I love the LVMI for the most part, have learned a lot from it and have even donated to it. My one area of disagreement with it is with regards to the concept of intellectual property rights. I certainly agree that that out current copyright, trademark and patent laws are unjust in many ways. This is nothing inherent with IP in my view but the fact that these properties are “protected” by government. We should not expect government to protect intellectual property any better than it delivers medicine. Did Mises himself write about this? What were his views if any? What are your views? Is this something LVMI scholars generally agree on or is there a great deal of disagreement on this issue?
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
So long as the government maintains a monopoly on the protection of property, we should expect it to protect intellectual property as well.
That doesn't mean the government is efficient at protecting property, or that it has the proper incentive to do so. But intellectual property is no different from any other form of property in that aspect.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: So long as the government maintains a monopoly on the protection of property, we should expect it to protect intellectual property as well. That doesn't mean the government is efficient at protecting property, or that it has the proper incentive to do so. But intellectual property is no different from any other form of property in that aspect.
It's an evolving process. But suffice to say, those who are in favor of IP are being intellectually spanked left, right, up, down, and inside out. The case against IP has already been demonstrably made along Austrian Economics principles; now it's just a matter of the ideas of that demonstration being generally absorbed.
But here's my latest contribution against the possibility of validly contracting non-copying:
The point is you can't make contracts on property that you don't own. Music mixed with public domain word lyrics can't be validly contracted. Neither can music that copies common blues chord progressions. You can certainly sell whatever music you make that is represented on actual physical property. You just can't make a contract preventing copying when you don't completely exclusively own the ideas that are mixed with your production. And note that a contract is a COPY of the idea of a contract, certainly not invented and created by the latest person to write a contract.
There is no "chain of voluntary contract extending back to the point of origin". Merely by trading you are COPYING the idea of trade first created by someone else. And that's the point, all creative production is BUNDLING COPIES of ideas created by others. And that is not exclusively ownable by someone. It would be absolutely absurd for someone to pretend they are selling you a physical cd disc along with the exclusive rights to use of the English language. There are no exclusive rights to use of the English language. Anyone who mixes their creative content with use of the English language is voiding their claim of exclusive creative production. Therefore, contracts made upon mixed ideas not exclusively created are invalid. You are attempting to sell not *just* your portion of exclusively created content but also trying to sell the COPIED mixed portion of non-exclusively created content along with it. Not only is it a hypocritical stance arguing against copying whilst simultaneously copying, but it's as absurd as attempting to sell someone exclusive rights to breath air.
Ron:"You're arguing against any concept of originality in the realm of ideas, which I can't dispute. Every idea naturally builds upon a previous idea, whether it be one's own idea or that of another."
It's not just "building upon", it's COPYING the idea foundations. You cannot validly contract thought control. Minds and property are irrevocably shaped and influenced by the expression of ideas. You can't yell in a public square whilst demanding others shut their ears until they pay you. Yet that's exactly what copyright is attempting to enforce.
Ron:"If you're saying that no idea is ever legitimately gained, then you invalidate the entire concept of contracts in general. Nobody owns anything becomes somebody owned some part of it at some point in the past."
Contract itself is far less valid than most people believe, but that's a different topic. You mix your labor of breathing with the air, but you don't therefore own the air. And nor can you validly contract with someone to not breath air, or not copy your breathing of air. It's by its nature not capable of exclusive ownership, and therefore not capable of valid contract. However, you can certainly put air in a scuba tank and sell a scuba tank of air, and validly contract to receive a scuba tank of air. Just as you can validly put ideas on a physical piece of property, such as a concert performance on exclusive private property, or a music recording on physical cd. However, you can never validly contract the non-copying of any ideas. Even if you could, the second person to contract the non-copying of any ideas would be COPYING the first person who invented that contract. And that would be a violation of free trade resulting in the abject poverty of completely isolated non-trading individuals.
But usually creative artists are full of massively inflated egos, and they are conveniently deaf, blind, and dumb to the innumerable ways in which they have copied the ideas of others. And clearly their production benefits from copying the ideas of others. And clearly all who copy benefit from copying. And clearly there is always more to copy then an individual person can truly uniquely produce, thus meaning wealth increases exponentially from unlimited copying for absolutely every person. It's an epistemological impossibility to not copy others (even the idea of exclusively owned pieces of property are copies of other exclusively owned pieces of property); therefore, contracts against copying are invalid.
rtr: Music mixed with public domain word lyrics can't be validly contracted.
