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.
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.
I agree. Its a matter of defining labor. I dont think labor automatically means improving. Surveying the land is labor. Denying other people access to the land is labor.
The point is that you can't land on the shore of a continent and declare yourself the owner of the entire thing.
Occupancy is a good legal standard for land ownership. The definition of property being labor mixed with nature is a broader concept, you can't occupy lumber. Labor is the generic name for one factor of production.
Peace
Inquisitor: 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
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
Its good article, I was thinking of digging it up. I really think Kinsella will be an important influence on Austrian economics.
Why? Please give arguments.
In defense of the existence of intangible property:
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/machan11.pdf
leonidia:In defense of the existence of intangible property:http://mises.org/journals/scholar/machan11.pdf
In response to that paper...
It is not the opponents but the supporters of IP who introduce the tangible/intangible dichotomy by arguing that IP is just a different kind of property. Machan attacks the use of tangible versus intangible as a test for what is legitimate property. Well OK, let's just talk about property in terms of its simple definition - something that is both scarce and in demand.
The purpose of property rights are to allow and ensure exclusive control over something by one or more persons. Exclusive control of rivalrous objects is needed for any sort of purposeful action to occur, so no one can dispute the need for some form of property rights over physical, rivalrous goods (without making a performative contradiction, of course).
However, exclusive control over nonrival goods is not necissary to make use of those goods. Most support of IP seems to come from a consequentialist standpoint though, based in public goods theory. I really haven't heard a good Austrian or libertarian answer to the consequences of not allowing IP. Many Austrians seem to like to demonstrate how IP laws are often unnecessary in practice, but I've never seen a decent critique of public goods theory itself, although most Austrians seem to deny that public goods exist for reasons I don't find terribly coherent.
I think the solution might come from people demonstrating how purely public goods like knowledge can be funded without IP laws and government spending.
Grant:...but I've never seen a decent critique of public goods theory itself, although most Austrians seem to deny that public goods exist for reasons I don't find terribly coherent.
Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security
Grant:I think the solution might come from people demonstrating how purely public goods like knowledge can be funded without IP laws and government spending.
I would think it's enough to point to the majority of human history where there were no IP laws and government monopolies on research spending to demonstrate how 'purely public goods like knowledge' is viable.
Creators of music, poems, movies, and other "intellectual" stuff have produced something over which they rightly insist they must have control. It is, after all, their work, so just as a person who enters the labor market has the right to set the terms under which he or she will exchange his time and skills for wages and salaries, so those who create intellectual content should have this right, as well, as the right to obtain protection for them from the legal authorities.
The attempt, in the meanwhile, to defend the case for treating intellectual property differently from other kinds by reference to its intangible character has some difficulties.
Indeed, it seems that there is a continuum of kinds of beings, from the very dense ones to the more and more defuse ones, leading all the way to what appear to be pure ideas, such as poems or theater set designs.
They do suggest something that is part of both the ordinary and the so called "intellectual" property traditions, namely, that when human beings are agents of creation, when they make something on their own initiative--when they invest the world with their distinctive effort, they gain just or rightful (justified) possession of what they have produced.
The central issue is, instead, whether when someone produces or creates a work--poem, novel, song, arrangement, computer program, game, or the like (excluding all discoveries)--he or she may be deprived of these without permission? I think not.
Imagine for a moment that I own some land, and I decide to "sell" that land to you. And let's say that according to the terms of our contract it is agreed that you may use the land for any purpose you desire, except that you must allow me to use it for the limited purpose of crossing from one side to the other (an easement). Furthermore, you agree that I may assign my right to anyone I choose. I may sell it or transfer it, or if I die I may give it to my heirs. This is not the same as a licence because my right is permanent and mine to do with as I please. So since this right is permanent, can it be said that you own the land in its entirety? Are we not in a sense joint stakeholders? I own the right to use it in a particular way; and this is my property right in the land. Your property right in the land is everything except this. If you decide to sell your particular stake, that's fine, but you can't sell mine. Only I can do that. And if you put your stake up for sale, I don't have to contract separately with any buyer of yours unless I put my stake up for sale also. But if you attempt to sell the land without advising your buyer of my stake, you are committing a fraud. You are then misrepresenting what is rightfully yours and selling my property as well as your own. Now let's suppose that I write a novel, and I "sell" the novel to you. And let's say that according to the terms of our contract it is agreed that you may use the novel for any purpose you desire, except that I, the author, retain the exclusive right to copy and distribute your book (the particular book you own). Isn't this similar to the easement mentioned above, only this time on a book? Can it be said that you own the book in its entirety? You have agreed to allow me to retain certain property rights in the book that is now in your possession. Your property right is the right to read it, put it on your bookshelf or burn it; in short, anything you want except copy it because that is my property right. We are in effect joint stakeholders in the book. So what happens when you sell the book or give it to someone else? It is simply this. You may sell only your stake. You may not sell mine. You must advise the subsequent buyer that the right to copy that particular book (the one in your possession) is retained by me, and if you don't you are committing a fraud. What happens if you or he copies the book anyway? Simply, my property is then being invaded, and I may defend it. There is no need for a separate contract between me and any third, fourth or fifth party, because when I first sold the book to you, I never sold the right to copy it. Anyone who misrepresents the ownership of that right is guilty of fraud, and anyone who ignores it is guilty of invading my property.
