you do. Sure someone stole a pile of paper. Shame on them but what is the remedy Ms. Rowling should receive that you are suggesting? Compensate her for the pile of paper or for the $1B manuscript?
And yes, I'm confident the world would be a much duller place without IP rights.
And copyright on software predated Bill Gates and the rise of Microsoft.
"The Copyright Act of 1976, which became effective on January 1, 1978, made it clear that Congress intended software to be copyrightable."
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise17.html
The degree to which copyright has been applied to software has been directly related to the economic value of software as was the case for books, movies and all forms of IP.
plenarchist, why then should the writer be owed anything if I digitize his crappy worthless novel and put it online for the world to access for free?
DeleteIs the justification anything like the convoluted commerce clause rulings about farmers growing their own grain on their own property for their own consumption?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"plenarchist, why then should the writer be owed anything if I digitize his crappy worthless novel ..."
DeleteHe shouldn't and would have no claim. But you don't know it's worthless so doing such a thing should create legal risk for you. The compensation he receives from a lawsuit could be $0 or millions.
"Is the justification anything like the convoluted commerce clause rulings about farmers growing their own grain on their own property for their own consumption?"
Huh? Maybe you can explain?
How can I be guilty of stealing $0.00 ?
DeleteSee Wickard v. Filburn (1942) http://mises.org/daily/1841
I didn't say anyone would be. But it's not up to the thief to decide the value of what was stolen.
DeleteLet's say you have an old moldy tennis shoe you throw out into the backyard. I think I'd like to have it - don't ask me why. I trespass onto your land and take the tennis shoe.
Did I trespass? Yes. Did I steal the old shoe? Yes. Do you have a claim against me? Yes but what is a rightful remedy?
The trespass caused you no harm so a court should find no fault even though I did it. The old shoe has no economic value but I should be forced to return it to you.
Should I go to prison? No. That's because justice should be proportional to the harm caused. No harm, no foul.
But what does that have to do with anything at all? IP should be treated pretty much just like physical property with respect to remedy. If it's worthless, no harm. It it isn't, then the remedy should be proportional to the harm caused.
Was *getting your shoe back* the justice, or was *my having to give it up* the justice?
DeleteYour being made whole in the physical sense with the moldy shoe has no analog in a case where I copied "your" idea.
Why do I need to give up using an idea when you are not being deprived of using it (unlike your shoe)?
What makes an originator entitled to exclusive use? (This is the fundamental question for pro-IPers to answer.)
"What makes an originator entitled to exclusive use?"
DeleteBecause it was the originator's labor and resources that brought the IP into existence. Read Spencer, Locke, Spooner and Bastiat if appeals to authority will work for you.
And by what right do you claim the fruits of your labor? Suppose you work all day doing data entry. Should you get paid for that labor? Why should you when by your own definition, you didn't create anything of actual value.
This goes for all work that doesn't end with a physical widget on the table. I guess the employer is just a sucker to have paid money to someone who didn't create any physical property for him, right?
Here's a challenge for the anti-IP people.
ReplyDeleteIf you can devise a way in which the IP producers can receive just compensation for their work without the IP treated as property, I'm all ears. I would gladly consider some other arrangement that you find more acceptable.
The reason IP is treated as property is to INDUCE scarcity. This artificial scarcity is the mechanism by which IP producers are compensated for the economic value they've created. I think it works in principle pretty well.
And treating IP as property also keeps control of the work product in the hands of the IP producer so that is the second important criteria. Am I missing any? Maybe other pro-IP people can think of some.
So how do you propose to treat IP not as property but still make it possible for the IP producer to -
a) maintain control over his work product, and
b) receive market-based compensation for it?
Solve these two problems without IP being treated as property and I'll gladly join with you.
Why is their an entitlement to "just compensation" and "control over his work product" in the first place?
DeleteWhy should you have any entitlement to compensation or control over any property? If you can't understand the injustice of not compensating someone for creating economic value with their labor and resources, then your moral compass is broken and you need not waste your time on this challenge. This is only for people who are against theft.
DeleteIf something IS property, why would a coercive regime be necessary to "induce scarcity" to extract what you ironically refer to as "market-based compensation" ?
DeleteLockean definition of property is not based on scarcity. It is labor mixed with resources to create something of value. IP meets that definition.
