This comes from the topic "My Concept of Anarchy" in which a discussion of IP rights sprung up. So, let's make it a topic of conversation.
This is a post from tgibson11 in response to myself:
tgibson11: kingmonkey:And even without IP laws Apple would still be able to protect their designs through court enforcements (yeah, even private courts). Their 'designs', as you put it, are still their property anyway you cut it. Unless you feel that no matter what is created or invented is free for anyone to steal and copy without any recourse. Then that would be just as immoral and coercive as any apparatus of the state. FYI - those who oppose IP (myself included) aren't just opposing IP laws, or the words "patent" and "copyright". We really do oppose the very idea of intellectual property, i.e., property in ideas. I don't want to turn this into an IP debate. I just wanted to point out that your intended reductio ad absurdum is precisely the position that many on this site advocate. If you are going to reject this position as "immoral and coercive" and put it on a level with statism, you had better back it up with some logic (but not in this thread, please).
kingmonkey:And even without IP laws Apple would still be able to protect their designs through court enforcements (yeah, even private courts). Their 'designs', as you put it, are still their property anyway you cut it. Unless you feel that no matter what is created or invented is free for anyone to steal and copy without any recourse. Then that would be just as immoral and coercive as any apparatus of the state.
FYI - those who oppose IP (myself included) aren't just opposing IP laws, or the words "patent" and "copyright". We really do oppose the very idea of intellectual property, i.e., property in ideas.
I don't want to turn this into an IP debate. I just wanted to point out that your intended reductio ad absurdum is precisely the position that many on this site advocate. If you are going to reject this position as "immoral and coercive" and put it on a level with statism, you had better back it up with some logic (but not in this thread, please).
I can agree that you cannot hold a "patent" on ideas. If you told a friend about an idea of yours and he turns around and starts producing it making millions of dollars off of it then you are out of luck. He is the one that put the idea to work and turned out a product which people then purchased. If he is a good friend he might give you a kick back for the idea but you certainly can't sue him for violating your "intellectual property."
But there is a big difference between just thinking of something and thinking of something and then using capital and energy to research, develop, produce and market that thing. Apple is the absolute owner of their products because they spend the time, money and capital to develop, build and market those products. For instance, the iPod is fully Apples own property which they produce and sell to others. No, they didn't have the idea for a portable music player first but they did develop proprietary software and hardware which are theirs. No one is justifed in copying Apples software and hardware developments and repackaging them as something else. Doing so is theft of Apples property rights and is totally within their right as legitmiate owners of that property to seek legal recourse.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
kingmonkey:Apple is the absolute owner of their products because they spend the time, money and capital to develop, build and market those products. For instance, the iPod is fully Apples own property which they produce and sell to others.
Yes, Apple is the absolute owner of the physical products they produce until they sell or give them to someone else. But Apple does not own every iPod ever made. I know what you really mean is that Apple owns the "idea" of the iPod. Your subsequent statements are merely unjustified assertions based on this...unjustified assertion.
You first need to explain how one comes to have property rights in an idea. Ideas are not scarce resources. The use of an idea by one person does not prevent its simultaneous use by another person (or any number of people). The person who invented fire was not agressed against when other people also started using it.
To consistently apply the concept of property in ideas leads to nonsense. Hence the mind-boggling complexity of modern IP laws. That is also the reason copyrights and patents have to expire after a certain period of time - before the nonsense becomes too obvious.
Property only makes sense for objects that can't be controlled by more than one person.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Ego: Property only makes sense for objects that can't be controlled by more than one person.
No it doesn't. If I build 10,000 Super Deluxe Widgets they are my property. But I can sell those Super Deluxe Widgets to whomever I want but under the condition that you cannot make copies of my Super Deluxe Widgets, mass produce them and sell those. And that is exactly what happens when you buy an iPod and you see "(C) 2004 Apple Computers. All rights reserved." Apple has spent the time, resources and energy to develop and produce the millions of iPods they use but they sell them to you with the understanding that you will not take their design and copy it and sell it for commercial gain. To do so violates the property right of Apple Computers (more accurately the shareholders of Apple).
