I had an idea as an alternative to copyright. While one cannot homestead ideas (simply because one cannot occupy them like one can occupy tangible items), one can contractually limit what a purchaser may do. As certain rights are inalienable, such as life and one's will, one cannot transfer these in a contract (so you cannot have a contract that says "I promise not to copy this book, and if I fail to do this I will throw myself out the window.") However, one can require some sort of alienable right, such as to one's property, in case of default. My idea is that, upon buying a book, one would have to sign a contract that would say that one will promise to not have the book copied in any way, whether by oneself or by another, and if one defaults one would have to pay some sum (My idea would be that one has to work to recuperate the opportunity cost of all books that have been pirated.) This way, in a free-market, writers would be able to write their works with little to no fear of financial loss from piracy.
Your suggestion is inline with voluntary association, but it won't work. Besides people being unlikely to agree to it, its not enforceable.
If one person buys the book then puts it on the internet others have no contractual obligation not to pirate it. And enforcement against the one person who is violating the contract would be prohibitively difficult.
In a free society, ideas will most likely be controlled by technology, like copy protection CDs, not legal action.
However, you shouldn't be looking for a way to enforce copyrights. We don't need them. No one has a right to a lifetime income for writing one trashy novel.
Stealing is wrong because it robs someone of their labor. But if someone writes a book and I borrow it, photocopy it, and then return it; the person still possess all the fruits of his labor, his self ownership has not been compromised. I am allowed to use my property however I want so long as I do not infringe on the ownership rights of anyone else.
Technology has enabled ideas to exist in a limitless number of places at once, for very little cost. Wanting to artificially raise the cost of books to protect writers is no different than wanting to artificially raise the cost of corn to protect farmers. There is no excuse for it.
Peace
One wouldn't really need to sign a contract. All an author or creator (of anything for that matter) would have to do is stamp it "copyright". This would indicate to the buyer that the author is selling not the entire property right to the item, but the right to do anything except sell an identical copy to someone else. If the buyer then copied the item and sold it, he would be guilty of a violation of his contact of purchase and of the author's property right (the part he didn't sell), which would amount to theft. Restitution would then be decided based on loss of revenue to the author plus additional penalties presumably.
Essentially it is third parties that are the issue. At any rate, a common worry that arises is would research such as medical research be carried out in the absence of IP, given that it is argued that such research has a public good aspect to it. A proposed solution is the dominant assurance contract:
http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/PrivateProvision.pdf
What would you do when you find a store selling your book without paying you and you have no contract with the store and they won't tell you who gave them the first copy of you book?
DBratton: What would you do when you find a store selling your book without paying you and you have no contract with the store and they won't tell you who gave them the first copy of you book?
Well, I can't make them tell me anything. I have no right to initiate force against them, as they are a third party and not party to the contract. They have not taken away any tangible property from me, and as no human exists in the world of ideas and thus cannot occupy them they have not aggressed against me.
But I could do a number of things non-coercively, and that is the beauty of a free society. I could encourage other writers and publishers not to deal with this store, or encourage consumers to boycott them. I could offer them a share in restitution if they will tell me who gave them the copy. In fact, I could offer a share in restitution to whoever informs me of violators. Also in this same line, I could have the performance bond be the sum of the restitution for lost revenues divided by contract violators, so that every contract violator found would reduce the burden on the others (so if there are 4 violators and $100 lost in revenue, those 4 finding a fifth would reduce their burdens from $25 to $20.) The individuals who inform me of other contract violators would also have part or all of their share of restitution forgiven.
Ah, restitution, an important point and another good reason to oppose Intellectual Property.
Lost revenues is not a legal claim. If pirate a CD I have not inflicted damages. You can not determine "lost revenue", as we all know, demand is greater when price is zero. If a CD is pirated 100 times that does not mean it would have been bought 100 times if pirating was not an option, in fact, we can be sure that it wouldn't have been.
"Lost revenue" implies that the pirate has violated contract, failed to pay in exchange for services. But as we already determined, no contract existed.
