In my post, An IP Perspective: Leaker of the Solange Attack on Jay Z Video Got $250,000, the headline emphasizes that $250,000 was paid to the leaker. None of the anti-IPers flocking to comment discussed this fact.
My question to the anti-IP crowd, if the video wasn't property and is not scarce, what did the leaker get $250,000 for? Has TMZ gone mad and paid for something that is not scarce?
What a weird argument. He got $250,000 for letting TMZ have the scoop. That doesn't mean the video is or should be property. By a similar argument, if there are slave auctions for money, then people are and should be considered property.
ReplyDelete"My question to the anti-IP crowd, if the video wasn't property and is not scarce, what did the leaker get $250,000 for?"
DeleteFor the SERVICE of sharing that information.
So you literally will bounce back and forth between calling something property and "intellectual property" whenever it suits you Wenzel?
ReplyDeleteOr just conflate the two when it is convenient?
Why not define them and be a little more precise in your sloppy posts.
Keep ignoring the laughable mistakes in your previous posts. Intellectual coward.
I don't see a problem with Wenzel moving back and forth between property and intellectual property, it would seem to me that intellectual property is simply a subcategory of property.
DeleteIs this what you are considering a "laughable mistake"?
Wenzel believes his contract with someone person gives him rights over a third party not party to the contract. In fact he calls the third party a:"criminal" if he violates the terms of the contract that was made between wenzel and someone else.
DeleteWenzel equates a situation where a car was STOLEN to a situation where he voluntarily sells a book. A thief can never be a true owner and therefore if a thief sells the car, but purchaser of that car has inferior rights to the person from which the car was stolen.
Somehow Wenzel says that if he sells a book that he writes to Bob (subject to a contract prohibiting reproduction) and Bob sells the book to tom, Wenzel believes he has rights to the book over tom. So either Bob was never the owner (which goes against the Rothbardian Title theory transfer) and thus somehow he stole the book from Wenzel thus giving wenzel superior rights to the book over Tom... or Bob was the true owner and even though he breached the contract by selling it to tom (and now tom is the true owner) wenzel can somehow prohibit tom from reproducing it via the contract between wenzel and bob.
Its idiotic either way.
"Wenzel believes his contract with someone person gives him rights over a third party not party to the contract. In fact he calls the third party a:"criminal" if he violates the terms of the contract that was made between wenzel and someone else."
DeleteI say no such thing. What I say is that after a third party is notified that an intellectual property was transferred to the third party without authority to transfer, then the third party becomes a thief if the third party continues to reproduce copies of the property in any manner, after that notification.
The rest of your argument falls into the toilet from there.
To anon @ 11:29 PM. Actually, property is a subcategory of intellectual property. You have to think before you can create property.
DeleteWho said all property is created? If you walk on the beach and pick up a seashell and take it home, the seashell is your property but you did not create it.
DeleteBut further, if all property is created, wouldn't intellectual property still be a subcateory of the type of property created?
"What I say is that after a third party is notified that an intellectual property was transferred to the third party without authority to transfer, then the third party becomes a thief if the third party continues to reproduce copies of the property in any manner, after that notification."
DeleteRobert you're wrong because just because someone makes an agreement not to reproduce a recording and breaks it, that doesn't make all copies of that recording are the property of the producer. The agreement not to copy something between two people isn't the same as a property right. If you tell someone a secret on the premise that they promise not to reveal to anyone and then they go and tell me your secret anyway, is it my fault that they broke your agreement and am I obligated to go erase my memory or something of the information that was shared? No.
Seriously think I might make a video of the comments I post and then show that they get censored. You literally do not understand title theory. Pretty easy to get that around the ancap community. I obviously dont think your censorship violates the NAP, but its certainly intellectually dishonest of you.
DeleteYou are afraid to answer why you claim the same rights over Tom (whom you have no contract with) as you do with Bob who is under contract,;
You are afraid to answer how Bob doesnt have good title after the sale, or how he loses it during a breach of contract and how it reverts to you rather than to Tom.
How embarrassing for "robert wenzel" that would be.
It seems to me that Wenzel has answered numerous times why he considers Tom to be in violation, if he continues to produce product that he has as a result of a broken contract, after he has been notified of such violation.. Why should he waste his time responding specifically to you just because you hyperventilate about the question?