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."
tgibson11: Yes, Apple is the absolute owner of the physical products they produce until they sell or give them to someone else. But Apple does not own every iPod ever made. I know what you really mean is that Apple owns the "idea" of the iPod. Your subsequent statements are merely unjustified assertions based on this...unjustified assertion.
Apple is the absolute owner of the physical products they produce until they sell them. But the sale of those products is conditional and contractual. When you purchase an iPod you do so with the understanding that you will not steal their design.
tgibson11: You first need to explain how one comes to have property rights in an idea. Ideas are not scarce resources. The use of an idea by one person does not prevent its simultaneous use by another person (or any number of people). The person who invented fire was not agressed against when other people also started using it.
An idea becomes property after one produces it, using their resources and energy to develop and build the item in question. We aren't talking about the "idea" here now. I agree, you can't copyright an idea. But you can copyright an "idea" if you have produced it. You analogy of the man "inventing fire" is ridiculous. No man "invented" fire because that is a natural phenomenon. However, iPods are nowhere to be found in nature and are the direct result of someone using their resources and that which nature provides to produce them.
Murray Rothbard covered this very well in his Ethics of Liberty when he stated:
Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard, p. 123:There is, however, an exception to the right to use and disseminate the knowledge within one’s head: namely, if it was procured from someone else as a conditional rather than absolute ownership. Thus, suppose that Brown allows Green into his home and shows him an invention of Brown’s hitherto kept secret, but only on the condition that Green keeps this information private. In that case, Brown has granted to Green not absolute ownership of the knowledge of his invention, but conditional ownership, with Brown retaining the ownership power to disseminate the knowledge of the invention. If Green discloses the invention anyway, he is violating the residual property right of Brown to disseminate knowledge of the invention, and is therefore to that extent a thief. Violation of (common law) copyright is an equivalent violation of contract and theft of property. For suppose that Brown builds a better mousetrap and sells it widely, but stamps each mousetrap “copyright Mr. Brown.” What he is then doing is selling not the entire property right in each mousetrap, but the right to do anything with the mousetrap except to sell it or an identical copy to someone else. The right to sell the Brown mousetrap is retained in perpetuity by Brown. Hence, for a mousetrap buyer, Green, to go ahead and sell identical mousetraps is a violation of his contract and of the property right of Brown, and therefore prosecutable as theft. Hence, our theory of property rights includes the inviolability of contractual copyright.
Violation of (common law) copyright is an equivalent violation of contract and theft of property. For suppose that Brown builds a better mousetrap and sells it widely, but stamps each mousetrap “copyright Mr. Brown.” What he is then doing is selling not the entire property right in each mousetrap, but the right to do anything with the mousetrap except to sell it or an identical copy to someone else. The right to sell the Brown mousetrap is retained in perpetuity by Brown. Hence, for a mousetrap buyer, Green, to go ahead and sell identical mousetraps is a violation of his contract and of the property right of Brown, and therefore prosecutable as theft. Hence, our theory of property rights includes the inviolability of contractual copyright.
kingmonkey: Ego: Property only makes sense for objects that can't be controlled by more than one person. No it doesn't. If I build 10,000 Super Deluxe Widgets they are my property. But I can sell those Super Deluxe Widgets to whomever I want but under the condition that you cannot make copies of my Super Deluxe Widgets, mass produce them and sell those. And that is exactly what happens when you buy an iPod and you see "(C) 2004 Apple Computers. All rights reserved." Apple has spent the time, resources and energy to develop and produce the millions of iPods they use but they sell them to you with the understanding that you will not take their design and copy it and sell it for commercial gain. To do so violates the property right of Apple Computers (more accurately the shareholders of Apple).
I agree; if you sell someone an object on the condition that they will not copy it, they are violating that promise by copying it. Intellectual property rights go far beyond that, though!
edit: can't spell, can't think, and can't type
kingmonkey:No it doesn't. If I build 10,000 Super Deluxe Widgets they are my property. But I can sell those Super Deluxe Widgets to whomever I want but under the condition that you cannot make copies of my Super Deluxe Widgets, mass produce them and sell those. And that is exactly what happens when you buy an iPod and you see "(C) 2004 Apple Computers. All rights reserved." Apple has spent the time, resources and energy to develop and produce the millions of iPods they use but they sell them to you with the understanding that you will not take their design and copy it and sell it for commercial gain. To do so violates the property right of Apple Computers (more accurately the shareholders of Apple).
