Intellectual Property in the Arts - How to enforce?

To me that is just an utter perversion of what is actually happening in the scenario. First of all the music is coming from the artist, the instruments and equipment are merely the tools for it to happen. The raw material is his soul. If you take a seed you are taking a freely available natural resource (unless the farmer witheld all the seeds) and you are then going and planting that in your own soil at your own expense it's a new thing. It's like someone got an idea of how to produce an album from listening to mine and went and did their own - that's why we say that was the "seed" of the idea that led to *their* album. But the original is an original.

Now the farm is in your example if he is such a farmer, indeed putting a certain amount of his soul into what he's doing - that is his creative spirit, his love, care, etc, but what he produces with it is the corn of that season, next season he has to do the same thing. A piece of recorded music is not the same as that.

I think in an attempt to find elegant theories, there is over simplification going on, and the elegance has gotten thrown out the window - but I haven't managed to catch up on my homework yet... so please stop posting controversial (to my mind) arguments so I can resist having to challenge them :) haha.

In short, nobody argues for the farmer to receive artistic property rights because he doesn't need them, he is already fully covered by existing property rights, and any further rights he wants he can't claim. Nobody can digitally copy his corn. They have to plant it for themselves, and he can withold the seeds but he can't patent them - they're seeds (I'm totally against patenting of plants and animal species whether hybridized or not and GMO is an abomination and an ignorant vandalism of the genetic code of the planet). An album is totally different. So is a book. Somebody can take that work and duplicate it without having created it and then profit from the work of someone else. To me that's theft. If you want me to say that I'll only be happy when it's 100% preventable, just like it's not 100% preventable that the fact that it's against the law to drive your car into someone's bedroom through the wall is going to stop such things always happening - of course I don't want to. Likewise it's absurd and unnecessary and wrong to criminalise end users. But you can stop corporate and large scale piracy of artistic works that are designed to profit off the artists creativity without compensation - and prevent a free for all. Should people be able to share music - yes they should. But as a principle it shouldn't be a free for all.

So far, I think that intellectual property in these forms - books, music, movies, that is, what would otherwise be a single piece of art but because of technology can be dupilcated easily  - is just that, it's property. To say otherwise is to deny their value, in the same way that if you suddenly said there were no real estate property laws anymore, nobody would own their house, and the values would go to essentially nothing. That is quite distinct from claiming or demanding value before a value is agreed between two parties. That's my present position on things. I'm always open to change when new information proves me wrong, and none of the arguments so far have convinced me at all, which I'm actually surprised at.

Oh, and you brought up the "you're wanting to use force to stop someone from using their property". In defense of property, yes I am. Just as you stop someone using their hands to kill or steal, or their car to damage property etc. What's new about that? Therefore what remains to be agreed or disagreed upon is whether or not intellectual property of this nature (I exclude patents, I'm not 'qualified' to go into that right now) is property or not.

Mike99:

Oh, and you brought up the "you're wanting to use force to stop someone from using their property". In defense of property, yes I am. Just as you stop someone using their hands to kill or steal, or their car to damage property etc. What's new about that? Therefore what remains to be agreed or disagreed upon is whether or not intellectual property of this nature

My large post seems to need moderator approval (it'll probably be posted within a few hours).

The key difference between "Ideas", and actual property is scarcity.

Property Rights arises naturally because goods are scarce (Kinsella usually goes over this basic distinction in the intro to most of his lectures on IP).  Here is Hoppe giving a lecture at Mises University 2011 which goes over the origins of Property Rights:

https://www.mises.org/media/6538/Property-and-the-Social-Order

Mike99:

(I exclude patents, I'm not 'qualified' to go into that right now) is property or not.

You do not seem to be "qualified" to talk about Copyrights either.  Read and listen to the articles, then come back. It is all answered right there in the material.

Tex2002ans:

The key difference between "Ideas", and actual property is scarcity.

I'm not at all sure this is true.

I think you will agree that air is, for all intents and purposes, non-scarce. This is why it's free to breathe.

So, how does one turn air into property?

You turn air into property by packaging it. You put it into a bottle and now you can sell it. People buy air all day long. Air they could just as easily take from, well, the air.

Ideas cannot be stolen because you can reproduce an idea without removing its use from someone else. That doesn't mean that an idea can't be property necessarily.

Tex2002ans:

Property Rights arises naturally because goods are scarce

Again, if one guy invents an idea, then only he has it. The rest of society would be paying to learn that idea.

---

I'll read Kinsella, but if you're summarizing his arguments then I think there may indeed be some holes in his.

Anenome:

 

I'm not at all sure this is true.

I think you will agree that air is, for all intents and purposes, non-scarce. This is why it's free to breathe.

Exactly, air cannot be owned because it is one of the few physical things that are super abundant (non-scarce).  My breathing air does not conflict in any way with your ability to breathe.  Hoppe covers this in the Mises University speech on the basics of Property Rights using the thought experiments of the Garden of Eden, or the Land of Cockaigne. 

Imagine there was a super abundance of ALL goods, what would happen... then he goes through what happens when you introduce scarcity.

As you mentioned in the case of packaging it though, air turned into pressurized air is now a scarce good.  Or if we were someplace where there is not super abundance of air. Such as under the ocean, or in space, then it would be possible to have Property Rights in air, because it would be possible to have conflicts over it.

Some of this can also be found in this article here:

https://mises.org/daily/4630/

Anenome:

Again, if one guy invents an idea, then only he has it. The rest of society would be paying to learn that idea.

Listen to the Jeffrey Tucker lectures I pointed to earlier in the topic.  He covers exactly this question.

 

Tex2002ans:

Anenome:

I'm not at all sure this is true.

I think you will agree that air is, for all intents and purposes, non-scarce. This is why it's free to breathe.

Exactly, air cannot be owned because it is one of the few physical things that are super abundant (non-scarce).

But air -can- be owned when it's packaged.

Tex2002ans:

My breathing air does not conflict in any way with your ability to breathe.

But if I put air in a bottle and you steal the bottle, you have stolen from me, despite air being super-abundant generally.

Tex2002ans:

As you mentioned in the case of packaging it though, air turned into pressurized air is now a scarce good.

So too, music packaged as a disc, or words packaged as a book, or perhaps even an idea not already in the public realm is a scarce good made from non-scarce things by virtue of being packaged and produced.

The analogy of ideas being non-scarce holds for those which are in the public domain, like the ability to make fire. But it's awfully hard to claim that the knowledge of how to, for instance, make fusion work isn't scarce. Actually it would be incredibly valuable knowledge that many would pay for even if it costs hundreds of billions. How can that be if it is just an idea and non-scarce or something.