Music mixed with public domain word lyrics can't be validly contracted.
By this same logic "Cement mixed with public domain sand can't be validly contracted."
Should I not be permited to have ownership over my driveway?
EDIT:
rtr: But usually creative artists are full of massively inflated egos, and they are conveniently deaf, blind, and dumb to the innumerable ways they have copied the ideas of others.
But usually creative artists are full of massively inflated egos, and they are conveniently deaf, blind, and dumb to the innumerable ways they have copied the ideas of others.
ryanpatgray:By this same logic "Cement mixed with public domain sand can't be validly contracted."
Yes, that means you cannot create a valid contract against others using ALL the sand which exists, even though they are many uses of sand which copy the idea of use of sand.
ryanpatgray:This is an ad hominim if I have ever read one! And inaccurate as well.
It's really not an ad hominim. The vast majority of creative artists do indeed have inflated egos and are deaf, blind, and dumb in so far to the extent as they fail to recognize the innumerable ways in which they are copying the ideas of others.
ryanpatgray:I frequent a coffee shop across the street from an art school and have met enough artists to know they DO know the origins of the ideas they copy. They STUDY the origins of the ideas they copy. This does not make it any less "their work" when they do so long as they ad something new to the picture (so to speak.)
That's right that STUDYING and LEARNING occurs *precisely* by the methodology of COPYING. But they copy ideas created by others *into* their work. They BUNDLE ideas created by others into their work. That makes their property claims as invalid as planting a tree on my property casting a shadow on my neighbor's property makes my neighbor's property thus mine. *Adding* something new is BUNDLING the creative ideas of others, is making invalid *claims* upon the ideas created by others.
The idea that intellectual property exists is as absurd as the idea that it should be totally abolished.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
rtr:It's really not an ad hominim. The vast majority of creative artists do indeed have inflated egos and are deaf, blind, and dumb in so far to the extent as they fail to recognize the innumerable ways in which they are copying the ideas of others
Apparently you have not met very many artists. Or, perhaps you have met a great many artist wannabees.
rtr:Yes, that means you cannot create a valid contract against others using ALL the sand which exists, even though they are many uses of sand which copy the idea of use of sand.
Not my point. If I dredge sand from the ocean floor and mix it with my cement can it be validly contracted?
rtr:That's right that STUDYING and LEARNING occurs *precisely* by the methodology of COPYING. But they copy ideas created by others *into* their work. They BUNDLE ideas created by others into their work. That makes their property claims as invalid as planting a tree on my property casting a shadow on my neighbor's property makes my neighbor's property thus mine. *Adding* something new is BUNDLING the creative ideas of others, is making invalid *claims* upon the ideas created by others.
There are three important questions to consider in this. 1. Is the original artist dead. 2. Did the original artist will or sell his or her ideas to another person who is still alive? 3. Is the secondary work a true "substitute" or competitor of the original work? For example: Andy Warhol’s painting of a Campbell’s soup can is not going to serve as a substitute or competitor of a true can of Campbell’s soup. No reasonable person is going to mistakenly purchase one of his paintings thinking that it will contain soup and sate his appetite. Likewise, Marcel Duchamp’s famous Mona Lisa parody is not likely to be confused with the real McCoy. However, a skilled artist who drew an Xmen lookalike comic book with the same characters and same basic setting might well be confused for the real McCoy. It also might serve as a substitute for the real thing.
I was thinking about this today as I was listening to the King Biscuit Flower Hour on the XM.
If ever someone wanted to do a study on the perils and pitfalls of copyright there's a good place to start.
From what I can recall, King Biscuit owns the rights to the physical recording in their possession but the rights to the 'performance' is owned by either 1) the artist, 2) the artist's label, 3) the venue or 4) King Biscuit. It all depends on the terms of the contracts between the artists, their label and the venue where it was performed and as one can imagine there is a lot of contention between the first three on who gets the money if King Biscuit sells a copy to the public.
I'm sure I've left someone out who also has ownership claims but this is all off the top of my head.
I think all King Biscuit ever wanted to do was release it all into the public domain so everyone could enjoy the performances but now they release what they can for free or for fee and the rest gets to stay locked up in their vaults for, what is it now, life + 70 years or some such insanity.
