so how would digital property work?
i hear things about a lack of intellectual property and only real, so is digital property real property or intellectual?
if people don't have a right to intellectual property, does that mean they cannot make a voluntary contract that deals with intellectual ( digital) property issues?
does that mean a person has to leave their computer open for anyone to access any digital information such as credit card and bank account details or any software, or that hacking is fair game since the hacking is digital and there is no such thing as digital theft?
does this mean once someone gains access to physical material, they can copy the contents and spread for free or profit the contents of the material?
would this make digital financing fair game to manipulate and business stocks and financial information and trades are ok to hack and manipulate?
Where is the digital property?
digital property is inside physical property, but people don't need to take the physical property to take the digital property. would digital hacking be the same as stealing physical property as people don't need to touch anything physical?
All of those things you listed relate to items that are your property that are physical. Therefore I think the owner of "digital property" as you say it is safe, as it doesn't relate to things such as ideas, like IP does. I'd still have to look in to it more though, as I'm not quite familiar enough with the cases against or for IP.
As you might guess, this is covered in IP and contract literature, the former of which you can find here:
From The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread:
But to answer your questions,
cab21:i hear things about a lack of intellectual property and only real, so is digital property real property or intellectual?
I realize some people allege that defining of terms is useless and unnecessary, but I would say you need to define "digital property".
If you're asking "can I not make a contract to sell information?", the answer is "of course you can". But since "information" is not "property" that you can own and have title to, you'll have to structure the contract so that a title transfer of some actual property takes place. It could work the same way performance contracts would work. Rothbard goes into this in The Ethics of Liberty here:
"Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts"
Suppose that a celebrated movie actor agrees to appear at a certain theater at a certain date. For whatever reason, he fails to appear. Should he be forced to appear at that or at some future date? Certainly not, for that would be compulsory slavery. Should he be forced, at least, to recompense the theater owners for the publicity and other expenses incurred by the theater owners in anticipation of his appearance? No again, for his agreement was a mere promise concerning his inalienable will, which he has the right to change at any time. [...]
For utilitarians shocked at the consequences of this doctrine, it should be noted that many, if not all, of the problems could be easily surmounted in the libertarian society by the promisee's requiring a performance bond of the promissor in the original agreement. In short, if the theater owners wished to avoid the risk of nonappearance, they could refuse to sign the agreement unless the actor agreed to put up a performance bond in case of nonappearance. In that case, the actor, in the course of agreeing to his future appearance, agrees also to transfer a certain sum of money to the theater owners in case he fails to appear.
Since money, of course, is alienable, and since such a contract would meet our title-transfer criterion, this would be a perfectly valid and enforceable contract. For what the actor would be saying is: "If I do not appear at Theater X at such and such a date, I hereby transfer as of the date the following sum _____, to the theater owners." Failure to meet the performance bond will then be an implicit theft of the property of the owners. If, then, the theater owners fail to require a performance bond as part of the agreement, then they must suffer the consequences.
Indeed, in an important article, A.W.B. Simpson has pointed out that performance bonds were the rule during the Middle Ages and in the early modern period, not only for personal services but for all contracts, including sales of land and money debts.
Threads where this is discussed:
Inalienability of the self
What would Rothbard say about non-compete language in an employee contract?
No. Suggesting that you have to leave a computer visible is essentially the same as suggesting you have to leave your window shades up. What is the logic of that?
As for cracking into your computer system, this is obvious property violation, as they are gaining access to your property without your permission. (Sure they're after your digital information, which is not property...but they have to access your physical property (directly or indirectly) to get to it.)
It would depend on how they gain access to the physical material. Obviously hitting you over the head from behind and running off with your briefcase is not a legitimate means of gaining such access.
Depends on what you mean by "manipulate". If you're saying gaining unauthorized access to a computer system and making changes to the information stored there, obviously no, as you have no right to be accessing those computer systems. If you're saying the computer system owner manipulating his own data, sure, he could do that...but then depending on the circumstances, you get into fraud territory.
i think james posts answered most of what i was thinking of
a few more example that i don't think asked in the op would be
if there is software that a company sells a licence for and people need to use a dongle for access. if someone makes a crack that alllows the software to be used without the physical dongle, would that be theft as unlicensed users could then use the product? i think that would be unlicenced use at least and theft as well.
educational licences that allow use for accedemic reasons but don't allow commercial products, that would be fine to contract for right or would a company have to give one unlimited use licence?
It requires labor and intellect to make computer prorams.
It all depends on who's software youre using.
Some might want you to pay for the software, some software is free open source.
However, the mere IDEA, is not property.
I can make a program that is a keylogger ( i inevnt first keylogger), but i have no right to prevent others from creating their own keyloggerr (i can hide/encrypt my code, but i cant use force to stop anyone from making their own keylogger).
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
I thinj piracy is theft.
It is a breach of contract.