Tex2002ans:

Or if we were someplace where there is not super abundance of air.

We have a "not superabundance" of ideas on how to make fusion work. Every work of art is similarly unique and not superabundant.

Tex2002ans:

Anenome:

Again, if one guy invents an idea, then only he has it. The rest of society would be paying to learn that idea.

Listen to the Jeffrey Tucker lectures I pointed to earlier in the topic.  He covers exactly this question.

Okay, okay, I've got a ton of these links and info to read from, and I'm open to that.

The thing to keep in mind about ideas is how thy are released. For example, with music, the artist knows that if he releases his song in mp3 format, it is easily copyable. The artist doesn't have to release it in that form. The artist doesn't have to release it at all. The same applies for someone with an idea for fusion. The guy who comes up with it doesn't have to release it on cd or PDF. If he does, I feel he has no right to complain when someone uses his idea.

The guy who comes up with it doesn't have to release it on cd or PDF. If he does, I feel he has no right to complain when someone uses his idea.

+1

The word publish means "to make public." Public resources are unowned. Once you put it out there, it's not yours.

@Mike99: I know how hard it is to resist replying to every point. Since you haven't tackled AIM, can you please at least read this?

Clayton -

Anenome:

But air -can- be owned when it's packaged.

Pressurized Air is not the same good as Air (atmosphere of the Earth).

Anenome:

So too, music packaged as a disc, or words packaged as a book, or perhaps even an idea not already in the public realm is a scarce good made from non-scarce things by virtue of being packaged and produced.

Yes, if I took your physical storage of the book/music, that would be theft, because it is the taking of a scarce good.  As with all scarce goods, there can only be one user at a time.  In the case of an idea, there can be multiple users of the same idea, and none conflict with eachother.

Kinsella sometimes uses the example of marble.  If I went to the art museum and saw a statue that

I would recommend you listen to the Kinsella class on IP (I posted it earlier in the thread).

Anenome:

Actually it would be incredibly valuable knowledge that many would pay for even if it costs hundreds of billions. How can that be if it is just an idea and non-scarce or something.

People still pay for services.

You might pay for a software product because it saves you lots of time (money), you might pay for it because they offer support if anything breaks.  The marginal cost of producing one more copy of the software is ~$0, but the amount of money it saves the business owner is not $0.  Therefore, a business owner would be willing to pay anywhere in between $0 to the amount of money it will save him.

You are bundling ideas with services, but the ideas themselves are infinitely reproducible, the services are not.

Anenome:

Okay, okay, I've got a ton of these links and info to read from, and I'm open to that.

I recommend it.  Most likely all of the questions you have were already answered by Kinsella (better than I could ever explain).  Those few lectures/books should take care of most of them.  You could also read his articles, he is constantly putting them out at his website here:

http://www.stephankinsella.com/

And points to many IP articles here:

http://c4sif.org/

I think of interest to you would be the ones where Kinsella talks about Objectivists. Many of these people believe in the idea of "logos" and "logorights".  Here is one which might lead you down the Kinsella article wormhole:

http://c4sif.org/2011/01/query-for-schulman-on-patents-and-logorights/

Or "Intellectual Property and Libertarianism" where he mentions his "marble statue" example:

https://mises.org/daily/3863

Also, I would commend Butler Shafer's In Restraint of Trade to your attention... patents and copyrights are just one sub-heading in the much larger category of anti-competitive lobbying and regulations.

Clayton -

Every melody, every rhythm, every song, all exist and have always existed. Every possible combination of sounds mathematically exists in the universe. The musician just "channels" these ambient tunes from the universe, like an antenna.

Then why does one aspect of that infinite nature come to you and another to me - can we not assume it is, in a temporal sense, a matter of property? Why are not all songs available to all souls at all times? Also then, is it not an individual expression of that universe? In which case is it not specific to that individual? it is. This is where I am finding that the disconnect between theory and reality is unacceptable to me. I still haven't gotten through all the material - I do have work to do besides! So forgive me for that. Yes, as I've repeatedly said, there IS a way to prove where music comes from. In my case, it comes from me, I am consciousness, it has come from my individual consciousness. Where has that come from? that's immaterial, unless some other power came in and said "Actually that was mine and I gave it to you" haha. I can show that I wrote the song, recorded it, engineered it, etc. I mean, can we accept that part at least and move on or are you disputing that because I keep arguing this? In other words would you say that in a free society when I produce some music and release it to the masses everyone says "Look at this wonderful music we made" which is collectivism. (I'm sure you're not saying that).

In an infinite universe it follows that where individual consciousnesses exist within a collective whole *logically* it is the individuality that is of value, not the collective. The collective obtains it's value from the principle of individuality. It is through individual welfare that the collective welfare is achieved, and the individuals welfare is best served through liberty / freedom, which can only, obviously, be curbed by the necessary freedoms and liberties of other individuals. One of those liberties is property. Is copyright property or not. That's kind of my logic here. My point is, to say "music comes from nowhere and anywhere" in a sense, is wrong, it does come from the individual. No two pieces of music are alike.

I can only prove that I'm conscious, therefore what I call a soul - existance, life, awareness, consciousness - I can prove I have that. I can then prove that the music has come from, or through, me. But when I say through, it is also to say from, because even if that is "tapped into" or has come from "another place", it's still my individual expression of it, therefore, whether the law recognises it or not, artistically it is uniquely "mine".

I don't see how you can compare corn growing to music creation that's where I think the analogy just doesn't connect. More accurate would be to say the guy builds a tractor, the tractor is the product of his energy and time, so I build a piece of music. The difference is that the tractor can't be duplicated infinitely once it's built. But even then it's not the same. Say the tractor *could* be duplicated infinitely, but the maker only got paid $10 for the whole tractor instead of the full price of a single tractor on the market - and the first person who bought it went out and duplicate it and gave the copies away for free or sold them for $2. He's not going to build them anymore, it's not feasible. He's also going to feel robbed *is he not?* Now the point is, does that feeling of being robbed that he has come from innate awareness of an actual robbery, or intellectual fallacy in respect of IP. I maintain that a piece of music is as real as a tractor - you can touch one, you can hear the other. They exist is the point.

Again, I want to bring it back to this basic concept otherwise I feel it's getting lost - the concept is, IS a piece of music an intellectual property or not. Everything else stems from there including practical arguments. I want to find out in principle what it is and I'll accept wherever truth and logic fall either way. In that sense I'm actually uninterested in whether I make money off it or not, I just want to know what's right first  and yes, right morally and practically (although I firmly believe that one always follows from the other this being a uinverse of cause and effect).