All I have to say about all this is that it's a very good thing that there are a lot of really, really good bands that let archive.org distribute legal fan recordings of their live performances. I haven't actually bought a CD in years since the RIAA members decided it's a good business model to sue their customers, directly benefit from the P2P networks while simultaneously trying to shut them down and root people's boxen yet I have a 30gig iPod that's full to the brim with live legal music.
Gonna have to clear out some space for some audio books/podcasts that the fine folks at mises.org have generously provided for us eventually...
Anonymous Coward:I was thinking about this today as I was listening to the King Biscuit Flower Hour on the XM.If ever someone wanted to do a study on the perils and pitfalls of copyright there's a good place to start.From what I can recall, King Biscuit owns the rights to the physical recording in their possession but the rights to the 'performance' is owned by either 1) the artist, 2) the artist's label, 3) the venue or 4) King Biscuit. It all depends on the terms of the contracts between the artists, their label and the venue where it was performed and as one can imagine there is a lot of contention between the first three on who gets the money if King Biscuit sells a copy to the public.I'm sure I've left someone out who also has ownership claims but this is all off the top of my head.I think all King Biscuit ever wanted to do was release it all into the public domain so everyone could enjoy the performances but now they release what they can for free or for fee and the rest gets to stay locked up in their vaults for, what is it now, life + 70 years or some such insanity.All I have to say about all this is that it's a very good thing that there are a lot of really, really good bands that let archive.org distribute legal fan recordings of their live performances. I haven't actually bought a CD in years since the RIAA members decided it's a good business model to sue their customers, directly benefit from the P2P networks while simultaneously trying to shut them down and root people's boxen yet I have a 30gig iPod that's full to the brim with live legal music.Gonna have to clear out some space for some audio books/podcasts that the fine folks at mises.org have generously provided for us eventually...
As I said in my first post in this thread, I agree that there are a great many injustices in the way that IP laws are enforced at the moment. But the fact that there are problems in the enforcement of traffic laws does not mean that we should eliminate the concept of roads. It simply means they should be privatized.
ryanpatgray:Not my point. If I dredge sand from the ocean floor and mix it with my cement can it be validly contracted?
Of course. Nobody else owned or created that sand. But if you dredge sand from the ocean floor and mix it with cement you will be COPYING the ideas of others.
ryanpatgray:There are three important questions to consider in this. 1. Is the original artist dead. 2. Did the original artist will or sell his or her ideas to another person who is still alive? 3. Is the secondary work a true "substitute" or competitor of the original work?
None of those questions are important or material. All the artistic works are bundling ideas created by others into their work; even the dead artists did this bundling. When people trade in a free market do they bundle the property of others into their trades? No, because if they randomly made unmerited claims over the property of others that would result in violence. And you can't will you neighbor's house to your decendants.
rtr: ryanpatgray:Not my point. If I dredge sand from the ocean floor and mix it with my cement can it be validly contracted? Of course. Nobody else owned or created that sand. But if you dredge sand from the ocean floor and mix it with cement you will be COPYING the ideas of others. ryanpatgray:There are three important questions to consider in this. 1. Is the original artist dead. 2. Did the original artist will or sell his or her ideas to another person who is still alive? 3. Is the secondary work a true "substitute" or competitor of the original work? None of those questions are important or material. All the artistic works are bundling ideas created by others into their work; even the dead artists did this bundling. When people trade in a free market do they bundle the property of others into their trades? No, because if they randomly made unmerited claims over the property of others that would result in violence. And you can't will you neighbor's house to your decendants.
Mises and Rothbard did not address the subject much. The current anti-IP movement is young.
I agree with it very strongly on several grounds.
Austrian:
Austrians ask "Will this policy have the desired effect?" IP was created to improve access to works of art and new technologies, and reward creaters. It has failed miserably in both regards. And since the creation of the internet its failure has been laughable.
Libertarian:
People who do not respect copyrights are not violent. Invading the property of a person who downloads a song from the internet from a willing provider violates the NAP. IP would require passive(non-violent) enforcement. However, Industry attempts at this, like copy-protected CDs, have been failing miserably. So they have been resorting increasely to government violence.
Natural Rights:
Ideas are non-scarce goods, the only way an IP law can work is controlling what people can do with their own labor and property. This violates self ownership.
