Any discussions surrounding "rivalry" in the context of IP are completely worthless.
It's a complete red herring....if not outright obfuscation.
This issue of a scarce idea being contractually protected has nothing to do with it being non-rivalrous.
It simply serves as a justification for theft on the basis of a physical object not being "stolen", reduced, etc.
It doesn't speak to the harm that both physical and intellectual theft share in common in some situations in violation of the NAP.
I don't understand how anyone can rail against contract law in the matter of IP, when it also naturally allows for 3rd party discovery per Rothbard's suggestion.
Really, I'd never want to be a libertarian arguing against any form of property rights...it seems unnatural.
I think the biggest straw man in the whole debate anti-IPers offer over and over again is this notion that the pro-IP position is some endorsement for a gov't monopoly- because of their inability to see, recognize, and understand the contractual aspect of IP and how it can work without gov't....third party issues not withstanding.
I see occasional complaints about the lack of a positivist philosophy, but it seems self evident in any contract regarding IP even when not accounting for the definition of property by Bastiat.
" I think the biggest straw man in the whole debate anti-IPers offer over and over again is this notion that the pro-IP position is some endorsement for a gov't monopoly"
ReplyDeleteThere is no IP without government monopoly. patents and copyrights dont exist without government legislation to prohibit others from engaging in the production of a similar good.
The anti-IPers are not and have never been against contract rights or property rights.
The pro-IPers are for social contracts when related to IP. They suggest that if two parties sign a contract saying the wont share or use information outside of the corporation, that this contract somehow magically applies to all people and gives the corporation the power to prohibit that informations use over all people, not just the ones that signed the contract specifically.
This is not a libertarian position on contract or property rights.
There is no libertarian contract or property rights position that supports IP.
Also, Rivalry is center of the IP debate, non-rivalrous 'property' cant be 'stolen'....
"There is no IP without government monopoly. patents and copyrights dont exist without government legislation to prohibit others from engaging in the production of a similar good."
DeleteThis is an assertion without proof.
Not only that, I can prove otherwise.
I can write a contract that asserts my "ownership" of an idea and allow its use by another which instantly makes it my "intellectual property"...all without gov't monopoly.
Any discussion surrounding "contract" is completely meaningless, as Kinsella was trying to tell you.
ReplyDeleteIt's not the information that people have ownership of under a contract, it's the ownership of their own self and labor.
In this post, you limit your justification of IP solely to the issue of contracts, which makes all the difference. Before, you were attempting to justify it as a matter of law, rather than a matter of contract - something that could be enforced against someone who was not party to the agreement.
But your argument is different this time.
"In this post, you limit your justification of IP solely to the issue of contracts, which makes all the difference."
DeleteSo on that basis alone you then agree that IP can be property as defined by a contract?
"But your argument is different this time."
I've never made any other argument, if you feel I have feel free to post a link to such.
"So on that basis alone you then agree that IP can be property as defined by a contract?"
DeleteNo. It's not the information that is property. The property is over one's self and his labor.
He is allowed to make agreements with others. Anyone else who is not party to the agreement is not bound to withhold the information someone ELSE agreed to keep secret, even if one had to break into someone's home to get it.
Yes, in that case, the person could be charged with breaking and entering, but NOT with Copyright infringement - he was never party to the agreement, and is therefore under no obligation to keep that information a secret.
"Yes, in that case, the person could be charged with breaking and entering, but NOT with Copyright infringement - he was never party to the agreement, and is therefore under no obligation to keep that information a secret."
DeleteSo the theft of information is OK if done properly, and any further harm as a result is not a violation of the NAP?
"So the theft of information is OK if done properly, and any further harm as a result is not a violation of the NAP?"
DeleteIt's not theft, just like a poorly installed chandelier falling on someone isn't murder. Neither are violations of the NAP.
Still waiting for those in the Pro-IP crowd to tell where they get off using all the knowledge of the millennia to their advantage without ever reimbursing anyone and then denying or threatening with violence those that use the knowledge they SUPPOSEDLY came up with.
ReplyDeleteSounds like a real (insert pejorative here) move to me.
Bastiat's definition of property(and specifically IP, as he was pro-IP) and its specific movement into the "public domain" addresses your concerns.
DeleteIt would seem not completely worthless if it generates this strong a reaction.
ReplyDeleteBtw, my apologies for some of the grammatical errors.
ReplyDeleteThis write up was more of an organized thought exercise for me between friends without the intent of it being published initially.
Next time I'll do a better job for everyone in reviewing my writing prior to said publishing.
Best Regards to all and thank you to Wenzel for deeming it worthy of a post on his blog.
If the issue is about contracts, then it's not about property rights in the information. This is what Kinsella was trying to tell you in the debate.