They are only duplicated easily if the artist releases the art in a form that is easily duplicated. If the musician wants to be sure that no one will reproduce his song without his permission, he has one option: never release it at all.

Now you're talking - you're talking about protecting something of value through non violent means, and that's a great idea, only it's not practical I can't think of any possible way this could work. This is also where I'm getting to. I'm no fan of government. My only possible objection is that where it is permissible in society to steal copyrighted material, or lets say we just restrict that to the theft and resale of it, (theft as I see it) then that in principle to me at least for now is immoral and that immorality has consequences seen or unseen. However, I really do like this idea but with music I can't see how it would be possible. All it would take would be one person to record the output of the stereo even if you have a proprietary format like a HD tape or DRM or something, and then they can mp3 it and it's on the internet. Those proprietary formats need to be backed up by copyright law and principle (if they are indeed in principle. Again, I'm willing to forgo this position if I find that copyright laws are indeed immoral and wrong.) If you don't, then that essentially is again from my perspective saying "all housing is now no longer private property, take and use as you like. It's going to be a free for all. You can't then say to those once house owners "you can't demand value from the market".

Piracy can't be stopped until society is as prosperous and moral that it doesn't care to do it on an individual, voluntary basis. Now *that* to me is a serious argument against IP that I can accept for example. To say simple, current laws have created poverty, scarcity, even in the rich nations they are far poorer - I would say unimaginably worse off - than they would have been under a true free market copyright or not. (yes yes I know you say copyright is not part of a free market lets say I accept that for this point). And if there would have been a true free market for the last 100+ years *where then would we be*. I can imagine we would be in a world where the middle class would be so prosperous that they would be buying SACD or HDCD's in beautiful high quality covers, signed by the artist, and would only want an original, not a boot legged copy because monetarily it would make no difference to them, but principally it would. Now there's an argument I can agree with, sorry if it's a little crude. Personally I think it's irrefutible that the world has had 99.9% of the otherwise wealth and prosperity sucked out of it by a huge vacuum cleaner known as Wall St and the Federal Reserve system and the military (as opposed to defense) complex working in tandem. For all intents and purposes we are in a horrific dark age of war, famine and fraud. So given that the prosperity we have seen is so immense as well, compared to past centuries, and that the build up of wealth from the last "age" of semi-capitalism has lasted *so long* - I mean can you imagine what we would have right now had we taken another path? I mean, I think you could go so far as to say that even if artists lived only on *charity* they would be well off in such a society. Donated to just so they could keep making music. Even that, to me, is a valid argument that I would accept. But even then I would say, of all the steps towards a free market that need to take place, there are many that are far more important to deal with than abolishing copyright. Militarism, fiat money and corporate welfare - those three simple steps alone would render the world unrecognisable within a decade from what we have today. Copyright would be around step 100 I would imagineand sure, by then it could go, as perhaps if you are right, nobody would care, in such a world.

Monsanto (meaning Monsanto et al) have done a good job of convincing people it's about IP rights. But it's not. Like air and sunlight the genetic code of the planet exists and is a universal right - like breathing and the right to life. They have no claim to it in other words. That's one. Second, they are taking that genetic code and *in the open* they are altering it, and doing so in such a way - intentionally - that it is a dominant piece of genetics - designed to wipe out - to destroy - that common property. Forgive me if I'm getting into areas you don't recognise, but I lack the vocabulary to properly articulate what I'm trying to say, so maybe you can humor me a bit here and just see what I'm getting at. They are poisoning the genetic code of the planet - literally. If i started pumping cyanide into your water supply, or some deadly gas into the atmosphere that literally caused people to get cancer, become sick and die, or infertile *that would not be an IP issue over the ownership of that gas or compound* it would be a criminal issue of you doing harm to others life liberty, person, property. Third, it's now abundantly clear for anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand or who has looked at this properly in anyway, that they are intentionally, and consistently across all their crops putting in genetic proteins that cause human beings to develop antibodies to their own reproductive facilities - in short causing interfility in men and women. There is no doubt in my mind that there is indeed an elite eugenics cult operating through these enormous corporations and one of their agendas is non race specific reduction in population on a global scale. On all counts, Monsanto are a criminal organisation, with criminal intents and outright blatant criminal activities across the board. They contaminate other farmers crops, then sue for use of their patented organism. There is no legitimacy in Monsanto in any way shape or form. If they want to patent their poison, go ahead, but it should be locked up and criminal use not permited - it's the same as it is criminal to poison the water or the air. It's not just the same, it IS that. A malicious, pre-meditated, consciously evil criminal (such as Monsanto are) by his actions of assaulting other's liberties necessarily voids his own liberties, so I don't see Monsanto as having any rights to any IP or any activity in the marketplace. But hey, that's just me.

You haven't demonstrated how music is different from corn. It would seem to me, considering how you stand to benefit from IP laws, that you are looking a little biased, or either you are stuck in thinking one way about them for so long that you are willing to be inconsistent or illogical with IP laws out of habit. Also, maybe you just see your views on the subject (which are subjective) as objective. You may or may not come to agree with this view on IP, and that's okay. I'm glad your open-minded, willing to do some reading, and able to engage in civil discussion.

I can understand why you might say that but I assure you that I am confident of my ability to make a living in the market place one way or another. I'm simply unconvinced by any of the arguments here so far and I've still yet to go through the rest of the material. I can't say with confidence which of my views are subjective or objective as yet. I don't feel threatened by the arguments I am contesting: I just logically am not finding the connection.

Thanks to all for the debate and responses so far by the way.

Oh, and +1 from me to Anenome's last post.

@Mike99: this is a short essay (took me about 10 minutes to read it) that states the entire case for why intellectual property is not property. Rather than me and others on this forum retyping portions of the essay and its arguments in imperfect form, why not just click on the link and read the essay itself?

Clayton -

Mike99:

I don't see how you can compare corn growing to music creation that's where I think the analogy just doesn't connect. More accurate would be to say the guy builds a tractor, the tractor is the product of his energy and time, so I build a piece of music. The difference is that the tractor can't be duplicated infinitely once it's built.

But the idea (blueprint/recipe/logos/whatever terminlogy you want to use) of the tractor can be infinitely replicated.

If I see/buy one of your tractors, and decide to recreate it using my own resources, there is nothing illegitimate about it... it is competiton!  It is not STEALING because I have not taken any property from you.

