Spideynw: tacoface: It is fraud to try and claim you wrote a book you didn't. And it is fraud to tell someone they are buying a gold plated statue when it is entirely gold. Then you do not know what fraud is. I have already asked for clarification how it is fraud. You stating it is does not make it so.
tacoface: It is fraud to try and claim you wrote a book you didn't. And it is fraud to tell someone they are buying a gold plated statue when it is entirely gold.
It is fraud to try and claim you wrote a book you didn't. And it is fraud to tell someone they are buying a gold plated statue when it is entirely gold.
Then you do not know what fraud is. I have already asked for clarification how it is fraud. You stating it is does not make it so.
You are deceiving someone as to the nature of an object as you are undertaking an exchange. That is fraud.
Spideynw:And that has anything to do with fraud how? You got a book right? Was the book a fictional story, as promised? (it was). Did the book have 188 pages as promised? (It did). So, no fraud.
Snowflake:I just explained why I cared about who the author was.
I edited my post.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
How about this: Without IP, you legitimize theft of economical winning potential. In a free market, the best one makes money. The author is definitely better than the copier.
Did the author come up with the idea, or did they implement it? The second person who had the idea can implement it.
If the second person implements it better than the first, they can create a partnership where the second person implements ideas and pays the first one to come up with them.
legitimize theft of economical winning potential
If Coke wants to enter a market, and then Pepsi finds out about a market and beats them to it, is this theft?
In a free market, the best one makes money. The author is definitely better than the copier.
If the person who makes the most money is the best, and the author doesn't make the most money, how is the author the best? Of these two statements you make, you can only take one of them to be true, but not both.
alimentarius:Without IP, you legitimize enable theft deprivation of economical winning potential.
FTFY.
alimentarius:In a free market, the best one makes money. The author is definitely better than the copier.
Not necessarily. In the market, the one who lowers scarcity is the one who can profit.
Say I discover a sunken treasure of gold doubloons on the high seas. If I keep it a secret, I can make money by contracting a ship to retrieve it and then sell the gold [thereby lowering the scarcity of gold]. If I tell everyone about it first, I lose the ability to profit from that secret - even though I am the discoverer [I lowered the scarcity of information about secret places to find gold, but I gave it away instead of selling it]. The discoverer of an asset does not necessarily profit; it's the one who gathers or utilizes the asset (or secret knowledge of it) that can profit [by reducing scarcity]. In the market, it's the one who lowers scarcity that has the profit opportunity.
The discoverer of a sunken treasure may have effortlessly stumbled upon it, or spent his whole life looking for it. It doesn't matter. Once the locational information is divulged to the public (deliberately or by accident), the scarcity of that information is gone, so its market value falls to zero. Something analogous to IP laws in this case would mandate that the discoverer be entitled to all profits from the find, or at least first dibs on salvaging it.
In the same way, the "discoverer" (author) of an intellectual work may have created it effortlessly, or it may be his life's work. It doesn't matter. Once the data content of that work is divulged to the public (deliberately or by accident), the scarcity of that data is gone, so its market value falls to zero. IP laws mandate that the "discoverer" (author) be entitled to all profits from the data content.
If for some reason the treasure hunter cannot make a profit without first disclosing to the general public all the information necessary to benefit from his discovery, he probably cannot make a profit at all - someone will beat him to the punch (salvage companies), and that is not our problem.
If the author cannot make a profit without dislosing to the general public all the data necessary to enjoy his work (he in fact must!), he probably cannot make a profit at all - someone will beat him to the punch (file sharers), and that is not our problem. (He can still do live performances, speaking engagements, ad endorsements, etc., and get critical recognition and fame - so we needn't feel bad for him.)
Why anarchy fails
Zach_the_Lizard: alimentarius: I didn't know that you necessarily manipulate by hacking, but anyway, would hacking be legitimate if it didn't involve manipulating, i.e., if I could enter your computer and copy your files, without leaving any traces? I will admit I have not been paying attention to the discussion beyond this point, so forgive me if someone else has already responded to this point. Any and all programs involve manipulating the computer hardware and changing the states of various switches, relays, transistors, and other such small electronic devices. You would object if I could find a way to change the time of your clocks, watches, temperature on your oven, or the state of any other device or machine in your home. Computers are no different. Also, merely hacking into a computer and going nothing (even leaving no trace) would be just as invalid as breaking and entering a house and not stealing anything. After the lock is picked, you lock it back after entering.
alimentarius: I didn't know that you necessarily manipulate by hacking, but anyway, would hacking be legitimate if it didn't involve manipulating, i.e., if I could enter your computer and copy your files, without leaving any traces?
