I assume that in a free society, many, if not most people will sign a contract that enforces intellectual property rights. So intellectual property doesn't have to be actual property right, but instead can be derived from a consensual contract. What do you think?
Eugene:So intellectual property doesn't have to be actual property right, but instead can be derived from a consensual contract.
If it's consensual than there's no problem as far as aggression goes for the consenting parties, but it's still based on the fallacy that there's a scarcity of ideas. If it involves third parties than there's a violation of the NAP, but it doesn't seem that you mean that. If it's consensual, I've no problem with it unless it aggresses against third parties.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
Eugene: I assume that in a free society, many, if not most people will sign a contract that enforces intellectual property rights. So intellectual property doesn't have to be actual property right, but instead can be derived from a consensual contract. What do you think?
I don't think it really makes any sense to say "enforces intellectual property rights", but yeah, you have the right idea. There could be stipulations in contracts that prohibit an end-user from copying and so on.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Obviously I don't think contracts can make third parties comply, that would beat the idea of a contract. However I do think intellectual property is essential for the material well being of society, and as long as it is agreed upon consentually, such as with IP contracts, that would not be against NAP in any way.
I understand what you're saying. All I'm saying is saying is that it would be a misnomer to call it intellectual property. The contracts you are talking about restrict or prohibit the actions of one party, but they don't transfer property titles of the thoughts in the mind of the other party.
Next step:
What incentive will somebody have to sign such a contract which restricts their freedoms?
Hint: avoiding the implicit threat of force or retaliation.
Charles Anthony: Next step: What incentive will somebody have to sign such a contract which restricts their freedoms? Hint: avoiding the implicit threat of force or retaliation.
How is the threat of force or retalition implicit in the OP?
It is not implicit in the OP.
I am just pointing out rhetorically that without such threats, it is pretty unlikely that people will sign a contract that restricts their freedoms. [Any appeal to packaging these contracts with security and protection services comes down to the same thing, by the way.] What other incentive could there be? paying people to sign these contracts?!?
Eugene:I assume that in a free society, many, if not most people will sign a contract that enforces intellectual property rights. So intellectual property doesn't have to be actual property right, but instead can be derived from a consensual contract.
Rothbard spoke like this. You still get into some messy situations, as Kinsella points out. Please see Against Intellectual Property.
I was impressed when someone here told me that ancaps didn't support intellectual property rights. I should have known that there would be a catch...
Signing such contract might be mutually beneficial in the form of "I respect your IP, so you respect mine". I assume companies will sign such contracts if they believe it is beneficial to their business.
Charles Anthony: It is not implicit in the OP. I am just pointing out rhetorically that without such threats, it is pretty unlikely that people will sign a contract that restricts their freedoms. [Any appeal to packaging these contracts with security and protection services comes down to the same thing, by the way.] What other incentive could there be? paying people to sign these contracts?!?
Specifically, what freedoms are you talking about? If Microsoft sells me a copy of Windows 7 (may it be a license), then what freedoms am I giving up? Surely, it couldn't be the freedom to make copies of Windows since I didn't have the freedom to do so to begin with.
Fool on the Hill:I was impressed when someone here told me that ancaps didn't support intellectual property rights. I should have known that there would be a catch...
Would you care to explain what you mean by this?
Off the top of my head...
faber est suae quisque fortunae
When someone told me that ancaps don't support IP, I thought that meant I would be able to buy a copy of Windows, make a copy of it myself, and distribute it to other people. But if I have to agree not to distribute it when I buy it, then it's not really any different in practice than the current system. Although I suppose I'd be able to copy and distribute a copy that someone else illegally made.
It is different.
Fool on the Hill:When someone told me that ancaps don't support IP, I thought that meant I would be able to buy a copy of Windows, make a copy of it myself, and distribute it to other people. But if I have to agree not to distribute it when I buy it, then it's not really any different in practice than the current system. Although I suppose I'd be able to copy and distribute a copy that someone else illegally made.
I don't know what Muff is talking about. What you just described is definitely do-able. Hell, you can obtain a copy of an LvMI work, make copies of it, and sell them if you wanted, right now. And you don't even have to pay for the original work...you could download it for free. Everything produced by LvMI is released under CC BY 3.0 license (which is basically as close to no copyright as you can get, aside from CC0, and the only reason they don't use that is because "efficacy looks doubtful to [Kinsella], and it’s still embryonic as far as [he] can tell"). Even the mises.org website is CCBY3.0.
So yes, you could easily go to the resources page for, say, Lesons for the Young Economist, download it, send it to a printer, bind it into book form, and start selling it. Or you could download the epub and offer it for sale on your own website.
