Clayton -
"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."
The real question is how the idea got from A to B's head. If A had an idea, it is his. He's the sole owner of that idea. It is intellectual property, as it must be praxeologically, since he alone controls it and thus must be the sole owner. B has no idea at this point. A has total rights over the idea.
A transfers the idea to B conditionally, on the understanding that B may not pass on the idea nor resell it. If B passes the idea on to C, then you guys are basically saying A has no recourse against C. You're saying even B can just use the idea no matter what.
But the root problem here is that ideas are not like physical objects, as Kinsella say. If A gives an object to B and B gives it to C, then we would say that C has is holding A's object, and if C tried to sell it, the sale would be illegitimate and C would owe A restitution.
However, ideas are passed duplicatively. But does that mean that ownership automatically passes with it, and full rights to that idea? I don't think so. A invented the idea and has the highest right over it. He passes it to B provisionally. B cheats and passes it to C. Does C now have a right to ignore A and profit on the idea? No, he shouldn't. He doesn't have the right to sell that idea which was passed to him illegitimately.
But since C has an idea in his head and ideas cannot be taken away like objects can be taken away, the only thing left for a court to do is to have C make restitution to A and bar C from selling the idea. It's not a gov-granted monopoly, it's simply a property right and protection thereof.
Kinsella is guilty of treating ideas as if they didn't first originate in one person's mind.
"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."
Sure, however it's not unusual to sell something and reserve the right of resale. You can, as in Rothbard's example, buy something that cannot be resold. Nor could it be copied and sold copies of.
And the better analogy would not be 'tell you how to drink it' but rather 'tell you not to resell it'. The person holding full rights can pass a thing to you and reserve some of those rights. This is just as true of an object as it is of an idea.
"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.
True, but again, he's using the wrong analogy. It would be theft if you agreed not to sell that coffee and did so anyway, since you wouldn't have the legitimate right to sell that coffee. It's not a right you purchased with that coffee. Whether you want to buy a coffe that has its usage rights encumbered is up to you--you'd undoubtedly pay less for encumbered coffee, but that doesn't change the fact that it's encumbered.
"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."
Again, if the question was one of resale, it would be a question of property rights violations. Since, in my example, the seller retained the right of resale, which is explicitly breached by reselling the coffee.
Anenome: Not excluding. I'm only saying they shouldn't be able to profit from what I produced.
Not excluding. I'm only saying they shouldn't be able to profit from what I produced.
"I'm only saying they shouldn't be able to build on wetlands on their own property."
Do you see how that is excluding them from using their own property? Once they know what the idea is, it is within their mind as well as yours. That you came up with it first does not somehow give you the right to exclude them from using this idea (that they now possess as well as you) in order to use their own property. If I hear a poem, it is within my mind. If someone prevents me from writing it down or from reciting it, they are excluding me from using my property or even my own body.
Anenome: 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.
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.
You might produce an original pattern of words, but if you share that pattern, it no longer resides within only your mind. If you claim ownership over that poem, you are excluding people from using their body in a certain way, such as from reciting that poem. As far as plagiarism goes, copying does not equal fraud. If I copy a poem you wrote and tell other people that I wrote it, that's fraud. But copying is absolutely not theft. I have taken nothing from you.
Anenome: 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.
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.
Well I'm glad to see you are at least against slander and libel laws.
Anenome: 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.
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.
Um...yes? Just because you came up with the idea doesn't change the fact that you are still excluding others from using their own property in that regard. As Clayton pointed out, if I patent a wooden chair, I am saying that you may use your wood however you want...except you may not use it to create the wooden chair that I created. I am absolutely excluding you from using your own property.
Anenome: No, I'm only saying they shouldn't be able to profit from it. Fair use is fair use.
No, I'm only saying they shouldn't be able to profit from it. Fair use is fair use.
Um...yes? Again, you are saying that I cannot hum that melody if someone pays me in exchange for humming it. That is exclusion.
Anenome: 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.
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.
Well that's not true. Ideas can be sold without disclosing them. People make pitches all the time without disclosing the entire idea, and that's in today's IP world. If it's an inventor without a solid reputation, then it may possibly be harder for him to pitch his idea to investors, but that doesn't mean he can't do it. Inventors with great reputations may not disclose anything at all if investors are willing to take the risk. And that does happen even in today's IP world.
Anyway, if the idea is complex enough (and many ideas are), it's not exactly easy to reproduce it. Also, if some investor does pull that low move, don't you think word would get out? Do you think that the inventor who got screwed is going to keep his mouth shout about what happened? That investor might even get blacklisted. No one will pitch to him ever again, as it wouldn't be worth the risk.
Anenome: 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.
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.
I can't eat your idea. We both have it. It's not like I erase it from your mind.
gotlucky: Anenome: Not excluding. I'm only saying they shouldn't be able to profit from what I produced. "I'm only saying they shouldn't be able to build on wetlands on their own property." Do you see how that is excluding them from using their own property?
Do you see how that is excluding them from using their own property?
Did not knowing about the idea in the first place mean I was excluding them from using their own property? Not at all. After I disclose the idea to them, they have therefore lost nothing, since without that disclosure they would have been exactly the same, without that idea. And after the disclosure they're exactly the same as before, since the idea is mine. They could not use my idea before disclosure, they cannot profit from it after disclosure.
So, they and their property rights have not been harmed or invaded at all. Instead, profiting on my idea would be an invasion of my rights over the idea.
gotlucky: Once they know what the idea is, it is within their mind as well as yours.
That doesn't mean they produced it. And unlike non-physical items, ideas cannot be taken away from them by a court. But their use can be injuncted.
gotlucky:That you came up with it first does not somehow give you the right to exclude them from using this idea (that they now possess as well as you) in order to use their own property.
For their own use, they can use it all they want. Should they be able to profit on my idea tho? Coming up with it first satisfies the criteria of first use which is how something becomes homesteaded in the first place. So, first use is relevant here.
First use in property, as in land, does give you the right to exclude others from that land. New land.
How is new and unusued land not exactly the same as a new and unused idea?
gotlucky:If I hear a poem, it is within my mind. If someone prevents me from writing it down or from reciting it, they are excluding me from using my property or even my own body.
And again, no one's denying you fair use. Only you shouldn't have the right to profit. Because you heard the poem as a performance, which is not a title transfer to you. You don't own the poem just by hearing it. You are not its creator.
gotlucky: Anenome: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. You might produce an original pattern of words, but if you share that pattern, it no longer resides within only your mind. If you claim ownership over that poem, you are excluding people from using their body in a certain way, such as from reciting that poem.
Anenome: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.
You might produce an original pattern of words, but if you share that pattern, it no longer resides within only your mind. If you claim ownership over that poem, you are excluding people from using their body in a certain way, such as from reciting that poem.
That may be so, but previously their body was prevented from being used in a certain way by not knowing of the idea's existence. Ideas must be treated differently from items because of the nature of ideas. Besides which, preventing profiting from an idea is not the same as preventing you from enjoying the idea by knowing about it. Recite it all you want, but do you have the right to profit from that which you didn't produce?
gotlucky:As far as plagiarism goes, copying does not equal fraud. If I copy a poem you wrote and tell other people that I wrote it, that's fraud. But copying is absolutely not theft. I have taken nothing from you.
I agree. But copying and selling that work as your own would be plaigiarism, and that's what I was referring to.
gotlucky: Anenome: 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. Well I'm glad to see you are at least against slander and libel laws.
I am against those laws, yes.
gotlucky: Anenome: 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. Um...yes? Just because you came up with the idea doesn't change the fact that you are still excluding others from using their own property in that regard.