"No one has a right to a lifetime income for writing one trashy novel."
i say introduce a 'fractional patronage' system along the lines of this ( http://www.posfi.com/what_is_it.htm ) , ( http://www.posfi.com/applications.htm )
artists and developers seeking funding for new or sequel projects can place ads and get fractional patronizers to help fund projects.
JonBostwick: Ah, restitution, an important point and another good reason to oppose Intellectual Property. Lost revenues is not a legal claim. If pirate a CD I have not inflicted damages. You can not determine "lost revenue", as we all know, demand is greater when price is zero. If a CD is pirated 100 times that does not mean it would have been bought 100 times if pirating was not an option, in fact, we can be sure that it wouldn't have been. "Lost revenue" implies that the pirate has violated contract, failed to pay in exchange for services. But as we already determined, no contract existed.
But the thing is, you can demand whatever payment you want as restitution so long as the article in question is alienable. I can say that you have to pay me a million dollars if you copy my work, just arbitrarily; I can also say you have to pay me some sum for each pirated copy that I can find. It is the same as with a performance bond in any other case.
sthomper:artists and developers seeking funding for new or sequel projects can place ads and get fractional patronizers to help fund projects.
I think some sort of partronage system is definately in the cards for certain types of intellectual activity. Musicians can charge for live performances and filmmakers can sell advertising, but what is a science fiction writer to do?
Parsidius: But the thing is, you can demand whatever payment you want as restitution so long as the article in question is alienable. I can say that you have to pay me a million dollars if you copy my work, just arbitrarily
But the thing is, you can demand whatever payment you want as restitution so long as the article in question is alienable. I can say that you have to pay me a million dollars if you copy my work, just arbitrarily
I try to avoid prophesying freedom but I can tell you, people won't stand for that. Not just the million dollar part, the arbitrary part. The whole point of libertarian law is provide restitution for legitimate damages.
Its conceivable that a private road owner would issue tickets exactly like highway patrols do today, it would not violate voluntary association. However, market forces pretty much ensure that private road owners will choose to behave very differently.
DBratton:Musicians can charge for live performances and filmmakers can sell advertising, but what is a science fiction writer to do?
Musicians can charge for live performances and filmmakers can sell advertising, but what is a science fiction writer to do?
Make a movie. Create a website. Give lectures. ie work.
A good gauge about whether a profession would become significantly less lucrative under anarchy is the amount of time spent doing it. For example, professional athletes would continue to make large amounts of money but movie stars would make only a fraction of what they do.
Parsidius:But the thing is, you can demand whatever payment you want as restitution so long as...
So are you claiming the right to set an arbitrary compensation amount? ...on the grounds that you do not have a contract? You lost me.
The store owner is not going to help you anyway. He's going to want more books to sell and he's not going to burn his supplier. Think about all those Bittorrent websites. They know perfectly well that what they are doing facilitates copyright infringement. But their business model depends on those infringements so without coercion they would never turnover information about their users.
JonBostwick:Make a movie. Create a website. Give lectures. ie work.
Right. My point was I think the book medium is probably gone except when commissioned under some sort of patronage system.
What's so wrong with the original creator selling not the entire property right to his creation, but the right to do anything with the item except sell an identical copy to someone else?
In other words the creator sells not the full title of ownership to the property, but retains part of it for himself to do with as he sees fit. He advertizes this fact by placing a copyright stamp or mark on the item. If the item is subsequently transferred to a third party, the restriction remains because that part of the title that the creator retained for himself (the right to make and sell copies) was never sold in the first place. Even though the third party has no contract with the original creator, he is still liable if he trys to sell a copy because he's trying to sell something he doesn't actually own. The right to make and sell copies is retained solely by the original creator, no matter who owns the original creation.
From a Libertarian perspective, why would this be untenable? Doesn't it simply boil down to defining who owns what property rights?
leonidia:What's so wrong with the original creator selling not the entire property right to his creation, but the right to do anything with the item except sell an identical copy to someone else? In other words the creator sells not the full title of ownership to the property, but retains part of it for himself to do with as he sees fit. He advertizes this fact by placing a copyright stamp or mark on the item. If the item is subsequently transferred to a third party, the restriction remains because that part of the title that the creator retained for himself (the right to make and sell copies) was never sold in the first place. Even though the third party has no contract with the original creator, he is still liable if he trys to sell a copy because he's trying to sell something he doesn't actually own. The right to make and sell copies is retained solely by the original creator, no matter who owns the original creation.