I took my own materials, and decided to put it together in a certain way (blueprint), and then have decided to sell my tractor on the market as well.  Did I take your materials? Did I take the original tractor without paying for it? No, I purchased it from you.

If you are having a hard time iwth the tractor example, then substitite the easier examples of a cake (one of Kinsella's favorite example to use), or a piece of clothing.  Sometimes it is much easier to tackle the easier examples, and then apply the same logic to examples which are stumping you.

You are still free to make and sell your tractors, and I have in no way impeded on that.  What IP Law tries to do is place a monopoly on a given recipe/blueprint/idea, but the monopoly argument fails in every way (economical, principled, utilitarian).  You must fall back upon "he is STEALING the VALUE of my tractor", but the value of a good is unownable, and this is just how competition works.

Here is a thought experiment:

Why is it ok for me to produce the tractor in this given way after X amount of years (patent expires), but it is not ok for me to produce the tractor in X-1 years?  There is an arbitrary length of time in which you demand a monopoly.

Same exact thing with a recipe for a cheesesteak, a chocolate cake, jeans cut at the knees, or any other idea.  You can control those physical resources (the original tractor), but the way of putting materials together is non-scarce.

Mike99:

He's not going to build them anymore, it's not feasible. He's also going to feel robbed *is he not?*

You cannot own a given value (value is in the minds of the consumers), and you cannot own a given set of customers.  The arguments put forth for IP protection are the same arguments put forth by any would-be-monopolist (read about mercantilism, or the Industry X chapter in Economics In One Lesson).

I demand a shoe monopoly from the king.  I spent a lot of money on this factory, and if I do not get this monopoly, someone can open a shoe factory right across the street from me and make shoes cheaper!  I demand to be the only one to sell item X for Y (arbitrary) years (why not forever?).

If you do concede it should be Y amount of years and not infinite, you are falling prey to a utilitarian argument, and the Utilitarian argument for IP fails miserably (read/listen to Kinsella).

Mike99:

Again, I want to bring it back to this basic concept otherwise I feel it's getting lost - the concept is, IS a piece of music an intellectual property or not.

Listen to the Hoppe speech on Property Rights.  Property Rights arise naturally BECAUSE THINGS ARE SCARCE.  Ideas are non-scarce, therefore cannot be property.

Mike99:

Now you're talking - you're talking about protecting something of value through non violent means, and that's a great idea, only it's not practical I can't think of any possible way this could work.

Just because you cannot think of any possible way to do X, does not mean the government monopoly is correct.  This is the same argument used by road/police/court socialists, and Walter Block demolishes those arguments (read Walter Block's Privatization of Roads and Highways), Kinsella demolishses it with the thought experiment of North Korea trying to privatize super markets (listen to the class for the detailed argument).

Also see Rothbard's famous government shoe example in Chapter 10 of For A New Liberty:

https://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=ab1ba643-dc19-462f-82ff-2d34f46bb7f6

Mike99:

My only possible objection is that where it is permissible in society to steal copyrighted material, or lets say we just restrict that to the theft and resale of it, (theft as I see it) then that in principle to me at least for now is immoral and that immorality has consequences seen or unseen.

What is theft?  It means that when I take something scarce away from you, and it is not possible for you to use it any more.  If it was possible to replicate your bike/tractor/car, it would not theft. (Listen to the Jeff Tucker speeches).

The only case I can see why people say you can "steal" ideas, is because the initial creator somehow "loses value."  But a value is unownable.  These are the same arguments that any monopolists use to try to justify a monopoly grant by the government.  (See Kinsella speeches for more detailed arguments, and also see any economic writings on why monopolies are bad).

Mike99:

If you don't, then that essentially is again from my perspective saying "all housing is now no longer private property, take and use as you like. It's going to be a free for all. You can't then say to those once house owners "you can't demand value from the market".

There is a reason why the propogandists decided to change from the term "Intellectual Monopoly" to Intellectual "Property", it was to muddle the thinking on the subject, and make it sound more palatable.  Ask yourself these two questions:

1. Who could be against a MONOPOLY?

2. Who could be against PROPERTY?

Kinsella likens it to the takeover of the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" in the US, or the changing of terms in economics: "Panic" -> "Depression" -> "Recession", or "fired" -> "laid off".

Intellectual "Property" has nothing to do with Property, but has everything to do with a monopoly grant by the state.

For more details, listen to the Kinsella class.

Mike99:

And if there would have been a true free market for the last 100+ years *where then would we be*.

If patents/copyrights were abolished, we would be way further ahead, and society would be so much richer with all the knowledge available.  Monopolies on are horrible and hold back progress, while costing companies billions of dollars anually to deal with nonsense overhead (and those are just the measurable costs, think of all the unseen costs).  If you like the Utilitarian arguments, read the Kinsella articles on Utilitarianism (and/or Against Intellectual Monopoly).  Hint: even if you accept the Utilitarian arguments (Kinsella/most of us here don't), all of the studies researching the the topic find either inconclusive results, or negative impacts from IP Law.

If you listen to the Publishing lecture by Jeff Tucker, you can hear about many great Austrian works that are lost in time. (Orphan works, books that are Out of Print and the publishers try to charge the institute an insane amount of money for the copyrights, very few printings of the books which are holed up in some library somewhere getting dusty and never having eyes laid on them for decades).  Imagine how much richer the world would be with these books online, available for the masses, or in paperback form instead of some expensive $200+ copy sold by some rare book store.

Instead, all of the ideas in the books will be buried for many more decades because it is illegal for you to print them for X amount of years.  By the time the monopoly grant expires, these books will be lost down the memory hole.  The same applies for music.

I have to find this great article discussing the Internet Archive's plans to archive all the music in the world (just as they are recording every website in the world), and them getting attacked for recording some very obscure jazz songs which were supposedly still under copyright. (I read it years ago)

Imagine all of the books/knowledge/songs that are lost because of IP, or focus on the unseen, the books/music/knowledge that never was allowed to occur (ala Bastiat/Hazlitt).

Clayton I read it earlier and remain unconvinced.

 

Tex: I think IP rights should be just like property - last for ever and be able to be passed on. I'm specifically arguing for copyright here. But I'm not done going through the material.

I get all your examples, and even a recipie I don't mind somebody using. A piece of recorded music is different, because it's a unique expression, and if someone duplicates that verbatim and sells it off, that to me is stealing my work. In the cake example, that individual cake is the unique expression. Someone elses making of a cake with the same recipie is a different cake. I'm arguing for a discreet piece of music, not the method for recording it.