I didn't know that you necessarily manipulate by hacking, but anyway, would hacking be legitimate if it didn't involve manipulating, i.e., if I could enter your computer and copy your files, without leaving any traces?
I will admit I have not been paying attention to the discussion beyond this point, so forgive me if someone else has already responded to this point.
Any and all programs involve manipulating the computer hardware and changing the states of various switches, relays, transistors, and other such small electronic devices. You would object if I could find a way to change the time of your clocks, watches, temperature on your oven, or the state of any other device or machine in your home. Computers are no different. Also, merely hacking into a computer and going nothing (even leaving no trace) would be just as invalid as breaking and entering a house and not stealing anything. After the lock is picked, you lock it back after entering.
The Austrians believe that copying information is not theft because information can not be owned according to them. In the case of computer hacking, if the Austrians are consistent, then there can be no restitution for hacking into a computer and copying data. Even if there is some damage to the computer or loss of use of the computer this is the only possible basis for restitution according to the Austrian theory. Generally speaking the loss of data will be much worse than the minimal loss of computer time or any repair that might be required to fix the initial hacking.
Many hackers will gladly pay to replace your $1000 computer so they can have the much more valuable data inside. Yet another real world example of this flawed view of information.
Did you even ask Zach's permission before you used the quote feature and reproduced his IP willy nilly.?
you are a devil!
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
Maxliberty: The Austrians believe that copying information is not theft because information can not be owned according to them. In the case of computer hacking, if the Austrians are consistent, then there can be no restitution for hacking into a computer and copying data. Even if there is some damage to the computer or loss of use of the computer this is the only possible basis for restitution according to the Austrian theory. Generally speaking the loss of data will be much worse than the minimal loss of computer time or any repair that might be required to fix the initial hacking. Many hackers will gladly pay to replace your $1000 computer so they can have the much more valuable data inside. Yet another real world example of this flawed view of information.
The fact that the "loss of data will be much worse than the minimal loss of computer time or any repair..." is irrelevant. To twist my arm to force me to do your homework is a violation of my property rights (my arm). The "value" placed on the arm doesn't matter, since as you point out, it's all subjective. Because something has value does not make it property - we are concerned with rights, not value. Pepsi would perhaps pay millions to get a rep from Coca Cola to tell them their secret recipe. However, the private contract entered into by Coca Cola and the rep is legitimate, and it may include restrictions on disseminating information, that is, the speaking with the mouth and brain the rep owns. This does not make the information contained in his brain "property", per se, but rather the brain and mouth that would need to be acted upon, either voluntarily or coercively, to release it. The person owns his computer, his arm, and his mind, and engaging with this these things without his consent, regardless if he is aware of it or there was what you perceive as "damage" does not change the fact that his property rights have been violated. You are entering his computer without his permission.
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV. And you think you're so clever and class less and free. But you're still f***ing peasants as far as I can see.
There's room at the top they are telling you still. But first you must learn how to smile as you kill, if you want to be like the folks on the hill.
Maxliberty: The Austrians believe that copying information is not theft because information can not be owned according to them.
The Austrians believe that copying information is not theft because information can not be owned according to them.
This is a position I happen to agree with.
Maxliberty: In the case of computer hacking, if the Austrians are consistent, then there can be no restitution for hacking into a computer and copying data.
In the case of computer hacking, if the Austrians are consistent, then there can be no restitution for hacking into a computer and copying data.
There can be no restitution for the copying of data, but if you had actually read what I had posted, you would see that to access that data, you must manipulate the physical hardware of the computer. Doing so without the permission of the owner would be to violate his rights; this is what restitution might be needed for.
Maxliberty:Even if there is some damage to the computer or loss of use of the computer this is the only possible basis for restitution according to the Austrian theory.
Maxliberty:Generally speaking the loss of data will be much worse than the minimal loss of computer time or any repair that might be required to fix the initial hacking.
Maxliberty:Many hackers will gladly pay to replace your $1000 computer so they can have the much more valuable data inside. Yet another real world example of this flawed view of information.
If my computer has my credit card info, bank account info, and the like, then I can see why they would want it for the information. If it's a corporate computer, they might also want to know what sort of vulnerabilities the corporate network might have. There are other reasons to want hardware; writing a driver for a wireless card, for example. The IP people do not always like that latter case. After all, they have built that piece of silicon first, so they proclaim an exclusive right to that pattern.