Delete@AnonymousMay 16, 2014 at 11:28 AM
DeleteYou are never going to win arguing against these anti-IPers. They fail to give any acknowledgement that the creator of intellectual property has a right to control his creation, even if it is passed on via a broken contract and a third party is notified that the property was obtained via a broken contract. It all goes back to their fallacious view that in some distorted way intellectual property is not scarce, even though TMZ just paid $250,000 for such property.
He blocked several strictly intellectual comments.
DeleteWenzel doesnt understand title transfer theory and its obvious.
A breach of a contract does not strip good title from the breaching party. Meaning Bob has good title after wenzel sells him the book and thus he transfers good title to tom. However the sale to tom is a breach of a contract, but that is a separate issue.
Wenzel fails to explain how he gains the right to prohibit Tom from reproducing it when he isnt under contract with him.
Why even make contracts containing any restrictions if you claim the EXACT SAME right to restrict people that are not under contract? Why block that question 4 times?
Wenzel let's this comment go through and you are telling us there were no ad hominems in your earlier comments?
DeleteI don't think so.
Also, it appears that you place a lot more weight on your question than he does. If he thought you had something significant to say he would respond. Wenzel may be many things but he certainly does not appear to be the type to back away from a debate, if he considers the point raised important.
Your title argument seems to me arguing from the perspective of the government definition of title, at best. Why can't anyone put any terms they want into a contract as to what title will entail for that contract? Or do you believe government should have the final say on that?
my point is that title passed to bob, the sale was a breach of contract between bob and wenzel, but in the sale title passed to tom.
Deletenow wenzel claims he has property rights over tom. How? You have the right to control other peoples property?
Every contract between two people for a piece of property puts restrictions on third-parties that they didn't agree to. None of you were party to the agreement where I purchased my home. I would use force to restrict people's access to my yard and my home even though they never agreed that I should be able to own the property.
DeleteThe "third-party restriction" argument is another bogus anti-IP construct.
no no no.
DeleteIf wenzel sells the book to bob, and bob sells it to tom, tom has the right to prohibit everyone else from stealing his book. This is just the nature of property rights.
you are missing the point.
Wenzel is claiming the right to control and agress against tom. This is the equivalent of your purchasing your house from wenzel subject to a contract that prohibits you from painting the house yellow. You sell the house to tom and now wenzel believes he can prohibit tom from painting the house yellow because of the wenzel/bob contract.
Unknown, you are mixing up initiative force and responsive force.
DeleteThe payment of $250,000 is the transfer of value used to make the action, which the State describes as theft, a rational action for the leaker--covering for risk and all. It's the same with drugs that are illegal. Because of the State deeming the drug illegal, a higher price can be obtained from the purchaser. Hence cartels are pro drug prohibition etc etc. No State, no IP.
ReplyDeleteI disagree.
DeleteEven in a Rothbardian society, there would be consequences to leaking confidential information from your private employer. You'd be instantly fired for sure, and possibly have private ramifications as well (presumably Jay Z and family could sue you if they can argue they were damaged by this). Therefore, leaking would still have risks, and would still require a large payment. Maybe not AS large, but this type of thing would still go on in a stateless society.
He was paid the $250k for providing a service to TMZ, not the video. The service the leaker provided was extremely scarce, seeing as how he had to be at the right place at the right time to render said service.
ReplyDeleteSame reason New York taxi companies pay a million dollars for a taxi medallion.
ReplyDeleteI guess RW's new position is "insider trading" is a crime because someone makes money of it.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Liz Warren might start reading this blog.
So your argument is that when money received for an action it erases the action from being criminal? Thus, in your world the hit man is not a criminal because he is paid for murder?
DeleteOy vey! This again.
ReplyDeleteWhat is scarce is access to the tape, or the physical tape itself, not the images on it. Once made public, it is no longer scarce, right?
ReplyDeleteWenzel: "What I say is that after a third party is notified that an intellectual property was transferred to the third party without authority to transfer, then the third party becomes a thief if the third party continues to reproduce copies of the property in any manner, after that notification."
ReplyDeleteWrong. The second party broke a contract and should be libel for damages, but the third party stole nothing. Once made public, intellectual matters become the property of anyone in whose minds they reside. Much as you wish it, you will never own what is in another's mind - they alone own the contents of their mind, no matter the source. Notifying me that I am a thief because I act on what I now know is absurd.