I could sell you a fire too, and stipulate in the contract that I retain the exclusive right to produce fire. Claiming that I have that right doesn't necessarily make it so. You have yet to explain how property rights in ideas are acquired.
kingmonkey: Apple has spent the time, resources and energy to develop and produce the millions of iPods they use but they sell them to you with the understanding that you will not take their design and copy it and sell it for commercial gain. To do so violates the property right of Apple Computers (more accurately the shareholders of Apple).
Apple has spent the time, resources and energy to develop and produce the millions of iPods they use but they sell them to you with the understanding that you will not take their design and copy it and sell it for commercial gain. To do so violates the property right of Apple Computers (more accurately the shareholders of Apple).
Well, I bought my ipod at Fry's Electronics so any contract on the end use would be with them instead of with Apple according to your argument.
Without IP laws Apple would have absolutely no say in what I do with my property even if they 'bet the farm' in designing and bringing it to market. Not one word unless I signed a contract that specifically stated what I could and couldn't do with my property.
Once I dispose of my property this contract would be null and void for future owners, they could possibly go after me for violating the terms of our agreement but couldn't go against the person I gave it to even if they decided to produce an exact copy and sell it in direct competition with Apple because they weren't a party to the contract between myself and Apple.
This is where the contractual basis of IP falls apart, there is no way outside of a general law for the 'property rights' of the producer to follow the product beyond the original purchaser, once it escapes the custody chain it is fair game for anyone to capitalize on the design and theory behind its market success.
tgibson11: I could sell you a fire too, and stipulate in the contract that I retain the exclusive right to produce fire. Claiming that I have that right doesn't necessarily make it so. You have yet to explain how property rights in ideas are acquired.
If you sold me fire you're a good salesman since fire is a natural phenomenon not something "created" by man. And again, I agree with you in that you cannot acquire property rights in an idea. I'm talking about the product that is derived from that idea. I can invent a warp drive in my head but if I do not produce that warp drive then I have no claim to it. But once I begin producing it I have acquired my property right in that warp drive. If I sell it to you I sell it to you under the agreement that you may use it but you may no reproduce it.
Ideas are not scarce and thus can not be property.
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
Posted that last one before I saw this.
kingmonkey:Apple is the absolute owner of the physical products they produce until they sell them. But the sale of those products is conditional and contractual. When you purchase an iPod you do so with the understanding that you will not steal their design.
See my previous post. I will concede that a person could voluntarily agree not to copy something as a condition of purchasing it. But that is not what IP law is about. IP law says no one may copy a protected idea, regardless of the existence of any contract or agreement to that effect.
kingmonkey:An idea becomes property after one produces it, using their resources and energy to develop and build the item in question. We aren't talking about the "idea" here now. I agree, you can't copyright an idea. But you can copyright an "idea" if you have produced it. You analogy of the man "inventing fire" is ridiculous. No man "invented" fire because that is a natural phenomenon. However, iPods are nowhere to be found in nature and are the direct result of someone using their resources and that which nature provides to produce them.
First, it is not ridiculous. Someone probably spent a lot of time figuring out a way to create fire. Maybe they would patent the method of creating fire rather than fire itself.
Second, everything is ultimately part of nature. All we can do is re-arrange the elements of nature in certain ways. The rearrangement of wood molecules creates fire. A particular rearrangment of petroleum (plastics), sand (silicon), and metals results in an iPod.
IP says, once I invent or discover a certain way to re-arrange nature, no one else may re-arrange nature in that way without my permission. Ever. Absurd.
Unfortunately, Rothbard is not particularly clear here. He correctly points out that no one has property rights in ideas. He then goes on about how one could agree to not use certain ideas as a term of purchase, which he refers to as contractual copyright. So far, so good. But he fails to emphasize that the copyright only exists because of the contract. This has nothing to do with copyright as commonly understood in the IP world.
kingmonkey:If I sell it to you I sell it to you under the agreement that you may use it but you may no reproduce it.
What if there were no purchase involved?