But you have built that arguement on an unspoken assumption: Ideas are a legitimate form of property.
If ideas are a legitimiate form of property that someone can contract then your argument is valid. However, you not yet attempted to prove that assumption.
If ideas are not a form of property, then your analogy is false.
It is far from self evident that the first person who thinks of something can excludes all others from "copy-catting."
Well, not really. The right to copy the book is part of the bundle of rights which pertain to the physical property itself.
Allow me to offer my own analogy.
Suppose I am a prehistoric human and I discover that by rubbing sticks together I can make fire. Other people observe me do this and begin doing it themselves. These other people did not come up with the idea themselves and are benefiting from my work. So I, a long with my friends, decided that I deserve to receive some compensation for the benefit I have added to other people's lives. We agree that anyone can use my fire, so long as they agree to pay an annual tribute to me. Some people agree but others refuse, so I and my friends begin patrols to make sure that only those who pay the annual fee are using fire.
I have decided, on my own, what others owe me and will use violence to ensure that I receive it. I have invented the political method. There are two ways to gain wealth, economic and political. The economic method is voluntary exchange. The political method is coercion and includes such things as burglary, robbery, and taxation.
Now imagine I create a story about a turtle carrying a scorpion across a river on its back. The story is popular and others begin telling, parents even tell it to their children in their homes. Again, these other people did not come up with the idea and are benefiting from my work. So, again, I and my friends begin patrols to ensure that only those who have agreed to pay the fee are telling the story. Being a kind soul, I originally only planned on preventing people from telling my story for pay, but people began telling it for free. This made it even harder for me to find paying customers, so I had to prevent all tellings by nonpayers.
Inquisitor:Well, not really. The right to copy the book is part of the bundle of rights which pertain to the physical property itself.
No way. If I buy a printer, I own it. I don't care what implied contracts the manufacturer tried to create, I can fill it with whatever brand of ink cartidge I want.
It seems as if people believe that under anarchy any manufactured good can only be used at the will of the manufacturer. But contracts are not promises, they are legal claims of ownership. Contracts that do not pertain to ownership rights are not enforcible. If two people make a contract saying they will marry each other, should one want to back out, the other can not force them to follow through with the marriage.
I hate to repeat myself, but it seems you are purposefully ignoring, what about people who never bought the book? If I borrow a book from a library or find it in the street, I have no obligation to not copy it, right?
Again, these other people did not come up with the idea and are benefiting from my work.
hey, i liked the story so much....i fractionally patronized the author!!
sthomper: Again, these other people did not come up with the idea and are benefiting from my work. hey, i liked the story so much....i fractionally patronized the author!!
Excuse me. Did you get permision from the author to reproduce that piece of fine, fine literature?
dont have to.
ideas can only be attributed after being expressed - calling the language in a story or song or process 'property' isnt legitimate.
its just intellectual or artisitic endeavor - being expressed, afterwhich it can be be attributed to someone and then repeated by others.
sthomper:dont have to. ideas can only be attributed after being expressed - calling the language in a story or song or process 'property' isnt legitimate. its just intellectual or artisitic endeavor - being expressed, afterwhich it can be be attributed to someone and then repeated by others.