ReplyDeletePeople have a right to make contracts with each other. They don't have a right to prohibit what other people do with the information in their own head.
Only a contract can prohibit me from using information in my own head, not the supposed right to make information into property.
Two different issues.
This was kind of a double post, so I apologize. I didn't think my prior comment was going to be allowed because approval took some time.
DeleteStill, maybe this second one comes off more clear. I did word it a bit differently.
Apologies for any inconvenience.
Property rights are not about rivalry, by the way; Non-rivalrous property CAN be stolen, even if nobody would care that it's stolen because it exists plentifully in a commons.
ReplyDeleteProperty rights come from mixing one's labor with a resource. Period. Whether or not it's scarce makes no difference.
I like your commentary.
DeleteBastiat specifically termed "one's labor" as property btw, and further in the context that the act of "thinking" is labor.(which obviously I agree with)
What non-rivalrous good is property that could be stolen?
DeleteYou are always the sole beneficiary of your own thinking.
DeleteYou don't create anything when you express your knowledge to someone; Rather, you perform a service.
Your service of revealing information is what can be owned - not the information that is revealed.
Is "your service" not scarce ?
Delete"Is "your service" not scarce ?"
DeleteYes, but that's not relevant to property rights. You can have property rights in something that isn't scarce.
Property rights are established by mixing your labor with a resource; It doesn't matter if everyone on Earth has plenty of it - you own the resources with which you mixed your labor.
What is a possible example of something not scarce that can be owned?
DeletePlease don't say : "I.P. is property. I.P. is not scarce. Therefore non-scarce things can be property (therefore I.P. is property)".
"Please don't say : "I.P. is property. ..."
DeleteUm ... OK. :D
Information is something that is discovered, not created. So it can't be property.
And it's discovered by each individual, subjectively.
Your service of revealing information is what's scarce, not the ideas themselves.
"Information is something that is discovered, not created. So it can't be property."
DeleteYou know I've found this whole portion of this thread interesting commentary by all involved parties and have been thinking about it for days, especially in the context of Bastiat's concept(s) of the definition of "property".
I quoted the above from your statement, because one of the concepts that Bastiat talks about is the "providence of God" in several ways...once of which includes the transition of private property to communal property(and he distinguishes it clearly from communism...which he obviously abhors) but also talks about property in a similar vein as being a "gift from God" type deal.
Now, stay with me for a moment...because you don't have to be a Christian to understand or appreciate what Bastiat is building a basis towards...so I'm going a bit further with your statement above:
Is "oil" not something that is discovered, not "created" by the direct action of man? Doesn't the act of not only discovering "oil" but then using labor to remove it from the ground make it "yours"?
Do you see my point? Is that any different from the act of "thinking"(which is a labor) to "discover" something not "created" as some of you would put it(I might disagree, but it doesn't matter in the context of this argument)?
Anyway, that's something more for everyone to think about...and as per the title of this write up my belief whether oil is rivalrous or not is not germane to the topic of whether it's property...and in that I agree with Bastiat.
I guess all libertarians should also be in favor of eminent domain, and asset forfeiture, because those are just different forms on property rights.
ReplyDeleteWould you not agree that Wenzel is on to something when he talks about property rights being "designed"(like in a contract) and that any civilized society would base such rights on the NAP?
DeleteIn other words, doesn't eminent domain and asset forfeiture have some basis in the violation of the NAP?(under certain circumstances)
See, Wenzel? Your IP views ultimately justifies Communism.
Delete"Civilized society agreed" that "the public" should own such and such piece of land.
No where do my comments or views endorse,suggest or would lead what you just wrote.
DeleteThe NAP should be the basis for designed rights, which I have stated over and over again; that would preclude any endorsement of forced communism as you detailed it.
And slavery? Isn't that purported to be a type of property ownership as well? Should libertarians be for that as well? Besides we aren't against any property. We are saying "IP" is not property. Stop assuming IP to be property in order to prove your case that IP is property!?.
Delete"The NAP should be the basis for designed rights ..."
DeleteExcept that you believe that such rights can be held by "society" or "the public", rather than solely by individuals.
A belief that "society" can have rights is a belief that Communism may legitimately be forced on individuals.
"Except that you believe that such rights can be held by "society" or "the public", rather than solely by individuals."
DeleteThat is incorrect.
If you think that I believe that then the burden is on you to show how.
"Except that you believe that such rights can be held by "society" or "the public", rather than solely by individuals."
DeleteThat is incorrect.
If you think that I believe that then the burden is on you to show how.
"And slavery? Isn't that purported to be a type of property ownership as well? Should libertarians be for that as well?"
DeleteDo I have to bring up Dr. Block's book "Defending the Undefendable"?
