Property of Mind, Right of Access, and Trespass

Comments

# Matt said on 04 May, 2009 08:36 AM

"IP socialists assert that scarcity is a necessary precondition for property and that as knowledge is not scarce, it cannot be property. There is however a fundamental flaw with this proposition. If knowledge is not scarce, why do we not have a cure for cancer? Why is there not an infinite supply of new Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes? Obviously there is a scarcity of knowledge."

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of scarcity.  From there your whole argument falls apart.  I would suggest reading Man Economy and State by Murray Rothbard.  He gives a better explanation than I ever could, however I shall try to recall it as I do not have it on hand.  

A thing would be considered scarce if one man's use of it prevented another man's use.  A sandwitch for example would be scarce given that if I were to eat it, no other man could also eat it.  True it could be split in half, but then each half would be similarly scarce.  

Now, one man has an idea to take straw and tie it to a stick, creating a broom.  Another man can see this and copy it.  The second man's creation of a broom does not undo or destroy the first man's broom.  The first man has simply created a "recipe" for a higher order good.  No amount of copying will take away the first man's ability to use this "recipe" so it cannot be considered scarce.

"why do we not have a cure for cancer?"

This appears to fall into a trap similar to the mistake of interchangeable capital.  Mainstream economists group all capital into an amorphous blob without taking into account the very specific parts which compose it.  Likewise, knowledge is not some amorphous blob, or pool of points where we can draw from for certain solutions.  Each bit of knowledge is a specific fact.  So saying that there is no scarcity of knowledge can become dangerous in its wording.  We have a limited amount of knowledge available to us, that is true, but that does not entail a properly defined scarcity.  

Continuing this line of thought, you will find that if knowledge were truly scarce and a man had to acquire a bit of knowledge at the loss of another man's knowledge, we would no longer have civilization.  To be fair, this statement may be a bit of an attack against a strawman.

Say for instance though, someone had to pay for each bit of knowledge he wanted to acquire, or in many cases was prevented from using bits of knowledge he possessed until paying a licensing fee.  Taking this thought experiment to its ends, you will find that all advances will be greatly impeded, as inventors and other creators do not form great things from nothing, but rather take thousands of little "know-hows" and add one tiny little "know-how" onto it.  (See some of Leonard E. Read's works.)

Our knowledge is limited, there are pieces we don't know, but to call it scarce is incorrect.  Scarce has a separate meaning.

# Peter Cohen said on 04 May, 2009 11:49 AM

"Now, one man has an idea to take straw and tie it to a stick, creating a broom.  Another man can see this and copy it.  The second man's creation of a broom does not undo or destroy the first man's broom.  The first man has simply created a "recipe" for a higher order good.  No amount of copying will take away the first man's ability to use this "recipe" so it cannot be considered scarce."

It is not that existing idea that is scarce, it is the subsequent ones that have not yet been created, that are scarce.

Now what if that man, in order to come up with his idea, has invested significant capital, effort and time, to come up with his idea. You, now availing yourself of his idea for free, according to your need, have now made it impossible for this man to recover his investment. And so the next idea he would have come up with, he cannot and will not, because he cannot afford to make the investment. The world is now scarce of the idea he would have created.

"We have a limited amount of knowledge available to us, that is true, but that does not entail a properly defined scarcity."

We are in danger of debating semantics.

I am not suggesting that each and every thought be subject to property rights. I am suggesting that creative works, such as movies, music, etc, in which people have made significant investment, belong to the people who have created the work. And that the idea that simply because it is easy for you to avail yourself of it for free, does not give you the right to steal from them the income they may derive from their work.

The world IP socialists would create will never see the likes of Peter Jackson's 'Lord of the Rings', or for that matter pretty much any mainstream television program, as it would be quite impossible for people to recover their investment let alone a profit, when everyone may avail themselves of their work, without payment. Socialism ultimately destroys the very thing it would steal, and IP socialism would do exactly the same thing.

# Matt said on 04 May, 2009 05:18 PM

"It is not that existing idea that is scarce, it is the subsequent ones that have not yet been created, that are scarce."

Even they are not scarce if you use the proper definition.  They simply are not yet accessible or discovered.

If a man spent so much time and energy into developing a "recipe" then why should every person need to repeat that process?  The man has achieved his goal and made his life easier or better through his labor.  If he intended this labor for the sole purpose of selling the idea, he still has the benefit of being the first one to the market.  

