Hushmail describes itself:
Hushmail is a secure web-based free email service. Since 1999, millions of people and thousands of businesses have trusted Hushmail to safeguard their secrets.Note NSK would argue that an idea is no longer "scarce" once information is communicated to another person. Under this bizarro use of the term scarce, hushmail is a contradiction in terms and something that couldn't possibly have value to someone who buys into NSK's view.
Anti-IP does not mean anti-private copyright contract.
ReplyDeleteSurprisingly, one can be anti-IP, and not want to shoot at people who sign confidentiality agreements, at the same time.
---------------
"Note NSK would argue that an idea is no longer "scarce" once information is communicated to another person."
False. NSK would argue that the idea never was scarce to begin with.
"Under this bizarro use of the term scarce, hushmail is a contradiction in terms and something that couldn't possibly have value to someone who buys into NSK's view."
False. Scarcity applies to the electrons, computers, ethernet, routers, etc. The pattern formed by the originator is not scarce. The meaning of scarcity does not make Hushmail a contradiction in terms.
What is being agreed to are nut just usage of servers, but also *promises* of Hushmail managers not to use their bodies and material property in such a way that would otherwise send out information signals to others.
"Anti-IP does not mean anti-private copyright contract."
DeleteYes it does. Sorry!
If I hand NSK a printed work, with the first page clearly stating, "By reading this, you agree not to copy or distribute this work in any form without my consent.", he would argue that since ideas can't be owned, I can't make a binding contract with him regarding copying or distribution.
Fact of the matter is, we as a society can arbitrarily decide that anything can or cannot be property, whether that's land, or an idea, or a person.
In the case of people, we decided "No, you can't own a person." In the case of land, we decided "Yes you can own a specific area of the Earth, but it can be taxed." In the case of ideas, we decided "Yes, you can own them - for a limited span of time."
As I said before, this is where we separate the Libertarians/Minarchists from the Anarchists.
Dave, NSK has explicitly said that such a scenario *would* consititute a binding contract between the two parties.
Delete"Yes it does. Sorry!"
DeleteI know it's gentlemanly to apologize for being wrong, but I barely know you.
No, anti-IP does not in fact imply that two people should be threatened or coerced with force into not contracting to keep a secret between them! Anti-IP advocates are all for secrets to be contracted for between two parties. They are just against that contract instantly becoming binding on every other human.
"If I hand NSK a printed work, with the first page clearly stating, "By reading this, you agree not to copy or distribute this work in any form without my consent.", he would argue that since ideas can't be owned, I can't make a binding contract with him regarding copying or distribution."
That doesn't imply you can't contract with someone else to keep it secret. The fact that A refuses to contract with B, doesn't imply that A is against B contracting with C. The fact that Kinsella may or may not agree to such a contract, doesn't imply that Kinsella is against you and someone else agreeing to such a contract.
"Fact of the matter is, we as a society can arbitrarily decide that anything can or cannot be property, whether that's land, or an idea, or a person."
False. Society doesn't decide anything, and it isn't arbitraryness that grounds property rights.
"In the case of people, we decided "No, you can't own a person." In the case of land, we decided "Yes you can own a specific area of the Earth, but it can be taxed." In the case of ideas, we decided "Yes, you can own them - for a limited span of time."
You're equivocating "we".
"As I said before, this is where we separate the Libertarians/Minarchists from the Anarchists"
Who cares.
Tak Tak:
Delete"Dave, NSK has explicitly said that such a scenario *would* consititute a binding contract between the two parties."
Then NSK is pro-IP!
Wait, what?!
Pete PetePete (or whoever the hell you REALLY are...)
Delete"No, anti-IP does not in fact imply that two people should be threatened or coerced with force into not contracting to keep a secret between them!"
Without force, how exactly do you propose to umm... EnFORCE a contract?
" Anti-IP advocates are all for secrets to be contracted for between two parties. They are just against that contract instantly becoming binding on every other human."
How is that different from having a contract with each and every person you hand a work that has the use contract on the front page?
With regards to handing NSK a work with the contract on the first page? You COMPLETELY IGNORED THE ARGUMENT. Nice...
Or that person doesn't want the State easily gaining access to his communications ...