Peace
JonBostwick:Libertarian: People who do not respect copyrights are not violent. Invading the property of a person who downloads a song from the internet from a willing provider violates the NAP.
People who do not respect copyrights are not violent. Invading the property of a person who downloads a song from the internet from a willing provider violates the NAP.
I should explain this because it might be confusing.
Stealing REAL property is a violent crime, even when done through stealth. Labor is a required component of real property. By stealing property you are not just claiming ownership of nature, but also the labor itself. Its a form of retroactive slavery. But by copying a piece of art I am not depriving any person of their copy, so I am not seperating any person from their own labor.
If you believe copying a piece of art is a crime(I certianly don't), it is a non-violent crime; more akin to a thought crime than a property dispute.
ryanpatgray:It is when a person combines natural resources with effort or ingenuity (or sometimes homesteading) that one creates property.
And just like the artists, copiers combine natural resources with their effort or ingenuity creating their own property, just the same as different people dredging sand from the ocean to mix with cement copy the ideas of each other but still create their own unique property.
ryanpatgray:When an artist combines ideas that already exist with his or her own ideas and ingenuity a new work is created.
And when a copier combines ideas that already exist with his or her own ideas and ingenuity on his or her own copy a new work is created on their own private physical property. This new work is commonly called a "copy".
ryanpatgray:A new separate and distinct idea is born.
That's just false. Innumerable older ideas are *bundled* into the artistic work. And my recognition of *bundled* ideas created by others in all creative artistic content works is an epistemological breakthrough in the analysis of the "intellectual property" debate.
ryanpatgray:However, these new works are the property of those writers because they have added their own effort to the literary cannon. When J.K. Rowling writes her novels she isn't just regurgitating old European mythology but creating NEW mythology of her own. She is forging a new sword from old public domain steel.
You cannot legitimately trespass on the property of others, add your effort to their property, such as painting their fence, or writing about wizards flying on broomsticks, and then call that your property. Your outlook is an epistemological contradiction.
rtr:And my recognition of *bundled* ideas created by others in all creative artistic content works is an epistemological breakthrough in the analysis of the "intellectual property" debate.
I can think of half a dozen artists just off the top of my head that not only recognized the 'bundling' concept but built their whole artistic career around it.
Picasso was a notorious 'intellectual property' thief.
Railing against copyright has been going on in the art world long before it entered the general public dialog, artists have intentionally violated copyright as an artistic statement for the exact reason that you cite -- that 'innumerable older ideas are bundled into the artistic work.'
'In art, one has to kill one's father' doesn't literally advocate patricide...
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
I've posted this before, I'll post it again. It is necessary to understand the anti-IP position.
I've been thinking that IP goes perhaps into the same category as the free-rider problem. The ideas ones presents to the public stand the risk of being used without giving the 'original thinker' any profit. What becomes important is that by using someoneelses idea you don't make him worse off. This could be done by f.ex. stealing technological know-how to produce something in case no one has presented it publicly yet.
I remember that a while ago there was a daily article about the positive effects of the free-rider problem but I couldn't currently find it. But I think that the problems of IP could easily be taccled the same way, just let the market decide whether someone wants to present his ideas or not.
One night I dreamed of chewing up my debetcard - there simply is nothing like hard cash in your pocket!
Don Roberto:I remember that a while ago there was a daily article about the positive effects of the free-rider problem but I couldn't currently find it.
Could be this one, Solving the "Problem" of Free Riding.
Inquisitor: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf I've posted this before, I'll post it again. It is necessary to understand the anti-IP position.
Thanks much for that link! Actually, I'm become convinced that you have every useful link imaginable stored somewhere on your computer.
To everyone else, there's another link within the PDF that Inquisitor posted that contains a much smaller write-up by Kinsella on IP (if you don't want to go through the 54 pages of the PDF). You can find it here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/kinsella2.html
"Melody is a form of remembrance. It must have a quality of inevitability in our ears." - Gian Carlo Menotti
Anonymous Coward:Could be this one, Solving the "Problem" of Free Riding.
Yes, I think that's exactly the one I meant, thanks.
Dynamix, that isn't too far from the truth. I store nearly every useful link I come by in an organized bookmark folder. It makes it easier to bring them up in debates or when I need to use them for academic/personal research. Of course I also have awesome Google skillz.
I just finished reading Stephen Kinsella's treatise on how copyright is absurd.
