In the past few weeks I've set my mind to educating myself on IP. To a large extent I find myself agreeing with the argument put forth by Kinsella and Tucker, however there is one argument put forward by some Objectivists like Diana Hsieh that precludes me from comprehensively rejecting IP (at least in its form as copyright).
The argument goes that copyright-property does not restrict physical property-holders' liberty, because before the "creator" produced the (say) song which was copyrighted, the song did not exist. Therefore the creator is not really restricting anybody's property rights, because he or she really did create something that was not around before (i.e. it is in this case not a matter of simply re-arranging matter, like patents).
Intuitively this argument seems weak, thus I am having trouble articulating it.
Thoughts or links would be appreciated.
alexander: In the past few weeks I've set my mind to educating myself on IP. To a large extent I find myself agreeing with the argument put forth by Kinsella and Tucker, however there is one argument put forward by some Objectivists like Diana Hsieh that precludes me from comprehensively rejecting IP (at least in its form as copyright).
Hi, alexander.
The argument goes that copyright-property does not restrict physical property-holders' liberty, because before the "creator" produced the (say) song which was copyrighted, the song did not exist.
Ok. We'll agree the song didn't exist.
Therefore the creator is not really restricting anybody's property rights, because he or she really did create something that was not around before (i.e. it is in this case not a matter of simply re-arranging matter, like patents).
So would I be able to record a song someone else holds a copyright for, and record it onto CDs and sell the CD's? If the CDs are my property before I record the music onto them, are they not my property after I record that music on them? If you agree that they are still my property, then you reject the claim of copyright. If you don't agree that they are my property, who's property has it become and why?
Before responding, I need to explain where I am coming from since I am not a Libertarian and I believe that Objectivism is a bankrupt philosophy. First, the concept of copyright as possessing some sort of property right as we know it in the US came out of England is is formalized in the US through the Constitution. In fact, I don't have a problem with copyright as originally envisioned for a limited time and to promote progress.
My problem with copyright today is that it has been bastardized to the point that it is perceived as a "legitimate" property right that serves as as a toll both for the content creator to extort a rent from the users. The whole argument today is that the copyright holder is somehow entitled to extort revenue form the user with ever more "innovative" methods and expanded "rights"..
1. In the discussion of property right, I am constantly astounded by the apparent "oversight" of many commenters that the purchaser of a product does not seem to acquire the property right to use the product. The sellers of content love to claim that they are only renting/leasing the product to you. This is a fiction, you bought it, you own it. It is your property. (PS this does not entitle you to sell copyright work to others, that is a right retained by the copyright holder.)
2.Copyright is being fragmented into a zillion property "rights" by the content creators. Look at DVD region coding and the claims that you can't transfer a song from a CD to a computer. Just because a content creator created a piece of work does does not allow him to assert, post sale, control over the media. Where are your rights to the private property that you just bought. Furthermore, taken to the logical extreme, the content creator could say that you would only be allowed to have one listening experience at 3:00 AM on a Sunday when it is snowing in Honolulu.
3. Not only do the content creators assert property rights that they do not posses, but they also feel entitled to spy on you to assure that the content they created is only used in a manner that they have "authorized". Violate those conditions, off to jail. This is akin to corporatism, where business can use the power of the State to enforce their business practices. I would hope that Libertarians would be opposed to this practice.
Ideas can not be copyrighted. I will tolerate copyright for ideas put into printed form for a limited time that furthers progress. But the copyright system needs to be either fixed or ended since it is depriving the consumer of their property rights to the content and the current system is simply being used as a toll-both to extort rent.
alexander:the song did not exist.
What is a "song"? Current copyright law is not restricted to a "song". It can apply to an intro to a song. Why just an intro? Why not the letter A? If the sound to the letter A is copyrighted, then why can't I buy it and force you and everyone else who ever uses it to pay me?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Steve Rynas:I will tolerate copyright for ideas put into printed form for a limited time that furthers progress.
How do you measure this thing you call "furthers progress"? How do you measure everything that is lost because people are not able to improve upon an idea?