According to Wenzel's quote, you become a thief when he notifies you that the information in your head "belongs" to him. Wow! Talk about question begging! So...if I notify Wenzel that his position is foolish, he becomes a fool. Suits me!
DeleteQuit blocking my posts asshole.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I do not block any comments that strictly provide intellectual arguments. However, if they include vulgar personal attacks against me or my friends,they are blocked. Given the tone of your comment above, yeah you would probably have some of your other comments blocked.
ReplyDeleteToo much of a coward to admit you have done the same..... calling someone an idiot
ReplyDeletehttp://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/will-walter-block-be-on-firm.html
block this one too you asshat.
You missed the part where he said it was his website and can edit for "vulgar" attacks, maybe he doesn't consider 'idiot' vulgar(I don't)...so basically he can call anyone an idiot he wants, but because it's his site, he can choose how and when he enforces his criteria...that's what property rights are all about.
DeleteThis would seem to be a fundamental tenet to those respecting property rights. Are you anti-IP?
wenzel cannot take what he dishes out. I call him a coward and he blocks posts. And he is a coward, he will not define theft.
Deletehe will not explain how the hotel's video was "stolen" when they still have possession of it.
He will not explain why he would make any contract regarding his precious IP when he claims to have all the power he wants over people who sign no contract.
These are basic questions that he ignores time and again.... he is a coward.
Here is a question.
ReplyDeleteLets presume that the security system at the hotel automatically records the video digitally on a hard drive in a computer at the hotel.
The hotel employee inserted a flash drive into a computer at the hotel and copied the file. The employee then sold the flash drive for $250,000. The hotel still has the video on its hard drive.
How has there been a theft? What has been stolen? The hotel still has a copy of the video.
If my car is stolen, it is no longer in my possession. It is gone.
How can something be "stolen" when you still have it? So you are saying that the hotel's property was stolen despite the fact that they still have the video?
This is why the hotel employee committed trespass, not theft.
Going to block this one too wenzel?
Depriving someone of possession is FUNDAMENTAL to theft. Pro IP people must have a special definition of theft.
DeleteIf I damage your car, am I free to do that if I don't take possession of your car?
DeleteNo.
DeleteExplain to me how the video was damaged by copying it. Literally, were the ones and zeros that comprise the video damaged? umm no.
the hotel still has a pristine version of the video. Its in their possession and it is unaltered.
totally different than than damaging a car.
Everyone needs to take a step back and think about one thing:
DeleteIf someone sells the car in your driveway to someone else, and later the police find it and take it back from that person, the reason is that there's been harm to the original person and it's stolen property.
Even if you are someone that doesn't believe in IP as 'property', you should acknowledge the harm caused by the copying of this video(whether you think it's theft or not). There is harm to the reputation of the hotel & potential harm to the reputation of Jay Z/Beyonce.
I don't think anyone should try to make that case that "there's no harm", it's obvious there is/has been.
The focus of this debate should be on what property 'is', if one is to maintain credibility.
Even further though, there is a point when a third parties action has become criminal even if not bound by an agreement, and that if he KNOWS the property has been stolen and buys it anyway.
That, in and of itself, is a whole nother' interesting discussion.
BTW, I'm not the original "anonymous", I'll call myself "Super Anonymous anonymous"...lol
This entire post is based on a confusion about the original story. Anti-IP debaters agree that something was done which did violate rights - it was to make the tape public. It was a secret kept by the hotel and it was illegally copied and made public. The villain should be punished for giving access to the information privately held by the hotel.
DeleteBut this has nothing to do with the validity of the concept of IP. No one is saying that you do not have a right to keep secrets. What is being said is that once that information is no longer secret, anyone who has that information has a right to use it as they see fit. It is information, not property. Information is truth. Claiming that people who know the truth must behave as if they are ignorant of the truth is absurd, yet that is the position of the Pro-IP debaters.
What has been stolen? Are you serious? If the entire idea of my having a video is so that I can use it in the case of criminal activity and that video is sold to TMZ to embarrass a guest, you don't think the video has been stolen from me?
ReplyDeleteHow can something be stolen if you still have possession of it?