The problem is that you don't have a contract with the third party, so you have no right to tell him that he can't print whatever he wants with the paper and ink that belongs to him. In your example the third party does own the book he is selling because he owns the paper and he owns the ink, and that's all there is to a book.
The problem with IP is that the intangible right to IP can only be enforced by invading the rights of other people to their tangible property.
leonidia:From a Libertarian perspective, why would this be untenable? Doesn't it simply boil down to defining who owns what property rights?
It's also a matter of determining what is legitimately a property right.
Inquisitor:Essentially it is third parties that are the issue. At any rate, a common worry that arises is would research such as medical research be carried out in the absence of IP, given that it is argued that such research has a public good aspect to it. A proposed solution is the dominant assurance contract:http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/PrivateProvision.pdf
Yeah, I made it all the way through the first line, "Economics gives invisible hand explanations for complex phenomena."
Let's look at the current system of medical research...
Someone gets a government grant to research a certain topic and if they somehow make a significant discovery they proceed to patent it and extract monopoly rent from the very people who paid them to research it in the first place.
Before publicly funded research was allowed to be patented, companies used to spend tons of cash on R&D in order to stay one step ahead of the competition but today almost all research is funded by government grants and the companies buy it from the inventors instead of financing it themselves. Big Pharma is notorious for this, they claim they need the excessively high monopoly guaranteed profits because of the high cost of funding R&D while doing virtually no research but instead relying on the public to fund the new discoveries which they capitalize upon.
There is no basis to make the claim that without IP protections all 'public good' research would cease. Some people genuinely care about their fellow human being, some want to make a name for themselves in their respective field and others need to innovate to make their products more attractive to the consumers.
I think the best argument against IP was an article here discussing how restaurants and the fashion industry are both thriving economic powerhouses with absolutely no protection from IP 'theft'.
You want to see the end of medical research as we know it, wait until they socialize healthcare in the US. With no profit motive, due to governmental price fixing, there is little incentive for anyone to try to make their fortune in that field. As it stands now the US is pretty much subsidizing all the medical advances for the world's socialized healthcare systems.
Damn, I'm all over the place with this post...think it's time to get some sleep
Do you maybe have a link to the article?
Here's a good one.
Ah, I found it, it was linked to from here...
DBratton:The problem is that you don't have a contract with the third party, so you have no right to tell him that he can't print whatever he wants with the paper and ink that belongs to him. In your example the third party does own the book he is selling because he owns the paper and he owns the ink, and that's all there is to a book.
But what if the original author sells his book under the following contract:
"I hereby sell you this book. You agree not to copy it. You may sell or transfer this book to a third party, but you may do so only by advising the third party that if he buys, receives or views this book he agrees not to copy it. If he does he is liable to me. If you fail to advise the third party of the restrictive covenenant attached to this book (by for example removing the copyright stamp) you are liable to me".
JonBostwick: I try to avoid prophesying freedom but I can tell you, people won't stand for that. Not just the million dollar part, the arbitrary part. The whole point of libertarian law is provide restitution for legitimate damages. Its conceivable that a private road owner would issue tickets exactly like highway patrols do today, it would not violate voluntary association. However, market forces pretty much ensure that private road owners will choose to behave very differently.
Well, I'd be fine with any kind of restitution as based upon transfer of alienable rights in the default clause. Probably there would eventually arise some sort of custom on the matter, like how medieval performance bonds were usually double the original amount paid. I don't see how making someone pay you for each copy of a book he failed to keep from being copied would be so offensive; restitution is more of an art than a science anyway.
leonidia: DBratton:The problem is that you don't have a contract with the third party, so you have no right to tell him that he can't print whatever he wants with the paper and ink that belongs to him. In your example the third party does own the book he is selling because he owns the paper and he owns the ink, and that's all there is to a book. But what if the original author sells his book under the following contract: "I hereby sell you this book. You agree not to copy it. You may sell or transfer this book to a third party, but you may do so only by advising the third party that if he buys, receives or views this book he agrees not to copy it. If he does he is liable to me. If you fail to advise the third party of the restrictive covenenant attached to this book (by for example removing the copyright stamp) you are liable to me".