"Furthers progress" is quite open to interpretation. You could have the proverbial panel that decides whether a work would even be entitled to the copyright privilege. One of the failures with our existing approach to copyright is that we don't even bother to evaluate whether a work would be entitled to copyright, it is simply granted contrary to the wording in the constitution.
I fail to understand what you mean by: "How do you measure everything that is lost because people are not able to improve upon an idea?" Everything we do is based on the works of others. What that means is that we should either abolish copyright or have it for a very short (limited) time so that we can build on the works of others.
alexander:because he or she really did create something that was not around before (i.e. it is in this case not a matter of simply re-arranging matter, like patents).
Isn't a song, just "simply re-arranging notes", like patents?
They didn't create the notes, the potential was always there - they merely discovered them, brought them to light first, or ordered them that way first... but none of which, gives them ownership of the notes - as far as I can see.
Someone else, on the other side of the world could have ordered the notes in a similar fashion, before or after this person "created" their song.
I guess that's my understanding.
Giant_Joe: So would I be able to record a song someone else holds a copyright for, and record it onto CDs and sell the CD's? If the CDs are my property before I record the music onto them, are they not my property after I record that music on them? If you agree that they are still my property, then you reject the claim of copyright. If you don't agree that they are my property, who's property has it become and why? Wouldn't the Objectivist or pro-IP libertarian reply the physical CD is your property, but you've nevertheless violated the song creator's property rights by copying the song? I can imagine they would analogise a situation where you steal someone's pen but then put it into your pencil case (hence you aggressed upon their property, but the pencil case is still your property). And to pre-empt any responses suggesting that stealing a pencil removes the pencil whilst copying a song just doubles it, what if the song-creator, as the property-holder, simply wishes for the song not to be copied. So what? Who are we to say how he or she should use her property? (Of course, this potentially begs the question, assuming the creator holds property rights to the song, but I think it's a reasonable rejoinder to the "it only doubles it" argument which I have no response to. spideynw: What is a "song"? Current copyright law is not restricted to a "song". It can apply to an intro to a song. Why just an intro? Why not the letter A? If the sound to the letter A is copyrighted, then why can't I buy it and force you and everyone else who ever uses it to pay me? That's an interesting point. I would like to know what pro-IP people think about this (if there are any are around on these forums, I'd love to hear from you). I can imagine a pro-IP libertarian replying with something along the lines of the letter "A" being simply a conceptualisation of a set of linguistic patterns inherent in a human's nature (and so un-copyrightable), and that it is only when humans synthesise "song" out of these natural linguistic parts that copyright can be applied. Perhaps this is a stretch, but I'm playing devil's advocate to try and get a water-tight understanding of both sides of the debate. Conza88: alexander:because he or she really did create something that was not around before (i.e. it is in this case not a matter of simply re-arranging matter, like patents). Isn't a song, just "simply re-arranging notes", like patents? They didn't create the notes, the potential was always there - they merely discovered them, brought them to light first, or ordered them that way first... but none of which, gives them ownership of the notes - as far as I can see. Again, fair point. But what about someone's specific vocal track? That's unique, and surely not any sort of re-arrangement. Could that be justly copyrighted? | Post Points: 20
Wouldn't the Objectivist or pro-IP libertarian reply the physical CD is your property, but you've nevertheless violated the song creator's property rights by copying the song? I can imagine they would analogise a situation where you steal someone's pen but then put it into your pencil case (hence you aggressed upon their property, but the pencil case is still your property).
And to pre-empt any responses suggesting that stealing a pencil removes the pencil whilst copying a song just doubles it, what if the song-creator, as the property-holder, simply wishes for the song not to be copied. So what? Who are we to say how he or she should use her property? (Of course, this potentially begs the question, assuming the creator holds property rights to the song, but I think it's a reasonable rejoinder to the "it only doubles it" argument which I have no response to.
spideynw: What is a "song"? Current copyright law is not restricted to a "song". It can apply to an intro to a song. Why just an intro? Why not the letter A? If the sound to the letter A is copyrighted, then why can't I buy it and force you and everyone else who ever uses it to pay me?