DeleteYou are looking at this from the point of the thief? Do you think The Standard believes the video was stolen from its private custody?
Deletewhat on earth does it matter what the Standard believes?
DeleteExplain to me how something can be stolen if you still have possession of it?
you are throwing around the word stolen, my point is that you are using that term inappropriately.
My question to the anti-IP crowd, if the video wasn't property and is not scarce, what did the leaker get $250,000 for?
ReplyDelete$250,000 buys you his willingness to break with the company's policies and code of ethics. That does not turn the video into IP or turn ideas into scarce, rivalrous and excludable property, because while TMZ now has the video, the hotel also has the same video and equipment in their possession, thus NO real property was taken.
You fall into the trap that Wenzel pointed out some time ago, you are looking at the argument from the point of view of the criminal. If I have a video and don't want it broadcast, I consider it my property, is it not?
DeleteIf someone makes an unauthorized copy is that a violation? Of course it is. Property is about valuation. If someone makes an unauthorized copy, distributes it, it may lower the value of what was originally in my exclusive possession. In Kinsella's world value might not be important, but in the real world it is the essence of exchange.
"Property is about valuation,"
DeleteWrong. Property is about control. You don't have a right to "value."
Re: Anonymous,
Delete-- You fall into the trap that Wenzel pointed out some time ago, you are looking at the argument from the point of view of the criminal. --
I don't think so. I am analyzing the act itself and answering Robert's question.
-- If someone makes an unauthorized copy is that a violation? --
A violation of what? That is the real question. Robert seems to argue that the violation represents theft. I don't agree because no actual property was taken; at most, it is a violation of the employer's trust and the agreement (contract) the employee had with the employer.
If the video itself is really a piece of property, I can't understand then why doesn't the hotel ask TMZ for the video back. It is not like they would be asking for a chewed piece of gum back, or would it?
-- Property is about valuation. --
No. Property is what you control that others can't without naked aggression. That's it. The regard you have for one item over other items in your possession or items in someone else's possession is called valuation. But don't confuse the two things. Only because I value a picture of my wife and I eating at a restaurant does NOT suddenly make a copy of said picture MY property.
"at most, it is a violation of the employer's trust and the agreement (contract) the employee had with the employer."
DeleteSo do you think that if a person wanders into the hotel, who has no contractual agreement with the hotel, he would be free to take a copy of the video?
"If the video itself is really a piece of property, I can't understand then why doesn't the hotel ask TMZ for the video back. It is not like they would be asking for a chewed piece of gum back, or would it?"
Maybe in a libertarian society that is exactly what would happen.
Re: Anonymous,
Delete-- So do you think that if a person wanders into the hotel, who has no contractual agreement with the hotel, he would be free to take a copy of the video? --
No because he would be trespassing. Assuming the video is stored in media inside electronic equipment controlled by the hotel, if a person simply barges into the room where said equipment is located and makes use of it without the hotel's express consent, then he would be trespassing, a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. However, the possibility of a trespass does NOT suddenly turn a video into property. In this case, only the equipment is property and thus subject of the hotel's exclusive (and rivalrous) use.
If a person entered my house to take a snapshot of my couch, then the perpetrator would be committing an act of aggression - trespass - but it would NOT make the picture itself ipso facto MY property.
Re: Anonymous,
Delete-- Maybe in a libertarian society that is exactly what would happen. --
In a libertarian society, there would be no government or courts enforcing IP or faux property laws.
^ no, anyone that doesnt have permission to copy the video would commit TRESPASS by inserting a portable hard drive into a port, or a dvd into a dvd burner to copy the video.
Deleteagain, COPY the video. not steal it.
How can the video be stolen if the hotell has possession of it?
"again, COPY the video. not steal it."
DeleteTo "copy" the video, they had to appropriate/use the capital equipment of the hotel. If the hotel has a policy(read: contract) with its employees & security that no video will be "copied" and it was, not only is it a contract violation, but more important they stole the use of capital equipment to make said copy.
The used the life hours of the recording/playback machine and the hotel's own electricity to play it back so they could record it on their camera phones.
So there has been theft, even if you only say "it's just a little", THEFT has occurred. Does it rise to the level of a contract breach? No, but it's theft none the less and a component of the overall crime.