But the problem with this kind of common law copyright is that it doesn't specifically deal with tangibility. I can understand that one has the right to keep one's car from being dented, but one doesn't have the right to the value of one's car, as the value of one's car is not tangible (it is ideal.) Likewise, a right to keep one's car from being copied does not deal with the tangibility of the object but its infinite ideal form which cannot be occupied by anyone.
DBratton:The problem with IP is that the intangible right to IP can only be enforced by invading the rights of other people to their tangible property.
I'm not advocating that the author retains any kind right to the IP. IP is an idea that exists only in someone's mind and is therefore not copyrightable. Once it's out of the bag, that's it. What I'm saying is that there is a qualitative difference between 1) the IP (or the idea), 2) the particular sequence of letters on the page (the creation), and 3) the paper and ink (the physical manifestation of the creation). And that a book consists of these three things.
Even though the idea is not copyrightable, it seems to me that the particular sequence of letters on the page can be copyrightable, without invading anyone's property rights, so long as it's spelled out beforehand who owns what.
leonidia:But what if the original author sells his book under the following contract: "I hereby sell you this book. You agree not to copy it. You may sell or transfer this book to a third party, but you may do so only by advising the third party that if he buys, receives or views this book he agrees not to copy it. If he does he is liable to me. If you fail to advise the third party of the restrictive covenenant attached to this book (by for example removing the copyright stamp) you are liable to me".
But how will you know who did it?
If you see a store selling your book, and the owner won't tell you who gave him the book to copy, you are just stuck. The problem does not lie in how you deal with those with whom you have a contract but in how you deal with those with whom you do not have a contract.
leonidia:Even though the idea is not copyrightable, it seems to me that the particular sequence of letters on the page can be copyrightable, without invading anyone's property rights, so long as it's spelled out beforehand who owns what.
But it does invade my property rights. I own paper and I own ink and you want to tell me there are things I cannot do with this property.
The purpose of IP is to generate profits by creating an artificial scarcity - basic supply and demand right? But ideas exist in people's heads and there is no way to sequester them there. The only way to make an idea scarce is to restrict how people use the physical property needed to instantiate it. This is, for me, the key to the debate. Intellectual property rights operate by invading the physical property rights of others. There is no other way to make an IP regime function.
DBratton:But it does invade my property rights. I own paper and I own ink and you want to tell me there are things I cannot do with this property.
Yes. I am telling you there are things you cannot do with it, so long as it's contractual. What's so wrong with ascribing to a particular property tangible and intangible attributes, and delineating beforehand that some of the intangible attributes are retained by the original owner?
If intangible attributes cannot be retained, then this raises a lot of questions. For example, are easements on real property enforceable? Or how about the kind of restrictive covenants placed on property by homeowner's associations? I see a free society as a contractual society. Regarding property, I say that anything goes so long as two parties agree to it. Now I understand the concern that some here seem to have of transferrring the provisons of an original contract to subsequent owners, but I think this can be solved as follows: The original contract stipulates that the new owner's right to the property excludes certain intangible attributes, and furthermore, that should he wish to transfer the property to someone else, he may do so only if he ensures that the subsequent owner agrees to being a party to the original contract."Ensuring that the subsequent owner is a party to the original contract" does not mean that the transferror is liable if the subsequent owner should violate the terms of the contract. It simply means getting his agreement, implicitly or explicitly. In the case of copyright this could mean nothing more than ensuring that the copyright label is not removed.
DBratton:The purpose of IP is to generate profits by creating an artificial scarcity - basic supply and demand right? But ideas exist in people's heads and there is no way to sequester them there. The only way to make an idea scarce is to restrict how people use the physical property needed to instantiate it. This is, for me, the key to the debate. Intellectual property rights operate by invading the physical property rights of others. There is no other way to make an IP regime function.
In my previous post I said that ideas are not copyrightable, because they exist only in the mind. I agree with you there!
