It's even good
http://www.slate.com/authors.matthew_yglesias.html
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/01/matthew_yglesias_caleb_crain_and_i_actually_agree_on_copyright_law_.html
I agree. It's excellent.
I 'm just playing a devil's advocate here, mostly.
When Christ performs the miracle of the loaves and fishes do we condemn him for depriving fishmongers of hypothetical income?
But the fishmongers do not own the IP of the loaves and fishes, they merely own copies. The music labels (just an example) claim to own both the IP and the (unsold) copies.
You'll have to be more explicit with your concern I honestly don't get it
My understanding is that the article compares Christ (who effectively produces undounded number of copies from a few copies of fish) to an IP "pirate", and the fishmongers (who as a result do not receive profit from sales of their fish) to IP owners.
My objection is that the analogy is broken - the fishmongers do not claim to own IP of the fish (copyright), they presumably claim only ownership of specific copies of fish. As a result, any proponent of the IP laws can attack this analogy ("yeah, but the fishmongers hadn't invested millions into R&D of the fish design blah-blah").
so just imagine the fishmongers made those claims of IP over such fish... .
If they said 'yeah but R&D', the response would have to be 'so what?' typically people arent deprived of the R&D that they invested for and I dont think thats the complaint.
Only the most primitive pro-IPists claim that pirates actually steal R&D (whatever that would mean). The typical pro-IP argument is that in absence of IP laws IP would be under-produced (meaning the aggregated social value would go down - this relies on objective value but let's not open this can of worms for now).
Again, I only claim that the analogy is not accurate - the fishmongers are similar to distributors of copies, not owners of IP (these roles may be played by the same entity in real life, but the roles are distinct nevertheless).
Andris Birkmanis:Only the most primitive pro-IPists claim that pirates actually steal R&D (whatever that would mean). The typical pro-IP argument is that in absence of IP laws IP would be under-produced (meaning the aggregated social value would go down - this relies on objective value but let's not open this can of worms for now). Again, I only claim that the analogy is not accurate - the fishmongers are similar to distributors of copies, not owners of IP (these roles may be played by the same entity in real life, but the roles are distinct nevertheless).
Like all forms of monopoly, IP is about "who gets the money". That's really what it boils down to for IP advocates.
The argument that IP would be under-produced in the absence of IP laws is flawed on two fronts. First off, in the absence of IP laws, no IP would be produced - because, by definition, it wouldn't exist. Second, the argument implies that, had it not been for person X who created or invented Y, neither Y nor anything like it would've ever been created or invented. As you said, on one hand this raises the specter of objective value. On the other hand, it drops the larger context. It does not follow that, just because person X only had an incentive to create or invent Y, no one else would ever have an incentive to create or invent Y (or something like it). Many inventions and creative works were produced before the advent of IP laws. The open-source software community is a hub of innovation even today.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
and thirdly, how the HELL one calculates what will be under-produced in no-IP society??? It's like when most statists argue, that without government monopoly on roads, they wouldn't be built to some specific group of people (ala location) and that would be bad.. This "argument" needs to be proven first, because now it is only an assertion and personal opinion (without IP there would be less "good" movies, so let's have a monopoly, because I love movies!). Heh..
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Whoa, guys, I was just trying to demonstrate the flaw in the analogy - a very specific argument. I did not set protection of the IP laws as a goal.
If the fish had been sold to Jesus in a contract that stated he could not replicate them, and that any replicated fish belonged to the fishmongers, then Jesus would in fact be a criminal. If Jesus bought or received the fish without signing such a contract, it would by no means be illegal for him to replicate the fish.
In other words, I believe in the Rothbardian concept of contractual copyrights.
then Jesus would in fact be a criminal ... In other words, I believe in the Rothbardian concept of contractual copyrights.
then Jesus would in fact be a criminal
...
IIRC, Rothbardian (title-transfer) theory of contract, breach of contract is NOT a crime, but merely a trigger for title transfer. E.g., the contract could say: "in case of Jesus replicating the abovementioned fish, Jesus becomes liable 12 silver pieces to the following person at the following payment schedule". And only if Jesus failed to deliver the 12 silver pieces (while actually having them) would he become a criminal. Is my reading of Rothbard flawed?
Nope, you're absolutely right, I concur. Valid point. I should certainly have elaborated: having the fish and not transferring them, as per contractual title obligation, would make Jesus a criminal.
My mistake, sorry about that. You're phraseology of my beliefs is much better, haha.