Shakespeare, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides did not have the benefit of copyrights and you can observe how well they did.

"The world IP socialists would create will never see the likes of Peter Jackson's 'Lord of the Rings', or for that matter pretty much any mainstream television program, as it would be quite impossible for people to recover their investment let alone a profit, when everyone may avail themselves of their work, without payment."

You may say so, but there's historical evidence that says otherwise.  Recently I saw a list of the most pirated movies and a list of the top selling movies.  There was very little overlap, and while I cannot say for sure, but my belief is that this is because people are willing to pay for works they enjoy, while works they will pirate works they would have otherwise rented.

To turn your argument on its head, suppose our current situation.  A man is an inventor and works on an idea for years, he finally develops a working prototype to find that a second man with the same prototype is standing in front of him at the line to the patent office.  The first man's labor and work now are not only taken from him, but he must pay the second man to use them.  Does not the first man, and any other man possessing the truely scarce raw materials needed to build a broom or other invention have the right to do with those raw materials as he wishes?  You see, this was the crux for me which finally openned my eyes.  Intellectual property cannot be "property" in the proper since of the word, or else its use would forbid the use of true property.  If you've read Man Economy and State by Murray Rothbard, you'll remember that the whole purpose of property rights is to form a rational system for allocating scarce resources.  Defining new types of property that goes against that principle invalidates the system and creates an irrational marketplace which invariably leads to more human suffering and less human satisfaction.

Might I suggest:

http://mises.org/story/3406

http://mises.org/story/3381

I hope this helps.

# MatthewWilliam said on 05 May, 2009 03:48 AM

First off, why are you calling IP opponants "IP socialists", when IP is clearly an invention of the State?

Second I echo what Matt said earlier. There are Kinsella's arguments to consider:

1. IP threatens to constrict and eventually overwhelm actual property rights, and

2. Ideas are not scarce and therefore to call them "property" seems a bit fallacious.

I myself am still learning about this topic, but I find it helps to separate the IP components a bit.  

Patents are pretty straighforward, and no libertarian can support them on ideological or utilitarian grounds. They are a monopolistic grant by the State, given to a certain lucky individual for a certain amount of time. And, as Boldrin and Levine argue in their <i>Against Intellectual Monopoly</i>, innovation and creation still occurs in the absence of patent law.

Copyrights on the other hand present a different dilemma for me. One can insert a copyright, in such a way that it resembles a contract (e.g. on the front page of a book) that forbids the reproduction of the book. This seems consistent with actual property rights.

# Peter Cohen said on 05 May, 2009 11:06 AM

"First off, why are you calling IP opponents "IP socialists", when IP is clearly an invention of the State?"

The state did not invent my movie, they did not invent the work that I claim as my property, my intellectual property. I did that with my own labor and capital. The state did however invent laws to protect my property. This is entirely consistent with the sole legitimate mandate of the state, to protect the rights of the people. I have the right to my property, and if I have created something, it is mine. The state has a legitimate calling to protect my property, just as the state would intervene with police and law, if someone were to rob you of your wallet.

I call IP opponents "IP socialists" because you insist that I must apply my work and labor to create according to my ability, so that you and the rest of the world may avail yourself of my work according to your need, for free. If that is not socialism, I do not know what is.

IP socialists always seem to me to be arguing from a utilitarian perspective. They assert that the greater good is served if intellectuals shall be enslaved to the people. I see this as virtually the same argument that Marxists use to justify the expropriation of capital. They argue from this perspective and the utterly fallacious argument that ideas are not scarce, which is clearly nonsense. I simply repeat myself; existing ideas are not scarce, but future ideas do not simply magically appear out of nowhere. The really important 'ideas' like the knowledge of how to cure cancer, most emphatically ARE scarce.

Now for some things, like a cure for cancer, it could be argued that in a truly free world, we would be wealthy enough that research charities might have adequate funding to develop such cures. But no 'charity' will exist to give funding to Peter Jackson to create 'Lord of the Rings'. If anyone can simply take Peter Jackson's work they day it is released, for free, and display it on their inexpensive wall sized TV, Neither Peter Jackson nor any one else will ever again create a comparable work.

Figures out of history did not have to contend with electronic copying of their work. To see the work of Shakespeare, one had to physically go to a theater and see human beings recreate a performance, gaining revenue was practical. Technology has changed and with it the law has changed.