Im putting up X software, for a Y cost for 1 copy. The pirate makes copies that were not payed for, and therefore stole from me.
cab21:if there is software that a company sells a licence for and people need to use a dongle for access. if someone makes a crack that alllows the software to be used without the physical dongle, would that be theft as unlicensed users could then use the product? i think that would be unlicenced use at least and theft as well.
What has been stolen?
Basically an easy way to think about it is:
1) Does the person who is supposedly getting something "stolen" still have everything they had before?
2) Was all property accessed legitimately?
3) Is the only claim against what I'm doing someone trying to tell me what I can and can't do with my own property?
If the answer is "yes" to all three, there is nothing immoral or incompatible with libertarian ethics going on.
kelvin_silva: I thinj piracy is theft. It is a breach of contract. Im putting up X software, for a Y cost for 1 copy. The pirate makes copies that were not payed for, and therefore stole from me.
What property did the pirate steal from you? What did you have before that you don't have now?
Let me rephrase.
It isnt stealing, it is a breach of contract.
My contract is: for 1 copy it costs x amt of money.
You breach that contract when you copy my program and distribute it for free.
If i have a pencil, and it costs 1 dollar for that 1 pencil, if i chop a piece of wood and make my own pencil that looks the same, i am not stealing.
If i have a software program, and it costs 1 dollar for a copy of that program, if i go and program my own program (not copying that software) i am not stealing, i am merely reinvneting the wheel.
However, if i take a copy of that program, breach the contract (of 1 dollar) and take it for free, i am stealing breaching contract.
maybe we separate the term "theft" for "breach of contract" or "unauthorized use" and have that be the charge.
ok, nothing has been stolen in that sense, but it is still unauthorized use and access.
the answer to 2 would be no in this case as legitmate access is through the dongle, and the person cracked the software to not need the dongle.
the claim is that the person did not have authorized use or access to the property.
selling the material without the proper licence is not called theft, but a form of breaching a contract.
people can breech contracts without it being called theft.
kelvin_silva: It isnt stealing, it is a breach of contract. My contract is: for 1 copy it costs x amt of money. You breach that contract when you copy my program and distribute it for free.
How so? You're saying I promised you I wouldn't copy it? Sounds to me like you have an unenforcable contract there.
...but you're "breaching a contract", right?
How? The only contract you had was for the product you paid for. You paid for a CD with some information on it. They got their money, you got your CD. Contract fulfilled. Deal complete. Have a nice life.
What you do with that CD after that is your business.
What you're arguing is the equivelant of me buying a chair, taking it home and then using it as a template to build more chairs just like it for my family...and you coming in claiming I breached some contract with a chair maker. So...what...I buy one chair and I can never make another chair as long as I live? I have to buy all my chairs from some designated chair makers?
Sounds pretty statist to me.
cab21:ok, nothing has been stolen in that sense, but it is still unauthorized use and access.
Why? How? Unauthorized use and access to what? My own property? How does that logically work?
Legitimate access to property. Do you wish to go down the road of arguing that ideas and patterns are property? There's a pretty long thread about this already. (Not to mention plenty of resources.)
What material? Are we still talking about ideas and patterns?
someone buys a daw. the person can install it on their computer, but they don't have access to the program without first receiving a licence from the company that created the daw. once the licence is installed on a dongle, then the person is able to access the daw. if the person creates a crack that allows use without the licence and the dongle, they are using the product without a licence agreement to use the protect, as under a licence agreement, the person must access the product through a licence and a dongle registered with the company that created and sells the product. there is no charge to install the program on the computer, but there is a charge to buy the licence to access the program.
perhaps it would mean companies would not sell programs, but rent usage, so unathorized usage could not be because someone owned the product.
so maybe the question would be how companies that currently have a business strategy around IP would be able to make it should they no longer have the IP? the companies that create products sell software licences to software products, are they going to have to depend on donations and sales in other areas to make up lost income?
cab21:someone buys a daw. the person can install it on their computer,
K...so someone pays money for a phsycial disc with information stored on it...or they pay money to download and install the information, which is basically nothing more than a pattern of ones and zeros. Not property.
They're putting a pattern into their own personal property (their computer). So far so good.
but they don't have access to the program without first receiving a licence from the company that created the daw. once the licence is installed on a dongle, then the person is able to access the daw. if the person creates a crack that allows use without the licence and the dongle, they are using the product without a licence agreement to use the protect, as under a licence agreement, the person must access the product through a licence and a dongle registered with the company that created and sells the product. there is no charge to install the program on the computer, but there is a charge to buy the licence to access the program.
Nowhere in any of this did you describe even a breach of contract (at least, not an enforceable contract anyway.) Essentially your argument boils down to "well when you buy the software you are making a promise to not reverse engineer it or find a way to make it work in a way that the company that created it doesn't want it to work."
