Giant_Joe: So they are different claims? The majority does not have a claim on ownership of me. If they want a claim of ownership on me or my property, they have to prove it to me that they are deserving or in the right. Just because someone creates an idea doesn't mean they can profit from it. Just because someone didn't create an idea doesn't mean that they can't profit from it.
So they are different claims?
The majority does not have a claim on ownership of me. If they want a claim of ownership on me or my property, they have to prove it to me that they are deserving or in the right.
Just because someone creates an idea doesn't mean they can profit from it.
Just because someone didn't create an idea doesn't mean that they can't profit from it.
1. No, I'm saying they're the same claim being made by opposing groups.
2. How can you claim to have ownership over them? Or that your opinions should be given political priority over theirs? Why are you so important?
3. True. That's why patents and copyrights don't last forever. But, if they can profit from the idea in a certain amount of time, they have rights to those profits. IP protects the profits of the inventors. It doesn't protect them indefinitely though. If they can't make an idea work, they let the patent or copyright expire and someone else takes on the project. They wouldn't try if they knew that as soon as they came up with something that someone could just steal it from them. That's why taxes discourage production; other people get to profit from the labor of another. IP prevents producers from being slaves just like private property rights are supposed to.
liberty student: Indeed it does. You made an appeal to democracy and an appeal to "this is the context of the discussion, how it is" I simply pointed out that in the 1940s, your argument would amount to, democracy puts Jews in ovens, so this is the context we have to look at it. Your appeals were non-sensical. It is a failure of any monopoly state, of which democracy is only one kind. Yes, it is a failure of democracy, but specifically, a failure of statism. So is private property what? No it doesn't, because property can only have one owner at a time, as it is scarce. You and I can't both claim 100% ownership over my car. But you and I can both claim 100% ownership over the idea of having fried eggs and bacon for breakfast, or rowing a boat without coming into conflict over control of the idea. The rest of your rambling on point #2 is incoherent. Please make an argument, your use of sarcasm or irony isn't well presented. Why would that matter? The Mises Institute doesn't speak for me. What they do isn't indicative of the position of everyone in this forum, let alone everyone who is a member. Is this another failed attempt at arguing by assertion, and trying to use an authority as a proof? FYI, LvMI has copyright only because the state forces it. Everything on Mises.org is Creative Commons and can be distributed freely. The fact that LvMI does not participate in intellectual monopoly, is why it is so successful in spreading ideas. Because society does not progress when ideas are restricted in ownership. That should be intuitive to anyone who spends more than 5 minutes considering how markets work, understand competition, monopoly and coercion.
Indeed it does. You made an appeal to democracy and an appeal to "this is the context of the discussion, how it is"
I simply pointed out that in the 1940s, your argument would amount to, democracy puts Jews in ovens, so this is the context we have to look at it.
Your appeals were non-sensical.
It is a failure of any monopoly state, of which democracy is only one kind. Yes, it is a failure of democracy, but specifically, a failure of statism.
So is private property what?
No it doesn't, because property can only have one owner at a time, as it is scarce. You and I can't both claim 100% ownership over my car. But you and I can both claim 100% ownership over the idea of having fried eggs and bacon for breakfast, or rowing a boat without coming into conflict over control of the idea.
The rest of your rambling on point #2 is incoherent. Please make an argument, your use of sarcasm or irony isn't well presented.
Why would that matter? The Mises Institute doesn't speak for me. What they do isn't indicative of the position of everyone in this forum, let alone everyone who is a member. Is this another failed attempt at arguing by assertion, and trying to use an authority as a proof?
FYI, LvMI has copyright only because the state forces it. Everything on Mises.org is Creative Commons and can be distributed freely. The fact that LvMI does not participate in intellectual monopoly, is why it is so successful in spreading ideas. Because society does not progress when ideas are restricted in ownership. That should be intuitive to anyone who spends more than 5 minutes considering how markets work, understand competition, monopoly and coercion.
1. So if I make an argument backing the majority, I must back all arguments made from majority? Nonsense.
2. Property can have many owners at the same time. What are you talking about? I can't claim 100 percent ownership but I can claim partial ownership. And it would be in my interest if you had no claim to your car because then I could steal it without fear of penalty. In the same way, it would be in your interest to have me work hard to create an idea only to have you steal it and then make money off it.