Um...yes? Just because you came up with the idea doesn't change the fact that you are still excluding others from using their own property in that regard.
But my idea precedes their product. Any product produced from that idea is, ostensibly, my product. How then is it their product? Only if they bought it from me. Or at least, they shouldn't be able to reproduce my product for sale, for profit, as if they owned the idea.
gotlucky:As Clayton pointed out, if I patent a wooden chair, I am saying that you may use your wood however you want...except you may not use it to create the wooden chair that I created. I am absolutely excluding you from using your own property.
But again, you aren't harmed by that prevention, since you had no idea prior to my creation of the idea that such an arrangement was possible. How then could it be a rights violation to claim ownership over an arrangement which you never produced?
Besides which, again, it's not free use anyone's worrying about it, it's reproduction for sale. He owns a chair, he hears about my idea, he changes his chair to it, no one cares. It when he tries to resell my idea that I have a problem.
Does that in any way affect your challenge of such a rights violation?
gotlucky: Anenome: No, I'm only saying they shouldn't be able to profit from it. Fair use is fair use. Um...yes? Again, you are saying that I cannot hum that melody if someone pays me in exchange for humming it. That is exclusion.
But that presumes that a song cannot be owned, that it cannot be property.
gotlucky: Anenome: 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. Well that's not true. Ideas can be sold without disclosing them. People make pitches all the time without disclosing the entire idea, and that's in today's IP world. If it's an inventor without a solid reputation, then it may possibly be harder for him to pitch his idea to investors, but that doesn't mean he can't do it. Inventors with great reputations may not disclose anything at all if investors are willing to take the risk. And that does happen even in today's IP world. Anyway, if the idea is complex enough (and many ideas are), it's not exactly easy to reproduce it. Also, if some investor does pull that low move, don't you think word would get out? Do you think that the inventor who got screwed is going to keep his mouth shout about what happened? That investor might even get blacklisted. No one will pitch to him ever again, as it wouldn't be worth the risk.
I invented something, and am soon to talk to patent attorneys. So I think I may know more about how this process works.
In practice, not only does the idea get disclosed regularly and completely, you don't even bother with NDAs. But according to you, an NDA wouldn't even help. Beyond that, the inventor would have to do all the production himself to prevent workers from learning how it works. Etc., etc.
gotlucky: Anenome: 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. I can't eat your idea. We both have it. It's not like I erase it from your mind.
Again, ideas and items have differing natures. This isn't too surprising.
Just because ideas are duplicative by nature doesn't mean one cannot be property.
If an idea is discovered, it has a first user, and by the homesteading doctrine should be entirely owned and controlled by that person in perpetuity.
One is reminded of the socialist libertarians who claim it's illegitimate to exclude them from your own land.
Here you're saying I can't exclude you from a poem I created. It's a lot like saying I'm controlling your body by saying you can't go on my land.
Is this legitimate? I'm really not sure. If I can own a poem, seems I should at least be able to exclude you from reselling it.
There is something to a private contract stating that "if I sell you a copy of my song, you must agree not to sell it or any other copies to anyone else." So if a sells a song to B under these terms, sure, A has something similar to a copyright on the song over B. But it is only similar to a copyright. In this private agreement, at this point in time, only B is subject to the contract and its terms; under the model of IP today, all persons are assumed to have agreed to the terms of the copyright. This is the libertarian's biggest argument against IP. It isn't voluntary. It is only possible as state-granted monopoly.
If A sells a song to B under an agreement of not copying or distributing, and B then makes a copy and sells it to C, only B has violated the contract. And B can only be held for the restitution on however many copies B distributed to C. If that's just one, B owes A the price of the song again. There is nothing C owes A. C never agreed to the terms of the contract. It doesn't even matter if C went on to make thousands of copies and to sell them (and cheaper than A sells them, to boot - the scoundrel!). Only B violated the contract because only B agreed to the terms of it. And if B only made and sold 1 copy, that is all that B owes A for.
Modern IP is monopoly, no matter how you guys try to spin it. It's the idea that if you have an idea, you deserve ALL profit that idea ever generates. That is the problem, because it forces allow society to agree to your terms. Now, look, a minarchist society can exist that has modern IP laws, but it cannot be a 100% voluntary society because a state must exist to hold all citizens binding to IP laws. Minarchy isn't the same as a truly free society.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
It isn't like that at all. If I am on your land, you cannot use that land until I move. Likewise, it is almost as if you don't have that land I am stepping on at the moment because I am the one that is in possession (illegitimately) of that spot.
If I have a digital copy of your poem, you still have your poem in your possession. My having a copy of your idea does not displace your possession of the idea. Likewise, you can still use your poem when I have a digital copy of it. These situations are not the same.
Mike99
I won't comment further on the deeds of Monsanto, as I feel like it is skewing off topic, and the on at hand is pretty vital. Nor will I delve deeper into what I think the soul, the universe, consciousness, music, etc. IS, and for the same reason.
Now, the difference between your tractor example and my corn example is the tractor and the music are not at all the same. One is tangible. Now, the plans for the tractor is much more similar. It is the idea of the tractor. With the idea of the tractor, one may make the actual tractor. With a copy of the music, one can "make the actual music." Now, I'm only saying I don't view the idea of the tractor as property. The piece of paper with the idea written down on it can be property, but the intangible IDEA cannot. The same goes with a copy of music. The CD can be property, the paper that the sheet music is printed on canbe property, but the intangible IDEA cannot. And just like the tractor made from the idea of the tractor, the performance of the music is yours, and you can exclude any and/or everyone from such a thing. Same goes if you just decide to play it on your stereo at home. No one has a right to hear the music you play. However, once they have their own copy of the idea, they can use it just like you can. The only thing they should not do is pass it off as their own written material. This needs not IP laws though. This can exist under existing fraud law. By taking your song and distributing it, telling people I wrote it, I have committed fraud. But you, the actual songwriter, have not be defrauded, my customers were. Now, they can, if they choose, return their CDs and I would have to give them their money back. They would be informed of the true artist. If they liked your music, they might go buy a copy from you. If they didn't, they might not. The fact is, you got free publicity, you have nothing to complain about.
Your main complaint seems to be, as most that want to keep modern IP laws, the originator of an idea is entitled to all profits made off of or through the use of that idea. This is why IP is actually just a monopoly. One has no right to force all persons to agree to the terms of your IP contract by simply claiming copyright. Of course, you can demand that before you give anyone a copy, they must agree to your IP contract, and it can only apply to those that voluntarily acknowledged and agreed to this contract with you. This is because IDEAS can't be considered to be property once published, as the exhibit almost no similarities whatsoever to what we normally refer to as property.
The real question is how the idea got from A to B's head. If A had an idea, it is his. He's the sole owner of that idea. It is intellectual property, as it must be praxeologically, since he alone controls it and thus must be the sole owner. B has no idea at this point. A has total rights over the idea. A transfers the idea to B conditionally, on the understanding that B may not pass on the idea nor resell it. If B passes the idea on to C, then you guys are basically saying A has no recourse against C. You're saying even B can just use the idea no matter what.
In the case of a contractual agreement, he has recourse... the issue is what sort of recourse he has. As Boldrin & Levine mention, A cannot "call the police", in other words, direct use of force is not justified in the enforcement of this kind of contractual obligation. The anti-IP view is, then, party a claim regarding the economic viability of NDA-based contractual enforcement, particularly in the case of mass media. It just doesn't make any sense.
"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." Sure, however it's not unusual to sell something and reserve the right of resale. You can, as in Rothbard's example, buy something that cannot be resold. Nor could it be copied and sold copies of.