And again, as I said, Rothbard talked about using contracts in IP type situations. It doesn't really work. Please see Against Intellectual Property (which you can also download, print, and distribute (for a profit, if you like)). But really just think about it. How in the world would anyone be able to enforce such a contract? How the hell would the company know where you got it? They could only legally go after the person who breached the contract, and they would have no way of knowing who that was. If they caught you distributing it, they would have to prove they have a contract with you. And even then, in a libertarian society the contract would be unenforcible because there would be no transfer of title taking place...and you can't force someone to uphold a simple promise.
He said that current IP and "IP" under an-cap aren't really different. I said, "It is different."
Daniel Muffinburg:Specifically, what freedoms are you talking about? If Microsoft sells me a copy of Windows 7 (may it be a license), then what freedoms am I giving up? Surely, it couldn't be the freedom to make copies of Windows since I didn't have the freedom to do so to begin with.
Jack Cuyler:Off the top of my head... I'll give you the source code of my computer program if you agree not to make it available to others. I'll provide you with an advance copy of my new movie if you agree not to copy and distribute it. I will share with you the exact method my firm uses to produce our widgets if you agree to to share this imformation with other firms.
Bottom line is that IP laws under ancap eventually hinge on the threat of force or the threat of retaliation to enforce them. The OP is right, it is just a contract and has nothing to do with any definition of what constitutes property.
JJ, would it be "illegal" (morally unjust) to sign away your right to non-aggression? If so, then contracts suddenly become enforceable.
Wheylous,
Morality is simply a personal preference.
I mean "legal morality" or "legal ethics." As in we agree it's immoral to violate NAP. I don't mean something like "don't do drugs."
That would be like today's non disclosure clauses in employment contracts. Trade contracts rarely have such clauses, if they started to have limitations on trade in the contract. Competition could just sell the same product without the clause. In certain circumstances goods already come with a contract or a license agreement. But they have problems enforcing those, even with a government.
But they have problems enforcing those, even with a government.
At which point someone jumps on you and tells you that indeed the free market is always more efficient than a government.
I think Eugene meant things like books, music, etc.
What exactly is he saying ?
That the latest pop band is going to make a consumer sign a contract before purchasing their product? These days some organisations do not even require a signature of a contract. I recently entered a 24 month isp contract and have not accepted any contract. I received a letter with 3 pages of terms and conditions that i did not have to sign. Which is very much similar to the sort of license agreement that you often have to accept for software or that you find inside a box of a product.
The only interest that people would have with entering in to a contract for IP is if they were going to be paid for doing so or if they wanted something that they could not get else where without the IP.
IP contracts between a seller and a buyer are unlikely to occur because in most cases the buyer could just give the product to a third party who is not liable for the contract. I guess they could put in the contract that you can not give the product to a third party and if you do they are liable under the contract. But that becomes even more difficult to enforce.
Wheylous:JJ, would it be "illegal" (morally unjust) to sign away your right to non-aggression? If so, then contracts suddenly become enforceable.
Did you read the article? (You can also listen to it here.) If you want to be logical and consistent, you can't contract in terms of "promises" or "expectations"...only in property. "Signing away" your right to not be aggressed against would basically boil down to "promising" not to defend yourself or allow any agents to defend you. Should you suddenly decide to change your mind and defend yourself when someone initiates force on you, the only way they could enforce the contract of you simply allowing the aggression to go on would be to force you to sit still. So for one thing, you have this circular logic problem where the act of enforcing the contract (as a remedy to your breaching the contract) is the same as carrying on as if the contract were being honored. So what's the point of the contract?
But even considering your contract were in some other kind of promise...Rothbard uses the example of marriage. To force someone into wedlock simply because they said they would (but now have changed their mind) would amount to slavery.
And even as far as contracting yourself into slavery, again, it doesn't work:
The basic reason is that the only valid transfer of title of ownership in the free society is the case where the property is, in fact and in the nature of man, alienable by man. All physical property owned by a person is alienable, i.e., in natural fact it can be given or transferred to the ownership and control of another party. I can give away or sell to another person my shoes, my house, my car, my money, etc. But there are certain vital things which, in natural fact and in the nature of man, are inalienable, i.e., they cannot in fact be alienated, even voluntarily.
Specifically, a person cannot alienate his will, more particularly his control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own will and person, and he is, if you wish, "stuck" with that inherent and inalienable ownership. Since his will and control over his own person are inalienable, then so also are his rights to control that person and will. That is the ground for the famous position of the Declaration of Independence that man's natural rights are inalienable; that is, they cannot be surrendered, even if the person wishes to do so.
Interesting. Are ancaps against prisons then?