I'm against monopoly, I'm for property. My argument is that copyright is property, and I also don't think other types of property that you say are more tangible are any more or less tangible than a music recording in the sense of the requirements to prove it's tangibility in a court of law. The only faculty that a piece of recorded music has that is different from a single piece of property, like a car, is that it can exist in multiple places at once. You could say for lack of a better term that it is manifesting non-locally, but it is uniquely identifiable. Edit: That capability is something that has arisen as the result of technology. Now we have to decide really, does that negate the property of the music recording or do we adapt our definition to the new reality that technology has brought us (a reality that always potentially existed but had never been realised).

The music is NOT the CD, or the file. It's the *music*.

If you make a painting but you put it in glass, only viewable in a museum, no photos allowed in the building and you permit no duplications of it, and keep it under secure lock and key etc. That is one thing. Now are you are or are you not in effect "publishing" that painting. Sure, people can see it, they cannot take it home. That you share it with them, does not pass ownership to it - except they may say they own the experience they had I suppose - which is perhaps the thing you DID want to give to them. And for example, in a free market, people would still say "Oh that song was written by so and so" even if they attirbuted no rights to the music to that person. The above applies to books and movies as well.

That said, I may come over to your way of thinking from the sheer realisation that government is just such a con, and a debasement, and you simply can't trust people to administer such a monstor, and it's best that they be relied upon to do as little as is humanly possible, if at all.

BTW owning a piece of music is not the same as owning the invention to a lightbulb - where somebody might invent it around the same time in another place, or later or earlier in time and one party didn't know about it. It's *impossible* to make the *same* musical recording. That tells me something unique about it. Same with books and movies.

It's impossible to make the same lightbulb too.

Exactly my point - you would have to make your own one, and they wouldn't be the same. But what if you could through a new technology literally copy it atom for atom. Only it's not a lightbulb we're talking about, but a music recording, movie, or book. And these are a unique catagory of "goods" or "products" as I would have to call them, since that is the only way to make it fit here. I think you would have to say they are a products that exist non-locally to use physics language.

 

If you are wrong, and some future society robs me of the rights to that property (if you are wrong, it would be property, if you are right, it is not), then I am forced to only show my music like one would a painting one does not want copied - in a secure environment - like a museum - or a special showing gallery. A place people can come and listen to it. Like a painting they can see and not touch or take home, they would be able to listen, but not take home. Anyone who takes a photo in a museum as a condition of entry has to have their camera wiped when leaving, likewise nobody would be allowed to make recordings. It's the only way someone like me could recoup costs of production and make any profit to make it worthwhile.

When you get down to it, copied recordings are not exactly the same. These differences may be imperceptible to human senses, but they are nonetheless different on a small enough scale. Things are not copied atom for atom.

Even if it were possible one day, so what? It has nothing to do with now. Recordings are not copied exactly.

Actually for all practical intents and purposes, they are identical to within 99.999% - which exceeds reasonable probability - and would meet requirements of proof in a court.

 

Edit: Anything that was significantly different to the point that it was of inferior quality, to the degree that a jury could not determine it within reasonable doubt, in that case it is not the same thing, and it wouldn't matter because the quality would be so bad, nobody would gain much by listening to it.

Reasonable probability of what? The recordings are not the same thing. My stance against IP is not predicated on this point. It was merely a critique about your lightbulb example. You stated that music was unique in that it could never be copied exactly. But nothing can be copied exactly. This is not a quality unique to music recordings.

 I read it earlier and remain unconvinced.

Feel free to elaborate.

Clayton -

Mike99:

I get all your examples, and even a recipie I don't mind somebody using. A piece of recorded music is different, because it's a unique expression, and if someone duplicates that verbatim and sells it off, that to me is stealing my work.

Read these sentences:

"A recipe is different, because it's a unique expression, and if someone duplicates that verbatim and sells it off, that to me is stealing my work."

"A drawing is different, because it's a unique expression, and if someone duplicates that verbatim and sells it off, that to me is stealing my work."

"My mixed drink is different, because it's a unique expression, and if someone duplicates that verbatim and sells it off, that to me is stealing my work."

"My ham sandwich is different, because it's a unique expression, and if someone duplicates that verbatim and sells it off, that to me is stealing my work."

"Fashion is different, because it's a unique expression, and if someone duplicates that verbatim and sells it off, that to me is stealing my work."

"An algorithm is different, because it's a unique expression, and if someone duplicates that verbatim and sells it off, that to me is stealing my work."

"A boat hull design is different, because it's a unique expression, and if someone duplicates that verbatim and sells it off, that to me is stealing my work."

"A database is different, because it's a unique expression, and if someone duplicates that verbatim and sells it off, that to me is stealing my work."

"A semiconductor maskwork is different, because it's a unique expression, and if someone duplicates that verbatim and sells it off, that to me is stealing my work."

Just because you have put labor into it does not make it ownable.

Mike99:

In the cake example, that individual cake is the unique expression. Someone elses making of a cake with the same recipie is a different cake. I'm arguing for a discreet piece of music, not the method for recording it.

There is nothing different.  You are just getting your thoughts confused, most likely because you are a music artist and thinking industry X (Music) is somehow different. (see sentences above)

Mike99:

I'm against monopoly, I'm for property.

Then you should be against Intellectual Monopolies.  Intellectual "Property" Laws conflict and interfere with real property. (See Kinsella lectures/speeches, and Against Intellectual Property).

Mike99:

My argument is that copyright is property, and I also don't think other types of property that you say are more tangible are any more or less tangible than a music recording in the sense of the requirements to prove it's tangibility in a court of law.

Kinsella example I stated above about the muddling of words "property" and "monopoly".

Mike99:

That said, I may come over to your way of thinking from the sheer realisation that government is just such a con, and a debasement, and you simply can't trust people to administer such a monstor, and it's best that they be relied upon to do as little as is humanly possible, if at all.

The government is a complete failure in everything it touches, and the granting of monopoly privileges is no different.

You guys keep missing something tho. Ownership of property means a monopoly over that piece of property, that's what sovereignty means. You have total rights over that property and can exclude others.

Where a government backed monopoly is wrong is its use of force to stop other from competing for customers, as if company A with the gov-granted monopoly owned a certain territory or owned certain customers.

It is illegitimate for the US postal service to use laws to lock out competitors for mail service, because to do so the US postal service passes laws saying that you don't own your own mailbox and that no one but the USPS can put mail in your mailbox but them, which is clearly false. I own my mailbox. There's a contradiction there.