Well, there are many aspects to this... it gets very complicated very quickly. Boldrin & Levine's point is simply that this is not a right that is ordinarily reserved during an exchange. Hence, there is no presumption and - unlike the case of sitting to eat in a restaurant - an explicit agreement is required. And writing something on your product, such as, "by purchasing this item, purchaser hereby agrees blah blah blah" does not rise to the level of an actual agreement because it's a transparent attempt to make the purchase into an implicit agreement by fiat.
And the better analogy would not be 'tell you how to drink it' but rather 'tell you not to resell it'. The person holding full rights can pass a thing to you and reserve some of those rights. This is just as true of an object as it is of an idea. "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. True, but again, he's using the wrong analogy. It would be theft if you agreed not to sell that coffee and did so anyway, since you wouldn't have the legitimate right to sell that coffee.
True, but again, he's using the wrong analogy. It would be theft if you agreed not to sell that coffee and did so anyway, since you wouldn't have the legitimate right to sell that coffee.
I disagree that there's a difference between your analogy and his - in both cases, a right has been reserved and that right has been trespassed. For that reason, I'm happy to use your analogy, I just disagree that you've yet identified any difference here. It is theft in Rothbard's much broader usage of that word - the key difference here is that contractual agreements are enforceable through civil penalties (money awards) and, hence, enforcement is much weaker than in the case of crimes where other forms of retribution (prison, etc.) are appropriate.
Now, perhaps a person could argue that in a counter-factual world of private law, IP would be taken much more seriously and would be enforceable through stronger forms of retribution. This is a separate discussion and an interesting one. I'm definitely on the side that IP would not exist in a private law society (actually, I think it would exist in enclaves, i.e. corporations, private clubs and organizations, etc. but would not exist outside of those contexts).
It's not a right you purchased with that coffee. Whether you want to buy a coffe that has its usage rights encumbered is up to you--you'd undoubtedly pay less for encumbered coffee, but that doesn't change the fact that it's encumbered.
Precisely. Add to that the exponential costs of enforcing an intricate web of arbitrarily-complex, interlocking property rights and I think that you can make a praxeological case that the only reason IP exists at all is through the subsidy and enforcement of the State apparatus itself. We can even identify how IP meshes with the State's own ends (censorship, propaganda, etc.) which explains why it's so cooperative in enriching private-sector individuals through IP laws.
"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." Again, if the question was one of resale, it would be a question of property rights violations. Since, in my example, the seller retained the right of resale, which is explicitly breached by reselling the coffee.
But you're missing the point - police don't read contracts and there's a reason for that. If it's something that's not obvious from the immediately ascertainable facts, then it's not reasonably actionable.
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?
+100%
And here we have libertarians saying there's no such thing as intellectual property at all.
Right!
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.
My thoughts precisely!
Correct! And I second everything else in that post as well. To which gotlucky replied:
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.
This is the flawed reasoning that is just making my brain go "WHAT?" Of course nobody is asking to control what others think of you. But your reputation - how youre *present* yourself to them IS within your control. If someone actively, *commercially* represents you in a way that you have no control over, selling you as a product without your consent, that has nothing to do with you wanting to control the minds of other people. Seriously come on. You guys have been here too long in a closed room I think or something I don't know...
If you really want to break things down to that kind of a level of simplicity I refer you back to my earlier point that nobody replied to. Simply that all reality exists only within the mind and the eye of the beholder. Even a tractor. You never actually touch it, if you want to be technical about it. Otherwise you're being arbitrary then criticising other's arbitrariness. Therefore it's not about tangibility it's about what is reasonable in society, or, if you don't like to put it that way, it is about being consistent with regards to tangibility. What is tangible about the tractor and the piece of music: both can be defined, demonstrated, and recognised by non partisan third parties in society, say, the ultimate test, a jury. *That's enough for me*. I'm not after universal absolutes or God to come down and say "this is and this is not" or that it needs to be accuratly verbatim to a millionth percentile. And I think my position is one recognised and accepted by teh majority of society. So what is this all about it's about being able to agree on what objective reality is. Music, books, paintings, movies, etc, are objective reality for 99% of society. How can you argue against that when it's all just decoded in your brain from a quantum field of probabilities anyway. Everything is ideas and perception. Yes you can say from that cognitive construct the tractor is objective. Yes it is, and we can all agree on it - so can you too with a musical recording.
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.
I think it's fair to say that nobody and I mean again referring back to common sense, nobody would agree that copyright should apply to non-commercial use. It's just not common sense, and it's one area where copyright has garnered such a bad reputation - sueing single mothers for millions of dollars for a few downloads - of course, almost nobody can disgaree with you that it's an absolute absurdity and and abomination of stupidity and abuse. Lets say we are advocating for copyright specifically for commercial use. That is something 99% of people intrinsically understand - ask anyone on the street "Do you think it's ok if you write a book, and I go and copy that and sell it but don't pay you anything, even if I put your name on it, would you be happy with that". You will get a consistent reponse, I don't think anyone can argue that. And that is relevant unless of cousre this is purely theory - and even if it is I still say it's relevant - there is something to be said for the common sense. Free marketeers of all people must acknowledge that.
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.
What? So because people out there will take my effort and sell it without paying me for it my option is to go out of business? Am I not sacrificing my freedom for yours? My freedom to sell my work as my own for your freedom to sell my work for your own?
anenome said
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.
+1
and
And a reputation can be damaged or ruined by someone acting commercially. Say you're known for very high quality recordings. Someone makes a boot leg and passes it off as original, selling it, but the quality is bad. That person is damaging your reputation.
Yes, please lets stop with the argument that we're against fair use - it's not applicable. No one is asking for a monopoly on music or books but there should be a monopoly on MY music or MY books. Put another way again, why should someone else be able to sell my music and not pay me for it. You will note that despite corporate efforts against fair use, it remains - why? Because common sense does not uphold that kind of nonsense. It can't survive. Corporate patents and the like are only upheld somewhat because it's a closed society - corporations v corporations. The general public generally does not become involved. If someone tries to patent the way you do your dishes, or for that matter how you plant your corn, for example, then see if that survives or not. It sure won't. If I were to appeal to a jury about my music being bootlegged by someone though, I feel very confident I would be supported by that jury if I had to appeal to their sensibility to decide whether it was theft or not.
Yeah this is really Rands position isn't it. So I have to say chalk me up to that one for now. I haven't seen a single argument that is even remotely - I repeat *even remotely* persuasive so far, and I'm surprised at that.
The unique music or book or movie does exist, it is tangible, and it can be identified as such by society.
Maybe society needs to be about what is tangible. If you take away something that is *as* common sense to 99% of people as fraud, theft, assault, murder, coercion, what's the difference of having that list no longer include assault, or theft... It's only about what we can agree is reality.
It's not reasonable to say "but then society can agree on anything as reality". No they can't. You can make a law that everyone's property is everyone elses, and there will be proponents of that in society who will embrace it, but it would be asolutely antithetical to common sense and sooner or later would fail - it would strike at the heart of human beings and repel them. Perhaps I can't articulate why, but for me copyright seems as sensible as those other laws, *equally so*. Again, if you asked 99% of people, they would agree. "If I take your tv is that theft?" "Yes" "If I take a book you wrote and copy it and sell it without paying you so I can make money off the work you did, is that theft?" "Yes". Someone should go in the street and ask that and post it on youtube. :)
I just want to strike down this other argument that keeps popping up about copyright "restricting the use of other's property" That's absurd. The question is, is copyright property or not. If it is, then of course their property is being restricted, like I earlier said, just the same as your hand is restricted from striking someone in aggression. The law is there to protect property. So it's not an arbitrary restriction if copyright is property. If it's not, well, then it is an arbitrary restriction. But I say copyright IS property. At least for now.