That's an interesting point. I would like to know what pro-IP people think about this (if there are any are around on these forums, I'd love to hear from you). I can imagine a pro-IP libertarian replying with something along the lines of the letter "A" being simply a conceptualisation of a set of linguistic patterns inherent in a human's nature (and so un-copyrightable), and that it is only when humans synthesise "song" out of these natural linguistic parts that copyright can be applied.
Perhaps this is a stretch, but I'm playing devil's advocate to try and get a water-tight understanding of both sides of the debate.
Conza88: alexander:because he or she really did create something that was not around before (i.e. it is in this case not a matter of simply re-arranging matter, like patents). Isn't a song, just "simply re-arranging notes", like patents? They didn't create the notes, the potential was always there - they merely discovered them, brought them to light first, or ordered them that way first... but none of which, gives them ownership of the notes - as far as I can see.
Again, fair point. But what about someone's specific vocal track? That's unique, and surely not any sort of re-arrangement. Could that be justly copyrighted?
alexander: Conza88: alexander:because he or she really did create something that was not around before (i.e. it is in this case not a matter of simply re-arranging matter, like patents). Isn't a song, just "simply re-arranging notes", like patents? They didn't create the notes, the potential was always there - they merely discovered them, brought them to light first, or ordered them that way first... but none of which, gives them ownership of the notes - as far as I can see. Again, fair point. But what about someone's specific vocal track? That's unique, and surely not any sort of re-arrangement. Could that be justly copyrighted?
What about someones specific writing style? That's unique. But much like writing, which uses letters, singing uses notes.
You can own the physical piece of paper that contains the writing, or the physical CD that contains the notes - but you cannot own the notes, or letters themselves, nor the patterns they form and 'create'.
When someone photo copy's a piece of paper - then there has been no theft. The origional still exists with the owner and now there is a copy. Same goes for music files. The only real claim for Music companies or book publishers is if a non-disclosure agreement has been broken. But they have to prove that person broke it, and when it comes to the world wide web and the internet - that's basically impossible. But more importantly, when it is shared, like P2P - those people getting a copy, never made an agreement to non-disclose or anything like that, and thus there would be no basis for prosecution.
Steve Rynas:"Furthers progress" is quite open to interpretation. You could have the proverbial panel that decides whether a work would even be entitled to the copyright privilege.
And this proverbial panel would be neutral how? And it's determination of what "further progress" is would be relevant how?
Steve Rynas:I fail to understand what you mean by: "How do you measure everything that is lost because people are not able to improve upon an idea?" Everything we do is based on the works of others. What that means is that we should either abolish copyright or have it for a very short (limited) time so that we can build on the works of others.
I was thinking of patents. I should ask, how do you measure what is lost because people have to pay much more than the market would normally demand? For example, paying $15 for a CD is way more expensive than getting it for free on the internet and buying a writable CD for fifty cents.
Conza88: What about someones specific writing style? That's unique. But much like writing, which uses letters, singing uses notes. You can own the physical piece of paper that contains the writing, or the physical CD that contains the notes - but you cannot own the notes, or letters themselves, nor the patterns they form and 'create'.
Why can't you? You came up with *that* arrangement. You can say a certain song is yours. There is no reason to suggest that no one at all came up with the song. The CD is not what is being bought as much as the *song*. You're paying for the *song*. A song is intellectual in nature, you can't touch a song. So there is nothing invalid about intellectual property. What may be invalid is enforcement of it in certain ways. Just like there are invalid ways of enforcing physical property rights. A writing "style" would not be a valid form of intellectual property since it is an aesthetic evaluation something that exists; you cannot own calculus or the fact that the earth orbits the sun. Only something that a person creates by the process of using their mind can be property. An individual creates a song, so they *can* claim to own a song.