Are you arguing that Dr. Block's sound reasoning for a libertarian understanding surrounding voluntary(or consensual contract?) slavery is wrong? I'm glad he's on my side if that's the case.
"Besides we aren't against any property. We are saying "IP" is not property."
Yes, but you have yet to explain why two people that write a contract, even calling it "IP", are not allowed to do so by your rules.
"Are you arguing that Dr. Block's sound reasoning for a libertarian understanding surrounding voluntary(or consensual contract?) slavery is wrong? I'm glad he's on my side if that's the case."
DeleteSee, Wenzel? "Society" "voluntarily agreed" to Communism.
Two people can make whatever contract they want but not all possible contracts between two people are enforceable on libertarian grounds. For example a contract to murder or enslave anyone. If you and I make a contract that says you can end my life if I become a paraplegic but then before you fulfill the contract, I change my mind, then the contract is not enforceable on libertarian grounds. Same for slavery. i'm glad Rothbard is on my side in this case. (as well as Kinsella and most others). Block seems to have admitted as much in his interview with Kinsella. What can happen to a third (and fourth) party who never contracted with anyone? that's the question that matters when it comes to I.P., contracts and law. Block by the way understands clearly that I.P. is not property. He said he puts his books online for free based on this understanding and even said if someone wanted to start printing and selling copies of it he would be glad and not that he would not feel his property had been stolen.
Delete"If you and I make a contract that says you can end my life if I become a paraplegic but then before you fulfill the contract, I change my mind, then the contract is not enforceable on libertarian grounds."
DeleteThe problem with the above argument, is that it assumes no harm to either party by such "cancellation" and shows no clear exchange.
I am surprised you would attempt to make such an argument.
If that was not your intent and I misunderstood, then maybe you can explain further.
More importantly though, it underpins your entire statement and if I were to assume for a moment you did not intend to describe the circumstances as such the only other conclusion I can draw is that you are arguing that contracts between parties can be null and void arbitrarily based on someone's perception of what "right" is regardless of the two consenting parties agreed to and the harm caused by breaking said contract, correct?
I happen to think Block is right on the concept of voluntary slavery regardless of Rothbard's view on this issue.
That being said, if libertarians start to attack the validity of contracts between two consenting parties under certain scenarios they personally deem "important", "right", "just", etc., well it is going to be a quick(immediate) slide down the slippery slope.
In my estimation adherence to voluntary contracts are a necessary component to the NAP. If you want to add the if's, and's or but's...so be it...but it will not make a solid foundation for a peaceful society.
Once an individual respects the sanctity of contracts between two consenting parties, the issue of third(or more) party receipt of stolen property becomes clearer(and I'm not saying it's not difficult to deal with).
Regardless, it is fallacious to justify a crime or breaking of a contract between two parties just because a third party might be able to capitalize on the fallout between the initial parties.
"If you think that I believe that then the burden is on you to show how."
DeleteIf you believe that only individuals have rights, then you can't also believe these words you said, earlier:
"... property rights being "designed"(like in a contract) and that any civilized society would base such rights on the NAP?"
The reason is because property rights are necessarily prior to society. It's not society that "designs" property rights.
For you to believe that society designs property rights is for you to believe that "the public" can own something.
By extension, this logic justifies Communism, since it can always be said that "society has designed" property rights such and such a way, and that it has authority to enforce such rights.
"For you to believe that society designs property rights is for you to believe that "the public" can own something."
DeleteThat is incorrect. You have not proven your point.
I am referring to an agreement/contract between two parties in regard to something, one party of which already has possession, and that other party who does not, agreeing to the use of the object in exchange for a good, service, etc.
"I am referring to an agreement/contract between two parties ..."
DeleteThen on what grounds do you justify enforcement of IP against someone who was not party to the contract?
You obviously think that property is held in the information, itself, such that ANYONE, regardless of whether they are a party to the contract, can be considered a thief if they acquire that information by copying it.
So, all "society" would have to do to impose Communism under such a view is to claim that some people have an exclusive right to use such and such a process.
"The problem with the above argument, is that it assumes no harm to either party by such "cancellation" and shows no clear exchange."
DeleteThe penalty for breach of contract would be limited to the resources which were given over under the condition of the contract.
Delete"So, all "society" would have to do to impose Communism under such a view is to claim that some people have an exclusive right to use such and such a process."
We are not talking about "society", we are talking about a contract between two consenting parties concerning a scarce idea, property, whatever you want to call it really...so long as you recognize that if no one else has "discovered" that idea except the owner, he is the legitimate owner until he decide to release it for free, make contracts with it, etc.
We need not even concern ourselves with a third party unless they have somehow received stolen property, ideas, etc.(which is different then self discovery)
"The penalty for breach of contract would be limited to the resources which were given over under the condition of the contract."