However, I draw a distinction between an idea which exists in my head, and the actual sequence of letters on the page. I can't prevent others from copying my idea, but if I restrict you from copying the exact same sequence of letters, I am not restricting you from copying my idea. There are an infinite number of ways of instantiating an idea. I'm just asking you not to copy my version. For example, if my name is Daniel Defoe and I have an idea for a novel about a man that gets stranded on a desert island, I can't stop you from writing a similar novel based on exactly the same idea. But if your novel copies mine word for word and is called "Robinson Crusoe" I say I can stop you from doing that without restricting the idea or making the idea scarce.
leonidia:Yes. I am telling you there are things you cannot do with it, so long as it's contractual. What's so wrong with ascribing to a particular property tangible and intangible attributes, and delineating beforehand that some of the intangible attributes are retained by the original owner?
Absolutely nothing. As long as you can somehow track what someone is doing back to a contractual agreement then I have no problem with your argument. Where I think we are talking past each other is on the question of third parties who will not cooperate. This is who the offenders will usually be - think about bittorrent. In order to maintain a copyright regime you have to invent a right to restrict the property rights of these third parties even though you do not have a contract with them.
leonidia:I am not restricting you from copying my idea. There are an infinite number of ways of instantiating an idea. I'm just asking you not to copy my version.
Understood. But how do prevent me from copying your version if I decide to ignore your wishes and we have no contract? By restricting my use of my own property. There is no other way to do it. I am arguing that this makes copyrights illegitimate.
leonidia:What's so wrong with the original creator selling not the entire property right to his creation, but the right to do anything with the item except sell an identical copy to someone else?
Nothing. The main problem is third parties, the people doing the pirating.
leonidia:In other words the creator sells not the full title of ownership to the property, but retains part of it for himself to do with as he sees fit. He advertizes this fact by placing a copyright stamp or mark on the item.
This assumes from the start that ideas are ownable.
Property is nature mixed with labor. We need property rights because when demand exceeds supply there is potential for disputes. With intectual "property" (irony quotes) there is an infinite supply, me owning a digital copy of the Mona Lisa does not exclude anyone else from owning a digital copy. It is only the original painting that is controlled by property rights.
Believing that the creator of the Mona Lisa should be paid by anyone who copies it, regardless of the existance of a trade arguement, is price fixing.
leonidia: For example, if my name is Daniel Defoe and I have an idea for a novel about a man that gets stranded on a desert island, I can't stop you from writing a similar novel based on exactly the same idea. But if your novel copies mine word for word and is called "Robinson Crusoe" I say I can stop you from doing that without restricting the idea or making the idea scarce.
For example, if my name is Daniel Defoe and I have an idea for a novel about a man that gets stranded on a desert island, I can't stop you from writing a similar novel based on exactly the same idea. But if your novel copies mine word for word and is called "Robinson Crusoe" I say I can stop you from doing that without restricting the idea or making the idea scarce.
That is not a proof, you're just explaining your beliefs. Why can't you stop him from "stealing" a plot, but you can stop him from "stealing" a character or story? Whats the difference?
Leonidia,
The concept you are trying to wrap your head around is called privity. It is part of the traditional English Common Law, which in some ways is a rough proxy for natural rights or the natural law, particularly where it concerns property rights. One's private property can only be confisgated in two situations:
(1) By consent (directly or indirectly, such as pursuant to a voluntary submission to an authority)
(2) By violating the natural, categorical or customary property rights of others, assuming the confisgation is proportional.*
In the situation you described, the contract is only between A and B. B promises not to copy or distribute the book. A and B promise that if B does distribute the book, C will pay. But C doesn't sign the contract. Therefore, C does not fall under #1. Second, C cannot fall under #2 because, as discussed before, there is no natural right to an idea or expression--it does not inhere in either basic goods, the intuitive structure of life and free choice, or our axiomatic self-ownership.**
Instead, A's remedy would be all damages caused by B as a result of the distribution, but only if it is in violation of an express term of the agreement. At some point, B won't want to be liable and won't sign such an agreement, so A & B will negotiate terms among thousands of other A's and B's, until the market adopts a general risk balance between writers and consumers (where both A & B make sacrifices to make it worth both parties' while to write books and enjoy them). Furthermore, to the extent people use DRO's, such organizations will almost certainly include the "pledging" of a significant portion of one's assets -- i.e. the DRO may very well be your bank. In which case, buyers and sellers are more willing to deal with one another, as a neutral 3rd party already holds the funds you would want to confisgate in the event of a breach of agreement.