Does this mean that digital photographers who currently make a living selling their copyrighted work would be strongly inclined to find alternate employment in a libertarian society to subsist? The reasoning behind this leading question is that photographers have no "rights" over (digital) pictures because any number of them can be electronically copied.
I think this can be extended to encompass physical prints too. Assume a photographer has taken a picture of a unique celestial event and that they have in their possession the only picture (whether digital or film). The uniqueness (i.e. scarcity) of possessing this photo amounts to little except personal gratification, for as soon as the photographer completes his first transaction, the purchaser may either digitally reproduce or reprint the photo for free distribution so that it no longer becomes a scarce resource.
As such, would it be fair to conclude that there would be far fewer professional photographers in a libertarian society?
>>>>The uniqueness (i.e. scarcity) of possessing this photo amounts to little except personal gratification, for as soon as the photographer completes his first transaction, the purchaser may either digitally reproduce or reprint the photo for free distribution so that it no longer becomes a scarce resource.<<<<
you are probably making a good guess here. rather than sell one photo to myriad 'publishers' each at a low cost. the photographer would be best off selling to the highest bidder who will be first to publish his work.
a change in IP law may well mean the digital art market would change. but im sure its been changing since the internet made it easy to 'illegally' copy photos and publish them anyhow. (just like music/mp3)
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK:you are probably making a good guess here. rather than sell one photo to myriad 'publishers' each at a low cost. the photographer would be best off selling to the highest bidder who will be first to publish his work.
Isn't that more or less the way press photographers work? When a picture or film clip is "news" every news outlet shows it and claims "fair use". The ones that bought it are really only buying the right to show it first.
You're right that the industry is changing rapidly. The question about IP and copyright based on the assumption of a "scarce" resource intrigues me. There are stories where photographers (amateur and professional alike) have posted digital photos online at Flickr and have them show up in other places without their knowledge or consent.
Example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sweetjuniper/1398158017/
Since photos, recordings, music, or even software can't be considered a scarce resource, then without some type of copyright, wouldn't this make the industry suffer?
Academia works quite well in that once you publish, other authors must acknowledge you as a source if they decide to quote you in their own papers. This is not copyright as far as I understand, but simply peer pressure and peer reviews holding each other accountable.
I'm trying to figure out if all the people creating music, literature, and (digital) art for a living would most need to find other ways to earn a living because the main reason they are in business today is because of existence and government enforcement (or threat of) copyright laws. This seems contrary to Kinsella's summary of the libertarian assumptions about copyright and patent law, or at the very least seems that it would stifle all but the most altruistic (or careless) artists.
Just to make something clear: the scarcity being referred to is that of ideas. Ideas are not scarce. However, the physical goods in which they are instantiated are. One may therefore retain the right to copy the item and only sell all its other uses, thus contractually binding whoever buys it not to copy it (and anyone who copies the good is in breach of this contract.) Various other measures might also arise to prevent copying. It is up to firms to spend money on securing their products.
I would almost wish the last 150 or so years of nonsense that passes for law could be forgotten.
But still today there is a large body of law defining what is a commons, easements, and other things which go with property rights (and the responsibilities which attach).
Too often people argue as if these don't exist, or they would be so obvious we could recreate them ex nihilo in a weekend.
The fine balancing of rights which we almost dismiss by calling them "property rights" is not something to take so lightly. And if you aren't talking the body of common law - which is government, who defines the rules? Does each individual choose what he considers his rights are? Does dropping "this property belongs to me" tags every 1/2 mile from a helicopter make it mine? If my "use" for property is as a nature preserve - specifically so I don't "improve" it, can I retain ownership? There are many subtleties to something which appears on the surface obvious.
That is where to start with Intellectual Property. First, it is in the Constitution, so it can't be something the founders thought trivial or obvious. Second, just as we have the Federal Reserve, IRS, EPA, and the rest, I wouldn't look at anything today as being representative of what a correct body of IP law should be no more than I would judge orchestral music on the basis of Schoenberg.
For the 21st century, the correct answer might be to drop all notions of Intellectual property. I am VERY sympathetic to this view being in the opensource movement. But even there, the Gnu General Public License IS a copyright license and depends on IP so as not to have the commons stolen and privatized.