Well then, you admit the contract was valid and has enforcement possibilities...regardless of your suggestion that it can be reneged regardless of harm caused. In fact, your beef seems not to be the contract, but what the penalty should be for breaking it.
It actually seems like you just made a case for IP, even if you think the penalty for taking it should be "nothing".
Does anyone else think we are about to witness the reappearance of the "Drudge Formula"?
ReplyDeleteI'm in the fetal position in the shower crying at the thought.
Full spectrum IP inforcement in every instance requested would require a totalitarin state so large and invading that private propety and privacey would cease to exist. The state would consume every last shred of it in its war on information and idea sharing. Contracts are contracts, all is well and good. Blanket contracts over the actions, body and property of everyone else, unsigned and agreed to, is tantamount to slavery.
ReplyDeleteThe NSA a thousand times bigger would be needed to police "intellectual property". Every hard drive, every text, every communication could contain some ones else's intellectual property.
ReplyDeleteIll go so far as to render current IP laws absolutely mute and non effective. . IP laws are placebos and IP enforcement is mainly impotent in the task save high profile cases to impress upon the masses the illusion that IP is property.
ReplyDeleteAny discussions surrounding "contracts" in the context of IP are completely worthless.
ReplyDeleteIt's a complete red herring....if not outright obfuscation.
This issue of a scarce idea being under copyright has nothing to do with it being contractually protected.
It simply serves as a justification for theft by the same state which automatically assigns 'copyright' to any work 'fixed in a tangible medium', whether two parties ever consented to a contract or not.
"It simply serves as a justification for theft by the same state which automatically assigns 'copyright' to any work 'fixed in a tangible medium', whether two parties ever consented to a contract or not."
DeleteYou started and ended your own argument.
If two parties don't consent to something, it can't be a contract to start.
I would like everyone to reflect for a moment on something:
ReplyDeleteIf you are guilty of knowingly receiving stolen property(or service), you have committed a crime.
Even if you don't agree with the person you took it from that it was their property.
Sometimes this is obvious.
For example, if Ron Paul has a TV channel and says that you are only allowed to watch it if you pay him $10 a month and that if you agree to his terms which say you can't distribute it to anyone else...and you DO, you have violated his contract and could be prosecuted justifiably.
If you are the 3rd party that viewed his channel as a result of the initial breaking of the contract, you might be able to do that and get away without repercussion....but you are still receiving stolen property...and if you want to claim it's not property...then you are guilty of receiving a stolen "service".
The "receiving stolen property" crime is usually a state crime which is based upon the common law requirement of "intent" so that possession is not a crime and you've done your duty by giving it back upon discovery. If you bought it from a thief your recourse is with the thief so you could lose your purchase price. There is a clear and easy mechanism for real property.
DeleteThis is wholly different from watching RonPaul. There is no mechanism to "give it back" for all to be well. It is a more complicated event for those who wish to prosecute IP possessions.
PS: I posted this and another un-posted so far as "Anonymous" b/c I don't know how to post w/ Name & email Adr. The drop down box choices are not clear to me, who very rarly posts. Some sites easily allow name & email adr.
"For example, if Ron Paul has a TV channel and says that you are only allowed to watch it if you pay him $10 a month ..."
DeleteThat's not a contract. I would have to specifically agree to those terms.
If I do not, and still acquire information he doesn't want me to see, I am required to return any actual property I have stolen, but I am under no obligation to keep the information secret, since I have not agreed to the terms.
("Anonymous 8/15/2013 1:55PM", choose the "Name/URL" option.)
"That's not a contract. I would have to specifically agree to those terms."
DeleteThat's what EULA's are for.
Nick, I've refrained from commenting on this entire thread since I've yet to see a positive argument on how ideas/thoughts/patterns/recipes/formulas are considered "property" and/or be "stolen". For something to be a scarce or "rivalrous" good infers that someone's use of a good can only be enjoyed by excluding others from using it. A formula, design, pattern, idea, or recipe can be simultaneously "known" by one, two, or an infinite amount of people. Yet, the use of such knowledge by all actors/agents does not impede anyone else's use or enjoyment of said knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThis is the basis of the concept of what is implied in the use of claiming a good is rivalrous or that it isn't. Knowledge, ideas, formula's, etc are all of this same type of non-rivalrousness.
I guess I fail to understand why this is so hard to comprehend.
Read Bastiat.
DeleteWow, what an argument.
DeleteI'm not going to do your reading for you.
DeleteIf you are genuinely curious and seeking truth, read Bastiat's thought on IP as property.
When you've done that, come back and tell me what you disagree with and we'll have an intelligent discussion.