*A proportional right to confisgate property must be tempered by the amount of damage or chaos one might cause in attempting to enforce such a right. The need to invade someone's house to steal a television because someone owes you a debt would probably render a response disproportional, at least to the extent it risked a basic objective good, like someone's life. However, as discussed above, the market is able to avoid such qualitative quagmires with clever solutions applied to the front-end of a transaction; culture, particularly Christian culture, plays a part in providing for more humane debt collection. Even modern collectors will engage in safer tactics (like repossessing a car in the middle of the night) to remedy a debt.
**Of course, the following only concerns C's obligations as a matter of justice. If C knew of the contract between A & B, he may feel obliged as a matter of charity to respect A's desire for payment and shortsighted distribution of his work without other protections. In fact, in the real world, many people's decisions are based on charity and goodwill rather than mere justice, despite the common confusion of the two concepts.
DBratton:In order to maintain a copyright regime you have to invent a right to restrict the property rights of these third parties even though you do not have a contract with them.
But I think I do have a contract with them, an implied contract, and I don't think I have to invent anything. Under the common law, an implied contract is an agreement which is not formally written down, but is created on the basis of the behavior of the parties involved. If a third party is aware that in order obtain a particular product certain restrictions apply, then by obtaining the product he gives his tacit approval to the restrictions. He has, in effect, agreed implicitly to a contract with the original owner by virtue of the fact that he's obtained it. Of course he has to be made aware, which is the purpose of the copyright mark.
DBratton:But how do prevent me from copying your version if I decide to ignore your wishes and we have no contract? By restricting my use of my own property. There is no other way to do it. I am arguing that this makes copyrights illegitimate.
As I said, I think we do have a contract, and there is no restriction on the use of your property insofar as what you actually own. When you obtained your property, your property never included title to the intangible part of the property that I'm retaining for myself. You understood that to be the case, and agreed to it under the terms of an implied contract with me. If you attempt to use the intangible part of the property that I retain title to, you are violating my property rights.
Bonaventure: Leonidia, The concept you are trying to wrap your head around is called privity. It is part of the traditional English Common Law, which in some ways is a rough proxy for natural rights or the natural law, particularly where it concerns property rights. One's private property can only be confisgated in two situations: (1) By consent (directly or indirectly, such as pursuant to a voluntary submission to an authority) (2) By violating the natural, categorical or customary property rights of others, assuming the confisgation is proportional.* In the situation you described, the contract is only between A and B. B promises not to copy or distribute the book. A and B promise that if B does distribute the book, C will pay. But C doesn't sign the contract. Therefore, C does not fall under #1. Second, C cannot fall under #2 because, as discussed before, there is no natural right to an idea or expression--it does not inhere in either basic goods, the intuitive structure of life and free choice, or our axiomatic self-ownership.** Instead, A's remedy would be all damages caused by B as a result of the distribution, but only if it is in violation of an express term of the agreement. At some point, B won't want to be liable and won't sign such an agreement, so A & B will negotiate terms among thousands of other A's and B's, until the market adopts a general risk balance between writers and consumers (where both A & B make sacrifices to make it worth both parties' while to write books and enjoy them). Furthermore, to the extent people use DRO's, such organizations will almost certainly include the "pledging" of a significant portion of one's assets -- i.e. the DRO may very well be your bank. In which case, buyers and sellers are more willing to deal with one another, as a neutral 3rd party already holds the funds you would want to confisgate in the event of a breach of agreement. *A proportional right to confisgate property must be tempered by the amount of damage or chaos one might cause in attempting to enforce such a right. The need to invade someone's house to steal a television because someone owes you a debt would probably render a response disproportional, at least to the extent it risked a basic objective good, like someone's life. However, as discussed above, the market is able to avoid such qualitative quagmires with clever solutions applied to the front-end of a transaction; culture, particularly Christian culture, plays a part in providing for more humane debt collection. Even modern collectors will engage in safer tactics (like repossessing a car in the middle of the night) to remedy a debt. **Of course, the following only concerns C's obligations as a matter of justice. If C knew of the contract between A & B, he may feel obliged as a matter of charity to respect A's desire for payment and shortsighted distribution of his work without other protections. In fact, in the real world, many people's decisions are based on charity and goodwill rather than mere justice, despite the common confusion of the two concepts.