But there's no contradiction in having a monopoly over that whihc you do rightfully own, and there's no gov-granted monopoly, no need for coercion, to maintain control over that which you do own. Legitimate property-monopolies do not need gov-coercion to enforce them. Ownership of property is one of these legitimate monopolies.

Finally found the Rothbard quote I was looking for:

There is, however, an exception to the right to use and disseminate the knowledge within one’s head: namely, if it was procured from someone else as a conditional rather than absolute ownership. Thus, suppose that Brown allows Green into his home and shows him an invention of Brown’s hitherto kept secret, but only on the condition that Green keeps this information private. In that case, Brown has granted to Green not absolute ownership of the knowledge of his invention, but conditional ownership, with Brown retaining the ownership power to disseminate the knowledge of the invention. If Green discloses the invention anyway, he is violating the residual property right of Brown to disseminate knowledge of the invention, and is therefore to that extent a thief.

Violation of (common law) copyright is an equivalent violation of contract and theft of property. For suppose that Brown builds a better mousetrap and sells it widely, but stamps each mousetrap “copyright Mr. Brown.” What he is then doing is selling not the entire property right in each mousetrap, but the right to do anything with the mousetrap except to sell it or an identical copy to someone else. The right to sell the Brown mousetrap is retained in perpetuity by Brown. Hence, for a mousetrap buyer, Green, to go ahead and sell identical mousetraps is a violation of his contract and of ‘the property right of Brown, and therefore prosecutable as theft. Hence, our theory of property rights includes the inviolability of contractual copyright.

A common objection runs as follows: all right, it would be criminal for Green to produce and sell the Brown mousetrap; but suppose that someone else, Black, who had not made a contract with Brown, happens to see Green’s mousetrap and then goes ahead and produces and sells the replica? Why should he be prosecuted? The answer is that, as in the case of our critique of negotiable instruments, no one can acquire a greater property title in something than has already been given away or sold. Green did not own the total property right in his mousetrap, in accordance with his contract with Brown—but only all rights except to sell it or a replica. But therefore Black’s title in the mousetrap, the ownership of the ideas in Black’s head, can be no greater than Green’s, and therefore he too would be a violator of Brown’s property even though he himself had not made the actual contract.

Murray N. Rothbard (1998-08-16 00:00:00-07:00). The Ethics of Liberty (Kindle Locations 3549-3567). New York University Press. Kindle Edition.

Seems to me, on this basis, that while copy of an idea would not be theft per se, any profiting on it would be, since the originator of the idea has the highest right to it and never sold or gave away the right to earn money from the idea.

In this way, property rights in ideas would indeed become eternal as with physical property ownership, and rights holders would license them broadly, just as one might lease actual property.

Anenome:

Seems to me, on this basis, that while copy of an idea would not be theft per se, any profiting on it would be, since the originator of the idea has the highest right to it and never sold or gave away the right to earn money from the idea.

In your opinion he has the highest right, but that doesn't make it libertarian.

A common objection runs as follows: all right, it would be criminal for Green to produce and sell the Brown mousetrap; but suppose that someone else, Black, who had not made a contract with Brown, happens to see Green’s mousetrap and then goes ahead and produces and sells the replica? Why should he be prosecuted? The answer is that, as in the case of our critique of negotiable instruments, no one can acquire a greater property title in something than has already been given away or sold. Green did not own the total property right in his mousetrap, in accordance with his contract with Brown—but only all rights except to sell it or a replica. But therefore Black’s title in the mousetrap, the ownership of the ideas in Black’s head, can be no greater than Green’s, and therefore he too would be a violator of Brown’s property even though he himself had not made the actual contract.

 

I'm with this guy.

Anenome:

You guys keep missing something tho. Ownership of property means a monopoly over that piece of property, that's what sovereignty means. You have total rights over that property and can exclude others.

Key difference.  Real property is scarce.  Go listen to the Hoppe lecture on Property Rights.

Anenome:

Finally found the Rothbard quote I was looking for:

And Rothbard was wrong with his views on IP.  Kinsella covers this in his IP class, and also his Libertarian Legal Theory class (he released it for free here):

http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/01/01/kinsellas-libertarian-legal-theory-course-audio-and-slides/

What Rothbard was trying to do was come up with some sort of way to emulate IP Laws through contract.  What this would do is bind two parties in some sort of deal (like a Non-Disclosure Agreement). This only allows you to go after Party B though if they break the contract.  For example, if you tell any other party about the secrets of my company, you agree to pay me $100,000.

This sort of contract is legitimate (but how effective and enforcable it is, that is up to the market to decide).

What IP Law does is binds EVERYONE to said mythical contract.  If B tells C, and C tells D, and on and on to Z.  The government gets to go and shut down C-Z even though C-Z have never signed, nor broken any contract.  This is illegitimate.

Kinsella covers all of this more elegantly in Against Intellectual Property, and the IP class, so I will just say to listen/read those.

Under that scenario described in the Rothbard quote, do you have to have a contract with each person you sell a piece of music to? Or is it implicit when you place the © symbol on the piece of work that by listening to / partaking in I suppose what you could call is the "knowledge" of that book, CD, movie, etc, they are now agreeing to that conditional ownership?

Tex: Isn't commonlaw copyright the same as property under common law? In that: ignorance of the law is no excuse? You are liable because it's a simple set of laws and there is a societal contract in force and you did know what you were doing? Even if there are no penalties for c-z, still they are in posession of stolen property and it has to be returned to the owner / confiscated.

 

Edit: going to check out those lecutres now.

Edit: Clayton: my elaboration is everything I've posted in this thread so far really - those arguments so far really remain my position and therefore my rebuttal, as inarticulate as it may be.

Are there supposed to be youtube videos on this page:

http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/01/01/kinsellas-libertarian-legal-theory-course-audio-and-slides/

There are spaces for them, but nothing is loading for me in any of my browsers. Or is it just mp3 files?

Mike99:

Even if there are no penalties for c-z, still they are in posession of stolen property and it has to be returned to the owner / confiscated.

In the Jeff Tucker lectures, he mentions that people's minds are not hard drives.  It is not possible to wipe and erase away the ideas with all zeroes.  Once the idea is released, it is out there forever.  It can be infinitely replicated, so there is no way to confiscate it.

If the world worked in such a way that people's memories were erasable, you would bet your ass the government would be deleting ideas left and right. Luckily, ideas do not exist in the realm of scarcity.

Kinsella some of the "common law copyright" arguments in his class.