I'm sorry, but that's just not an enforceable contract. Again, if you really want to argue that simple promises are enforceable, you're necessarily going to have to argue that slavery is justifiable and legitimate. If you want to go down that road, I suggest you make another thread.
Otherwise, you're going to have to come up with a new line of argumentation, because continuing to rest on this "broken promise" argument is not going to get you anywhere, even if you continue to insist on calling it "breach of contract".
Maybe some, but probably not all. (Just like now.)
Now we're getting somewhere. It seems like your whole deal in this entire line of conversation wasn't so much that you actually believed what you were arguing, but that you just had to create a way to cry wrongdoing on the part of a so-called "pirate", because you simply couldn't fathom a way for anyone to make money in digital industry without some form of IP. This echoes a logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad ignorantiam", or argument from ignorance. You're basically saying: "because I can't think of a way this would work, there must not be a way...so I need to figure a way to make a libertarian argument for keeping it illegal to copy stuff."
Again, if you're actually interested in this concept of IP and freedom of information, check out the resources.
For software in particular, you might see
Without Intellectual Property#Computer Software
Funding for Creation and Innovation in an IP-Free World
Examples of Ways Content Creators Can Profit Without Intellectual Property
Yet Another Study Finds Patents Do Not Encourage Innovation
I didn't even look that hard. I know there's more specific ones, but I didn't feel like going through it all. There's a lot there in that link. If you're really interested in this, just start going through at least some of it. If not, don't worry about it. But please don't consciously choose to remain ignorant and simply continue to attempt to find a way to make pro-IP arguments work. They just don't.
some of the examples of alternatives had to do with authenticity, signatures, and endorsements, aren't those ip? saying someone is endorsed when it's not seems to be fraud, just as signing someones signature when the person true has not signed it. authenticity seems like a intellectual concept rather than something physical. authorship also seems like a intellectual concept rather than a physical thing. the authentic author would just be a intellectual concept for intellectual property. labels seen intellectual rather than physical
cab21:authenticity seems like a intellectual concept rather than something physical. authorship also seems like a intellectual concept rather than a physical thing.
So?
the authentic author would just be a intellectual concept for intellectual property. labels seen intellectual rather than physical
Oh I see, so if I'm looking to purchase some authentic Bulgarian miak, and you tell me you have some, I pay for it, and it turns out it's actually phone book that you sold me...that's just a "intellectual concept for intellectual property". Got it.
You might want to go back and check out the thread on fraud.
fraud is part of intellectual property.
if a person does not beleive in ip, why does he/she write his/her name as the author and/or writer?
would the author and/or writer not own the title of author and/or writer of the work?
"code written by x" seems like it would be a fact that the writer would own, that would be a title rather than anything physical. facts aren't physical. but a writer would own the fact that they wrote something.
are facts different than ip?
cab21:fraud is part of intellectual property.
You seem genuine, but I'm honestly not sure you're not a troll. Either you're not serious or your understanding of the basic concepts is too lacking to have this discussion. My suggestion is to gain a little foundational knowledge first, and then come back.
Try to at least get through these:
Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts
The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression
Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach
Against Intellectual Property
supplements:
The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide
Ideas Are Free: The Case Against Intellectual Property
"Intellectual Property" (IP) and Innovation
Happy learning.
reading that, seems the articles make a difference between legitmate legal rights and moral rights, with some forms of intellectual attribution being moral, but out of the scope of legitmate legal action.
Then the best way if copies of a program is not breach of contract, is to have a smart programmer.
This programmer will let anyone have any x amount of copies of his program.
But to make his program useable, the user must buy a Serial Key to be able to use the program.
That is where he makes money.
Now, if someone created a crack, a keygenerator, would he be breaching contract (for a crack is not a Copy, It is just the way to gain access to the program)?
(BTW- This is how most software works nowaday, ahh the virtues of the free market).
This way, i am not using force to anyone wanting to look at how the code works (for i, being a voluntary being, can release it in opensource or closed source, if its closed source, it will take a skilled person to reverse engineer and decompile my program).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eazIth4orfM
with this video, the author still claims authorship, and a copyleft. seems there is some intellectual property in there with claiming authorship.
no owner, but a author,
no rights, but creater endorsed.
creater endorsed is a intellectual concept and she is the owner of that title.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
she says it has a Share Alike licence, which is a claim.
Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
that seems like everything intellectual property sort of calling it intellectual property. she has the right to do this under intellectual property laws, and would be able to do the same without the laws. but the licence says that rights are waived. the licence still has restrictions.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode
*sigh*
Please read. I can't make you, but if you're really interested in understanding this, you need to seek some knowledge for yourself. Please read the resources I recommended to you. And here's a couple more.
Copyright is very sticky!
Are Creative Commons Licenses Even Enforceable?
so with countries without a copyright law, can't stuff just be published there, or do countries with a copyright law give the positive unalianable right without a opt out to even things published and in non copyright countries?