If I went over to my buddy's house and merely looked at his warp drive and from that act could reproduce it how would I be violating your property rights since there was no direct agreement between us?
Property rights in anything come from using labor to produce them. So if I created a Super Deluxe Widget which has a very specific and unique design I have created something through my labor which I own absolutely (the design of this Widget). I then begin manufacturing thousands of these Super Deluxe Widgets stamped "Copyright Kingmonkey. All rights reserved." I have reserved my right to the design of this property. It is the design that I own, which I have replicated and which I sell. When I sell this product I am transferring conditional ownership of this product, as I still reserve the rights to the design of it. If you use these Super Deluxe Widgets for a time and then tire of them and then transfer ownership to another person the original contract of conditional ownership is not void but transfers with the Widget. The new owners cannot duplicate and distribute my design of the Super Deluxe Widget because I never transfered ownership of the design in the first place but only a copy of it. I am not copyrighting the idea of the Super Deluxe Widget but the design of it which is a very tangible item and which is very much owned.
In the same way if I write a book the book becomes "mine" in that I have taken the effort and energy and labor to write down the words in a particular pattern. I own the book the same way I would own a piece of land which I have transformed into usable farm land. I can sell copies of that book but that does not mean I am giving you the right to claim you are the original creator of that book. I retain that right. All of the copies of the book you may own are owned only conditionally.
In the same way Apple fully owns the design of the iPod because they wrote the software, built the hardware, built the case, etc. of the iPod. They then duplicated it and sold it to consumers under the condition that no one can replicate the design of that iPod. To duplicate it and sell it would be a violation of Apples property right in the design of that product. And it doesn't matter if you are the first, second or tenth owner of that iPod. It was purchased with the understanding that Apple reserved their property right to the design of that iPod and ownership of that design was never transfered to anyone.
In the same way Apple fully owns the design of the iPod because they wrote the software, built the hardware, built the case, etc. of the iPod.
So...
Design==monopoly then?
That's the only way that IP arguments work past the first sale, government granted monopoly rights on the design or whatever.
You couldn't possibly have a snowball's chance in hell in enforcing your design rights without a mutually consensual legal contract with the copier in the absence of a State granted monopoly on the IP incorporated in the product because you would have absolutely no legal case against them in a society with absolute property rights.
Just as was posted earlier, no two people can claim property rights on the same object in a free society.
You seem to be making up some variation of the Labor Theory of Value or something and are trying to justify rent seeking.
tgibson11: Unfortunately, Rothbard is not particularly clear here. He correctly points out that no one has property rights in ideas. He then goes on about how one could agree to not use certain ideas as a term of purchase, which he refers to as contractual copyright. So far, so good. But he fails to emphasize that the copyright only exists because of the contract. This has nothing to do with copyright as commonly understood in the IP world.
Now that I have had time to read that Rothbard quotation in context, it is even more confused than I thought.
Rothbard does believe that one can have property rights in ideas. This error starts off innocently enough in reference to libel or slander, with the assertion that one cannot be prevented from expressing one's ideas (or forced to express them). Now this really has nothing to do with owning the ideas themselves. It is really just a result of ownership of one's body.
Then he continues into his copyright discussion as quoted above. So far I agree with his concept of the contractual copyright, but he still wants to talk about owning ideas, which is in no way necessary to reach his conclusion - yet.
The problem, is the paragraph that follows, where he attempts to refute the scenario that I alluded to and Anonymous Coward pointed out explicitly. A purchases an iPod from B. A agrees to not reproduce the iPod. C sees A's iPod, and is able to reproduce it. Rothbard concludes that C cannot legitimately reproduce the iPod because he cannot acquire rights from A that A never had in the first place.
This argument is confused even on its own merits, because A may have never even attempted to transfer any rights to C at all. C could have simply seen A carrying the iPod as he was walking down the street.
However, Rothbard's conclusion does follow from the premise that A had a property right in the idea. If B had that property right in the first place, and never transferred it to A or anyone else, then C could not also legitimately claim it.
Like I said, I disagree with Rothbard on this. My purpose for this post was just to clarify his position, part of which was left out of the original quote, and part of which I mischaracterized in my previous response.
kingmonkey:Property rights in anything come from using labor to produce them.