When someone photo copy's a piece of paper - then there has been no theft. The origional still exists with the owner and now there is a copy. Same goes for music files. The only real claim for Music companies or book publishers is if a non-disclosure agreement has been broken.
Just like a copyright, no? Also it would be more accurate to say fraud occurred.
But they have to prove that person broke it, and when it comes to the world wide web and the internet - that's basically impossible.
It'd be difficult. So?
But more importantly, when it is shared, like P2P - those people getting a copy, never made an agreement to non-disclose or anything like that, and thus there would be no basis for prosecution.
I suppose, but the person who copied it in the first place should be open for prosecution. I would think that since the original copier violated a contract (what else would a copyright be?), that all the other people have no valid claim on the copies they received.
If I hear a song and remember it, there is a copy of that song in my mind. Has my mind committed copyright infringement?
Eioul: Conza88: What about someones specific writing style? That's unique. But much like writing, which uses letters, singing uses notes. You can own the physical piece of paper that contains the writing, or the physical CD that contains the notes - but you cannot own the notes, or letters themselves, nor the patterns they form and 'create'. Why can't you? You came up with *that* arrangement. You can say a certain song is yours. There is no reason to suggest that no one at all came up with the song. The CD is not what is being bought as much as the *song*. You're paying for the *song*. A song is intellectual in nature, you can't touch a song. So there is nothing invalid about intellectual property. What may be invalid is enforcement of it in certain ways. Just like there are invalid ways of enforcing physical property rights. A writing "style" would not be a valid form of intellectual property since it is an aesthetic evaluation something that exists; you cannot own calculus or the fact that the earth orbits the sun. Only something that a person creates by the process of using their mind can be property. An individual creates a song, so they *can* claim to own a song.
We can't claim exclusive ownership to patterns because the way we define what's copyright-able is arbitrary. Isn't it correct to say that an arrangement of notes is music, only because we recognize it as music through aesthetic evaluation?
"You can say a certain song is yours." ...I can claim plenty of things as my property, but that doesn't make it so.
"A song is intellectual in nature, you can't touch a song. So there is nothing invalid about intellectual property." ...this is working of Ayn Rand's definition of what property is. I assume the part about not being able to touch it isn't part of what defines something as property. So I'll assume it's the intellectual part. Does that make my analysis IP? If I'm the first person to have a certain feeling, can I copyright it?
The problem here is taking "IP is property" as an axiom. Once it isn't taken as an axiom, it becomes apparent that it is not property.
When someone photo copy's a piece of paper - then there has been no theft. The original still exists with the owner and now there is a copy. Same goes for music files. The only real claim for Music companies or book publishers is if a non-disclosure agreement has been broken. Just like a copyright, no? Also it would be more accurate to say fraud occurred.
When someone photo copy's a piece of paper - then there has been no theft. The original still exists with the owner and now there is a copy. Same goes for music files. The only real claim for Music companies or book publishers is if a non-disclosure agreement has been broken.
What fraud? He copied the paper. Copying paper isn't fraud.
Eioul, if i stole your song, feel free to steal it back,...
only don't steal my non-intellectual property. as i have not stolen any of yours.
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
Giant_Joe: If I hear a song and remember it, there is a copy of that song in my mind. Has my mind committed copyright infringement?
No, because the only time infringement *could* occur is when you do some action with this knowledge you now know. If you decide to distribute the song without permission, or say the song is your creation, there would be infringement.
You know what a song is as well as I do. It is a specific sound pattern created by and made possible by the composer. The point is you don't discover a song. You *create* a song. How what is copyright-able is arbitrary I simply don't understand. It is the product of one's mind that isn't physical in nature and whose value is not physical. A book in particular. Yes, what you said is how you identify what is music. But a song is the product of an individual's mind, not of reality. Objective facts about reality cannot be owned. A song isn't an objective fact.
Poor wording on my part. You can say a certain song is yours because you *created it*. No one owned it previously, either.
I'm not taking it as an axiom. You'd have to show me property *is not* the product of an individual's mind. The song is a product of your mind, and it can be demonstrated to be created by a person. All property is the product of an individual's mind. Even physical. The only differences are legal implications.