3. What I'm saying is that your institution doesn't even back up your claims. So could I copy all of Mises' work and sell it and keep all the profits? I wouldn't have to pay anything to the Mises Institute?
bloomj31: 2. How can you claim to have ownership over them? Or that your opinions should be given political priority over theirs? Why are you so important?
I don't claim ownership over them. I claim ownership over myself. What is political priority?
Does IP grant a person the exclusive rights to profit from an idea for a period of time?
If taxes are an undue burden on the worker and the producer because the state gets to benefit from labor it never did, so would be the lack of IP protection for inventors and their ilk because someone else would get to benefit from the labor of their mind.
This isn't to say that they can't think of what's been copyrighted. It's to say that they're not allowed to distribute it for commercial intent without the consent of the owner. In much the same way that taxes involve illegitimate redistribution of the money people have earned with their human capital.
It's the same logic applied to two different things. Completely consistent.
Giant_Joe: I don't claim ownership over them. I claim ownership over myself. What is political priority?
You do claim ownership over them because you're saying your claim is more important than theirs. Political priority means that they consider one group before they consider another.
bloomj31: You do claim ownership over them because you're saying your claim is more important than theirs. Political priority means that they consider one group before they consider another.
Claim over what? Myself? Yes, I do consider my claim over myself to have "political priority" over other people's claim over me. If 100 people want me dead, do they automatically reserve the right to kill me because of democracy or "political priority"?
bloomj31:1. So if I make an argument backing the majority, I must back all arguments made from majority? Nonsense.
No, when you make an appeal to majoritarianism, then don't back away from majoritarian decisions. Otherwise, you're being disingenuous and contradictory. Lesson learned. Don't appeal to democracy unless you are willing to accept all democratic outcomes like genocide against the Jews.
bloomj31:2. Property can have many owners at the same time.
Name one.
bloomj31:I can't claim 100 percent ownership but I can claim partial ownership.
Then you do not have full control of the property.
bloomj31:And it would be in my interest if you had no claim to your car because then I could steal it without fear of penalty.
non sequitur
bloomj31:In the same way, it would be in your interest to have me work hard to create an idea only to have you steal it and then make money off it.
You would have to get the idea first. Then you would have to beat me to market. Then you would have to understand the idea better than me. Then you would have to market and sell it better than me. Oh wait, I just described competition and progress through the market. Do you oppose those too?
bloomj31:What I'm saying is that your institution doesn't even back up your claims.
I never made an appeal to authority. You can't use the Mises Institution against me in an argument. That's a logical fallacy, called an appeal to authority. It means your argument is illogical.
bloomj31:So could I copy all of Mises' work and sell it and keep all the profits? I wouldn't have to pay anything to the Mises Institute?
That is correct.
liberty student: No, when you make an appeal to majoritarianism, then don't back away from majoritarian decisions. Otherwise, you're being disingenuous and contradictory. Lesson learned. Don't appeal to democracy unless you are willing to accept all democratic outcomes. Name one. Then you do not have full control of the property. non sequitur You would have to get the idea first. Then you would have to beat me to market. Then you would have to understand the idea better than me. Then you would have to market and sell it better than me. Oh wait, I just described competition and progress through the market. Do you oppose those too? I never made an appeal to authority. You can't use the Mises Institution against me in an argument. That's a logical fallacy, called an appeal to authority. It means your argument is illogical. That is correct.
No, when you make an appeal to majoritarianism, then don't back away from majoritarian decisions. Otherwise, you're being disingenuous and contradictory. Lesson learned. Don't appeal to democracy unless you are willing to accept all democratic outcomes.
1. Just because I agree with one majoritarian decision does not mean I agree with all of them.
2. Corporations can be owned by more than one person. So can anything really. It just depends on the contract.
3. You said it would be better for the market to make ideas free. Well, so would making private property illegal, because then everyone could get stuff instead of just the privileged classes.
4. If I get the idea first and it took me a long time to come up with it and you steal it from me, then anything you make in the market is partially mine. However, if you come up with the idea first, it's yours. No, I'm not against markets, I'm just against stealing people's ideas.
5. No, you never did. But it seems like the Mises Institute understands the value of private property even if you do not.
Anyways, this is a pointless argument. We're not going to agree on this.
bloomj31:1. Just because I agree with one majoritarian decision does not mean I agree with all of them.