@Clayton. If someone steals a riff, or a lyric, people are going to find out who originally wrote it and become interested in that artist. In that case your arguments are correct. I don't have anything against that kind of "ripping off" because as you rightly point out it is a commercial *aid*. Interesting to note people *do* nevertheless think it's ripping off by the way. I'm talking about verbatim taking a CD, book, movie, and selling it. For example there are many "how it should have ended" type videos on youtube, taking movies and cutting them up, or over dubbing comical words over the original, etc, who doesn't know that is not the original? Even though the footage is from Harry Potter or whatever. Of course it's not the original. It makes people think about the original - they may go buy it or rent it. Interesting video. I actually thought all the originals were way better than the knock offs. Real soul versus copy. And i do like Zepplin, but interestingly, I don't listen to them. I'll go for the real soul roots if I want to feel something. And I may be only a minority, but the minority has a market, and that market deserves to exist. It cannot if you can take the cd directly and sell it. Or offer it for mass downloads etc. A copy to a friend doesn't concern anyone. Fair use.
Perhaps it's true, copyright has become abused - like many areas of the law. Expanded to arbitraily encompass things for which it was never meant, and that do not stand up to the scrutiny of common sense. A finished product - a recording of a live event, an actual live event, a CD, music file, book, movie, painting, etc. Maybe we need to properly define that. I'll give you that. But to abolish it because it's become abused? That's what I call throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Bottom line, how does anyone feel when their work is profited off at their expense? They feel robbed.
What? There are libertarians who still believe in magical "property"? I mean, people who believe one can own a pattern? It takes major league nut to still believe this crap. Ideas and patterns can not be owned, it's impossible and contradictory to every ownership theory one can possibly imagine.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Guys guys! Let's be honest, and use terms properly. Stealing is taking something from someone and that someone doesn't have it. Copying ideas, patterns is NOT stealing. Stop mudding the waters and making strawmen. THANKS and GOOD LUCK defending the undefendable.
@Clayton. "Steve Jobs was shameless about copying / but when it came to his own ideas he took another view". He was shameless about "stealing" ideas from Xerox - Yes! he bought the technology from Xerox. As for the iphone v android thing, android did *not* license it. I see his point and that documentary is dishonest about it's representation of that one issue which it rests much of it's case on. But I'm not going to get into patents...
throwing the baby out with the bathwater
Normally, I'm pretty accomodating to the idea that the status quo carries a lot of weight and that, even if the right ideas are out there, it can just take time for things to turn around and that revolution is invariably worse than the alternatives.
On this issue, however, I think the future has long since arrived in the form of the computer and digital media. And it will continue to be a merciless forcing function on intellectual property law. The media establishment as well as a large segment of the older public truly don't get it. They think emails are like mail. But emails are not like mail, they're like long text messages which themselves are like a tiny snippet of a voice phone call. Data is data. It's all just a bunch of ones and zeros and anyone who touches a pattern can copy it, store it and/or transform it all at virtually no cost whatsoever.
An "e-book" is to a real book like an e-mail is to real mail. That is, there is no similarity at all. An e-book is more like e-mail than either one is like a book or mail. It's all just ones and zeros. In a matter of 10 minutes, I could delete every other word from the entirety of Moby Dick and publish it to PDF. Really think about that for a minute. 100 years ago, how costly would it have been to do an editing, type-moving task like that? It would have cost an enormous sum of money. But I - a complete non-professional in the art of books - can do this task from the comfort of my desk in a matter of minutes.
In other words, the act of copying books and other media was once a fairly valuable line of production. Of course, it also consumed a lot of resources. Now, we have nearly costless copying. We no longer need to consume very many resources in order to copy things. This is wonderful news! But the media publishing establishment (professional copiers) have become the buggy-whip industry of yore. They want to be bailed out. They want legal protections. They want the government to come down like a ton of bricks on anyone caught "illegally copying". Why? So they can continue to charge exorbitant prices for something that is today nearly costless to do... copying a book, copying a CD, copying a DVD or Blu-Ray etc.
I understand and fully sympathize with your concern that artists and content producers need a way to get paid. But I think you are just assuming that this means protecting the pre-digital-era business model of publishing/copying. In other words, you are giving to much credit to past copyright law in protecting copyrights and too little credit to the economics of copying in protecting copyrights. When it's really costly to do something (like copying a book), that means it's easier to keep people from doing it because they have to risk buying this really expensive capital equipment (printing press) which can be seized by the government if copyright laws are being violated. But now that copying can be done at almost no cost by anyone with an electrical outlet and a PC, this same approach will no longer work and to press on in this direction is to flirt with Orwellian tyranny.
Just to prove the point that it really is that easy, here is Half Moby Dick... (note: this had an unintentionally humorous effect on the title page... sigh).
+1 to everything Aneonme just wrote.
Exactly as Anenome said, and then also in my own words: if copyright isn't property then it's like saying "I enjoy looking at the hills and the gardens on your property, therefore I can take flowers, and plant my crops there. If you stop me, you are preventing me from using my property - my hands and equipment". Or "that I saw it / heard it means I own it". Or "I liked the look of her body, but the government is granting that woman a government enforced monopoly on her body". That's the purpose of government to protect property. We must only agree if copyright is property or not.
You take voluntarism too far - do you mean if I don't consent to your laws in society, and don't wish to voluntarily participate in your laws against rape, murder and theft, then I'm free to rape murder and theive? Of course not. If copyright is property, it's not a government granted monopoly, it is a simple protection of property, same as any other.
I'm not against sampling, fair use, changing and remaking something. I don't mind someone sampling my work. But the verbatim recording is mine. I imagine any author artist or film maker would feel the same. George Lucas took much from other arts and admits it proudly, but he did not *steal*. If you copy his movie and sell it that's stealing. If you don't want to agree to those terms, exclude yourself voluntarily from his movies lol.
phi: It isn't like that at all. If I am on your land, you cannot use that land until I move. Likewise, it is almost as if you don't have that land I am stepping on at the moment because I am the one that is in possession (illegitimately) of that spot.
But I can tell you to leave and if you refuse I can initiate force or call the police to do it.
Clayton: On this issue, however, I think the future has long since arrived in the form of the computer and digital media. And it will continue to be a merciless forcing function on intellectual property law. The media establishment as well as a large segment of the older public truly don't get it. They think emails are like mail. But emails are not like mail, they're like long text messages which themselves are like a tiny snippet of a voice phone call. Data is data. It's all just a bunch of ones and zeros and anyone who touches a pattern can copy it, store it and/or transform it all at virtually no cost whatsoever.
But you're saying reality is not determinable or objective - that everything is nothing, and nothing means anything. I'm with Rand on that too!
You can copy a blank DVD yourself yes it's nearly costless. Try to go and create the *content* on that DVD and let me know how you find it. It is NOT costless, and it only comes to the stores at such a low price because of the mass production and large market. If you don't like X DVD, you can buy from a competing product - another DVD with a different movie on it. Not happy? You are free to make your own. Heck, copy from a friend, no one will know, no one will care. Set up a fire sharing server and send it for free to millions or sell copies to make a profit on your reproduction costs = you are stealing.
I agree with you, there is a very real danger with governments using copyright as an excuse to shut down free speech and probably competitors of their buddies. But there are those who say "capitalism" has lead to excesses, therefore capitalism is to blame. Again, the baby with the bathwater. Must we throw out all that is good because some have capitalised on the imperfections of the philosophy and implimentation? Afterall isn't that what government is? Something that was a good idea for a set purpose that has been abused and manipulated to serve opposing interests from it's original intent? Does that now mean the only solution is no government at all? That's what you are sahing in respect of copyright. No government at all. Well, that will lead to problems I believe. And neither all nor nothing is a good scenario.