How can the video be "stolen" if the hotel still has a copy of it?
DeleteHow is deprivation of possession not a fundamental aspect of theft?
"How can the video be "stolen" if the hotel still has a copy of it?"
DeleteDo you deny that the hotel's electricity was stolen to copy said tape? Or that it's own equipment used(and its usable life decreased), even if by a minute amount?
What did they pay for? They paid for value!
ReplyDeleteLets pretend that someone named Kevin has some nasty information about Walter Block and tells him about it. Kevin asks Block for $100,000 and agrees to not expose the information. Block agrees to protect his reputation and the deal gets made.
Walter Block obviously knows that his reputation is not property, but he sees value in not having the information exposed because he is worried about his reputation.
The pro IP camp really just seems to believe that only property can have value.
DeleteOr do pro IP people somehow believe that a reputation is property?
Lets pretend that Kevin saw Walter Block cheating on his wife. He threatens to tell Blocks wife unless he gets $100,000. Block doesnt want his wife to find out and doesnt want his church to find out because that would embarrass him tremendously and ruin his reputation there.
DeleteBlock pays $100 to protect his image (which he doesnt know). The information that kevin has is scarce, he is the only one on earth that knows it.
Because this information is scarce is it therefore property? Obviously kevin owns his body and therefore his brain but come on people.
Just because something is scarce and it has value does not mean it is property.
"Or do pro IP people somehow believe that a reputation is property?"
DeleteI'm the only one that I've seen that definitively believes that reputation is property. It was my debate with Rick Miller that solidified it for me.
Bionic Mosquito is the only other one I know of that is even considering it at this moment.
My basis is currently the definition of "property" by Bastiat, which is also compatible with Rothbard's contractural IP theories, in agreement with RW. (but RW does not consider reputation property)
That being said, I am doing some work on the definition of what property "is", or has been in the past in respect to different cultures in different times. It's obviously not uniform.
your reputation exists in the minds of others. How do you own other peoples thoughts?
DeleteMy reputation is both a construct in the minds of other and my own.
DeleteI claim no right to control their minds. But I do claim a right to protect my property. So they can have opinions on my reputation, and they can spread opinions on my reputation.
If they do so in a manner that is fraudulent and then damages my property, then I see recourse as it's a NAP violation(IMO).
The courts in the US gov't system allow for this today via different vehicles, but this would also occur in a libertarian court system as well. There would be a hearing to determine if the actions surrounding spreading an opinion on my reputation by the person sued harmed me via fraud.
So for example, if a competitor took out advertisement that said, "Nick's company screws everyone they do business with." and then hired actors who never did business with me to claim they were victim of my business, I would sue them and there would be discovery to see if it's true or not.
I'm one of these people that believe you have a right to say what ever you want, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be accountable for it if it causes harm against another's property.
One other note:
DeleteI claim my reputation as my property via the Bastiat's definition of property.
His theory of property includes two primary characteristics/tests to be claimed as such:
1. It has be appropriated by man's labor(this gets complex, you'll have to read on your own his specifics, but he even distinguishes between fences and property markers)
2. It has market value
Reputation has a long standing and recognized "value". In accounting it's called "goodwill". In my debate with Miller, he pointed out that people refer to "building a reputation", but then claimed that it is a misnomer...I think he was straight out wrong and that even Joe Sixpack recognizes that everyone builds a reputation by using their own labor.
So by that well thought out definition by Bastiat(with a LOT of arguments and examples in his writing), I find it reasonable(and consistent) to consider by IP and reputation as 'property'. In fact, at times they are inter-related.
@ Nick Badalamenti May 17, 2014 at 2:43 PM
DeleteFan as I am of Bastiat, his 2nd rule isn't a good one. Value (and market value) is in the eye of the beholder and I own lots of things that have no market value at all, but I still own them.
Market value can only be measured by price, so I would have to sell my property in order to prove it was property, yes?
What really works to assign property is homesteading (first user), trading and gifting. Value has no place in a usable definition of property.
Reputation is thoughts in the heads of others. Claiming ownership of that is as invalid as IP, and for the same reason: what other people think or do cannot be your property.
@ John Howard
DeleteWe have a simple disagreement on the basis of what "property" is, this is unsolvable by both sides.