This the crux of the problem. If property rights come from using labor to produce something, then where does self-ownership come from? Wouldn't one be owned by one's parents instead (or God, the subject of another thread)? How does ownership in land come to exist? No one produced land. (This is where the Georgists will get you.)
Actually, property rights come from being the first to use something (homesteading). The reason this is crucial to the IP debate is because only physically existing things can be homesteaded. One can homestead a farm. One cannot homestead the idea of farming.
You also seem to be confusing Rothbard's idea of the contractual copyright with the ownership of an idea (as did Rothbard himself). Ownership of the design is in no way necessary to derive the concept of a contractual copyright - in a sense, the ideas are mutually contradictory. If one really owned an idea in the first place, there would be no need for a contract to prevent someone else from using it - as Rothbard demonstrates immediately following the excerpt you quoted above.
It's hard for me to tell what position you are arguing (maybe both?) - merely that Rothbardian contractual copyrights are legitimate (I agree, but the practicality is debatable) or that ideas really can be owned.
Also, you keep making a distinction between "idea" and "design". I think what you mean is to say that there is no property right in an idea that has not been implemented - a la current patent law and your labor theory of property rights. I don't think this a necessary distinction, but if you want to make it that's fine with me. Just substitute "implemented idea" or "design" or whatever where I use "idea".
Anonymous Coward: So... Design==monopoly then? That's the only way that IP arguments work past the first sale, government granted monopoly rights on the design or whatever. You couldn't possibly have a snowball's chance in hell in enforcing your design rights without a mutually consensual legal contract with the copier in the absence of a State granted monopoly on the IP incorporated in the product because you would have absolutely no legal case against them in a society with absolute property rights. Just as was posted earlier, no two people can claim property rights on the same object in a free society. You seem to be making up some variation of the Labor Theory of Value or something and are trying to justify rent seeking.
Side note first: As brought out earlier I should really be using a different word to convey what I'm saying but having a not so great vocabulary I do the best I can. When I say design I'm talking about an idea that was brought to completion, implemented in a way. I could have a design for a widget but if I never produced it then how can I claim ownership of that design? I can't. But once I implement it (produce it) I can claim ownership of that design.
Monopoly? Yes, it is on the design (implemented idea), but certainly not the idea, since you can't own ideas. Apple has designed an iPod, the design of which they own because they invested the energy and resources in producing it. Yet, they cannot claim ownership of the idea of MP3 players because that is just an idea. So Microsoft creates their own MP3 player, the Zune, which they own the design for. But Microsoft cannot simply copy the exact code used in the iPod for use in the Zune, nor can they take any hardware developed by Apple, copy it and use it in the Zune. That would be a violation of Apples property right in the software code and hardware used in the iPod. And it doesn't matter if the state has issued a patent or not. Apple was the first to use that code and hardware, they produced it, therefore they are the owners of it. Copying it is theft and a violation of their property right.
And it's the same thing if they sell the iPod. They can sell them all they want but that doesn't negate their ownership of the design of the software or the hardware. I can't take the movie Silence of the Lambs, copy it and put my studios name on the credits. I didn't write the movie, I didn't produce the movie, I didn't hire the actors, extras, spend the money to bring it to market, etc. MGM holds the rights to Silence of the Lambs. I can buy a copy of it but I certainly can't make additional copies of it and claim it is mine or that I made the movie.
And as you correctly point out no two people can claim property rights in the same object in a free society. With the iPod Apple is claiming property rights on the design of the iPod and you, the purchaser, are claiming conditional property rights on a copy of that design. Apple has sold the iPod under the condition that no one steals their design, copies it, and then distributes it for a profit. You are still the owner of the iPod but not the owner of the design of that iPod.
Bleh. I deferr to Tucker.
Scarcity is the ultimate criterion of whether something can or cannot be property. Copyright and patent laws will probably re-appear in a different form under anarchism, but not under the guise of intellectual "property".
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
kingmonkey:If I build 10,000 Super Deluxe Widgets they are my property. But I can sell those Super Deluxe Widgets to whomever I want but under the condition that you cannot make copies of my Super Deluxe Widgets, mass produce them and sell those. And that is exactly what happens when you buy an iPod and you see "(C) 2004 Apple Computers. All rights reserved." Apple has spent the time, resources and energy to develop and produce the millions of iPods they use but they sell them to you with the understanding that you will not take their design and copy it and sell it for commercial gain.