But a society that agrees with rape is consenting to rape, therefore it's not rape. In a society that doesn't condone rape however, the one who doesn't consent can go and rape and then when he goes to court say, "I don't consent to your laws, I was just using my property in the way I saw fit, since I have no social contract with you, your laws don't apply to me as I don't see invasion of another persons body as beyond my purview". Where on this planet would a rapist go to participate in such a society anyway - there is nowhere left to create a society on your own groups terms. So it's a hypothetical anyway.
I'm NOT saying if someone plants his own garden same as mine it's theft. Again, we're not talking about physical things, so the analogies don't fit completely. But to try to entertain it, it's like saying that they duplicated verbatim my painting from the gallery and put it on display for free outside.
Voluntarism is: You can buy the piece of copyright music or not. You can listen to it however you want when you've bought it. You can on sell your copy if you don't want it anymore. You can put it in the trash. You can't duplicate it, then sell it to make a profit, that is a condition of purchase. If you don't like that, you are free not to purchase. What's not voluntary about it. This seems to me to fit perfectly well with the "ignorance is no excuse" maxim. Copyright is very much a part of common sense, in it's more basic form, not the myriad of idiotic tangents that are really serving to undermine it completely. Again, I came here to be convinced otherwise, as every other libertarian type argument and philosophy I've come across beforehand I found utterly convincing, and all but flawless in it's logic, and I'm surprised that I've not seen a single convincing argument anywhere as yet on this issue.
You can copy a blank DVD yourself yes it's nearly costless.
You're changing horses mid-stream here.
1912: Copying a book once authored - extremely costly
2012: Copying a book once authored (in digital form) - virtually costless
The same can be said for music, movies and all other forms of media that can be digitized. Computers have driven down the costs of all the other functions in media production: type-setting, editing, sequencing, etc. etc. The point I'm trying to make is that the copying itself has become many orders of magnitude less costly and this is the root cause of the social and political controversy. In 1960, the record labels didn't have to worry about kids copying 1,000 different songs in an hour on a common appliance readily available in every home. Pressing a vinyl was something that pretty much only a factory could do. So, passing rent-seeking intellectual property laws only hurt consumers in a very indirect way.
Today, things have fundamentally changed. Only the most merciless police-state tactics will suffice to even begin to preserve the status quo, pre-digital-revolution business model. And that's pretty much what the RIAA/MPAA have been lobbying for what with their SOPA/PIPA (not to mention the godawful laws they've already gotten passed with DMCA). They want to harness war-on-Terror legal rules for use in enforcing copyrights against Pirate-Bay-kiddies. Seriously? We're going to start sending SWAT teams in to kick down gramma's door because her grandson is copying terabytes of copyrighted-MP3s and pornos over the broadband down in her basement? And this is all to "preserve the incentive" for artists to produce art??
Mike99: 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. Correct! And I second everything else in that post as well.
Mike99:If someone actively, *commercially* represents you in a way that you have no control over, selling you as a product without your consent, that has nothing to do with you wanting to control the minds of other people.
You should listen to him, he is a Moderate just like you.
Mike99:Seriously come on. You guys have been here too long in a closed room I think or something I don't know...
Mike99:I think it's fair to say that nobody and I mean again referring back to common sense, nobody would agree that copyright should apply to non-commercial use. It's just not common sense, and it's one area where copyright has garnered such a bad reputation - sueing single mothers for millions of dollars for a few downloads - of course, almost nobody can disgaree with you that it's an absolute absurdity and and abomination of stupidity and abuse.
Mike99:"Do you think it's ok if you write a book, and I go and copy that and sell it but don't pay you anything, even if I put your name on it, would you be happy with that". You will get a consistent reponse, I don't think anyone can argue that. And that is relevant unless of cousre this is purely theory - and even if it is I still say it's relevant - there is something to be said for the common sense. Free marketeers of all people must acknowledge that.
Mike99:What? So because people out there will take my effort and sell it without paying me for it my option is to go out of business? Am I not sacrificing my freedom for yours? My freedom to sell my work as my own for your freedom to sell my work for your own?
Anenome: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.
Mike99:And a reputation can be damaged or ruined by someone acting commercially. Say you're known for very high quality recordings. Someone makes a boot leg and passes it off as original, selling it, but the quality is bad. That person is damaging your reputation.
Mike99:Put another way again, why should someone else be able to sell my music and not pay me for it.
Mike99:Anenome: 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. Yeah this is really Rands position isn't it. So I have to say chalk me up to that one for now. I haven't seen a single argument that is even remotely - I repeat *even remotely* persuasive so far, and I'm surprised at that.
Mike99:Maybe society needs to be about what is tangible. If you take away something that is *as* common sense to 99% of people as fraud, theft, assault, murder, coercion, what's the difference of having that list no longer include assault, or theft... It's only about what we can agree is reality.
Mike99:It's not reasonable to say "but then society can agree on anything as reality". No they can't. You can make a law that everyone's property is everyone elses, and there will be proponents of that in society who will embrace it, but it would be asolutely antithetical to common sense and sooner or later would fail - it would strike at the heart of human beings and repel them.
Mike99:Perhaps I can't articulate why, but for me copyright seems as sensible as those other laws, *equally so*. Again, if you asked 99% of people, they would agree. "If I take your tv is that theft?" "Yes" "If I take a book you wrote and copy it and sell it without paying you so I can make money off the work you did, is that theft?" "Yes". Someone should go in the street and ask that and post it on youtube. :)
Mike99:I just want to strike down this other argument that keeps popping up about copyright "restricting the use of other's property" That's absurd.
Mike99:or over dubbing comical words over the original, etc, who doesn't know that is not the original? Even though the footage is from Harry Potter or whatever. Of course it's not the original.
Mike99:It makes people think about the original - they may go buy it or rent it. Interesting video. I actually thought all the originals were way better than the knock offs. Real soul versus copy.
Mike99:But to abolish it because it's become abused? That's what I call throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Mike99:Bottom line, how does anyone feel when their work is profited off at their expense? They feel robbed.
Mike99:Exactly as Anenome said, and then also in my own words: if copyright isn't property then it's like saying "I enjoy looking at the hills and the gardens on your property, therefore I can take flowers, and plant my crops there. If you stop me, you are preventing me from using my property - my hands and equipment". Or "that I saw it / heard it means I own it". Or "I liked the look of her body, but the government is granting that woman a government enforced monopoly on her body". That's the purpose of government to protect property. We must only agree if copyright is property or not.
Mike99:I'm not against sampling, fair use, changing and remaking something. I don't mind someone sampling my work. But the verbatim recording is mine.
What if I create this character who is a wizard, and name him "Barry Trotter"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parodies_of_Harry_Potter Hint: Trick questions, it is unownable. hahaha
Mike99:I imagine any author artist or film maker would feel the same. George Lucas took much from other arts and admits it proudly, but he did not *steal*. If you copy his movie and sell it that's stealing.
Mike99:I'm NOT saying if someone plants his own garden same as mine it's theft. Again, we're not talking about physical things, so the analogies don't fit completely. But to try to entertain it, it's like saying that they duplicated verbatim my painting from the gallery and put it on display for free outside.
Mike99:You can't duplicate it, then sell it to make a profit, that is a condition of purchase. If you don't like that, you are free not to purchase. What's not voluntary about it. This seems to me to fit perfectly well with the "ignorance is no excuse" maxim.