I'm not sure if this thread is being continued, but a thought came to me that I would like an opinion on:
If what I said above about a contract preventing a person from releasing certain information is enforceable in a world where IP doesn't exist, i.e., the Coca Cola example, as the medium of the information (brain, mouth) is property, would it be legitimate for the music industry to include a contract with their releases requiring consumers to agree to not share its contents? There would still be the same enforcement issues, and perhaps this would eliminate this scenario. But within the scope of rights, am I missing something?
Why does it follow that what is not tangible cannot be ownned? Are anti-IP-ers materialists? Don't they believe that ideas exist?
If you cannot have rights to information or information cannot be regulated, doesn't this mean that threats are ok? Threats are not tangible...Just like copying a book harms the author mentally and not physically, a threating a person only causes mental harm.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
So threats are ok?
Why not? What's the difference?
Ideas exists but they are not tangible, however, they can be expressed in tangible form. Say you have an idea for a car. The concept of the car is not tangible, however, that concept can be expressed in tangible form by making schematics and drawing it on paper. Also, it can be expressed as a tangible car itself. Anyway, how can you steal the idea? To steal your idea would mean to remove the idea from your mind and place it into mine, which is not what happens. instead, that idea is copied into my mind, thus you are not deprived of the idea. Watching a scary movie harms me mentally, should I sue Hollywood?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Juan: I can tell you "give me your money or I'll shoot you" - an illegitimate threat.
Why?
But I haven't done any physical harm.
alimentarius:But I haven't done any physical harm.
you threatened to...
Daniel: Ideas exists but they are not tangible, however, they can be expressed in tangible form. Say you have an idea for a car. The concept of the car is not tangible, however, that concept can be expressed in tangible form by making schematics and drawing it on paper. Also, it can be expressed as a tangible car itself.
Ideas exists but they are not tangible, however, they can be expressed in tangible form. Say you have an idea for a car. The concept of the car is not tangible, however, that concept can be expressed in tangible form by making schematics and drawing it on paper. Also, it can be expressed as a tangible car itself.
I think there are many variations of what people *mean* when they say "intellectual property". "Thoughts" cannot be owned, simply by the nature of what they are; they are electric signals in the brain in the is most simplistic way to describe it. You cannot own actions, the only things that can be owned exist in a real form. But I think others may mean a specific application of a specific idea, i.e. a schematic, the content of a book. It is more closer to being "an idea" than "a book", though. That is, if you answered yes to my question on page 4.
Until you express your idea in ANY tangible form, there is no way to even plausibly suggest you own the idea. I read a story a while back about a guy who patented the word "Edge". He did absolutely nothing with this supposed "idea", all he did was patent it. And he sued companies that used the word edge (including EA, who made the game Mirror's Edge). "Intellectual property" like that is completely invalid.
(http://kotaku.com/5349642/tim-langdell-resigns-from-igda-board-%5Bupdated%5D , link if interested)
Eioul:I read a story a while back about a guy who patented the word "Edge". He did absolutely nothing with this supposed "idea", all he did was patent it. And he sued companies that used the word edge (including EA, who made the game Mirror's Edge). "Intellectual property" like that is completely invalid.
Because he has not applied the idea to anything. It's like if I patented a laser beam that creates a rift in the space-time continuum. I haven't begun to build it, make it, or let alone demonstrate it is possible. Or even write a schematic. It would at least be coherent to discuss whether or not I can own all of those kinds of laser beams once it was first built (I'd say no, unless it was a very specific design *with* a specific name). But the guy I mentioned really did nothing more than say "The word Edge is mine, thinker's keepers". It is not a specific product of any sort, purely a concept.
Should weapons of mass destructions be available to everyone who wants to buy? Or should it be illegal to fabricate them?
alimentarius: Should weapons of mass destructions be available to everyone who wants to buy? Or should it be illegal to fabricate them?
This is actually a pretty good question, although I think it's been asked here before.
I think the debate is getting sidetracked. The question is not formulated in the proper way.
Does cost of inputs mean out puts are valuable? No. But that not the question. Neither is monopoly the question, although legalistic interpretations often confuse the question into: copyright holder has monopoly; it is violated; pay damages. There was a case where a company I know produced a good, but a couple years later a larger company applied to patent and patented the good. They don't produce it; first company, however, lost lawsuit. Now nobody produces good. But this is miscarriage of justice. It is not that the knowledge wasn't valuable: the first company sued the second company, to get back its right.
Let's begin with a different perspective.
Common knowledge is not valuable. No one ever has to choose between a scarce object and a known formula, says Mises. But what about a formula that is not common knowledge?