No one has noted that Patents were an answer to the mideval guild system whereby they would keep trade secrets to themselves, so they would generally keep their monopoly, but because information wasn't interchanged, improvements were rare and often the small increments weren't very profitable. The idea was to publish the invention so that after a limited time, everyone could use it, but they could start being inspired and making improvements immediately. The time spans of two decades are absurd in this era. However the alternative might be anti-tamper technologies so that when you remove a single screw from your TV, it destroys itself internally to protect the trade secrets from those who would attempt to reverse engineer it. Look at what we already have to put up with in Digital Restrictions Management on things like downloaded songs and Digital Video.
So to state the problem - and perhaps someone could do so better - Creativity is a scarce resource. Inventors, writers, composers, and other artists are likely to starve if there is no way of monitizing their creativity. Sometimes they had patrons in the aristocracy in earlier times. In the times leading up to now, they were granted temporary monopoly so could charge monopoly rents on "first sale" or licenses to use the idea. If those are removed, will creative people have enough incentive, perhaps in their leisure which has expanded in this era, or from things like lecture tours, or something else to be as creative. Mises noted in On Human Action that Geniuses are self-motivated. The problem is they also have to eat.
Will creativity be sufficiently rewarded without some IP structure? If not, is there a minimally obnoxious IP structure that would maximize arts and sciences that would be worth the legal effort and economic friction?
I only have two things to say to those that believe in IP. First of all, if you do believe in it, then you would have to agree that it should be just like regular property laws, and that it the right should be indefinite.
The second thing that I would like to say is that people at one time thought it was ok to own other people.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
gloodnc:Since photos, recordings, music, or even software can't be considered a scarce resource, then without some type of copyright, wouldn't this make the industry suffer?
Some IP based industries need to suffer and possibly even disappear in my opinion. Record companies for example exists because of deficiencies in recording technology which made recording and distributing music very expensive. Those deficiencies no longer exist; but IP is being used to force consumers to continue paying what are now completely unecessary and unjustified prices.
Imagine if Thomas Edison had invented personal computers and the Internet at the same time he invented the phonograph. Would record companies ever have existed?
tz1:No one has noted that Patents were an answer to the mideval guild system whereby they would keep trade secrets to themselves, so they would generally keep their monopoly, but because information wasn't interchanged, improvements were rare and often the small increments weren't very profitable.
Medieval guilds maintained their monopolies through violence, not secrecy.
The idea that without patents progress will stop because companies will not reveal their secrets is just a bugaboo. Nothing spurs innovation like the sight of someone else making a profit and companies historically haven't had much luck keeping secrets. And so what if a handful of companies did manage to keep a profitable secret to themselves. Is a vast government bureaucracy preferable?
DBratton: gloodnc:Since photos, recordings, music, or even software can't be considered a scarce resource, then without some type of copyright, wouldn't this make the industry suffer? Some IP based industries need to suffer and possibly even disappear in my opinion. Record companies for example exists because of deficiencies in recording technology which made recording and distributing music very expensive. Those deficiencies no longer exist; but IP is being used to force consumers to continue paying what are now completely unecessary and unjustified prices. Imagine if Thomas Edison had invented personal computers and the Internet at the same time he invented the phonograph. Would record companies ever have existed?
He's using the broken window fallacy.
If food was unlimited and free, farmers would cease to exist. But would that be "bad for the economy?" Obviously not.
Inquisitor: One may therefore retain the right to copy the item and only sell all its other uses, thus contractually binding whoever buys it not to copy it (and anyone who copies the good is in breach of this contract.)
One may therefore retain the right to copy the item and only sell all its other uses, thus contractually binding whoever buys it not to copy it (and anyone who copies the good is in breach of this contract.)
No they can't. That is not an enforceable contract.
And how are (real) property rights enforced if not through violence?
The guilds considered their trade monopolies to be their property and acted to protect them, and the legal system at that time apparently recognized that right. With patents, we have the same thing - violate it and eventually it will come to violence.
Legal standards can be individual (anarchy - I'll do violence to anyone who violates what I personally consider to be my rights), collective (democracy, sort of what we have now - the state does violence according to whims), or objective (Natural law per Aquinas - many laws should be obvious to any rational person, so arguing against them is like arguing 2+2=5, and violence is only use to force the irrational to act if not actually be rational).
And to the earlier post where it was pointed out it was legal to own people earlier, today many libertarians (per Rothbard) would consider trespass a capital crime, at least in the case of unborn babies. I am not at all sure if they would allow me to place land-mines if I wished to keep people off the grass but didn't like fences.