As a side note, this reminds me of the professors who try to copyright their lectures:

http://archive.mises.org/010783/

If it was up to those professors all of their ideas would ideally be deleted out of your brain once you walk out of the door.  But they go for the second best thing, not being able to take notes of what you heard.

Edit:

Mike99:

Are there supposed to be youtube videos on this page:

http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/01/01/kinsellas-libertarian-legal-theory-course-audio-and-slides/

There are spaces for them, but nothing is loading for me in any of my browsers. Or is it just mp3 files?

There are embedded Google Docs slides.  Just search the page for "mp3 download" and it points you to each of the links.  If you are still having trouble, I would not mind uploading them to Mediafire for you.  Good thing there is no copyright (ok ok you caught me, I meant as close to no copyright as possible) on them, I might be STEALING Kinsella's property!!!!!

Anenome:

So... you're saying Rothbard isn't libertarian...? >_> Are you sure you want to say that?

He is still a Libertarian, just wrong on IP.  IP is very arcane, and as Kinsella mentions, even patent attorney's get things wrong with IP all the time.

gotlucky:

Anenome:

Seems to me, on this basis, that while copy of an idea would not be theft per se, any profiting on it would be, since the originator of the idea has the highest right to it and never sold or gave away the right to earn money from the idea.

In your opinion he has the highest right, but that doesn't make it libertarian.

So... you're saying Rothbard isn't libertarian...? >_> Are you sure you want to say that?

Here's a Kinsella article directly on IP law I've begun reading, for those interested:

http://mises.org/daily/3863

 

***Edit: Post read, I see a lot of holes and problems with Kinsella's formulation on IP :\ His central reasoning on IP is particularly confused, as it ignores creation of an idea and assumes a creation coexists with someone elses's version of that thing. Hmm. I was hoping to find some new, revelaltory insight that would change my mind, but instead I am left wanting by you guys's Kinsella worship :\

Furthermore, he assumes an IP law could not arise as a function of private law, and I disagree entirely. A private law society would have a broad-basis libertarian legal code courts and individuals would subscribe to, and it could be placed there, with free competition for versions and implementation.

Furthermore, he injects the concept of 'scarcity' into the definition of property. The source he cites for that section excludes any mention of scarcity at all. Suppose we're in the garden of Eden and there's a bajillion apples all around, apples are non-scarce. Would that mean that if you pick one apple that that apple is not now your apple? Of course not. Non-scarce things can be owned as easily as anything else.

Not impressed, guys.

Guess I'll have to delve into his 6 lecture course next. Hope I find something better than what he put forth in this article. For all his qualifications I'm surprised there's such large holes in his reasoning.

 

Hey Anenome: read that one.

In the Jeff Tucker lectures, he mentions that people's minds are not hard drives.  It is not possible to wipe and erase away the ideas with all zeroes.  Once the idea is released, it is out there forever.  It can be infinitely replicated, so there is no way to confiscate it.

Nobody is arguing that. Just like you can remember the painting in your mind that you saw at the museum. You can try to reproduce it. If you are a sevant, you may be able to do so with stunning realism - I would say that would be legitimate *it's still not the original*. I don't mind if someone remembers the music in their mind - maybe they have a photographic memory! But I object to them making a verbatim (for all intents and purposes) copy and *selling it* or mass distributing it without my consent. As per the Rothbard example, which is a great way of explaining it: admission is conditional.

Again, one area where this is getting complicated is the confusion between IP / patents - which I am somewhat against / ie undecided on - and it's far too complex for me to get into right now (not that anyone else can't go ahead and discuss it...) - I'm purely interested in keeping it simple for my own sake to understand properly and relate it to something that concerns me - that is namely music - which also includes books, and movies and artwork for that matter - they're all in the same boat.

Same here, Mike. Seems like selling your copy of someone else's creation would be just as illegitimate as trying to sell land that was not yours.

Right Anenome - and I think there's a valid argument in the fact that (not to be offensive to the others on the thread) you could ask almost anyone on the street this and I think 98% of people would answer that yes it is theft. Only people who are outright theives would say "too bad". Again, I'm not calling the others here theives - it's just that in absense of a better explanation / theory I'm finding that theirs is seriously falling short. A lot of the arguments seem spurious and don't connect the dots but create new dots, leaving the old ones still there, unconnected.

In other words, it's a commonly accepted thing that such creations are unique pieces of property. In other words, it is something ingrained in common sense. And I think there's an argument there as well for it's validity. If you asked someone however, do you think it's right to prohibit drug use, you get a non common sense answer anywhere you go - at best you'll get a 50/50 response. But if you say "If I take your TV from out of your house while you're out without asking you is that theft" or "if I shoot someone and they die is that murder" You'll get a 99% response. Copyright in it's simple common sense form as described by Rothbard in the quote you posted seems *also* to fall into that same category. That's reason not to dismiss it without very sound reasoning, and in fact although I really did expect to find it here, I'm not.

I find it disturbing that libertarians, ostensibly the world's foremost supporters of property rights and production are refusing to admit that a production of the mind can be owned. That an author who writes a book does not own that specific arrangement of words in toto. If anything, the major abrogation of rights is not the ability to own an idea for death + 70 years, but rather the idea that it gets taken away by public domain at all. Would you support a law that says all property gets taken away 70 years after the original purchaser buys it?

And here we have libertarians saying there's no such thing as intellectual property at all.

And for all the buildup on Kinsella, his argument seemed quite weak to me, with major holes in the most important reasoning. Hmm. I mean, I'm still reserving judgment a bit, 'cause I haven't done enough reading into Kinsella, but thus far I think you guys have been bamboozled by flawed reasoning.

If I produce a new idea, I am the only one with that idea in the whole world. So there's no question of me owning an idea that's also in someone else's head. I own it, my idea. I have monopoly rights over it just as surely as if I had homesteaded a piece of property.

You may be able to fit that idea into your head too, and sure that's not theft because you can't remove it from my head either, but should you have a right to profit on my idea? Somehow that's something I'm awfully suspicious of.

Because it means an artist could paint something, and then someone could take a photo of it and sell that likeness as if he had produced the painting, as if it was his. But it's not his. He's reproducing it. And though it doesn't steal something from the producer, it does steal value.

This might make the painter more popular and in the long run lead to greater notoriety and fame, but that should be up to him to control as well. It's not theft to simply save a photo to your harddrive, that's just copying. But I'm not at all sure you should be able to resell a copy and compete with the guy who created it in the first place.

Seems to me, he who creates it should have the exclusive right to profit on it.

If you don't accept that, then you're accepting the idea that ideas should be communalized, for the sole reason that they don't have physical existence.