Suppose A owns land, on which A own factory B. Suppose private provision of security. A has a formula that is not common knowledge. Assume C physically trespasses into B.
If A catches C in the act, B is punished. But what if A never catches C in the act, however, B physically trespasses into C repeatedly. Does B escape punishment? No. This is violation of property; private or public provision of security will see to C.Or A will see to C, whenever he meets C.
Now, assume there was a formula in A's factory B, that is not common knowledge. C trespasses into B, then leaves, and reveals the formula.
A has lost something valuable.
In other words, if we privately or publicly don't treat knowledge as property, then corporate spying is punished just as trespassing, when it, in fact, causes greater loss of wealth to A then trespassing of A's property.
If I am threatened with a knife to reveal my business knowledge, does the knife-wielder go unpunished if he doesn't, pardon the language, stick me?
We must follow Menger and Mises , in ascribing value to anything that is scarce. Anything valuable is property. Its just a mechanism for economic calculation. Property is a question of calculation given division of labour.
For instance, interest is result of time-preference. Temporal disposal of goods is valuable; it is property, but it is not a physical quantity. Bohm-Bawerk denied temporal disposal is valuable, however, Mises showed Menger was right.
If someone takes my computer for a time, then gives it back; and all this without permission, don't I get interest for time I lost computer? Don't I get damages? Is interest not physical, hence not property?
In conclusion, we are entering a variant of the debate for and against interest. Except instead of interest, we are talking about another not-physical but valuable thing: knowledge of physical quantities. As that was solved, so we should solve this. Mises' and Hayek's whole case for calculation rests, for instance, of value of knowledge of time and space. As there, so here.
After all, remember what Gossen, and then Bohm-Bawerk wrote, all people do control orderings of physical forces when they are producing goods. Is not knowledge of how to produce a good?
Was the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings legitimate, since the Japanese were warned?
Juan:The problem with intellectual property is that in order to enforce it you need to violate other more fundamental property rights.
How do we know that they are more fundamental?
alimentarius:Was the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings legitimate, since the Japanese were warned?
No.
alimentarius: How do we know that they are more fundamental?
There are no rights that are "more fundamental"; rights are rights. This is why so many support things like taxation. Many think there are various rights like "civil rights" or "woman's rights" are more important than rights like property rights. What he should have said is that you can't violate some rights to protect other rights. You'd be protecting the same right you're violating.
Eioul:Because he has not applied the idea to anything.
So if he does apply it to something, he therefore, has the right to prevent other people from using their own property in a way that violates his patent?
So if someone patents the chair and them makes chairs and sells them, he now has the right to prevent other people from using their own wood to construct a chair and sell it?
Daniel: So if he does apply it to something, he therefore, has the right to prevent other people from using their own property in a way that violates his patent?
It may or may not, all I'm suggesting is that an idea must *at least* be applied to something in the real world.
. So if someone patents the chair and them makes chairs and sells them, he now has the right to prevent other people from using their own wood to construct a chair and sell it?
I would say no, at least if you don't claim that the new and improved iPod you invented *is* an iPod. If you said it was an iPod, you'd at best be trying to claim that you came up with the idea (which does matter when deciding if a product is worth buying or not). Either that or it's outright fraud. But I see nothing wrong with ever using an idea for whatever purpose you wish. If you can reverse engineer an iPod with the same materials, but make the production costs cheaper, more power to you. The point is with that is even naming a product something else is plenty to say it is different; obviously with existing patent law, that isn't true at all.
I would prefer to call property rights involving things like books, video games, software as "intellectual property" rights, but maybe I should call it by a different name. When basically what you're purchasing is specific content rather than than the tangible object itself. The main reason to buy a book is to learn something, not to look at the letters on the pages.
I see no one agrees understand INFORMATION is a valuable good, which is the primary question. It hasn't got anything to do with other goods, such as wood, which possess separate goods-character. Every higher-order good is imputed value according to its revenue contribution to the lower-order good (this would our question concerning value of design of chair vs value of wood for chair, both contribute to revenue shows Carl Menger.)
Recall Hayek's 1945 article. Knowledge of time and space is valuable, because it is not common knowledge to all people. It is not usually treated as property, but it is, in fact, valuable. How do we know? Services to obtain it are not free.
For instance, Google uses search information for Advertising services, else it would not provide "free" searching.
Now, what if that knowledge cannot be obtained except through me: not-common formulae of combinations of physical quantities. They possess as much goods-character as knowledge of time and place, but are more related to temporal disposal of goods, because they can only be obtained through the owner of the good [this is the answer to our question.] Question: are they obtained voluntarily or involuntarily?