Clayton:Seriously? We're going to start sending SWAT teams in to kick down gramma's door because her grandson is copying terabytes of copyrighted-MP3s and pornos over the broadband down in her basement? And this is all to "preserve the incentive" for artists to produce art??
Edit: I keep getting stopped by the spam protection and moderator approval, so I decided to remove some links to articles.
Hi Tex - I think you need to maybe read my previous posts you are asking me to clarify things I already have.
Of course its' absurd to criminalise end users (such as single moms). I've said that repeatedly.
Reproduction by your own means is ok. Copying material verbatim is not a reproduction. Playing the song live is. For example I personally find the need to pay royalties for playing a song live absolutely absurd. It's a new performance, a new creation. Clothing - NO unless they stole the templates from your factory. They can make their own clothes that look the same - they're not the same clothes. Again, digital (books, photos, music, movies) are non-physical items.
Copyright should be a property: no expiry, or no copyright at all. If it's not property, then I agree, it's just a fraud (essentially) to enforce it.
The tattoo example is a good one of absurdity that makes no sense to anyone. etc.
I'm talking if I finish a piece an album and someone just copies it and sells it to profit from my work, destroying most of the market for the original. Same with art, paintings, movies, books etc. That to me is the argument and circumstances that stand up to common sense. The rest do not. If you play it live, a lot of people won't be sure if it's stolen or not. If you copy a section, a chord progression or you paint a painting that looks just like it (but is not a verbatim duplicate) - that's also a new creation. A digital duplication is not a new creation. Details beyond that should be worked out. I'm just trying to say that to me as I've specified, copyright is a property. You don't even need to criminalise it. It will always happen, like drug use, but you should be able to sue people who commercialise your creation instead of making their own creation even if it's to sample yours and stick a different beat to it at least that's something new.
As I've repeatedly said througout the thread, combining copyright and IP is impossible for me at least. Too complex. I haven't considered broader IP enough to comment on it just now.
@Clayton: I'm not changing horses, I think you're actually missing my point entirely maybe it's philosophically convenient for you to do so, just saying. SOPA PIPA etc have nothing to do with protecting copyright and everything to do with killing free speech. The ones who lobbied for it were the same people who distributed the piracy software (see a video I posted earlier about it). Those laws are anti-copyright - they obfuscate the law so much that it becomes useless and only works selectively enforced, which is exactly what tyrants want. No law for them, but full force tyranny for anyone not in the club.
I've repeated, again and again, and you guys are maybe just ignoring it or not reading it, copyright laws that criminalise the end user are absurd. When someone takes it and commercialises it - sells a verbatim copy and kills your market for it without doing performing any creativity - that is someone you should be able to sue and have shut down.
Phi: You seem to misunderstand. There can be a society that defines what you call IP to be legitimate property, and thus, could have societal norms and laws surrounding it to protect it. In fact, we live in an example of a society with such a thing. Many libertarians believe copyrights are legitimate how they are. Murray Rothbard is a prime example. Other libertarians do not. Like Stephen Kinsella. It doesn't make one more or less of a libertarian. Some even believe(d) patents and trademarks to be legitimate. Others don't. I'm saying that I don't view it as legitimate. It's fine if you do. Thanks for that clarification I kind of gathered that but thanks anyway. Yes we can agree to disagree, and I think it's fair to say that the way things are is in nobodies interest except for a few thousand sociopathic maniacs who have weaseled their way into favor and make a living by licking boots and having them be licked. What good is a copyright law to me if the government takes all my money through taxation and fraud anyway. I'd rather have freedom. But if we get rid of the criminals, and we want to run a society based on principles, logic, reason and sanity - there is only one question for me about copyright. Is it property, or is it not. To what degree is it? I think laws that exist are already half way there - if it's altered significantly from the original, such as in a remix, then yes, I think it's fair to say that's a new creation and copyright should have strict boundaries. But verbatim, commercial use *can't* be right. Everyone recognises it as a rip off - plagiarism, that's what it is in essence even though the name wasn't used, it still is. | Post Points: 20
@Clayton: I'm not changing horses, I think you're actually missing my point entirely
The statement regarding switching horses mid-stream was a direct response to your statement regarding copying of only blank DVDs being inexpensive. My response was a clarification of an earlier point I was trying to make (long since lost... sigh): that the copying itself is has become cheaper, irrespective of the costs of content-creation. This is a true fact.
And I'm not missing your point at all. The problem is that your point is nothing more than a reiterated summary of status quo ideas regarding IP. You're not actually responding to the arguments that have been raised to challenge the status quo. You're simply summarizing again and again the status quo as if it should be obvious that this refutes arguments that were devised to challenge the status quo. Clearly, it does not. Boldrin and Levine haven't simply failed to "get it". They get it. I get it. I have offered a quote from the above article that gives a detailed and specific rebuttal to the status quo concept of IP. It's based on a bad metaphor that, when followed to its logical conclusion, leads to absurdity.
Mike99:Hi Tex - I think you need to maybe read my previous posts you are asking me to clarify things I already have.
Mike99:For example I personally find the need to pay royalties for playing a song live absolutely absurd. It's a new performance, a new creation.
Mike99:Clothing - NO unless they stole the templates from your factory. They can make their own clothes that look the same - they're not the same clothes. Again, digital (books, photos, music, movies) are non-physical items.
Mike99:Copyright should be a property: no expiry, or no copyright at all.
Mike99:The tattoo example is a good one of absurdity that makes no sense to anyone. etc.
Mike99:I'm talking if I finish a piece an album and someone just copies it and sells it to profit from my work, destroying most of the market for the original.
Mike99:SOPA PIPA etc have nothing to do with protecting copyright and everything to do with killing free speech. Those laws are anti-copyright - they obfuscate the law so much that it becomes useless and only works selectively enforced, which is exactly what tyrants want. No law for them, but full force tyranny for anyone not in the club.
Mike99:copyright laws that criminalise the end user are absurd.
What should happen instead of using the government thugs, just focus on competition. Most pirates are just unsatisfied potential consumers. For example they can release their OWN legitimate streaming site (see Hulu, see BBC). Not the greatest examples though, because they still have region locked nonsense... but ok enough.
Mike99:if it's altered significantly from the original, such as in a remix, then yes, I think it's fair to say that's a new creation and copyright should have strict boundaries. But verbatim, commercial use *can't* be right.
Tex has made some good points. I'm gonna stop discussing this until I do my homework and read the pros and cons, especially more Kinsella.
Anenome:Tex has made some good points. I'm gonna stop discussing this until I do my homework and read the pros and cons, especially more Kinsella.
It takes many months/years of just absorbing and listening to both sides of the arguments. When Jeffrey Tucker first read Against Intellectual Property, he thought the arguments put forth by Kinsella were crazy on their face (as most people do). It took Tucker years to come over to the Kinsella view, but he was won over by the consistency of the arguments.
It is also GREAT to have an anti-IP patent attorney, because he actually knows about how IP Law currently works. As I stated before, most of the Pro-IP people know nothing about IP Law, and assume they know how it works, but couldn't be further from the truth.
I would recommend putting Kinsella's site on your RSS feed, and also his site C4SIF.org.