Fool on the Hill:Interesting. Are ancaps against prisons then?
It would simply be incorrect to directly answer that question with a "yes" or a "no"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Law and order and the use of violence
OK but after that agreement, if you choose to renege on the agreement, then what?
I would assume there would be some sort of penalty specified in the contract. If not, well, that's just silly.
I couldn't agree more. I presented the short list simply to answer your question.
I really do wish people would stop using the blanket term IP and start referring to copyright, trademarks and patents individually. I don't often agree with Richard Stallman, but he is dead on when he writes, "[Copyright, trademark and patent laws] originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues."
A solid agument for or against copyright will almost certainly not apply to trademark.
JackCuyler:I really do wish people would stop using the blanket term IP and start referring to copyright, trademarks and patents individually. I don't often agree with Richard Stallman, but he is dead on when he writes, "[Copyright, trademark and patent laws] originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues."
What difference does it make if ideas/patterns are not actually property? People who are anti-IP are not "anti-copyright" and just have their terms ambigiously wrong. The concept of "intellectual property" is illegitimate, therefore any sort of laws protecting "intellectual property" are illegitimate. It doesn't matter what they are called or what specific ideas/patterns they protect.
Read Against Intellectual Property (it's quite short). And yes, he means all IP...every kind.
I did not mean that every time you buy something you sign a non discloure agreement, not at all. What I meant, is that those people who believe copyrights should be respected, will sign such contract. It will not be signed everytime one purchases a book or an album. It will be a general contract.
Intellectual property is only a priori illegitimate if you accept Rothbardian natural rights, or natural rights to private property. If someone doesn't accept their legitimacy, then claiming IP is illegitimate is a meaningless statement.
It'd be like telling a socialist that the USSR is an example of socialism. They'll simply endlessly, fallaciously claim it's really just a different kind of capitalism, not real socialism.
JackCuyler:I really do wish people would stop using the blanket term IP and start referring to copyright, trademarks and patents individually. I don't often agree with Richard Stallman, but he is dead on when he writes, "[Copyright, trademark and patent laws] originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues." A solid agument for or against copyright will almost certainly not apply to trademark.
From the perspective of the person who chooses not follow any of those laws, they are all the same because they are all reduced logically to restrictions of what you can do with your own property.
Zachary Plaxco:Intellectual property is only a priori illegitimate if you accept Rothbardian natural rights, or natural rights to private property. If someone doesn't accept their legitimacy, then claiming IP is illegitimate is a meaningless statement.
Not exactly. The notion that ideas/patterns are property proves itself to be illogical and fallaciously reasoned, as there are simply no good arguments for it. "You either limit these rights in scope or time arbitrarily, or you extent them to infinity, choking off rights in real things and forcing life and commerce to a screeching halt." It literally makes no sense. If a cave man saw another cave man fashion a bunch of leaves into a cushion to rest his head, does the first man owe compensation to the second if he does the same thing? What about if he fashions a spear? Or a shelter? Anyone who sees what he has done and uses their own resources to do the same thing must pay him some kind of fee?
It's utter nonsense.
They'll simply endlessly, fallaciously claim it's really just a different kind of capitalism, not real socialism.
I've heard this before. What's the argument that the USSR was indeed socialist, then?
It's brilliant, as one would expect from Kinsella.
Do note that there isn't much of an attack on trade secrets, at all, and that he correctly calls trademark violation fraud.
JackCuyler:It's brilliant, as one would expect from Kinsella. Do note that there isn't much of an attack on trade secrets, at all, and that he correctly calls trademark violation fraud.
Also note though that he is logically consistent and maintains that it is the customer who is defrauded...not the original business the other company is pretending to be...which in turn means (as he points out) it is the customer who has a right to sue for fraud...not some business that can sue for "trademark violation."
And as far as trade secrets go, all that is is not telling people your idea. Anyone who wants to make that a crime needs to be committed.
Also note though that he is logically consistent and maintains that it is the customer who is defrauded...not the original business the other company is pretending to be...which in turn means (as he points out) it is the customer who has a right to sue for fraud...not some business that can sue for "trademark violation." And as far as trade secrets go, all that is is not telling people your idea. Anyone who wants to make that a crime needs to be committed.
Exactly. This is why I stressed the differences between the different IP laws, especially in response to the OP. Trade secrets could certainly be handled with contracts, as the OP suggests. Trademark violations are generally violations of contracts already, though not in a way the law currently recognises. Patents and copyrights have nothing to do with contracts.
If you really want a copyright law-like thing you can create contracts which create property interests, thereby creating the power to enforce them on people who have signed them.