Or is there a right (property or otherwise) to one's reputation? This is also information, and lies, or even truth can be damaging. Does he serve poison or unsanitary food at his restaurant?
Also, real property ownership is not perpetual - there are things like abandoned property, adverse posession, easements, etc. which I pointed out in my first post. It is hardly absolute. If I lose a chattel, it might be difficult to recover. The whole idea of bailment - if the shipper loses or damages something?
My point is that real (both realestate and chattel, moveable objects, things like mineral, water, or airspace rights) property law is complex. I would not assume IP law would be much less complex.
And generally to find the truth of a matter of natural law, you must ask questions, but they must be the right questions. It is easier to simply reject an idea than to see if there is any truth in it.
tz1: DBratton: Medieval guilds maintained their monopolies through violence, not secrecy. And how are (real) property rights enforced if not through violence?The guilds considered their trade monopolies to be their property and acted to protect them, and the legal system at that time apparently recognized that right. With patents, we have the same thing - violate it and eventually it will come to violence
DBratton: Medieval guilds maintained their monopolies through violence, not secrecy.
The guilds considered their trade monopolies to be their property and acted to protect them, and the legal system at that time apparently recognized that right. With patents, we have the same thing - violate it and eventually it will come to violence
I agree. But, unless I misunderstood, your argument was that guilds maintained their monopolies by keeping trade secrets.
tz1:Also, real property ownership is not perpetual - there are things like abandoned property, adverse posession, easements, etc. which I pointed out in my first post. It is hardly absolute. If I lose a chattel, it might be difficult to recover. The whole idea of bailment - if the shipper loses or damages something?
Real property is perpetually owned or at least ownable in all of those circumstances. And real property continues to be property even when it isn't owned. IP ceases to be owned and ceases to even be property when the patent or copyright expires.
Anonymous Coward: Railing against copyright has been going on in the art world long before it entered the general public dialog, artists have intentionally violated copyright as an artistic statement for the exact reason that you cite -- that 'innumerable older ideas are bundled into the artistic work.'
I have two points to make about this. First, just because artists complain about something does not mean it should disapear. Second, I would agree that out current copyright systemmis unjust. I am not arguing for keeping our current copyright system static and unchanging. I am simply arguing that IP itself is a valid concept.
rtr: ryanpatgray:When an artist combines ideas that already exist with his or her own ideas and ingenuity a new work is created. And when a copier combines ideas that already exist with his or her own ideas and ingenuity on his or her own copy a new work is created on their own private physical property. This new work is commonly called a "copy".
rtr: That's just false. Innumerable older ideas are *bundled* into the artistic work. And my recognition of *bundled* ideas created by others in all creative artistic content works is an epistemological breakthrough in the analysis of the "intellectual property" debate.
The standard in determining theft in IP is one of substitution. Does a pornographic parody of Mickey Mouse substitute for a genuine Mickey Mouse cartoon? No. It will not serve the same market.
rtr: You cannot legitimately trespass on the property of others, add your effort to their property, such as painting their fence, or writing about wizards flying on broomsticks, and then call that your property. Your outlook is an epistemological contradiction.
DBratton: tz1:Also, real property ownership is not perpetual - there are things like abandoned property, adverse posession, easements, etc. which I pointed out in my first post. It is hardly absolute. If I lose a chattel, it might be difficult to recover. The whole idea of bailment - if the shipper loses or damages something? Real property is perpetually owned or at least ownable in all of those circumstances. And real property continues to be property even when it isn't owned. IP ceases to be owned and ceases to even be property when the patent or copyright expires.
A ship sinks in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in an ill fated atempt to sail around the world duing the Middle Ages. It was filled with gold. All records of who owned the ship are lost. Who owns that ship now. IP expires because we have a once size fits all system unless you choose to publish under a GNU Free Documentation License.
ryanpatgray:A ship sinks in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in an ill fated atempt to sail around the world duing the Middle Ages. It was filled with gold. All records of who owned the ship are lost. Who owns that ship now.
Well the ship and gold both continue to be property and continue to be ownable, unlike IP which ceases to be property and ceases to be ownable when the IP right expires - which is the point I was responding to back in December when this thread was last active.
ryanpatgray:IP expires because we have a once size fits all system
I'm sorry. I don't know what you mean.