Then do not invoke democracy in debate again, ok? Democracy is majoritarianism, if you don't support it absolutely, stop appealing to it please.
bloomj31:2. Corporations can be owned by more than one person. So can anything really. It just depends on the contract.
That is not 100% control. You're equivocating.
bloomj31:3. You said it would be better for the market to make ideas free. Well, so would making private property illegal, because then everyone could get stuff instead of just the privileged classes.
That is a non-sequitur. If you make ideas free, then you reinforce private property. If you restrict ideas, you undermine private property. Have you read any of the scholarship (Kinsella, Tucker, Boldrine and Levine) on this? Kinsella is the most difficult to read but Tucker, Boldrine and Levine are very easy to understand.
Also, do you really believe that private property only supports a privileged class?
bloomj31:If I get the idea first and it took me a long time to come up with it and you steal it from me, then anything you make in the market is partially mine.
This is incorrect. What I make in the market, is a manifestation of the idea, and a product of my labour. This is why the guy who invented the wheel doesn't have a partial stake in every automobile. This is why Ford, GM and Chrysler all share from a common pool of ideas when constructing automobiles. If they could not, then there could be no competition.
bloomj31:However, if you come up with the idea first, it's yours. No, I'm not against markets, I'm just against stealing people's ideas.
But ideas are not property, and your artificial enforcement of their monopoly, constitutes anti-market behaviour. How do you reconcile restricting the market, as being pro-market? Obviously, many of your positions have cognitive dissonance going on, but really, can't you spot this contradiction, and have to check your own premises?
bloomj31:5. No, you never did. But it seems like the Mises Institute understands the value of private property even if you do not.
Explain.
Alright, Liberty Student, you win.
bloomj31: But it seems like the Mises Institute understands the value of private property even if you do not.
Thats why they make all of their books freely available.
liberty student:That is a non-sequitur. If you make ideas free, then you reinforce private property. If you restrict ideas, you undermine private property. Have you read any of the scholarship (Kinsella, Tucker, Boldrine and Levine) on this? Kinsella is the most difficult to read but Tucker, Boldrine and Levine are very easy to understand.
Still at the feet of Kinsella I see LS. Your theories don't mesh with the marketplace. Ideas are just information, can people own information? If everyone has all information once it has been released, why do people still buy information? Why are there huge private unregulated markets that buy and sell information? You and Kinsella are confused between the government providing a blanket protection of property and whether or not the market can provide protection of information. The market already protects information with contracts and is quite capable of protecting some information without any government assistance. Your attempt to force the market to share all information and have no penalty for stealing information (ie hackers) is no better than the government trying to impose on the marketplace.
Given a society free of government, information will still be bought and sold and still valued and protected.
Your tyrannical assertions don't scare the marketplace.
That's a good point. Would privately negotiated information contracts be enforced in the non-government anarcho-capitalist area or whatever you want to call it?
People pay for the communication or education of the ideas so that they can realize a copy of the idea in their minds. Whether the other party even has the idea or not doesn't matter to the person buying the means of communicating the idea so long as they get the idea in their minds. (or if not in their minds, some representation of the idea recorded in some form of media)
Angurse:Thats why they make all of their books freely available.
Which is what I would do, but somehow Jacob seems to think they are approaching this differently than I would.
Maxliberty:Still at the feet of Kinsella I see LS.
You'll have to do better than Ad Hominem Max.
Maxliberty:Your theories don't mesh with the marketplace.
You've yet to prove that assertion you have made many times.
Maxliberty:Ideas are just information, can people own information?
They can own manifestations of information, they cannot own what does not exist in the material world.
Maxliberty:If everyone has all information once it has been released, why do people still buy information?
People buy the idea manifest as labour. That is why LvMI gives books away for free in some formats, but people still pay for it in others. The format, differentiates the product.
Maxliberty:Why are there huge private unregulated markets that buy and sell information?
They sell the exchange/manifestation of that information. Without a transmission vector, exchange cannot occur.
Maxliberty:You and Kinsella are confused between the government providing a blanket protection of property and whether or not the market can provide protection of information.
As usual, you have strawmanned my position, and conflated it with Stephans. You're providing nothing new to the discussion, not even knew rhetorical devices or logical fallacies.
As I have informed your friend BrainPolice in the past, if you assert my position, back it up with a source.
Maxliberty:The market already protects information with contracts and is quite capable of protecting some information without any government assistance.