ReplyDeleteYou mean emails are scarce to government agents, but not others?
DeleteI think NSK argue that the idea was never "scarce" - technically speaking. But certainly not necessarily valueless, as you assert.
ReplyDeleteNo anti-IP people believe in the freedom to contract with others to keep things secret.
ReplyDeleteWenzel's deliberately disingenuous interpretations are tiring, there's no point in paying attention anymore.
Whoops meant to say "No, anti-IP ..."
DeletePete PetePete wrote:
ReplyDelete"False. Scarcity applies to the electrons, computers, ethernet, routers, etc. The pattern formed by the originator is not scarce. The meaning of scarcity does not make Hushmail a contradiction in terms."
So the formula for Coca-Cola and Kentucky Fried Chicken isn't scarce either, huh? When did Kinsella get it?
Scarcity does not derive from how many instances the concept occurs in the quantitative sense.
DeleteScarcity is grounded on the principle of whether or not the concept can be used by more than one person at the same time in their individual courses of action.
Your argument can be shown as faulty by using a simple analogy:
"Whaaaaaat? You're actually claiming sunlight isn't scarce? So then why aren't those on the other side of the Earth receiving any sunlight? Clearly sunlight is scarce."
Scarcity is grounded upon the category of action. Without action, no scarcity. But that doesn't mean that if someone is not receiving something now, that the something must be scarce.
Non-scarce concept does not mean the concept is everywhere all the time.
Malcolm, you probably meant to say this:
ReplyDeleteNo, anti-IP people believe in the freedom to contract with others to keep things secret.
Without the comma, it makes it look like you're saying there aren't any anti-IP people who believe in the freedom to contract to keep an idea secret.
worried about not making any money from your device? then you've got to to keep on innovating.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/18/open_and_shut/
I can't be the only one who is completely tired of hearing about this.
ReplyDeleteKinsella uses the wrong word, but it's clear which properties he wants to describe with that word: "A good which is not depleted by consumption, and given the proper physical capital, can be copied at a vanishingly low cost."
Not everyone knows all things. Therefore some ideas are that S-word. Duh. Fine. Ok. We get it already. Some other ideas are not S-word. There is a process which can transfer ideas between these classifications. Once the creator of that idea shares it once, that process can proceed completely out of his control. Most ideas need to be shared to derive any value from them.
I'm sure Bob is aware of the following example:
"09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0"
Even with an IP system in place, sometimes the process of distributing information cannot be controlled by any authority through any means. The nature of information undermines the control that IP tries to exert in a way that is completely different from the system of private property for physical goods which we all know and love.
This is precisely why pro-IP advocates don't take their arguments to their logical conclusion. They know 100% IP enforcement would be an absolute tyranny, so they backtrack and claim that they will "allow" some ideas to be used by others without shooting at them.
Delete@ Pete^3:
Delete100% enforcement of physical property would also be tyranny. 100% enforcement of physical property would mean I could sue you for trespass if I detected even one molecule of smoke coming from your BBQ into my yard.
Nope. One side could choose to BBQ in a bubble that blocks molecules. He protects himself from liability without infringing on the property of another. The other could enclose his yard in a bubble that protects from molecular trespass, again without violating private property. In contrast, IP of any effective form requires outside surveillance of private items which can harbor, transmit, or duplicate the idea in question.
DeleteI think one of the main problems with IP protection is that there is no way for it to honor independent discovery. For example, if Person A and Person B come up with the same idea independently, and Person A wants to sell information on that idea, while Person B want to give the information away for free, there is no way to resolve this conflict while simultaneously respecting the rights of both persons. If Person A wants to sell his information, he must place restrictions on Person B. If Person B wants to give away his information, he ruins the business model of Person A. Patent law attempts to address this problem with "first to file" by simply assigning monopoly rights to the first person who lays claim to an idea, thereby shutting out anyone else who may have independently discovered it.
ReplyDeleteQuestion for pro-IP advocates:
ReplyDeleteThe Sun doesn't shine light through your window during the night.
Does that mean the Sun is a scarce economic good at night?
If not, why not?
How do you think that relates to the typical Wenzel excuse that the ideas in EPJ Daily Alert are scarce because not everyone receives them?