DeleteAnd by definition, all property implies coercion no matter what kind it is. As has been repeated over and over and over at EPJ the last couple days, you expect to have a monopoly on your land, your car, your body... Those monopolies also involve coercion but you arbitrarily make IP an exception. It's time for the anti-IP crowd to concede this.
plenarchist @ 2:17
Delete"Why should you have any entitlement to compensation or control over any property?"
Argumentation ethics.
"If you can't understand the injustice of not compensating someone for creating economic value with their labor and resources, then your moral compass is broken and you need not waste your time on this challenge. This is only for people who are against theft."
So can you back up your assertion or not?
@Walter -
Delete"Argumentation ethics."
And the sky is blue on Thursdays. Your point?
"So can you back up your assertion or not?"
What assertion do you refer? That property is the product of labor and resources? Read Locke.
But it doesn't matter. Property is an abstraction. There is no right or wrong definition - only better or worse for society. IMO treating IP as property is better. Don't agree - it makes no difference to me.
@Walter - Oh I get it. Sorry, I'm not a Hoppe fanboi so I missed your obscure reference.
DeleteFrom Wikipedia - "Argumentation ethics is incompatible with intellectual property, as it defines property rights over concepts, which are inherently non-scarce. Property rights in non-scarce, superabundant goods are not conflict avoiding but rather conflict seeking. Furthermore since concepts are abstractions no objective conflict over their use can arise."
If this is Hoppe's position and yours, then I think it's wrong. Property itself is an abstraction by definition. And scarcity is not a requirement of property in my book as I've already explained over and over here.
And "no objective conflict over their use" is nonsense. Try telling that to the people who have invested many years and much capital into an IP product. I think you will have conflict. This is why we have IP in the first place. People got tired of seeing the value of their work get copied away...
@Walter - I believe the producers of IP products deserve just compensation as set by the marketplace. And the best way to do that is by treating IP as property. If you can't accept my premise, then what is there to discuss?
DeleteAll transfers of property require a contract. If an author or inventor wrote a bill of sale for a work with the same wording as a bill for real estate or a commodity they would be in trouble without state intervention.
DeleteFor a start, the contract would need to be for the use of the work rather than the work itself as the author can't be expected to purge it.
"What assertion do you refer? That property is the product of labor and resources? Read Locke."
DeleteAgainst Intellectual Property page 27-31
http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
http://archive.mises.org/16426/hume-on-intellectual-property-and-the-problematic-labor-metaphor/
http://archive.mises.org/14045/locke-on-ip-mises-rothbard-and-rand-on-creation-production-and-rearranging/
Intellectual Property and Libertarianism
http://mises.org/daily/3863
"But it doesn't matter. Property is an abstraction. There is no right or wrong definition - only better or worse for society. IMO treating IP as property is better. Don't agree - it makes no difference to me."
If there were ethical implications of argumentation, it would be self-refuting to deny them as true, wouldn't it?
"Oh I get it. Sorry, I'm not a Hoppe fanboi so I missed your obscure reference."
Hoppe is an obsure reference? So you're ignorant of Hoppe, as evident that you had to wiki AE, but you so surely act like he's of little value with the "fanboi". Even then, Kinsella's anti-IP position centers around argumentation ethic's property rights.
Conflict isn't worse for society? Come on.
"And scarcity is not a requirement of property in my book as I've already explained over and over here."
And Kinsella has explained over and over again the flaws of "mixing labor" theory of property.
"And "no objective conflict over their use" is nonsense. Try telling that to the people who have invested many years and much capital into an IP product. I think you will have conflict."
The conflict reduces to a conflict over innately exclusive/rivalrous resources. Kisnella has explained this over and over again. He calls IP an "involuntary negative servitude" for a reason.
"This is why we have IP in the first place. People got tired of seeing the value of their work get copied away..."
People using the state to quell competition.
"I believe the producers of IP products deserve just compensation as set by the marketplace. And the best way to do that is by treating IP as property. If you can't accept my premise, then what is there to discuss?"
You're already implying a right with "just compensation".
Kinsella has addressed "owning labor" and "creation" if that's your angle. Refer to the links above. And maybe read more than AE's wiki.
@Joseph -
Delete"All transfers of property require a contract."
And with IP there should be like the software EULA for instance. By using the software, you are agreeing to the terms of the EULA. The government has muddled things but in principle all IP is the same. The use of it implies consent to the "contract."
"For a start, the contract would need to be for the use of the work rather than the work itself..."
And it would be.