JonBostwick:If ideas are a legitimiate form of property that someone can contract then your argument is valid. However, you not yet attempted to prove that assumption.If ideas are not a form of property, then your analogy is false
If ideas are not a form of property, then your analogy is false
I'm not arguing, nor have I ever argued, that ideas are a legitimate form of property. In fact in my previous posts I have consistently said that ideas are not a form of property. But copying the book word for word is not the same as copying the idea. If you want to tell other people about the idea or ideas contained in the book, I have no objection. But the book I wrote is the instantiation of the idea I had; it is not the idea itself. There are an infinite number of instantiations of an idea. You may create your own version of my idea, but you have agreed not to copy my version of my idea.
Patents, for example, are generally not a legitimate form of property because they consist primarily of an idea. If I have an invention for a new machine, I can't stop you from building a working version based on my idea. But if I create a working version myself, sell it to you, and you agree not to copy it as an exact replica, you violate my property rights if you do.
leonidia: But copying the book word for word is not the same as copying the idea.
Why?
The book "word for word" is a more specific, more elaborate idea, but its still an idea. Idea does not mean theme, it means something non-material.
JonBostwick:No way. If I buy a printer, I own it. I don't care what implied contracts the manufacturer tried to create, I can fill it with whatever brand of ink cartidge I want.
Sure you can, but if you use it to steal my property, I have every right to take it from you. If you take my watch, put it in your safe, and the only way I can get my watch back is to take your safe, I have every right to do so.
JonBostwick:It seems as if people believe that under anarchy any manufactured good can only be used at the will of the manufacturer. But contracts are not promises, they are legal claims of ownership. Contracts that do not pertain to ownership rights are not enforcible.
Agreed. But my argument is that I do retain an ownership right in the particular book you bought, and you agreed to it when you bought the book.
JonBostwick:I hate to repeat myself, but it seems you are purposefully ignoring, what about people who never bought the book? If I borrow a book from a library or find it in the street, I have no obligation to not copy it, right?
On the contrary. I, the author, have a property right in that particular book. The person who bought it from me agreed to that. If you find it on a park bench, that doesn't give you my property right just because he left it there.
JonBostwick:Why?The book "word for word" is a more specific, more elaborate idea, but its still an idea. Idea does not mean theme, it means something non-material.
An idea can be expressed in any number of ways. The book, which consists of a particular pattern of letters on the page, is not the idea. It is a physical representation of the idea. The idea resides in my mind.
You're trying to have it both ways.
leonidia: But my argument is that I do retain an ownership right in the particular book you bought, and you agreed to it when you bought the book.
leonidia: If you find it on a park bench, that doesn't give you my property right just because he left it there.
You claim to have ownership of the story because of your contract with the purchaser, but then you claim that a third party is forced to accept that it is your property even though he has never agreed to it.
The park bench scenario begs the question, why is the story your property? Why can I not reproduce it?
leonidia: JonBostwick:Why?The book "word for word" is a more specific, more elaborate idea, but its still an idea. Idea does not mean theme, it means something non-material. An idea can be expressed in any number of ways. The book, which consists of a particular pattern of letters on the page, is not the idea. It is a physical representation of the idea. The idea resides in my mind.
You can not own "a particular pattern of letters on a page". I can not own the letter A, nor can I own any sequence of letter, no matter how long. You can own "a physical representation of the idea" but only through normal property rights over all physical items. In terms of property rights a blank book is no different than Hamlet. Which raises a good question, Shakespeare wrote plays. Would the first person to publish his plays in book form own the copy right on Sharespeare's works? Your "physical representation" standard implies so.
But really what you are doing is claiming your literature copyright is valid because image copyrights are valid. Circular logic. If I paint the Mona Lisa, I do not posses ownership rights over any copies that others create.
JonBostwick:You claim to have ownership of the story because of your contract with the purchaser, but then you claim that a third party is forced to accept that it is your property even though he has never agreed to it. The park bench scenario begs the question, why is the story your property? Why can I not reproduce it?
I retain part ownership of the book. The part I own is the right to copy and distribute it. This is my property right in the book. You agreed to it when you bought the book (that particular book). If you happen to leave it on a park bench and someone else finds it, I'm still a part owner of that book, and they don't get my property just because you left it there.
Let's say we own a car together, and you leave it by the side of the road with the keys in the ignition with a sign that says "free car". You may not mind if someone takes the car, but I do. I'm still a part owner. And the person who takes it has to recognize that I'm still a part owner, even if he didn't know it when he took it.
JonBostwick:Would the first person to publish his plays in book form own the copy right on Sharespeare's works?