I obviously have already pointed out that my reputation also resides in my head, and I have shown what I think is a reasonable criteria as it being property as defined by Bastiat. (Reputations can have value & require labor to be constructed)
You are free to disagree obviously. However, that would not stop me from protecting what I view as my property if someone is damaging it, regardless of their viewpoint of whether it is or not, as I view it as a NAP violation.
I neglected one other point:
Delete"Market value can only be measured by price, so I would have to sell my property in order to prove it was property, yes?"
No, you could simply have an appraiser determine it has market value, or a variety of other methods that are only limited by the imagination.
"Value has no place in a usable definition of property."
That is your opinion, but you've offered no explanation as to why, whereas Bastiat has written quite extensively on the topic.
The fact is that 'property' has had different definitions over time & across cultures. There isn't yet one universally accepted principle on such, so the logic must be sorted out over time and through mental LABOR. (a little joke at the end for you, :) )
Also, less important, but perhaps more reason for you to read up on Bastiat's thoughts on what constitutes 'property' and decide for yourself:
"Value (and market value) is in the eye of the beholder and I own lots of things that have no market value at all, but I still own them."
Bastiat claims( I think rightfully so) that a fundamental problem/attack on property rights stems from the logical error of not distinguishing between utility and value. So much so that it becomes a circular attack on property rights. It speaks directly to you comment.
So you don't think there is a physical nature to a video?
ReplyDeleteNo. The plastic enclosure, the spools, the magnetic tape, sure, but the "video" or digital pattern embedded in the film of the medium? No more than a recipe, or a set of plans, song lyrics, etc.
DeleteSo in other words man acts on value, does the video have value? If so, why can't the possessor of that value control it in any fashion he chooses?
ReplyDeleteR: Anonymous,
Delete-- If so, why can't the possessor of that value control it in any fashion he chooses? --
But that is exactly what the hotel was doing before: maintaining their equipment in a specific room to stop intruders from using the equipment. However, that does NOT make a copy of the video the hotel's property. The hotel still has its own equipment and its own copy (the original, actually) of the video. The only loss for them was the confidence deposited in an employee who was promptly terminated from his employment. Period.
"Value", though sometimes a noun in form, is a verb in fact. To say "I have a value" simply means that I value something. It is an action, not an object. Do Pro-IP debaters really believe that they can own an action - when someone else is doing the acting; that they can own a thought when someone else is thinking it?
Delete@ John Howard
Delete"In point of fact, if value resides in matter, then it is mixed with those other physical qualities of an object that constitute its usefulness to man. Now, these qualities are often placed in the object by Nature. Therefore, Nature helps to create value, and hence we must attribute value to those things that in essence are free of charge and common to all. Where, then, is the basis of property to be found? When the payment that I make to acquire a material product, wheat, for example, is distributed to all the workers who, in its production, have rendered me services, who should receive the share corresponding to the amount of value that is due to Nature and that man had nothing to do with? Should it be paid to God? Nobody supports this idea, and God has never been known to claim His wages. Should it be paid to a man? On what grounds, since, according to the hypothesis that value resides in matter, he has done nothing to earn it? "
Bastiat, Economic Harmonies
The Pro-IP debaters seem to confuse two separate cases:
ReplyDeletea) I originate an idea and I keep it secret. Someone trespasses on my property and discovers my idea and makes it public against my wishes.
b) I originate an idea and I reveal it to the public.
By endlessly confusing these two cases, they manage to continue being Pro-IP debaters.
Who is confusing the two? How does this apply to the Standard Hotel situation, where they made the tape and had no desire to see it go public?
DeleteThe hotel case is one of trespass. But the Pro-IP debaters treat them both the same - as theft.
DeleteThen they argue that the hotel case is a case of stolen information, when it is a case of trespass.
I say no such thing. I clearly state a person becomes a thief only after he is notified that he has obtained IP by means of a broken chain of contract AND continues to REPRODUCE such property.
ReplyDeleteAnd you continue to not understand contract theory.
DeleteHow does a broken contract result in someone else being a thief? What is your definition of theft?
Notification does not make him a thief. Mr. Wenzel's argument amounts to: SINCE information is property, THEREFORE you are a thief if you use it against the wishes of its "owner". This is classic question begging. Information is not ownable. Reproduction is not theft.