Ideas are always harder to apply when they become more abstract, and it's certainly more abstract to deal with intellectual property, but does that automatically mean an idea can't be a property? Really?

So, an author A writes a digital book. He sells it to B. B can just turn around and compete with A to sell the same book? Really? You're all okay with that? I think the major portion of whatever value B earns, A has a right to. I thought we were in favor of people being able to keep what they produce. If B sells a book, it's been sold on A's efforts primarily.

And now, having read some Kinsella, I'm less and less sure he has a good answer to the quandry :\ What's more, his argument devolved to negative utilitarianism, that the patent process was not actually on balance good for society. And he's a patent attorney, so, may be some bias at work? He actually admitted to not liking patent law generally in the first place.

 

@Mike: OK, since you've read it, I"m going to use that as my reference. Please respond to this argument:

All of this brings us to what intellectual property law is really about - a reality that is simply obscured by analogies to other types of property. Intellectual property law is not about your right to control your copy of your idea - this is a right that we have just pointed out, does not need a great deal of protection. What intellectual property law is really about is about your right to control my copy of your idea. This is not a right ordinarily or automatically granted to the owners of other types of property. If I produce a cup of coffee, I have the right to choose whether or not to sell it to you or drink it myself. But my property right is not an automatic right both to sell you the cup of coffee and to tell you how to drink it.

It is important to distinguish between property rights and contractual agreements. You could sell me the delicious cup of coffee you just made, and have me sign a contract agreeing not to drink the coffee after 4 pm. But  if I were to violate this agreement it would not be theft. As a matter of law, you could not send the police after me. You could sue me for breach of contract - and the courts might or might not decide the contract was valid. But there would be no question of theft or violation of property rights.

The entire edifice of IP law is based on an elementary confusion of easily distinguished categories by use of ill-formed metaphors.

Clayton -

@Anenome

Anything can be owned in terms of the law. If the law allowed for it, people could have slaves. So it's not a question of whether it's possible to have ownership of an idea, the question is whether it is just. As Clayton pointed out, when you claim to own a pattern of words, you are in effect stating that other people may not use their own pen and paper to recreate those words. This is wholly different from normal property rights, where you exclude others from using your own property. In the case of IP, you are excluding others from using their own property. It doesn't get much more anti-libertarian than that.

Also, ideas reside within the mind. Your reputation exists in the minds of everyone else but yourself, as that is exactly what a reputation is, what other people think of you. So if you claim to own your reputation, what you are saying is that other people may not "use" or "damage" your reputation without your permission...which is ridiculous, as a reputation is what other people think of you.

It's the same with patents. You might invent some new mechanism that makes flushing toilets more efficient. But if you patent that mechanism and claim you own it, you are in effect excluding people from using their own toilets if they desire to install that mechanism. You are claiming a property right over their toilet.

It's the same with copyright. You might write a melody and copyright it. What you are doing is saying that anybody is free to hum, whistle, sing, play their piano, etc., unless of course they play certain pitches in a certain order for certain lengths. Again, you are excluding other people from their own property.

Just because they might profit from it doesn't change that fact. If you don't want other people to use your idea, don't make it public. Keep it a secret. If it's a really unique idea, maybe no one else will ever think of it. But when you claim ownership over ideas, you are in fact excluding people from using their own property. And that is anti-libertarian.

gotlucky:

@Anenome

Anything can be owned in terms of the law. If the law allowed for it, people could have slaves. So it's not a question of whether it's possible to have ownership of an idea, the question is whether it is just. As Clayton pointed out, when you claim to own a pattern of words, you are in effect stating that other people may not use their own pen and paper to recreate those words. This is wholly different from normal property rights, where you exclude others from using your own property. In the case of IP, you are excluding others from using their own property. It doesn't get much more anti-libertarian than that.

Not excluding. I'm only saying they shouldn't be able to profit from what I produced.

If I produce an original pattern of words, it's not much different from having turned a plot of land into plowed land--a specific arrangement of atoms versus a specific arrangement of words. Since there are an infinite number of ways to say things, my ownership of a specific pattern does not diminish in any way their ability to say something with their property. The courts would simply bar plaigiarism. No gov needed, contrary to Kinsella's claim.

gotlucky:

Also, ideas reside within the mind. Your reputation exists in the minds of everyone else but yourself, as that is exactly what a reputation is, what other people think of you. So if you claim to own your reputation, what you are saying is that other people may not "use" or "damage" your reputation without your permission...which is ridiculous, as a reputation is what other people think of you.

Yes, I'm familiar with that example, but it's inapplicable. A reputation is produced by the opinions of others, and thus cannot be owned. An idea is completely different. An idea can be discovered by one person. A reputation cannot be. A reputation cannot be sold or packaged, a book can be.

gotlucky:

It's the same with patents. You might invent some new mechanism that makes flushing toilets more efficient. But if you patent that mechanism and claim you own it, you are in effect excluding people from using their own toilets if they desire to install that mechanism. You are claiming a property right over their toilet.

No, only over the new thing about the toilet that I created, that wouldn't exist without me. They didn't have X new invention without me. I produced that idea, it is mine. The product doesn't come into existence without the creator of the idea, so it's illegitimate to talk about it as if the two things were simultaneous.

gotlucky:

It's the same with copyright. You might write a melody and copyright it. What you are doing is saying that anybody is free to hum, whistle, sing, play their piano, etc., unless of course they play certain pitches in a certain order for certain lengths. Again, you are excluding other people from their own property.

No, I'm only saying they shouldn't be able to profit from it. Fair use is fair use.

gotlucky:

Just because they might profit from it doesn't change that fact. If you don't want other people to use your idea, don't make it public. Keep it a secret. If it's a really unique idea, maybe no one else will ever think of it. But when you claim ownership over ideas, you are in fact excluding people from using their own property. And that is anti-libertarian.

Ideas can't be sold without disclosing them. So I don't buy it. How would any purchaser of an invention know how to value an idea without hearing the idea? Based on our ownerless theory of ideas, any investor could simply ask to hear the inventor's new idea, then walk out and produce it himself since, according to you guys, ideas can't be owned or protected as property.

You're fine with that?

If someone plucks from the realm of ideas a new one, that's so different from someone plucking an unowned apple? People can keep eating apples, but they can't eat my apple. Similarly, if I have an improvement for a toilet, their toilet as it is now continues to work, but I should be compensated as the discoverer of that idea if they decide to buy that idea, not some random person who heard about my idea but is perhaps a better marketer.