"The market" as you state it, doesn't protect information, it undermines property rights by awarding monopoly privilege based on arbitrary legal codes.
Maxliberty:Your attempt to force the market to share all information and have no penalty for stealing information (ie hackers) is no better than the government trying to impose on the marketplace.
I have attempted nothing. I am not forcing anyone to do anything. It doesn't help your argument to make false claims.
Maxliberty:Given a society free of government, information will still be bought and sold and still valued and protected.
It may, or it may not. The market can decide. Whatever the market arranges, as long as it is voluntary, I support it.
Maxliberty:Your tyrannical assertions don't scare the marketplace.
More Ad Hominem. The refuge of a scoundrel?
bloomj31:That's a good point. Would privately negotiated information contracts be enforced in the non-government anarcho-capitalist area or whatever you want to call it?
If the contract is voluntary, I don't really care what it is. It's none of my business.
How it is enforced is up to the two contracting parties. I would assume they would specify a legal code, arbitrators, penalties etc within.
The argument about intellectual monopoly isn't that I can't have YOUR ideas. It's that I can't freely exercise MY ideas. And who came up with it first, is absolutely silly. We all use wheels. None of us came up with them. We all use math, we all sing songs, we all prepare food, we all speak english, none of us created all of these things, and in nearly every case, the creator of these ideas, built on ideas which came before.
To limit imitation, is to limit competition.
liberty student: If the contract is voluntary, I don't really care what it is. It's none of my business. How it is enforced is up to the two contracting parties. I would assume they would specify a legal code, arbitrators, penalties etc within. The argument about intellectual monopoly isn't that I can't have YOUR ideas. It's that I can't freely exercise MY ideas. And who came up with it first, is absolutely silly. We all use wheels. None of us came up with them. We all use math, we all sing songs, we all prepare food, we all speak english, none of us created all of these things, and in nearly every case, the creator of these ideas, built on ideas which came before. To limit imitation, is to limit competition.
Someone came up with wheels. They just either didn't have copyright laws back then or they didn't know how to copyright it.
Now, if the contract is voluntary, can it be enforced on other people who haven't signed the contract but might be able to download it on the internet? How do you prevent theft under your system?
What about movies, video games, books, licenses, likenesses, and so on and so on? Will the people who produce these things be helpless in protecting their interests?
bloomj31:Someone came up with wheels. They just either didn't have copyright laws back then or they didn't know how to copyright it.
LOL. So wheels are stolen ideas. Based on the intellectual monopoly premise, every idea you have that you learned or observed must be stolen.
bloomj31:Now, if the contract is voluntary, can it be enforced on other people who haven't signed the contract
To ask is to answer.
bloomj31:How do you prevent theft under your system?
What was stolen?
bloomj31:What about movies, video games, books, licenses, likenesses, and so on and so on? Will the people who produce these things be helpless in protecting their interests?
Areyou going to read any of the scholarship on this topic, or do you really want me to rehash all of the arguments (available for free!!) because you are too lazy to investigate them for yourself?
I really do have better things to do with my time.
You can check the latest Boldrine and Levine article in the Christian Science Monitor. Then read all of Jeffrey Tucker's IP articles. MP3s are available in the media section. Then I would read Boldrine and Levine's book, then Kinsella's book.
About time you started posting again.
I really didn't mean to start another full-blown IP vs. no-IP debate, but I suppose the results are informative. Bloomj31, I think a point that is often overlooked by IP-advocates is that no one should have a "right" to a market-share. You can make something and offer it for sale, but you can't claim ownership of consumers' buying preferences. In a sense, this is all IP is really doing -- assuring a market share for the person who gets a copyright or patent.
Kinsella mentioned this in passing in his interview on the Peter Mac Show, and it made me think deeper about the legitimacy of IP rights. It's a point worth considering (and he does articulate it more clearly than I do, so it might be worth checking out).
(Also, I think coming into this debate it's a good idea to have an understanding of the main types of IP law (copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret), and their differences and inconsistencies -- even in abstract form. Again, this was something that has made me question IP rights.)
liberty student:You've yet to prove that assertion you have made many times.