DeleteReproduction in and of itself is not theft. However, if I obtain property via a chain of possession that includes a broken contract and the owner of the intellectual property informs me that my possession of the property is by way of a broken contract and I still continue to reproduce the property, then it is theft. In other words, the claim to the proper owner of the property should be respected. Why would you not want to respect the wishes of the proper owner?
DeleteBecause I do not agree that information is or can be property or have an "owner", proper or otherwise.
DeleteAnd the question before us is not whether I "want to respect the wishes of...", but rather should the law force me to obey the wishes of...
DeleteI don't believe RW is resting his case on the "respecting the wishes," rather than legal enforcement, but merely asking you, " Why would you not want to respect the wishes of the property owner?" Do you have an answer?
DeleteThe broken contract does not revoke Bob's good title. What don't you understand about this?
DeleteIt's a separate matter.
What has Tom dispossessed you of?
Delete@AnonymousMay 17, 2014 at 1:55 PM
DeleteAre you serious? If I want to prevent unauthorized reproduction there must be something I value in limiting reproduction? Do you think otherwise?
thats great that you place value in that. But what property have you been dispossessed of?
DeleteWhen you write your book on IP you will presumably have it in a file on your computer. You will send it to the publisher who will print the books. When Bob buys your book he has good title. When he sells it to Tom the title transfers to him.
Tom starts reproducing the book against your wishes. You call him a thief. What has Tom stolen from you? Your file is still on your computer.
You are too cowardly to offer your definition of theft because you have been carelessly throwing it around and realize you are wrong.
How was the video "stolen" from the hotel when the STILL HAVE POSSESSION of the video? All the employee did was copy it. He did not dispossess the hotel of anything.
Stop dodging these fundamental facts.
"Tom starts reproducing the book against your wishes. You call him a thief. What has Tom stolen from you? Your file is still on your computer."
DeleteI'll answer for RW.
His labor has been stolen. His book represents the labor required for his thoughts. Every man should be entitled to payment for his labor:
" Every man, therefore, became, in proportion to his services, a proprietor. But the forces and the raw materials, originally given gratis to man by God, remained, still are, and always will be, gratis, however much, in the course of human transactions, they may pass from hand to hand; for, in the appraisals that their exchange necessitates, it is human services, and not the gifts of God, that are evaluated.
From this it follows that there is not one among us who, provided only our transactions be carried out in freedom, ever ceases to enjoy these gifts. A single condition is attached: we must ourselves perform the labor necessary to make them available to us, or, if someone else takes this trouble for us, we must pay him the equivalent in other pains that we take for him.
If what I assert is true, then certainly the right to property is unassailable. " - Bastiat
If a book is bought with the understanding that you are paying for the title of its contents, and said title is only transferable to one other person(or none if the seller deems it so!), via a EULA for example, then that is a contractually binding obligation with implications toward others that might try to violate it-in the manner of "receiving stolen property"- and in which there might be a discovery process to determine intent even!
Regardless, there is theft in his labor, which is not a "concrete" thing. It's not tangible. Just like the CONCEPT of property rights isn't itself tangible, yet it's somehow acknowleged and respected in a variety of areas.
We should also keep in mind that over time, people stop enforcing claims on their IP for a variety of reasons(including death)...so most IP actually becomes "publicly owned" after a period of time(Bastiat also explores this), but that decision should solely rest on the creator(or owner if title transferred) of said IP.
You have thick skin, Mr. Wenzel. I appreciate that.
ReplyDeleteYou and I disagree on IP, but you are awesome.
Please keep the Rand Paul Resource Page up to date?
I think it is important to keep in mind the difference between information and access to information. Information cannot be property, but access to it can be a marketable service, until that information becomes widely known, at which time no one will pay for the service of accessing the information because they can get it for free. It may be common rhetoric to say, "I bought the info, so now I own it", but it is more accurate to say, "I bought access to the info, so know I know it".
ReplyDeleteshould read: "...so now I know it"
DeleteHere's my take on a possible libertarian case for IP: http://www.lexjudicata.com/2014/04/intellectual-property-and-libertarianism.html
ReplyDelete"Why would you not want to respect the wishes of the property owner?"
ReplyDeleteBecause I do not agree that he is a property owner.
That is what is being debated, yes?