@ Pete^3:
DeleteOf course the sun is scarce at night. The sun is scarce during the day as well, if it's cloudy. You guys need to drop this scarcity thing and realize that ALL MEANS ARE SCARCE. Time is scarce, effort is scarce, love is scarce, beautiful views are scarce, leisure is scarce, and so on. Scarcity is not defined by rivalrousness.
Two honest questions for the NSK fans:
ReplyDeleteWhy is the concept of owning your labor allegedly so problematic? Besides the facts that it leads to IP, can you give me other examples?
NSK says that you can sell something without owning it, and his example is labor. Can you give me some other examples of goods that you can sell that you do not own?
part one:
DeleteI'm not particularly a NSK fan. I wasn't even before you completely demolished him on the scarcity of time in another post. But I'll have a go at your questions.
"Why is the concept of owning your labor allegedly so problematic?"
It isn't. You own yourself and your labor. You choose what ends to expend it on. You own those things which your labor has turned from unowned things into means. We both agree on this. I do not think the root of our disagreement is in our conception of labor.
I think you make a logical error when you assert that an idea is an "unowned thing" and can therefore be homesteaded. If the term "scarce" is not applicable, then the term "owned" or "unowned" is certainly not applicable. If the term "scarce" is not applicable, then ideas cannot be homesteaded.
In another post I made a distinction between classes and instances of property, but here is a summary: There are many chairs in this world. There is the one I am sitting on, the one I will be sitting on when I eat breakfast and there is even the foldable chair I unfold when I have too many guests. I just referenced three instances of actual existing chairs. What they have in common is that they belong to the same class, namely the class Chair. It is important to note that the class does not actually exist; it is a mental abstraction enabled by the language we use. The use of the class Chair allows us to separate the relevant features (you can put your butt on it and rest your legs so you don't have to stand) from the irrelevant features (all three chairs happen to be black). The term "scarce" does apply to any of the three referenced chairs, or even any instance of the class Chair, but it does not apply to the class itself.
With ideas, there is a distinction as well. An idea is a class of patterns. How does one decide whether two written verbalizations of ideas are actually verbalizations of the same idea? One must distinguish the relevant features from the irrelevant ones. The fact that one verbalization was printed by a computer whereas the other was written by hand six hundred years ago on aged parchment, does not indicate the idea they encode is different. Even if the language on the first paper differs from that on the second, this does not point to a difference in the idea. Only if the concepts referred to by the words on the first paper are different from the concepts referred to on the second, can one conclude that the ideas encoded are different.
The pieces of paper are instances of an idea class (or two different idea classes). The electrical patterns in a persons brain when they think about an idea may be another instance.
part two:
DeleteThe thing that is produced by labor (specifically, mental labor) is an idea instance. The thing that is exchanged when one person "shares an idea" with another person is also an idea instance.
Therefore, it is perfectly logical to say this: If a person who uses only his own resources and creates a physical property instance by physical labor, owns it, then a person who uses only his own resources and creates an idea instance by mental labor, owns it also.
The non sequitur occurs when ownership is extended to the idea class, and not just the idea instance.
In order for the idea class to be homesteadable, it must exist. But classes do not exist, they are a mental abstraction. Since idea classes do not exist, they cannot be homesteaded.
I think much of the confusion exists because one party is using the term "idea" for "idea instance" while the other uses it to mean "idea class". Pro-IP advocate: "idea instances are scarce." Correct. Anti-IP advocate: "idea classes are not scarce." Correct.
As for your second question, I can't think of an example of goods that one can sell but not own that does not fit the label "labor". The term "labor" is a linguistic trick we apply that enables us to think about work being done by someone in the same way we think about an apple or a chair. It is useful, but only to some extent. It makes sense to trade labor for an apple. But what does it mean to store labor for future use?
But I reiterate: I do not think our conception of "labor" is the root of our disagreement. I think the distinction between classes and instances and the proper definition of idea is the root of our disagreement.
"scarcity is not rooted in the absolute quantitative limitation of something; it comes from the insufficiency of the stock of that something, perceived as useful in some regard, relative to the individuals’ needs."
ReplyDelete