To assert that Peter Jackson has no property rights over 'Lord of the Rings' (or equivalent nonsense, that he has rights only on the first copy) and that it aught to be the common property of all man kind, most emphatically IS socialism. And just like socialism, IP socialism will destroy the very thing it would steal.

I do not argue that there are no problems with the law. I agree that copyright and patent law have gotten way out of hand and are vastly over restrictive. But because existing law is bad law does not mean that there are no rights to be protected.

# Matt said on 05 May, 2009 02:28 PM

Let me try an incremental approach to our (people that do not believe IP is true property) stance.

A cave man, small child, etc... bangs two sticks together in a pattern of three taps.  Someone else hears or sees this pattern and repeats it.  You are saying that the second person does not have the right to tap his sticks together in the same pattern as the first or else he is stealing?

What if there are 5 instead of 3 taps?  Is it stealing then?  What about 100, or 1000, or several million?  What if these simple taps are replaced with notches in a stick?  Is a pattern of 3 stealing?  What if the notches are in a circular piece of plastic, which is read by a computer?  The second man owns the stick, can the first man legitimately force the second to stop tapping his sticks together in a particular manner?  And if not how is a billion tiny ditches in a piece of plastic any different, other than a difference of scale?

I'm afraid that this is about all of the steam I've got left.  Please, read the works of Rothbard, Read, and other experts in this matter, they address your issues far better than I can.  I'm not an economist and this isn't my forte, so I'd suggest reading the works of the experts.

# Peter Cohen said on 06 May, 2009 11:31 AM

"Please, read the works of Rothbard, Read, and other experts in this matter, they address your issues far better than I can."

Rothbard was against the notion of patents, he was NOT against the idea of copyright. The argument you presented in your abov post was an argument against patents, while I am primarily arguing in defense of copyright. The prime intellectual munitions to the IP socialism argument would seem to be Boldrin and Levine who are arguing against copyright on utilitarian grounds, claiming that the greater good is served by forcing me to work for you for free.

Understand that my argument is not for me simply some intellectual exercise. I am the literal equivalent of the workshop owner protesting as the Bolsheviks appropriate all my machines. Would you require that said workshop owner refute Das Kapital to prove his point?

I used to produce fetish videos for a niche market, short scenes of 4 to 5 minutes, and I used to sell access to them for $6.00 a piece. I produced around a thousand such videos and I used to derive sufficient revenue from new production to pay all costs and support myself with their production. Nowadays however, piracy is so utterly rampant, that within hours of me releasing a new video, it is available through piracy for free. I am forced to compete against my own product being offered by others for free. You would advocate that this is right and just and that I should be happy about this. I have been utterly ruined by the 'idea' that my work aught to be available to all for free. I cannot even recover capital costs from new production, let alone pay for my time to support myself.

You might claim that I could have alternate ways of making money from my work, like advertising. Well, compare the relative production budgets for two hours of television as opposed to two hours of Hollywood movie and you can see the relative return from advertising as opposed to direct sales. And that is for production that has mass market appeal. My work, which is marketed to a niche, has utterly no advertising value.

I stand as living example that socialism destroys the thing it would steal. People would steal my work, therefor I can no longer produce my work.

I am not interested in studying and refuting in minute detail the every brushstroke whereby IP socialist 'libertarians' have painted themselves into a corner. The fact is that they have. IP socialists are defending a position that is patently false. A man is to be free if he works with his hands, but if a man works with his mind, he is to be a slave? Nonsense.

# jdcoffey said on 08 May, 2009 09:58 AM

Peter,

You're absolutely correct when you say that socialism of IP would destroy that which it attempts to steal.  The position that creative and inventive works would exist without copyrights is ludicrous.

# Benny the Anti Syndicalist said on 16 May, 2009 12:17 AM

Sounds like you're blaming others for your failure. Maybe your movies weren't special enough to make people pay for them.

I mean, there's a reason why, for example, my brother downloads pirated copies of Pirates of the Caribbean, Transformers, Die Hard 4, Rambo, etc. and yet when the latest David Lynch movie came out he rushed to the theater and paid to watch it and then PRE-ORDERED the special DVD box set for the movie.

Special works will always be rewarded.

IP mumbo jumbo is just a bailout system for mediocre authors/artists/etc.

PS: BTW, stop pretending IP is what drives creativity. It's ridiculous.

Search

This Blog

• Home

Tags

Community

Archives

Syndication

• RSS for Posts
• Atom
• RSS for Comments
• Email Notifications
  GoEnter a valid email