I believe things can be cleared up if put in an economic perspective.
Rather than supposing from the outset the sensibility of protectionism with regard to your idea (that's what it is I'm afraid), assume instead that no right to exclusive production for anything exists and you have always been aware of it. Then, based on your above comment, you would not consider it worthwhile to ever even design a Super Deluxe Widget, let alone produce them. And indeed, why should you? After all, someone else is just going to copy it and produce some of their own to sell. You would have to give up a lot of time and energy just to design it and you know it will amount to nothing, since your competitor will get your design for free. It would just be a waste of resources.
However, within the subjective theory of value, it is entirely conceivable that some industrious individual will think it worthwhile to put countless man-hours into designing a Super Deluxe Widget fully aware that anyone can copy it. Of course the revenue for this person makes will be severely lower than with IP rights (as is true of all beneficiaries of protectionism). But then there's no reason the consumers shouldn't receive savings. Also, now you get to copy his design without putting any effort into making your own!
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
kingmonkey:I can't take the movie Silence of the Lambs, copy it and put my studios name on the credits. I didn't write the movie, I didn't produce the movie, I didn't hire the actors, extras, spend the money to bring it to market, etc. MGM holds the rights to Silence of the Lambs. I can buy a copy of it but I certainly can't make additional copies of it and claim it is mine or that I made the movie.
If you were to put your name and studio on the copy that would be plagiarism which, apparently, is a High Crime or Treason in academic circles. But if you were to make a copy and sell it the movie studio would be out exactly one lost sale and nothing more, there is no theft (or high seas piracy).
Now lets look at the opposite effects of Apple's ownership of the design. If I were to make 10,000 copies of an ipod and sell them under the name jpod what would Apple be out other than lost sales? Apple isn't happy with losing sales so takes me to court and confiscates my real property because they hold some imaginary claim on the fruits of my labor and capital (and a legal right to my customers). Now we're talking theft.
Who loses from this deal other than consumers subject to Apple's rent seeking behavior and competitors that have artificial barriers to entry to the market? Not Apple because they have full use of their design no matter how many copies are created so they are in no way hurt unless you calculate in potential lost sales—which isn't even possible since there is no way of telling if it were marginal buyers who were priced out of the market by Apple's artificial scarcity model purchasing my jpods or any of a hundred other options that would drive a consumer to my same quality, lower priced product.
But if you claim that every sale I make is 'stealing' from Apple then you can justify taking my property to compensate them for their loss because that's justice, just compensation for the victim. Still have the small problem that they are out exactly zero real property from this alleged crime but we'll allow victimless crimes for the 'progress of science' because without a legal monopoly people would stop inventing like during the 99.999% of human history where there was no patents or copyrights.
tgibson11, I have a few questions for you. Excuse me if it sounds stupid or uninformed, since I haven't actually studied the various points of view about IP yet.
This concerns the piracy of music. The only way I can download music without paying for it, is if somebody has at some point in time uploaded that music to the internet. If that somebody has not explicitly signed a contract with regards to the music, are they violating property rights by disseminating it on the internet? When we buy music in a shop, does the music contain some sort of conditional contract? (I never bothered looking). I know we sign EULAs with regards to games, but I haven't seen any for music.
Another question is this, according to your conception of IP, are the downloaders liable to be sued, or only the uploaders who have agreed to a conditional contract? Also, how do you deal with the problem that once something goes on the internet, such as music, it essentially ceases to be a scarce resource. It is of course limited by bandwidth, but considering how much bandwidth people have, relative to say, one song that they can download, this is a fairly moot restriction. If music on the internet is not scarce, then how is it still affected by private property rights?