Well. I assume Shakespeare had to put his plays into written form before they were produced on stage. If he did, and he sold them to the producer under a contract in which Shakespeare maintained the copy right, then no one else would have that right. If he didn't, anyone else could, and sell them under their own copy right.
JonBostwick:But really what you are doing is claiming your literature copyright is valid because image copyrights are valid. Circular logic. If I paint the Mona Lisa, I do not posses ownership rights over any copies that others create.
Please explain your circular logic argument. If I paint the Mona Lisa, and I sell it to someone else under a contract in which I retain the copy right, no one else would be able to copy it or reproduce it.
leonidia:The part I own is the right to copy and distribute it.
Without your agreement everyone has the "right" to copy the book, so what you are doing is more correctly forbidding the purchaser from certain acts.I believe you are claiming that the story was not abandoned, only the book, so I can only homestead the book. However, what if I refuse to acknowledge your ownership of the story? If I create copies of the story, do you then own the phsyical books? What are my legal liabilities?
leonidia: JonBostwick:But really what you are doing is claiming your literature copyright is valid because image copyrights are valid. Circular logic. If I paint the Mona Lisa, I do not posses ownership rights over any copies that others create.Please explain your circular logic argument. If I paint the Mona Lisa, and I sell it to someone else under a contract in which I retain the copy right, no one else would be able to copy it or reproduce it.
You are saying that youcan own a story because you can own an image. But an image and a story are both IP. One can't prove the validity of the other.
So if you sell the Mona Lisa to Bob, I can't take a picture of it? Why?
JonBostwick:Without your agreement everyone has the "right" to copy the book, so what you are doing is more correctly forbidding the purchaser from certain acts.I believe you are claiming that the story was not abandoned, only the book, so I can only homestead the book. However, what if I refuse to acknowledge your ownership of the story? If I create copies of the story, do you then own the phsyical books? What are my legal liabilities?
Without an initial copy right contract, anyone can "copy right" it for themselves. In this instance, such a copy right would be practically useless since other copies would already be in circulation, and a copy right can only apply to the particular book that is sold, not to others that already exist. So in practical terms a copy right is only effective if it applies to the first book that's sold, in which case all copies printed without permission are invasions of the original copy right.
If I copy right a book and you copy it without my permission, you have invaded my property and I have every right to take it back. If the only means available are to take your paper and ink, then I may do so.
JonBostwick:You are saying that youcan own a story because you can own an image. But an image and a story are both IP. One can't prove the validity of the other.So if you sell the Mona Lisa to Bob, I can't take a picture of it? Why?
I'm saying I can contractually prevent you from copying the pattern of letters on the page that I sell to you, and I can contractually prevent you from copying the strokes of a paintbrush that I sell to you, and I can contractually prevent you from copying a machine I sell to you. The pattern of letters and the strokes of the brush both happen to be images, but I'm not trying to prove the validity of one with the other.
leonidia: JonBostwick:You are saying that youcan own a story because you can own an image. But an image and a story are both IP. One can't prove the validity of the other.So if you sell the Mona Lisa to Bob, I can't take a picture of it? Why? I'm saying I can contractually prevent you from copying the pattern of letters on the page that I sell to you, and I can contractually prevent you from copying the strokes of a paintbrush that I sell to you, and I can contractually prevent you from copying a machine I sell to you. The pattern of letters and the strokes of the brush both happen to be images, but I'm not trying to prove the validity of one with the other.
But you sold it to Bob, not me.
JonBostwick:So if you sell the Mona Lisa to Bob, I can't take a picture of it? Why?
Because if I sell the Mona Lisa to Bob under a copy right contract, Bob doesn't own the Mona Lisa in its entirety. I own part of it. I control the right to copy that particular picture as a result of having that property right in it. If you go to Bob's house and see it hanging on Bob's wall, Bob doesn't have the right to let you take a picture of it, unless you ask me first.
But we still have gone no where. As I've said contracts are only enforcible in terms of poperty rights, if you can not own intangibles then your contracts about "copy right" are not valid.
I dont think you've addressed why a pattern of words is property.
I agree contracts are only enforceable in terms of property rights.
I agree that ideas are not property, but I maintain that the pattern of letters on the page are. As are the pattern of strokes of a paintbrush or the form of a sculpture etc.
What's the difference?