Exactly. Also, DROs may also wish to give social sanction to C; after all, a DRO doesn't want its client (B) to get into trouble, and might take a number of measures to discourage C from causing B to break his contracts (such as charging higher premiums on C.)
leonidia:But I think I do have a contract with them, an implied contract, and I don't think I have to invent anything.
It is the implied contract that you are inventing. To be legitimate contracts must be voluntary.
leonidia:When you obtained your property, your property never included title to the intangible part of the property that I'm retaining for myself.
Suppose I bought my paper and ink before you wrote your book. Now where does your intangible right to my property come from? Are you saying that just writing a book somehow automatically creates a previously non-existent right in everyone else's property and assigns it to you?
DBratton:It is the implied contract that you are inventing.
So in a free society, there's no such thing as an implied contract?
DBratton:Suppose I bought my paper and ink before you wrote your book. Now where does your intangible right to my property come from? Are you saying that just writing a book somehow automatically creates a previously non-existent right in everyone else's property and assigns it to you?
No, of course not. I don't own your paper and ink and never will unless you give it to me. But if you use your paper and ink to steal my intangible property, you've still violated my property rights. I wrote the book; the paper and ink were the burgler's tools used to take it from me.
JonBostwick:Property is nature mixed with labor.
I have a quibble with that definition. I think it's OK to own some pristine woodlands if I want to and can afford it.
Property is any thing that is both scarce and in demand. The air is not property because it is not scarce, though it is in demand. A deadly virus is not property because it is not in demand, though it may be scarce.
DBratton: JonBostwick:Property is nature mixed with labor. I have a quibble with that definition. I think it's OK to own some pristine woodlands if I want to and can afford it. Property is any thing that is both scarce and in demand. The air is not property because it is not scarce, though it is in demand. A deadly virus is not property because it is not in demand, though it may be scarce.
I think the more proper definition is that property is something that has been created by first-occupancy (which is visible and just), rather than through mixing labor (this is only a minor quibble though.)
Bonaventure:The concept you are trying to wrap your head around is called privity. It is part of the traditional English Common Law, which in some ways is a rough proxy for natural rights or the natural law, particularly where it concerns property rights. One's private property can only be confisgated in two situations: (1) By consent (directly or indirectly, such as pursuant to a voluntary submission to an authority) (2) By violating the natural, categorical or customary property rights of others, assuming the confisgation is proportional.*
I don't have a problem with that at all.
Bonaventure:In the situation you described, the contract is only between A and B. B promises not to copy or distribute the book. A and B promise that if B does distribute the book, C will pay. But C doesn't sign the contract.
But what if B promises to A that if B sells his book to C, he will make sure that C is a party to the original contract between A and B? In other words, in the event B sells his book, he may do so only if he extracts an agreement from C not to copy or distribute it.
I really don't see how copyright is antithetical to a free society, which is built on property rights. IP is property, just like land or chattels, and allowing this legal protection is going to be a lot more efficient than requiring writers/artists to squirrel away and hide their work, protecting it through almost entirely unenforceable contracts.
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
leonidia:So in a free society, there's no such thing as an implied contract?
When you say "implied" what you mean is involuntary. How can there be an involuntary contract in a free society?
leonidia:No, of course not. I don't own your paper and ink and never will unless you give it to me. But if you use your paper and ink to steal my intangible property, you've still violated my property rights. I wrote the book; the paper and ink were the burgler's tools used to take it from me.
But to make that argument you first have to show that there is such a thing as intangible property. I claim that to create intangible property one has to invade the rights of others to their tangible property. So there can be no legitimate intangible property.