Well we're getting too far ahead here, probably. I was assuming there would have been a copyright involved and the original writer didn't want his work copied. To copy would be to violate a contract that is the copyright.
Please be more explicit in how you define property. As far as I know, property to you is just something you mixed your labor in; nothing more.
nirgrahamUK: Eioul, if i stole your song, feel free to steal it back,... only don't steal my non-intellectual property. as i have not stolen any of yours.
Doh!
Eioul: Giant_Joe: If I hear a song and remember it, there is a copy of that song in my mind. Has my mind committed copyright infringement? No, because the only time infringement *could* occur is when you do some action with this knowledge you now know. If you decide to distribute the song without permission, or say the song is your creation, there would be infringement.
So can I "own" the sound for the letter "a"?
I missed one part to respond to:
"If I'm the first person to have a certain feeling, can I copyright it?"
I don't even know how to respond to that. You can't "create" feelings. I hope I've made it clear that property is the product of an individual's mind. If that isn't property, I want to know why and what the correct definition of property is.
Spideynw: So can I "own" the sound for the letter "a"?
I would suppose so. But whoever did come up with it has been long dead, so no one can own it once it has been invented and the inventor is dead.
ah, so it can't be bequeathed to inheritors? or you haven't thought that far ahead....
nirgrahamUK: ah, so it can't be bequeathed to inheritors? or you haven't thought that far ahead....
Nope, for the reason that it cannot be transferred to another person, since it is not physical in nature. That's why I ask for your definition of property, since I don't understand why property can only be physical. Although property certainly must be put into a form before you can claim anything was created. You'd have to write your book in some form (on paper, a text document, etc). Otherwise, it simply wouldn't exist. But the product is also the content. Not only the pages.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Is it necessary I respond further?
So wait, the Austrian school doesn't back intellectual property but it backs physical property? Why can the law be used to protect one and not another?
bloomj31: So wait, the Austrian school doesn't back intellectual property but it backs physical property? Why can the law be used to protect one and not another?
The problem here is that you're recognizing the construct of IP. IP essentially gives a copyright holder the ability to tell others what they can't do with their property. That is a violation of property rights.
Giant_Joe: The problem here is that you're recognizing the construct of IP. IP essentially gives a copyright holder the ability to tell others what they can't do with their property. That is a violation of property rights.
But what if I come up with something first? Shouldn't I have exclusive right to it for a period of time?
No.
Knight_of_BAAWA: No.
Hmm. Well, can't say I agree with that.
bloomj31: But what if I come up with something first? Shouldn't I have exclusive right to it for a period of time?
Why should you?
Giant_Joe: Why should you?
Because I came up with it.
Giant_Joe: bloomj31: But what if I come up with something first? Shouldn't I have exclusive right to it for a period of time? Why should you?
Sorry for the derail, but your avatar brings back memories: I was in the Archie club when I was a kid, and I had my club card in my wallet up until the day I joined the Navy. I wish I hadn't thrown it out.
Read my Nolan Chart column "Me & My Big Mouth"
bloomj31: Giant_Joe: Why should you? Because I came up with it.
Let's test this logic:
Now for the pro-IP argument:
I'm not following.
Claiming that no one else can use an idea because I was the first to think it and write it down is like claiming that I was the first one to see something, so it is automatically mine. It just doesn't logically follow. Someone can own a copy of an idea in their mind, but they can't own a copy of an idea in someone else's mind, because that idea belongs to someone else.
No one else can use idea for a period of time.
Also, I don't think people put copyrights on things they just see, I'm pretty sure there are criteria for what can and cannot be trademarked or copyrighted or whatever. For instance, letters can't be copyrighted. But the formula for Coca Cola can.
Also, copyright infringement is usually only charged when someone else tries to sell something that someone else has already copyrighted. Or if it's very similar. Not if they think about the same thing but if they produce it and try to sell it.
bloomj31: No one else can use idea for a period of time.
Because you say so? How long?
The criteria is arbitrary. It doesn't go anything past "I feel this should be IP, and I feel this shouldn't be IP, and I'll do whatever I can to rationalize why it can or can't be"
Different people will have different rationales, leading to different beliefs what can and can't be IP. Should everyone be subject to the enforcement of IP laws they don't agree with? Especially when they can't agree to the terms of what IP is or how long copyright should last, or how long a patent grants a monopoly?
So it is potentially illegal to reduce the scarcity of something? For 4 years? 5 years? 10 years? That doesn't sound good for society.
I think it's time for this video again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4
Conza88: Is it necessary I respond further?
Yes. I don't understand what your definition of property is. All I know is what you think it isn't. That XKCD strip doesn't tell me anything, since that isn't any infringement in the first place. Nothing was being done with the read information. It should be assumed that people will and do read in bookstores. By selling a book in a bookstore a seller takes that risk, but that doesn't give you the right to grab your laptop and transcribe it. Just like you have no right to claim the book is yours because you touched it. I have nothing else to say or post unless someone defines property for me. Obviously my definition is different.
Of course enforcing IP would be a violation of rights if you don't think there is a such thing as IP. The same way enforcing property rights is a violation of rights if you don't believe there is a such thing as property. IP is neither inferior nor superior to physical property.
1. Not just because I say so but because a lot of people say so. You may not think that's a legitimate reason but that's pretty much how democratic politics works. I dunno, I like 7 years.
2. Yeah, the criteria are arbitrary, but widely agreed upon. Yeah, if they're gonna play the game, they gotta play by the rules of the game that everyone else comes up with, that's the way it works.
3. This isn't about society, this is about protecting inventors and companies from infringement. Just like I want to protect people from having their car stolen or their house broken into, I want to protect people from having their ideas stolen and used by someone else.
bloomj31: 1. Not just because I say so but because a lot of people say so. You may not think that's a legitimate reason but that's pretty much how democratic politics works. I dunno, I like 7 years.
Democracy is mob rule. In case you haven't noticed, the people here don't really believe in democracy. Most people in the past thought the Earth was flat. Did that make it so? Most people thought slavery was ok. Did that make it so?
2. Yeah, the criteria are arbitrary, but widely agreed upon. Yeah, if they're gonna play the game, they gotta play by the rules of the game that everyone else comes up with, that's the way it works. 3. This isn't about society, this is about protecting inventors and companies from infringement. Just like I want to protect people from having their car stolen or their house broken into, I want to protect people from having their ideas stolen and used by someone else.
What infringement? There is only infringement if there is intellectual property. IP isn't consistent or logically sound. It's just as made up as garzzlebax.
Ideas can't be stolen. They can only be copied. It can only be stolen if in the process of learning, another person forgets it.
There's a wealth of information and rebuttle against IP on http://www.againstmonopoly.org/
1. I understand that people on this site aren't for democracy but unfortunately, America still plays the democracy game. So for better or worse, that's the context in which these rules have to be considered.
2. If you copyright garzzlebax then you have the right to that name or whatever. I can guarantee you you'd be glad of copyright laws if you sold a product called garzzlebax and then someone came out with a different product called garzzlebax. Because then the time and effort you'd put into your product wouldn't have been for nothing. Ideas can definitely be stolen. If, for instance, I have a blueprint for a machine. Someone steals the blueprint and makes the machine. Well, I have first claim to the profits because I have first claim to the design. This is good for me bad for the thief. You take away the laws and suddenly everyone has a reason to just steal from someone else whenever they come up with something good. I don't like that possibility.
3. I'm sure there's a ton of rebuttal but I support all forms of private property, including IP and I think the state or non-governmental enforcer should have a role in protecting people's property, whether it be physical or intellectual.
Eioul: Conza88:What about someones specific writing style? That's unique. But much like writing, which uses letters, singing uses notes. You can own the physical piece of paper that contains the writing, or the physical CD that contains the notes - but you cannot own the notes, or letters themselves, nor the patterns they form and 'create'. Why can't you?
Conza88:What about someones specific writing style? That's unique. But much like writing, which uses letters, singing uses notes. You can own the physical piece of paper that contains the writing, or the physical CD that contains the notes - but you cannot own the notes, or letters themselves, nor the patterns they form and 'create'.
How can you?
Eioul:Only something that a person creates by the process of using their mind can be property. An individual creates a song, so they *can* claim to own a song.
They have a claim to the physical property, but not the metaphysical. How do you contend of property, where there is no such thing as scarcity?
Eioul: Conza88: When someone photo copy's a piece of paper - then there has been no theft. The origional still exists with the owner and now there is a copy. Same goes for music files. The only real claim for Music companies or book publishers is if a non-disclosure agreement has been broken. Just like a copyright, no? Also it would be more accurate to say fraud occurred.
Conza88: When someone photo copy's a piece of paper - then there has been no theft. The origional still exists with the owner and now there is a copy. Same goes for music files. The only real claim for Music companies or book publishers is if a non-disclosure agreement has been broken.
Copyright is bunk. What fraud? Why?
Eioul: Conza88: But they have to prove that person broke it, and when it comes to the world wide web and the internet - that's basically impossible. It'd be difficult. So?
Conza88: But they have to prove that person broke it, and when it comes to the world wide web and the internet - that's basically impossible.
Just an additional utilitarian argument added in. So... it would be a complete waste of resources to try catch these non criminals?
Eioul: all the other people have no valid claim on the copies they received.
And why is that?
Eioul: Conza88: Is it necessary I respond further? Yes. I don't understand what your definition of property is.
Yes. I don't understand what your definition of property is.
The normative principle I am suggesting for the law is simply this: No action should be considered illicit or illegal unless it invades, or aggresses against, the person or just property of another. Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combated with the full power of the law. The invasion must be concrete and physical. There are degrees of seriousness of such invasion, and hence, different proper degrees of restitution or punishment. "Burglary," simple invasion of property for purposes of theft, is less serious than "robbery," where armed force is likely to be used against the victim. Here, however, we are not concerned with the questions of degrees of invasion or punishment, but simply with invasion per se.
If no man may invade another person's "just" property, what is our criterion of justice to be?[11] There is no space here to elaborate on a theory of justice in property titles. Suffice it to say that the basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a selfowner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with." From these twin axioms — self-ownership and "homesteading" — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.[12]
Legal and political theory have committed much mischief by failing to pinpoint physical invasion as the only human action that should be illegal and that justifies the use of physical violence to combat it. The vague concept of "harm" is substituted for the precise one of physical violence.[13] Consider the following two examples. Jim is courting Susan and is just about to win her hand in marriage, when suddenly Bob appears on the scene and wins her away. Surely Bob has done great "harm" to Jim. Once a nonphysical-invasion sense of harm is adopted, almost any outlaw act might be justified. Should Jim be able to "enjoin" Bob's very existence?[14]
Similarly, A is a successful seller of razor blades. But then B comes along and sells a better blade, teflon-coated to prevent shaving cuts. The value of A's property is greatly affected. Should he be able to collect damages from B, or, better yet, to enjoin B's sale of a better blade? The correct answer is not that consumers would be hurt if they were forced to buy the inferior blade, although that is surely the case. Rather, no one has the right to legally prevent or retaliate against "harms" to his property unless it is an act of physical invasion. Everyone has the right to have the physical integrity of his property inviolate; no one has the right to protect the value of his property, for that value is purely the reflection of what people are willing to pay for it. That willingness solely depends on how they decide to use their money. No one can have a right to someone else's money, unless that other person had previously contracted to transfer it to him.
The exact same argument applies against IP.
Eioul: Spideynw: So can I "own" the sound for the letter "a"? I would suppose so. But whoever did come up with it has been long dead, so no one can own it once it has been invented and the inventor is dead.
So rights to ideas cannot be transferred but real property can?