See Tucker's review on Against Intellectual Monopoly here:
https://mises.org/daily/3298
See Tucker's interview with Boldrin here:
https://mises.org/media/3044/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly
Yeah I have a lot to go through as well, but had to do a lot of running around today for something and as you do with such things it's a good opportunity to mull things over and I kind of arrived at a point of saying that basically I'm with Rand on intellectual property morally, or roughly close to it - I would take a simplified view: a verbatim copy is fraud, since it's got my name on it, and it's not you, or if you change the name, you didn't write it, so it's still fraud - BUT if you change it in any way, add work to it, then I'm wiling to let it go as "another thing" or "another idea". I can't deny we all get ideas from everywhere and make something new out of that. I'm quite persuaded by the point that it's not the task of government to police it all - that it's a societal problem and for society to work out. In other words, it's for society to say "hey lets support this guy who does original stuff, and not the guy whose knocking off his records". "Oh did you buy a knock off, come on man, you should support that guy he does good work". etc. And of course, to value ones own product appropriately for sale, and to saturate the market enough such as that it doesn't create opportunity for anyone else to fill it. I was thinking about the fashion industry, and the way that works with fraud versus knock offs, and how at some levels of society, people are fine buying knock off's whereas others would never think of it - point being, the designers DO make a living if they supply the wants of the people who do buy from them. So long way around it but I see a real argument there. What was just chiding with me and not feeling right was the idea that if I create something it's morally ok for someone to just rip it off verbatim and make money on it without doing any work. Seems to me like any "moocher" as Rand calls them (love that word) can just piggy back on your efforts - the litmus test being, did that person do any work or perform any valuable function before getting paid for it, or did they just use your work to make money. But I do agree that it is better solved at a societal level AND that it *can* be solved at a societal level. Not 100% clear yet, but that seems to feel right to me. In other words, I don't have to give up my conviction that it is *mine*, that doesn't mean I need the government to partner with me to protect it, I can rely on the over-riding morals of society to confirm that. Anyway, like anenome, much more research to do...
Mike99:a verbatim copy is fraud, since it's got my name on it, and it's not you, or if you change the name, you didn't write it, so it's still fraud
Mike99:BUT if you change it in any way, add work to it, then I'm wiling to let it go as "another thing" or "another idea".
If he decided to use his (or is it your?) idea and begin selling some good, does he owe you money? By the way, if your mind changes on IP, I demand some compensation for you stealing copying "my good ideas". I will be sure to forward a fraction of the funds to Kinsella and Tucker as well. :)
Mike99:I'm quite persuaded by the point that it's not the task of government to police it all - that it's a societal problem and for society to work out. In other words, it's for society to say "hey lets support this guy who does original stuff, and not the guy whose knocking off his records". "Oh did you buy a knock off, come on man, you should support that guy he does good work". etc.
Mike99:What was just chiding with me and not feeling right was the idea that if I create something it's morally ok for someone to just rip it off verbatim and make money on it without doing any work.
I see more where you are coming from but you say ideas can be replicated. Lets just stick to music for a moment - copying an album of music verbatim is taking someone elses work effort and creativity, doing basically none yourself, and profiting of the end result. That's what I'm talking about. I'm basically more or less willing to concede that government is not the apparatus to deal with it (more work to do), but I'm definitely not willing to concede that morally it's a void concept. I'm not talking about bits of ideas put together. I'm talking about a discreet unique whole individual expression. An album, a song, a book, etc. Sections, bits - yeah, you got to let that go in the real world anyway whether you like it or not, we're all influenced - absolutely. But complete works verbatim, that's someone's unique expression. Unless you came up with the identical book on your own (impossible) - it's not legitimate. Government to regulate? Ok, maybe not.... but you can take my creative efforts in whole and profit form them performing no work adding nothing yourself? No way. Can I stop you? Most likely not, but can society arbitrate that through market choices? Yes, I believe so.
Mike99:Lets just stick to music for a moment - copying an album of music verbatim is taking someone elses work effort and creativity, doing basically none yourself, and profiting of the end result.
I would recommend staying AWAY from music. You are too close to the topic and it is muddling your thinking. I believe if you try to apply the same concepts to everything BUT music, you will see it fail in every case.
"Copying Newton's Laws of Physics verbatim is taking someone elses work effort and creativity, doing basically none yourself, and profiting by providing a service (teaching Physics)."
"Copying the Pythagorean Theorem verbatim is taking someone elses work effort and creativity, doing basically none yourself, and profiting by providing a service (teaching Math)."
"Copying your cake recipe verbatim is taking someone elses work effort and creativity, doing basically none yourself, and profiting by providing a service (placing ingredients in a certain quantity at certain time periods)."
"Copying your chair verbatim is taking someone elses work effort and creativity, doing basically none yourself, and profiting by providing a good others want (something to sit on, and looks a certain way)."
"Copying your hairstyle verbatim is taking someone elses work effort and creativity, doing basically none yourself, and profiting by providing a service (cutting hair in a certain way)."
"Copying your joke verbatim is taking someone elses work effort and creativity, doing basically none yourself, and profiting by providing a service (making people laugh)."
"Copying your tattoo verbatim is taking someone elses work effort and creativity, doing basically none yourself, and profiting by providing a service (putting a specific pattern of colors/shapes on your body)."
"Copying your software verbatim is taking someone elses work effort and creativity, doing basically none yourself, and profiting by providing a good (an algorithm)."
"Copying your boat design verbatim is taking someone elses work effort and creativity, doing basically none yourself, and profiting by providing a good (a boat that cuts through the water a certain way)."
"Copying your shoe verbatim is taking someone elses work effort and creativity, doing a whole lot of work, and profiting by providing a good (a shoe that I see has a market that is untapped)."
"Listening to your music and making sheet music is taking someone elses work effort and creativity, doing a little bit of work, and profiting by providing a good (a series of notes so you can play the song too)."
"Copying your book verbatim in the 1700s is taking someone elses work effort and creativity, doing a whole lot of work, and profiting by providing a good (a book that I see has a market that is untapped)."
"Copying your book verbatim in the 2000s is taking someone elses work effort and creativity, creating an exact duplicate with barely any work, and profiting by providing a good (a book that I see has a market that is untapped)."
"Copying your shoe verbatim in the year 2 million, is taking someone elses work effort and creativity, sticking it in the replicator and pushing a button, and profiting by providing a good (a shoe that I see has a market that is untapped)."
I believe this shoe manufacturer in the year 2 million is a dirty thief, because he barely put any work, he was just able to push a button! If you listen to the Tucker speeches, you can see that capitalism (and technology) is all about battling scarcity. Because of capital accumulation, we are able to create massive amounts of stuff, with much less labor (and resources) input. For example, computers a few decades ago took up whole warehouses, now they fit in your pocket and are billions of times more powerful.
Technology is constantly pushing Marginal Costs down (creating more with less). Sadly, the Physical World will never reach a Marginal Cost of $0 (but the replicator would be pretty close), but the realm of ideas is ALREADY THERE (ok ok you caught me, almost there, there are still Opportunity Costs associated like time (see the later chapters of Against Intellectual Monpoly)).
What Intellectual Monopolies try to do is create ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY (the exact terminology that is used in IP Law). It tries to artificially raise the costs associated with ideas from $0 to some positive amount.
Mike99:Unless you came up with the identical book on your own (impossible) - it's not legitimate.
Forget the book example, what about math equations and algorithms. Are you telling me that if Pythagorean did not stumble upon the Pythagorean Theorem, that somebody else would have never found it? Or Newton's Laws, if Newton himself never created that "discreet unique whole individual expression" it would never exist otherwise?
What about a basic geometrical proof, (not unique, long, or discreet enough), then what about very long and complicated geometrical proofs, or what about such a long and complicated geometrical proof I can fill a book with?
Impossible I say, no one else would have been able to put together that combination of geometrical logic if I never came along!
This reminds me of one of the lectures (I believe it was maybe at an Austrian Scholars Conference a few years ago?) where they had a mathematician give a speech, and he found a very large and complex proof that got named after him and made this exact point. I will have to hunt this lecture down now.
