It seems to me that if I write a book, I should profit by it, and should be protected (by copyright) against it being stolen by, say, a publisher with greater ability to distribute it. They could essentially take all the benefit of my work in this way. Or if I spend millions creating a new drug, shouldn't I be protected (by patent) from someone else marketing a cheaper version (because they don't have the research costs to make up), and thereby making all the profit from my work?
I have read a number of books from this site, and find them to be very reasonable and insightful, so I feel I must be missing some key point on this particular topic. Could someone enlighten me as to the core Austrian argument against IP?
Thanks,
The Rev
Lifes a piece of shit, when you look at it
Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true
Just remember it's all a show, keep em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you
Well, IP assumes property rights. However, property rights are rights over specific physical objects (a book: To Kill A Mockingbird). As they're currently enforced, IP rights are rights over all physical objects of a given class (all books and information storage devices that are at any point fashioned into a form that expresses the same information as To Kill A Mockingbird). [This argument is paraphrased from Clayton's recent post.]
Now what would be supported in the natural order absent the state is anyone's guess, but it seems to me that such an odd concept as a claim on an entire class of objects would only enjoy minimal support, any.
Why anarchy fails
how much should you profit by it?
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
You're saying if you write "To Kill a Mockingbird" and I shortly after write "To forcefully Bring About the Death of the Sage Thrasher," that I have not commited theft against you? What a fallacy.
I would love to be the rich man in that world who takes (not steals, remember) every scientist, artist, song-writer, and poet's works to diseminate as my own through my much more vast distribution powers.
And Nir, how much does he want to profit? Whatever the market will pay for it... what kind of question was that?
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
if the market will pay $0 for it then what are we talking about?
His ability to be the sole seller of the idea as he was the first to formulate it. Whether or not the market pays for it, the question is if it is in someone else's rights to take the work and sell it as their own.
I don't know whether you are referring to attribution or just the general concept of property rights over 'ideas' 'concepts' 'patterns' and the like. If the latter since none of those things are rival they are not candidates for being property and granting artificial rights over them as if they were property creates a conflict of actually rival goods.
How is "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "To Forcefully Bring About the Death of a Sage Thrasher" not rival unto each other?
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun: You're saying if you write "To Kill a Mockingbird" and I shortly after write "To forcefully Bring About the Death of the Sage Thrasher," that I have not commited theft against you? What a fallacy.
You may be a talentless copycat hack of a writer, but no you haven't stolen anything from him.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:I would love to be the rich man in that world who takes (not steals, remember) every scientist, artist, song-writer, and poet's works to diseminate as my own through my much more vast distribution powers.
I would love you to be that man, too! How much better off we would all be if someone had such vast distributive powers and the ability to more cheaply provide such a wide variety of goods and services to the consumer.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:How is "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "To Forcefully Bring About the Death of a Sage Thrasher" not rival unto each other?
You are using a different definition of rivalrous than he is. In your definition, if I sell cars and you open a car factory, we are rivalrous and so one of us needs to stop selling cars. Nir's definition simply means that the products are scarce, which itself is a fundamental property of physical stuff - if I am using this metal to make a car, you can't be. Ownership of the metal to make and sell the cars is rivalrous. If I print "To Forcefully Bring About the Death of a Sage Thrasher" it in no way keeps you from printing any number of copies of "To Kill a Mockingbird", or even any number of your own copies of "To Forcefully Bring About the Death of a Sage Thrasher".
Pro-IP arguments basically boil down to protectionist attempts to guarantee profits for select producers. It just so happens that, in the IP case, the selection is made by being first in line.
"I would love you to be that man, too! How much better off we would all be if someone had such vast distributive powers and the ability to more cheaply provide such a wide variety of goods and services to the consumer."
Why should I even become a scientist at all if the moment I tell my theory to someone with the ability to distribute it, they will take and sell it as their own leaving me a pennilless genius?
"You are using a different definition of rivalrou..."
No, what you are claiming I said would actually be if I said "I write a book, and you open a factory that makes books." They are not related at all. But if I rewrite Human Action, call it my own, give Mises no credit, and make a profit off of it... that is out and out thievery of Mises right to own his own mind.
Don't tell it to him for free.
But if I rewrite Human Action, call it my own, give Mises no credit, and make a profit off of it... that is out and out thievery of Mises right to own his own mind.
No one here is arguing for lying. Selling a physical copy of a book and saying "I came up with the ideas in here" are two different things. Last time I bought a book on Amazon, I wasn't shocked to find out that the author wasn't Mr. Amazon.
Note: I edited my above post a little bit while you were posting what I have quoted below.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:Why should I even become a scientist at all if the moment I tell my theory to someone with the ability to distribute it, they will take and sell it as their own leaving me a pennilless genius?
Why should you become a car salesman if a guy across the street can become a better car salesman and leave you penniless?
Why you should become a scientist or car salesman is a subjective valuation that I cannot make for you. Your argument for IP is flawed utilitarianism. If you find being a scientist doesn't provide enough profit (monetary or otherwise) for you, I recommend not becoming a scientist. Others will change their business model and continue to prosper in the field.
Your lack of entrepreneurial imagination in creating profitable business models without resorting to State-granted protectionist monopoly schemes is no reason for me to support IP.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:But if I rewrite Human Action, call it my own, give Mises no credit, and make a profit off of it... that is out and out thievery of Mises right to own his own mind.
No, it isn't. It makes you a liar by claiming you wrote it. Perhaps guilty of fraud towards your buyers, but no thief of Mises' mind. The hang up here seems to be in not differentiating between scarce goods and non-scarce goods.
why should anyone else take it and sell it when yet a further someone else will take it and sell it as their own leaving them penniless...?
If you wish to pursue science and wish monetary compensation you must seek a way of being paid to conduct science, it is an entrepreneurial challenge. Here is a favourite anecdote of mine. there was a man called William Sealy Gosset He developed statistical techniques advancing the discipline. The story is that he went to work for Guinness (brewery). Gosset would apply his statistical knowledge both in the brewery and on the farm—to the selection of the best yielding varieties of barley. Another researcher at Guinness had previously published a paper containing trade secrets of the Guinness brewery. To prevent further disclosure of confidential information, Guinness prohibited its employees from publishing any papers regardless of the contained information. This meant that Gosset was unable to publish his works under his own name. Gosset therefore used the pseudonym Student for his publications to avoid their detection by his employer. Thus his most famous achievement is now referred to as Student's t-distribution, which might otherwise have been Gosset's t-distribution.
There are two things of interest to me in this story. He developed technique as a paid employee of a company using knowledge to gain competitive advantage. He made knowledge public without monetary incentive to do so (actually was a risk)
I'm not selling copies of Human Action in this hypothetical. I am rewriting it in my own words (but the concepts are all exactly the same), giving it a new name, and selling it as my own, with no concession that Mises even HAD these ideas.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:I'm not selling copies of Human Action in this hypothetical. I am rewriting it in my own words (but the concepts are all exactly the same), giving it a new name, and selling it as my own, with no concession that Mises even HAD these ideas.
Lets say I write a history book. Then you research the same material I researched and write an identical history book (in different words, of course) without researching or citing my book. What should happen and why?
"Why should you become a car salesman if a guy across the street can become a better car salesman and leave you penniless?"
That is irrelevant. A better question would be, why invent the combustible engine if someone else can just invent it and take credit for it?
What if I am working on this theory, not telling anyone of it before I can get a distribution contract, and I go out to buy milk one day. As I am out my roommate copies all my notes and sells my theory as his own?
As I previously stated, I am less than an ameteur to this forums' methods, explain to me the differece between scarce/non-scarce.
"I'm not selling copies of Human Action in this hypothetical. I am rewriting it in my own words (but the concepts are all exactly the same), giving it a new name, and selling it as my own, with no concession that Mises even HAD these ideas."
While I certainly disagree that this would violate Mises' so-called IP rights (since I agree with the anti-IP people here), I do wonder about fraud in a case like this.
If someone is producing books, claiming that the ideas or patterns are his own, when in fact they can be shown to be "stolen" from someone else, couldn't that constitute fraud against anyone who purchased the book since it is deceptively packaged as new/independent idea/pattern during the sale? What's the standard for fraud in a case like this?
get to work!
"Lets say I write a history book."
Who wrote it first? Can you prove I had knowledge of your book? Did we come to the same conclusion? Irrelevant and an entirely different situation.
Here is the difference though; I KNEW Mises wrote this book.
Lets say I take a cow out of a field. Does it matter that I didn't know the cow was yours?
No, it does not matter. Nor does it matter in IP rights. I was simply giving evidence to you to show those were entirely different analogies.
bicycles are rival, if i take your bicycle to ride, you cannot have it to ride.
any one particular instantiated book is rival, if i take a book with me to france to read it, you cannot take that same book to moscow to read it simultaneously
an idea concept pattern is not rival. if i take knowledge of the law of diminishing marginal utility with me to London so as to contemplate on it, you too can also take knowledge of the law of diminishing marginal utility with you to Tokyo .
I see. Why present evidence for an irrelevant factor? If the fact that you knew Mises wrote the book in one case and didn't know that I wrote a book in the other case doesn't matter in IP rights, why bring it up?
So, going back to my original question: Lets say I write a history book. Then you research the same material I researched and write an identical history book (in different words, of course) without researching or citing my book. What should happen and why?
"if i take knowledge of the law of diminishing marginal utility..."
I see. But as the first formulater of the concept of diminishing marginal utility, do I not have the first rights to profit off of it?
And as far as the history book goes, that is a fringe issue. Is the book just a general layout of history, or are we trying to argue something and using history as evidence? If we are both making an argument, and the "heart" of the argument is the same, did I know you had written it? If I did not know you had wrote it, I would not consider myself a theif. If I did know, there is no abstractness to it, I stole from you.
no, you can try to profit from it by trying to have people pay to spend time with you, or have them bribe you to write them a book, or whatever else you want to try. but you can't charge them for coming to know your non-rival ideas.
why not?
you have to pay me for the answer to your question, and because I knew the answer before you did, you have to pay me if you find out about it by thinking about it yourself or by asking someone else.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:And as far as the history book goes, that is a fringe issue. Is the book just a general layout of history, or are we trying to argue something and using history as evidence? If we are both making an argument, and the "heart" of the argument is the same, did I know you had written it? If I did not know you had wrote it, I would not consider myself a theif. If I did know, there is no abstractness to it, I stole from you.
It's not a fringe issue, it's critical to showing the error of pro-IP thinking. I prefer to go through it step by step since we seem to be having a fairly rapid dialogue.
I don't see why the book being a general layout of history or whether we are trying to argue something should matter (does it matter if the cow I took from the field was a milking cow or a cow for beef?), but lets assume we are trying to argue the same point in our books so the discussion can continue. You are now saying that it does matter whether or not you knew I wrote the book. If you didn't, you are not a thief. If you did, you are a thief.
Now we are back to my other question: Let's say I take a cow out of a field. Does it matter that I didn't know the cow was yours? Why does it not matter here but it does matter with the book?
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:I see. But as the first formulater of the concept of diminishing marginal utility, do I not have the first rights to profit off of it?
Does the first car salesman in town have rights to the profit from selling cars, making anyone else who moves into town and opens a dealership a thief?
That is your right to do so with the contents of your own mind. And I will just have to live in ignorance until I find a more reasonable person to share this information with me.
Since you have not copyrighted this information, you have given your consent for its use in the general public, and therefore have no right to stop me from recieving it from an alternative source.
I'd tell you, but I only know the answer because the original thinker let me know. ;) I need his permission to tell you the answer. :(
what should i have done to 'copyright it', is it some magical voodoo dance? I know it. you do not. I tell you i know it, and yet you persist to deny me 'my rights' rather you found out i knew something, and now you are going to go round my back and find out another way than by paying me what i am due?
this is so silly
"I don't see why the book being a general layout of history or whether we are trying to argue something should matter (does it matter if the cow I took from the field was a milking cow or a cow for beef?"
Because noone has a right to facts. Those exist regardless of who found them. An idea, or argument does not exist regardless of the person that thought it up. It was created in their mind to explain said facts.
It doesn't matter if the cow was for milking or beef, it is still my cow. The ideas that make up the core of Human Action are still Mises' ideas. He was the first to formulate them.
It is a voodoo dance. You dance down to the copyright office and tel them about it. They voodoo dance you a contract saying you have the first rights to profit off this idea. It would be no less silly than a dispute between me and my neighbor on where his property ends and mine begins... who has the right to decide that?
I'm going to repeat AJ here, because I think this sums up the issue nicely. Everything else is in this thread is starting to look like the same old utilitarian rationalization, sometimes hinging on the LTV.
Well, IP assumes property rights. However, property rights are rights over specific physical objects (a book: To Kill A Mockingbird). As they're currently enforced, IP rights are rights over all physical objects of a given class (all books and information storage devices that are at any point fashioned into a form that expresses the same information as To Kill A Mockingbird). [This argument is paraphrased from Clayton's recent post.] Now what would be supported in the natural order absent the state is anyone's guess, but it seems to me that such an odd concept as a claim on an entire class of objects would only enjoy minimal support, any.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:The ideas that make up the core of Human Action are still Mises' ideas. He was the first to formulate them.
Great, so why does it matter if you knew I wrote an [argumentative] history book or not, or if you knew Mises wrote the book or not? You so far have expressed that it matters and that it doesn't matter. Please pick one so we can continue.
It has my support. But I am a writer, so I am biased. But either way, I have to go. Perhaps you guys can "school" me later. Thanks for the engaging debate :D
This is a song that influenced a lot of my views as a child, perhaps it is relevant.
"Freedom is a state of mind
A mind is a state of being
Stay the F*#$ out of my mind, and my being."
>>It would be no less silly than a dispute between me and my neighbor on where his property ends and mine begins... who has the right to decide that?
if your land was magically 'non-rival' (like ideas) then it would never be an issue, you would both use it and neither interfere with the other ! now if you wanted to gain an artificial monopoly rent on this magically non-rival land that would be different.
"neither interfere with the other"
But is your profiting off my ideas, not interfering with my ability to profit off my own ideas. It still seems to be a circular argument in opposition to IP rights. "I can't hold an idea in my hand, therefore it is not property."
If someone made a clone of me, without my permission, is that theft of my likeness?
I really have to go tho... feel free to try to help me see from your point of view.
But is your profiting off my ideas, not interfering with my ability to profit off my own ideas.
Someone down the street is selling lemonade. I decide to start selling a better drink at a cheaper price. Isn't my business limiting the other person's ability to profit?
I fail to see the circular argument in this statement: "I can't hold an idea in my hand, therefore it is not property."
The case has to be made first that ideas are property, instead of just presupposing it.