In the marketplace, information isn't free. People buy and sell it. Your theory that all information would be free if there was no government is obviously false. Some people have information and others do not. Your idea that people only buy the means of communication is absurd. If I am only buying the means of communication then what is communicated should not be important and yet people think exactly the opposite of your theory. It is the information that people do not have and want, not the means of communication. As further evidenced by the fact that there are wide price variations for the same means of communication, that is contrary to your theory. We would expect all information communicated by cd which is basically a commodity to be the same price under your theory...its not....not even close. What is being communicated matters. It's incredible that this simple concept escapes you.
liberty student:They can own manifestations of information, they cannot own what does not exist in the material world.
Are the electrical impulses in my mind that form ideas....do they belong to me? If you agree to share information with me with certain restrictions on how I use that information why would you and your Austrian thought police who claim to want freedom be opposed to that?
liberty student:As usual, you have strawmanned my position, and conflated it with Stephans.
liberty student:I have attempted nothing. I am not forcing anyone to do anything.
liberty student:It may, or it may not. The market can decide. Whatever the market arranges, as long as it is voluntary, I support it.
Why not adopt a truly free viewpoint of information...let people do with it as they will and respect the contracts they make between each other. It is really that simple.
If I am only buying the means of communication then what is communicated should not be important
If I buy only the means of communication, I am able to to get information that I want.
I buy a dentist's services, not because I value the services, but because I value my teeth.
I use the dentist's services to reach an end that I value. I use the means of communication to reach an end that I value.
This is going to be a long post in order to properly eviscerate your position, I might have to break it up into a couple of responses.
Maxliberty:In the marketplace, information isn't free. People buy and sell it.
You have misidentified what they are paying for.
Maxliberty:Your theory that all information would be free if there was no government is obviously false.
I believe that is a strawman, can you source my saying this? If not, will you admit it is a lie?
Maxliberty:Some people have information and others do not.
I would argue everyone has information, that it is impossible to interact with reality without it.
Maxliberty:Your idea that people only buy the means of communication is absurd.
Well, without a means of transmission, there would be no way to complete the exchange. They might value it all sorts of different ways. But as we know from the marginal revolution, value is subjective, and so trying to determine an objective point of value (as you continue to do) cannot yield a true answer.
Maxliberty:If I am only buying the means of communication then what is communicated should not be important and yet people think exactly the opposite of your theory.
Argumentum ad populism at the end. That's a logical fallacy. Also, your argument amounts to, if I am getting from A to B, it doesn't matter if I walk or take an airplane. I'm sure you can see the error there.
Maxliberty: It is the information that people do not have and want, not the means of communication.
Now you are trying to make objective claims about value again. Value is subjective. Sometimes I have the information of an ebook from Mises.org, and I want to buy it to have on my shelf. The information is the same, the vector is the differentiating factor. Regardless, you're still making an objective value error in your arguments.
Maxliberty:As further evidenced by the fact that there are wide price variations for the same means of communication, that is contrary to your theory.
If you were following along, that makes my point. Value is subjective.
Maxliberty:We would expect all information communicated by cd which is basically a commodity to be the same price under your theory...its not....not even close.
This fails the test of economic reasoning. You're asserting that subjective value theory is wrong, without offering a proof. Do you reject subjective value theory?
Maxliberty:What is being communicated matters. It's incredible that this simple concept escapes you.
On the contrary, I have never argued otherwise. However, what is communicated, may not be the sole determinant of value. I might not pay you the same amount for the coca cola formula skywritten, that I would if given to me in a digital form.
In summation, every product and service is differentiated. And all value is subjective. These are fundamental facts. Any premise you construct, has to avoid conflict with them, or you will have to completely disprove the theories behind them. Thus far, it's mostly been strawmen and arguing by assertion.
Maxliberty:Are the electrical impulses in my mind that form ideas....do they belong to me?
You are in possession of the manifestation of your ideas, in your mind, which could be constituted of electrical impulses.
Maxliberty:If you agree to share information with me with certain restrictions on how I use that information why would you and your Austrian thought police who claim to want freedom be opposed to that?
First, speaking of the Austrian school in an Ad Hom manner is a violation of the forum rules. You're welcome to criticize Austrian ideas, but the Ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy, and thus poor argumentation, is not welcome here. I tolerate a greater amount of your ad hom because I can be the bigger man, but the moment when you extend it to others, you're offside.
Second, where did anyone claim they were opposed to that? Source please. Failure to provide a source will indicate this is a lie.