So just because people can and have come along to argue things into the ground and sue people for a 2 second sample, and other even more grotesque absurdities, we must throw the whole thing out?
I am reading carefully everything you are saying and appreicate your time honestly. But I'm not seeing your examples equate to what I'm seeing. You say I can't use Newtons laws to teach physics? Wrong - I'm not saying that. I'm saying you can absolutely do that. What you can't do is copy his book verbatim and sell it *as though* it's your own *even if you leave his name on it*. Write your own book and base it on his, heck, don't even quote him - go ahead, people will find out - but at least write your own book. I think this is easy to define and easy to administer in law certainl relative to today's situation. Likewise, a piece of music - you can sample it, copy the chord progression, the melody, lyrics, and do all kinds of things - it will be YOUR performance if you play live, YOUR album if you take the trouble of recording it - it's something NEW created with your energy - but other's ideas, even if it's a *total* rip off, it will at least be YOUR ripoff. I have no problem with that. But taking my album, verbatim, selling it effectively as though it were your property to sell, that does not compute, to me. Sorry.
I hope you see what I mean. I'm just saying your examples do not equate to what I'm understanding in my mind.
Another example: "copying your hairstyle verbatim..." - you are copying the hairstyle, the idea of the hairstyle, but not the product. You are not magically stealing the haircut off someone's head, and transporting it to someone elses head, or to be more precise replicating it. That would be *akin* to what I am getting at (though of course not the same).
To go into a studio and copy my album by creating a new performance and a new recording, is to me, legitimate - at least the person had to do something. In otherwords, if they can just copy it and sell it as though it's their own work, they are undermining my work. Nobody is stopping them producing their own work, but they are destroying the value that was in mine and stealing that value. I know what the theory is behind what you say, but I just think these things are a different catagory and hoenstly the theory is missing something. Unless you are saying they have no value as property, don't exist as property and that is the sad reality then yeah, these things - studio albums, and the like will go out of existance except for hobbies. Which seems sad to me, as does the idea someone being able to make a living as an author, as opposed to someone only being able to write because it's their hobby. The irony is it seems to very "collectivist" the way this is all going. All my work (as I've defined it) is everyone's... Hmmm... Would books in your society be filled with product placements... ? Could be legit I suppose... I'll have to start putting corporate subliminals into my recordings then I can get sponsors to justify the music...
Mike99:What you can't do is copy his book verbatim and sell it *as though* it's your own *even if you leave his name on it*
Mike99:In otherwords, if they can just copy it and sell it as though it's their own work, they are undermining my work.
This is currently possible to do with ANY BOOK THAT IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. What is the difference between the year work goes into the public domain + 1 day, and releasing the book on "copyright expire - 1 day"?
It would be up the the original creator, to outcompete me by flooding the market and anticipating what format my customers would enjoy best. (Against Intellectual Monopoly goes into this). This is what currently happens in the realm of recipes. You decide to make me the best spaghetti ever to touch the face of the earth. You use the finest ingredients, you hand make the dough, you use the finest tomatoes in all the land. I take the original recipe (X amount of pasta, Y amount of tomato sauce), and I compete with you. You are still free to use your recipe to create your super expensive plate, and I am still free to use that EXACT SAME RECIPE YOU CREATED, and sell it for less (gold paper book versus normal paper book). I can even use the same exact expensive ingredients you used if I think that is what the customers (STEALING YOUR IDEA), or tweak it slightly and use a different brand of tomatoes, and I use a different brand of pasta from you (keep size 4 font, but just change the font from Arial to Times New Roman).
Mike99:but other's ideas, even if it's a *total* rip off, it will at least be YOUR ripoff. I have no problem with that. But taking my album, verbatim, selling it effectively as though it were your property to sell, that does not compute, to me. Sorry.
Mike99:you are copying the hairstyle, the idea of the hairstyle, but not the product.
Mike99:To go into a studio and copy my album by creating a new performance and a new recording, is to me, legitimate - at least the person had to do something.
Mike99:Nobody is stopping them producing their own work, but they are destroying the value that was in mine and stealing that value.
Mike99:Unless you are saying they have no value as property, don't exist as property and that is the sad reality then yeah, these things - studio albums, and the like will go out of existance except for hobbies.
Mike99:Would books in your society be filled with product placements... ?
Mike99:Could be legit I suppose... I'll have to start putting corporate subliminals into my recordings then I can get sponsors to justify the music...
Stephan Kinsella has recently given another great speech on IP at Libertopia called "Intellectual Nonsense":
http://c4sif.org/2012/10/intellectual-nonsense-fallacious-arguments-for-ip-libertopia-2012/
On October 18th, he also added an extra two hour talk to cover the rest of the slides (which he was not able to cover in the original speech).
Nike Air Max Force 1 Lux 07, the selection of 100% natural alligator as a raw material, carefully crafted handmade by Italian craftsmen, the most surprising signage and shoe buckles are 18K gold material. Of course, as the highlight of the 25th anniversary of the pricing reached the unprecedented 16,000 yuan, also issued the highest price paid for a pair of shoes sold in China.
http://www.nikeairmax90hotsale.com/ Nike Air Max
http://www.nikeairmax90hotsale.com/ Nike Air Max 90
http://www.nikeairmax90hotsale.com/ Air Max 2012
Tex2002ans: Stephan Kinsella has recently given another great speech on IP at Libertopia called "Intellectual Nonsense": http://c4sif.org/2012/10/intellectual-nonsense-fallacious-arguments-for-ip-libertopia-2012/
I was there for this talk :)
Dont know if anyone recommended this mike, but I would just not worry about. IP protection was one of the last things for me to let go. If you just keeping studying you will reach the same conclusion. So if you don't understand why yet you will get it sooner rather than later. You aren't getting it because there is probably another underlying flaw in your theory of economics/liberty. Once you start sorting all the economic laws in your head it will hit you.
Yeah thanks for the recommendation and advice. I'm still going through the motions really but so far I have made peace with the idea politically and practically. I'm still not 100% on it morally. I suppose I find some of the moral arguments thin - such as the notion that becuase you could just throw anything at the thing that means it does not stand. For example we have laws against other things, but there are people out there who would argue similarlly against them. Such as rape for example, you could say "but what if / but what if / but what if" - at the end of the day though, it is easy to define, it is determinable in a court, and just because people abuse the system and get away with rape, or, on the other side, use rape charges as a weapon where no rape has occurred and use it that way, so now the underlying principle is void. But, let me keep going with it, I will come back to it :) I'm listening to that lecture now.
Edit: It's funny actually but I found out that my main concern was not financial, but that recordings as an artform might be lost - once I was able to see how that commercially would not be the case without copyright - that quality and ambition would continue to be the driving focus because of commercial reasons as well as artistic ones - that was when I was able to make peace with the whole thing commercially. It was not so some people can make lots of money but rather that great recording artists, engineers, producers etc, would still have AN incentive to make great records. In fact I figured that albums would still be a main focus of an artist even if they didn't make money off the sale of them directly, they will still need to be a central focus of any artists career - so their existance is still justified. Perhaps a petty wish of mine, but I was just not feeling good about this art form being lost for any reason other than a very good one - now that I can see it won't be, I feel better about the rest of it ;)
As for films and such, I think cinemas will make a comeback with first release rights, and black box based subscription downloads or the like working for home viewing. So I can see it all working. Anyway again, morally was always my central concern even if I asked other questions just to play devils advocate and get clear about things myself. Thanks for humoring me so far everyone :)
The TEDx Global video I mentioned earlier: