I'm researching an article on intellectual property. Is this a fair summary of Kinsella's argument against IP:
Any corrections, clarifications or additions to the above 3 points would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
-Thor
"Exercising a copyright means telling a person what they may do with their own paper, and their own ink."
*Make money from
From what i understand from the law anyway. This gets dicey when it comes to P2P sharing though. For its the host not the downloader that gets fined.
Drab Thor:Intellectual property can be copied without damaging the original, so it is not scarce. Scarcity of physical goods necessitates property rights in the first place, thus IP cannot legitimately be owned.
I would word it that "IP" is not actually property. It's less confusing and flimsy that way.
I don't want state that "IP is not property", that would be assuming the conclusion.
Perhaps this:
IP is information. Information can be copied without damaging the original, so it is not scarce. Scarcity of physical goods necessitates property rights in the first place, thus IP cannot legitimately be owned.
I don't see how that is not just a more confusing, flimsy way of saying IP is not really property.
Simply saying "IP is not really property" would be a summary of Kinsella's conclusion, I'm looking to convey his reasoning and arguments that lead to his conclusion. Perhaps that isn't clear from the title of the thread.
The three arguments I've numbered so far could be labled "IP is not scarce", "IP violates physical property rights", and "IP leads to abuse by the State".
Besides these three, is there another argument supporting the position that IP is illigitmate in a libertarian society?
A system of property rights in “ideal objects” necessarily requires violation of other individual property rights, e.g., to use one’s own tangible property as one sees fit. Such a system requires a new homesteading rule which subverts the first occupier rule.
Well said. That's basically a re-wording of my #2 above, and I like it. Thanks.
but IP already implies it is property.. That has to be proven. Over all, that's just ideas and patterns, nothing more.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
That's a symantic problem. Whether "Intellectual Property" is or is not property is the issue, so giving it a name with "property" already within the term does smack of bias. Interestingly, "IP" could stand for "Ideas and Patterns", so perhaps I'll use the term "IP" to mean just that. Or, is there another term that would serve better?
IP is usurpation of property.
Drab Thor: Well said. That's basically a re-wording of my #2 above, and I like it. Thanks.
This appears to be good example of the harm of IP. We end up expending enormous amounts of effort and creativity tip-toeing around using perfectly good expressions of ideas to avoid copyright infringement.
What I wrote is essentially the first paragraph in the conclusion of Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property. Why aren't you just using exactly what Kinsella has written when appropriate?
That's a nice little video. The author makes 2 arguments against IP -
1. Copying does not damage the original, so is not theft
2. IP laws cause economic inefficiency, by hampering the free flow of valuable information.
#1 is the same as my number 1, #2 is new, I'll add it.
OK, so now I have:
I'll also have a definitions section where I make it clear that I am using "IP" to mean "Ideas and Patterns", what others have called "ideal objects". I'll try to make it clear that I'm not making an assumption either way as to whether IP is or is not rightly property in a libertarian world.
Drab Thor: Simply saying "IP is not really property" would be a summary of Kinsella's conclusion, I'm looking to convey his reasoning and arguments that lead to his conclusion. Perhaps that isn't clear from the title of the thread. The three arguments I've numbered so far could be labled "IP is not scarce", "IP violates physical property rights", and "IP leads to abuse by the State"
The three arguments I've numbered so far could be labled "IP is not scarce", "IP violates physical property rights", and "IP leads to abuse by the State"
Perhaps I should have been more precise. I do not have a problem with explaining the process by which you (or Kinsella) came to the conclusion that IP is not actually property...what I'm saying is that if you are making that conclusion, then actually conclude with that...as opposed to the confusing and flimsy "thus IP cannot legitimately be owned". When you say something like that anyone new to the whole concept will go through something like "but it's my idea. It's my song. It's my intellectual property. How can you say I don't own it?" And you have to go through the whole thing again.
It's much easier if you actually state your actual conclusion instead of dragging people through this use of wordings that does more to create confusion and more doubt about your postition than actually persuading others. It's a lot like what some around here do quite often.
The consise summary of the arguments will be a part of the introductory paragraph to my article, that's all. I'm not ready to state my conclusion yet. My purpose in writing is to work through the issue myself, buidling upon the work of others. I don't have a position yet, I don't know how it's going to turn out. I came here to ensure that I am very clear on Kinsella and the other anti-IP Austrians.