Maxliberty:The last conversation we had is where you stated you agreed with Kinsella. I can see why you would back away from that given the obvious inconsistencies.
Stephan and I agree on some things, disagree on others. You still have not proven that my position on Intellectual Monopoly is synonymous with his. If you can prove it, do so. Otherwise, this may be another instance of lying, which is poor form in debate.
Don't assert Max, prove.
Maxliberty: liberty student:I have attempted nothing. I am not forcing anyone to do anything. Sure you are. You want to force people to share there ideas and prevent them from protecting them with contracts. Under your regime you would have all contracts that protect information be invalid since information can not be owned.
You've made two claims here. Can you source or prove them, or are you just asserting again?
Here is the thing, when you assert something you know you can't prove, that's called lying.
Maxliberty:The market has already voluntarily decided that information is property and you want to reverse this.
I am part of the market, and I did not decide this. Thus the market, did not decide it. You confuse the market with a zero sum game. You can have people who want to pretend that intellectual property is real, and you can have people who operate understanding that such ideas are intellectual monopoly. Thus the market accommodates win-win outcomes. So please, on top of the flawed objective value statements, don't start asserting the market is something it is not.
As far as my wanting to "reverse this", I would like you to source that please. If not, I'll assume it is another lie by unproven assertion.
Maxliberty:You and the Austrian cult would like to impose your view of property and your view of information on everyone else.You want to abolish all contracts relating to information because you do not think of it as property. So you are not willing to let the market decide.
Who is in the Austrian cult? Name names and provide sources for their position please. A failure to do so, will not only signal lying by assertion, but is also a failure to make a good faith argument via the forum rules, and a dishonest attack on the character and ideas of the Austrians, which is also a violation of the forum rules. I'm not kidding about this one, so please take your time, and back up your statement very precisely.
Maxliberty:Why not adopt a truly free viewpoint of information...let people do with it as they will and respect the contracts they make between each other. It is really that simple.
I believe that is what I did here.
I'm waiting for you to back up your attack on the Austrian school.
The underlying argument here is circular. The authors are said to have interests needing protection because there is IP law, so therefore we should have IP law.
If we didn't have IP laws, the professions of filmmaker, video game maker, author, etc. may be quite different, but who's to say that these professions should be the way they are now? Maybe these professions are the way they are because of IP law.
The only relevant question in that context is whether IP law encourages such creative efforts. That is something we can debate.
Why anarchy fails
AJ: bloomj31:What about movies, video games, books, licenses, likenesses, and so on and so on? Will the people who produce these things be helpless in protecting their interests? The underlying argument here is circular. The authors are said to have interests needing protection because there is IP law, so therefore we should have IP law. If we didn't have IP laws, the professions of filmmaker, video game maker, author, etc. may be quite different, but who's to say that these professions should be the way they are now? Maybe these professions are the way they are because of IP law.
Indeed. It like arguing we need government in order to provide jobs to politicians.
AJ:The only relevant question in that context is whether IP law encourages such creative efforts. That is something we can debate.
I think in so far as anyone accepts that the use of aggression is immoral, there is no debate. The means (monopoly) cannot justify the ends (creativity) even if proven to do so. That would open up arguments like, "it is ok to kill 100,000 Iraqi children, if it causes regime change". This sort of one sided value calculation is fundamentally statist (seen sans unseen), and probably wouldn't arise in debate between sincere and thoughtful libertarians.
Although it may be unlikely, I could see some kind of IP law theoretically being upheld by private courts.
As to whether IP law encourages creative works, I meant we can debate that with Jacob since he is a minarchist (isn't swayed by the argument that aggression is immoral).
I would actually concede that it probably does encourage such creative efforts. But at what cost to other creative efforts? If I have to spend $15 on a CD, instead of $1, that means that there are $14 that could be spent on some other product or service or leisure, that I now cannot purchase. It goes back to the ideas of protectionism.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
I don't believe that IP law really encourages creativity, what it does is lower the risk of making something that fails at the box office. Do you take the copyright law to bed and read it as a source of creativity? IP law also raises two other troubling issues. First, it eliminates the concept of sale. That is when you buy a product you acquire a property right to use that product as you see fit. Second, those who promote IP law seem to believe that they have a right to trespass on your property rights and/or to deprive you of the ability to use your property. Just because someone wants to protect the value of something they produced does not entitle them to abuse others. After all they made the product for others to use.