We are essentially saying, if we deny information is property:
I have a formula, but am threatened to give it up, else be shot (or something else I don't want to happen). I do not voluntarily give this information away, but am forced.
If I give it up, and am not shot, no theft was committed. (If I am shot, I am compensated only for getting shot, not losing my business knowledge.)
Is this really how we should treat information: I am obliged to share? Something like socialism isn't that?
thelion: We are essentially saying, if we deny information is property: I have a formula, but am threatened to give it up, else be shot (or something else I don't want to happen). I do not voluntarily give this information away, but am forced. If I give it up, and am not shot, no theft was committed. (If I am shot, I am compensated only for getting shot, not losing my business knowledge.) Is this really how we should treat information: I am obliged to share? Something like socialism isn't that?
No. The only way you may effectively "own" intellectual property is if you keep it to yourself. Sharing it and then demanding restitution is the mistake being made. But you are under no obligation to share anything and threats aren't acceptable under any circumstance.
Here's the kink; the information is in the product; not the product. I am not sharing the formulae, which are higher-order goods, only the lower-order good.
Every operation, unless co-discovery, to get information product in hand is reverse engineering. Same as using force. In what sense as force? In the sense of sneaking into my factory, but me not catching you. The trespass did occur, but is not known to me (yet).
Just because I sell chairs doesn't mean buying a chair entitles you to my whole supply of wood besides the wood of the chair. Why does this analogy hold? Remember, information is not physical.
It ISN'T possible to buy some information, unlike it IS possible to buy SOME wood. A formula is the whole marginal quantity. Remember, a marginal quantity is the least unit. But it is part of my capital goods, not a lower order good I sell. It has a contribution, a marginal revenue product, but the marginal quantity is boolean, phenomenal-logical: 1 or 0.
thelion:Here's the kink; the information is in the product; not the product. I am not sharing the formulae, which is a higher-order good, only the lower-order good.
How is that a kink? Don't sell the product if you don't want to share the information contained within it.
thelion:Every operation, unless co-discovery, to get information product in hand is reverse engineering. Same as using force.
Not even in the slightest is that the same as using force.
thelion:Just because I sell chairs doesn't mean buying a chair entitles you to my whole supply of wood besides the wood of the chair. Why does this analogy hold? Remember, information is not physical.
The analogy doesn't hold. (The whole supply of woof is physical.)
thelion:It ISN'T possible to buy some information, unlike it IS possible to buy SOME wood. A formula is the whole marginal quantity. Remember, a marginal quantity is the least unit. But it is part of my capital goods, not a lower order good I sell. It has a contribution, a marginal revenue product, but the marginal quantity is boolean: 1 or 0.
Sell or don't. 1 or 0.
It's not sell or don't:
1. I'm never selling the higher-order goods if I'm selling a lower-order good. I'm selling a lower-order good, nothing more.There is no such thing as summation of utilities/values/preferences. The information is valuable without the object it produces; it has separate goods-character and value: a separate preference rank in the preference order. This is the breakthrough of Carl Menger.
2. Unless I sell my information on a Capital market, I don't sell it, because I never agreed to sell it. See why below.
3. I sell what the information produces, which is a consumption good. This is not synonymous to me with selling information too if I value the information (which I do since its not common knowledge). If I was selling a computer and information to make it, I would ask (once) a great lump sum. But instead, I sell the computer, for a much smaller sum: and with a contract that you only buy the computer.
4a. If you buy the big package, I sell it all: 1 or 0.
4b. If you buy a computer, with contract, to reverse engineer it you break the agreement by which you paid less for the computer than I was willing to sell it for otherwise. All exchange is voluntary. If I didn't agree to it, and you take it, its theft. I agreed with provision. Buy my computer like this, or don't. Or buy it on the other provided terms.
The information isn't common knowledge until I sell it (yes, once: 1 or 0). But if I never sell the information in the first place, but only computer and contract, then I have never made my information public, because anyone who accepted my offer of lower price agreed to contract. They are bound by contract, else they have committed theft.
It IS exactly theft, because it is a breaking of contract.
5. Never forget every item you buy comes with a notice of this sort. When you buy it at that price you accept that notice, else you don't buy it (or commit fraud, which is forceful not voluntary, like theft).
Example: It is like interest. If you borrow X and pay monthly interest, then I maintain ownership of X, whereas you maintain ownership of temporal disposal of X (for the time period T) in exchange for Y (for the time period T).
Because you pay interest, its not that you own X, in the sense of not having to pay back principle X and interest Y. You pay back the principle too, but in installments along with interest payments.