Anonymous Coward: kingmonkey:I can't take the movie Silence of the Lambs, copy it and put my studios name on the credits. I didn't write the movie, I didn't produce the movie, I didn't hire the actors, extras, spend the money to bring it to market, etc. MGM holds the rights to Silence of the Lambs. I can buy a copy of it but I certainly can't make additional copies of it and claim it is mine or that I made the movie. If you were to put your name and studio on the copy that would be plagiarism which, apparently, is a High Crime or Treason in academic circles. But if you were to make a copy and sell it the movie studio would be out exactly one lost sale and nothing more, there is no theft (or high seas piracy). Now lets look at the opposite effects of Apple's ownership of the design. If I were to make 10,000 copies of an ipod and sell them under the name jpod what would Apple be out other than lost sales? Apple isn't happy with losing sales so takes me to court and confiscates my real property because they hold some imaginary claim on the fruits of my labor and capital (and a legal right to my customers). Now we're talking theft. Who loses from this deal other than consumers subject to Apple's rent seeking behavior and competitors that have artificial barriers to entry to the market? Not Apple because they have full use of their design no matter how many copies are created so they are in no way hurt unless you calculate in potential lost sales—which isn't even possible since there is no way of telling if it were marginal buyers who were priced out of the market by Apple's artificial scarcity model purchasing my jpods or any of a hundred other options that would drive a consumer to my same quality, lower priced product. But if you claim that every sale I make is 'stealing' from Apple then you can justify taking my property to compensate them for their loss because that's justice, just compensation for the victim. Still have the small problem that they are out exactly zero real property from this alleged crime but we'll allow victimless crimes for the 'progress of science' because without a legal monopoly people would stop inventing like during the 99.999% of human history where there was no patents or copyrights.
Well...after thinking about this all night I'm going to have to concede. You can't argue with logic, especially if it makes good sense. I kept running into the same barriers with my line of logic and couldn't figure out where I was going wrong. That is until last night when I woke up at 2am and said, "! I'm just plain wrong!" Congratulations. You've converted me.
This is one of the reasons why I started this thread in the first place. I'm still new to anarchist thought so bare with me people.
Fred Furash: tgibson11, I have a few questions for you. Excuse me if it sounds stupid or uninformed, since I haven't actually studied the various points of view about IP yet. This concerns the piracy of music. The only way I can download music without paying for it, is if somebody has at some point in time uploaded that music to the internet. If that somebody has not explicitly signed a contract with regards to the music, are they violating property rights by disseminating it on the internet? When we buy music in a shop, does the music contain some sort of conditional contract? (I never bothered looking). I know we sign EULAs with regards to games, but I haven't seen any for music. Another question is this, according to your conception of IP, are the downloaders liable to be sued, or only the uploaders who have agreed to a conditional contract? Also, how do you deal with the problem that once something goes on the internet, such as music, it essentially ceases to be a scarce resource. It is of course limited by bandwidth, but considering how much bandwidth people have, relative to say, one song that they can download, this is a fairly moot restriction. If music on the internet is not scarce, then how is it still affected by private property rights?
See http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
That explains it much better than I could. Regarding your question, see the section titled "IP as Contract", starting on page 33.
In short (my view, not necessarily Kinsella's):
1) It is theoretically possible that in purchasing music one may contract not to copy or distribute it. Whether this is in fact generally the case is debatable. In the absence of an explicit statement of which uses are permitted and which denied, I would lean toward the opinion that there are no contractual restrictions. A counter-argument could be made that the permitted and denied uses are commonly understood, and a contract does in fact exist.
2) Assuming such a contract did exist (and only in that case), then certainly the uploaders would be liable for some type of damages. The amount of damages would have to have been stipulated in the contract - since there was no violation of property rights apart from the contract, and hence no objective loss to the seller. (Another reason to think that such contracts would have to be explicit in order to be valid.)
3) The downloaders did not have any contract with the seller, so it seems to me that they could only be held liable if it was somehow obvious that the music in question was being distributed illegally.
The general concept of IP aside, currently existing patent laws most certain are not just. Patent laws are essentially a state granted monopoly and gaurantee of potential future profits. It effectively restricts competition, particularly in the fields of science and technology. It certainly constitutes a barrier to entry, as it falsely convicts some people of what amounts to fraud for even trying to enter and succeed in a given market.