An idea exists only in one's mind. It is not concrete. It is not visible or audible. It cannot be sensed in any way except by the person in whose head it resides. I can't know exactly what's in your head, and you can't know exactly what's in mine. You literally cannot copy what's in my head even if you want to. And if you independently have a similar idea to me, I can't prevent you from having that idea because to do so would invade your property right in your body. If I think of an idea, and at a later stage, you think of a similar thing, I can't come to you and say "that's my idea, I own it, you can't have it". And even if I say to you "I have an idea which I'm willing to put into your head provided you agree that it remains my property" such a contract would be invalid because I can't know what now resides in your head even after I've told you. It's almost certainly not the same thing I gave to you in the first place. It has now become your idea and is no longer mine.
However, when I represent my idea in physical form it becomes something different. An idea has many different expressions or instantiations. I can describe the idea in any number of ways. But the particular pattern that I use is unique. It is, in a sense, concrete. It can be seen or heard or touched or felt. If I write "War and Peace" it is the singular expression of my idea, but it is not the idea itself. You might have a similar idea for a novel, but you almost certainly cannot arrive at "War and Peace" independently. If the pattern of letters that you have in your possession is exactly the same as mine, it can only have come from me. So if what I create is unique, and if I can convey it to you in such a way that what you receive from me (and now have in your possession) is exactly the same thing that I created, surely we can say, if you and I both agree, that my creation remains my property.
But what happens if you or someone else does create "War and Peace" independently? Well then I say "Good for you. It's yours".
I don't see why not. What you own is a bundle of rights, to dispose of the property in a variety of ways. The owner could sell you all but one and remain owner of that one mode of disposition. This is how covenants would operate, after all. Why is such a contract not valid?
Why would I ignore it? I agree, this is a problem with this form of copyright (to be clear, in enforcing it; it is not a conceptual problem.) I was just highlighting that it is not the same as ownership over an idea.
leonidia:Well. I assume Shakespeare had to put his plays into written form before they were produced on stage. If he did, and he sold them to the producer under a contract in which Shakespeare maintained the copy right, then no one else would have that right. If he didn't, anyone else could, and sell them under their own copy right.
Well, you're right about the written part but back in Shakespeare's day there was no such thing as copyright and he somehow managed to make a living and some of the most highly regarded works in the English language. People 'stole' from Shakespeare and he 'stole' from others, that's just how thing worked back then.
leonidia:If I paint the Mona Lisa, and I sell it to someone else under a contract in which I retain the copy right, no one else would be able to copy it or reproduce it.
No, the person you sold it to and agreed to the contractual terms wouldn't be able to sell copies. A consensual contract between two individuals can not impose limits on others that are not privy to the agreement if you wish to have a free society.
Now if you had every person who might ever possibly see the painting agree to the no copying terms you would have an argument but if you ever displayed it without first placing this restriction on the act of viewing the artwork then you just lost 'copyright' forever.
Oh, there also wasn't any sort of copyright laws when the Mona Lisa was painted yet it was produced by a prolific artist. In fact, the majority of human history was devoid of copyright restrictions but writers, musicians and artists still managed to produce great works. That's the true fallacy of the whole copyright argument.
leonidia:If I copy right a book and you copy it without my permission, you have invaded my property and I have every right to take it back. If the only means available are to take your paper and ink, then I may do so.
The only 'right' that has been invaded is the contractual terms of the 'copyright'. You still own your property, the story in question, and nothing is stopping you from enjoying full use of that property.
Why don't you just say it how it is? The only thing that has been taken from you is monopoly production rights for this particular story and by competing with you you are being deprived of rent seeking opportunities. You still have the ability to produce and sell as many books as the market will demand but you can no longer set whatever price you wish because you have to compete against other market actors who might be able to undercut you and take away your market share.
That is the one and only reason copyright exists, to give an individual monopoly rights over a non-physical 'property' where it is impossible to exert normal physical property rights. With physical property there is no question that the rightful owner has exclusive rights to determine how it is used(or not used) but with a non-physical 'property' these limits have to be imposed artificially.
What is the difference between a painting or book and a (currently) un-copyrightable mathematical formula, according to your theory they should equally be 'property'? You can copyright Cat in the Hat but Einstein was unable to copyright any of his work.
You completely misunderstand my argument. I'm not arguing in favor of monopoly rights.
leonidia:You completely misunderstand my argument. I'm not arguing in favor of monopoly rights.
What exactly do you think copyright is if not a monopoly right?
I just restated the argument to get to the root issue y'all were dancing around.