Dualing appeals to authority. I play my Locke, Spencer, Spooner, Bastiat and Jefferson against your Hoppe and Kinsella. I guess my royal flush beats your two of a kind!
DeleteBut seriously, do you have an argument to offer here? As I understand it and if we cut through all the non sequiturs and sophisms, the anti-IP (pro-theft) argument boils down to "The people who labor and use their resources to create IP should not receive compensation for the value they produce."
I get that. I don't agree. Is there anything else?
plenarchist 6:47 PM
DeleteThe arguments have been presented. Those weren't appeals to authority. Do you have any counter to Kinsella's argument that "creation" and "owning labor" fail to justify property rights? Or a counter to argumentation ethics?
@Walter -
Delete"Those weren't appeals to authority. Do you have any counter to Kinsella's argument that "creation" and "owning labor" fail to justify property rights?"
Yes. Compensating people for their work and expenses in exchange for the value they create is the right thing to do.
I rest my case.
"Yes. Compensating people for their work and expenses in exchange for the value they create is the right thing to do."
DeleteKinsella has addressed "value".
http://archive.mises.org/11042/rand-on-ip-owning-values-and-rearrangement-rights/
@Walter - Yes he has and I disagree with him.
DeleteThe fundamental problem with Kinsella's thinking is that he doesn't understand what property really is - nothing at all.
It is a legal device we humans have invented to construct a better society. That's all it is. He is fixated on what he thinks is the "proper" form of property while remaining completely blind to its actual function.
Plenarchist
DeleteI could easily say you are so fixated on the "proper" form of property while remaining completely blind to its actual function, too. After all you do dismiss dealing with exclusiveness and rivalry as a matter-of-fact in favor of "inducing scarcity" so there's "just compensation". I hope you realize value is subjective, so value isn't a quantitative thing people can create.
@Walter - "I hope you realize value is subjective, so value isn't a quantitative thing people can create."
DeleteI suppose you don't realize that the subjective value you refer to is established by market price for IP, right?
If you don't value a Rolls Royce, try driving one out of a dealership for $5. You don't value the Rolls but the dealership does... a lot more. You won't get far with it.
This also applies to IP. I suspect that the demand for a novel I by JK Rowling is going to be just a bit higher than one by me. But if there are only 1000 copies of each, I think the SUBJECTIVE value the marketplace assigns hers will be just a tad more than mine. And rightly so.
What's your point? I missed it if you had one.
So Rowlings didn't "create value" but rather people subjectively value books that contain her writings. And somehow she is entitled to a portion of someone's property when said someone, who could be anyone in the world, produces books, ebooks, etc. that have a copy or derivative of her writings since she owns the "value" people assign to her writings. If you even think "Harry Potter and the Sources Stone was a good book" or similar thoughts, Rowlings can demand payment for having that feeling of satisfaction.
DeleteWenzel's Drudge Formula argument:
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10.
Since you can't tell me what number it is, the number (1 < x < 10) is scarce.
Because the number (1 < x < 10) is scarce and I'm the only one who knows what I'm thinking about, I own it and am entitled to compensation by anyone who uses the number (1 < x < 10) with or without my consent.
-------------
Formulas, concepts, and ideas are how we process what we perceive from the world in our minds. They are the laws of nature. They are applicable universally, attainable and by anyone, owned by no one. They are not property. How can anyone own the number "5" or a C5 chord? 2+2=4 or E=MC^2?
Wenzel's Drudge Formula already existed before he discovered it. A sequence of chemical reactions in his brain that led him to it does not give him any right to own it.
>Wenzel's Drudge Formula argument:
Delete>I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10.
>Since you can't tell me what number it is, the number (1 < x < 10) is scarce.
Thread winner.
This comment could not be more incorrect.
ReplyDeleteThe entire case made by Kinsella is that property rights can not be granted in information without undercutting rights in scarce physical things (which libertarians already agree there should be property rights in). Kinsella fully supports contractual arrangements.
Wenzel fails to realize that by claiming property rights in ideas, he is undercutting property rights in scarce physical things, because he wants to bind people that are not party to any contract.
It is the pro-IP crowd that is undercutting property rights.
So, are Walter Block and Hans Hoppe not libertarians now because they don't think ideas are property?
ReplyDeleteOne may only contract with that which one's own property. If IP is not property at all, it cannot be the subject matter of a contract. For the libertarian theory if intangible property, please see Intellectual Space.
ReplyDeletehttp://homesteadip.blogspot.com