Okay here's the idea; Before I write it down it is only mine and I have sole ownership of it. but when I write it down, I am making it public, in essence I am putting it in the open, in the common domain, the whole of the world that is literate in the english language and has internet access can share my idea, and this is the express reason I am putting it out there. If I wanted to protect my intellectual property I would keep it to myself, or sell it with a contract setting the terms of future proliferation of the idea by my buyers.
But what concerns me is that my idea will not be credited to me. what happens if after a few months one of you start espousing my idea as your own? you lie. I suppose this is no more harmfull than any other type of lie. but then it is one of the most flagarant.
Everyone who has a trace of ethics can see that much. and the most effective and probabably the largest number of libertarians come from a Ethical stance. So it would seem that we would be interested not in keeping other people from spreading my idea, but just to keep the line of authorship pure, if you will.
The difference in plagerism and in who you were with and where last night is that the formula for the first is the same every time, it is clear and undisputable. It seems both ethical and benificial to keep the authorship of works pure.
copywrite 2008 Donkey Publishing Corp.
Everything you needed to know to be a libertarian you learned in Kindergarten. Keep your hands to yourself, and don't play with other people's toys without their consent.
If the idea-robber does call the idea originating with you his own then, since there are no protectionist IP laws, people would probably be skeptical that it his in fact his if you claimed the same (since they would have heard disputes over idea "ownership" a million times before), and also it would be in most senses (certainly economically) meaningless since anyone else is free to use the idea.
It's probably worth noting that the blogosphere works in a similar vein.
that might be okay in blogging, more or less we are rehashing old ideas, but what about books, or things of that nature?and what when I come up with an idea as virtually a nobody, and someone with more academic credibility claims it was his idea? Im not saying there should be a $10,000 dollar penalty for it or anything, but theres nothing wrong with having a rule, or at least formulating a method to make it a taboo within society.
Distinguishing between patents and copyrights solves the problem like crazy. Intellectual property rights can only exist as conditions of ownership through contractual exchange. They can exist neither as titular nor as effective ownership of an idea. That is as antithetical to the libertarian concept of ownership as would be a claim by NASA to the entirety of the moon.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I think copyrights are a form of contract, that by using or buying a book you agree not to copy the information except by the terms set forth in the front of the book.
but in regards to patents... I have a hard time defending them. not in utility, but in ethics. I just dont see how a guy who is able to replicate an ipod can be forced to not do so if he is able to provide his own materials and put it together. but he can not call it an ipod... That is copyrighted.
And now I feel a moral conviction when it comes to the bootleg music I download... blast it!
Deo Vindice
Attackdonkey: But what concerns me is that my idea will not be credited to me. what happens if after a few months one of you start espousing my idea as your own? you lie. I suppose this is no more harmfull than any other type of lie. but then it is one of the most flagarant.
How is that a lie? I assume most of my ideas came from somewhere. I hear your idea, assimilate it into my ... world-view, I suppose ... and eventually I end up spouting something similar if not identical. Am I really supposed to keep track of where each idea came from, how they get mixed in with other ideas, etc., and add "this is 80% from X with 12% of Y and 3% of Z and 5% my own Genuine Original Thought(TM, Pat. Pend.)" to everything I say? Sounds ridiculous. (And of course it wouldn't really work like that, because "your" idea would also be 5% GOT(TM,PP) and you'd have to tell me the other 95% and pretty soon simply listing all the sources would take longer than a human lifetime before you were allowed to take your first breath...)
Attackdonkey: I think copyrights are a form of contract, that by using or buying a book you agree not to copy the information except by the terms set forth in the front of the book.
Where do you make a contractual agreement not to copy a book? At the purchase? If I find a book on the ground I've made no agreement. Do you put it on the cover so the agreement can't be avoided when you open or look at the book? What if the book I find on the street is mising its cover? More importantly, how would you even issue consent to something just written on the cover of (or even inside of) a book. I could go on all day explaining away each case of trying to enforce an agreement in copyright.
Words can be monopolized?
Bootleg music is often ripped from a CD and uploaded as a .mp3 . I'll ignore the obvious argument against ownership of music and simply explain that the file you download was simply not created by the artist. The file has been created by a program which transcoded it from the original CD which was purchased. Essentially an artist claiming ownership over that file would be like a novelist claiming ownership over every single translation of his book despite the fact that he took no part in creating it.