I am a strict critic of IP following from the arguments of Kinsella and others but how would a libertarian society without IP prevent plagarism?
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Plagiarism is a form of fraud. If I take someone else's work, claim to be the author, and someone buys it based on that claim, or believing I am the author, then I have misrepresented my good and comitted fraud. The buyer would then have a justifed case against me to be settled by a judge, as would anyone else defrauded in any other way in the market.
www.skylerjcollins.com www.libertysearch.info
With the use of stickers and codes and agencies that register things. This already exists today to a certain degree. And to the extent that governments do this, this function can be decentralized just as well.
You know I can follow the logic of kinsella, and maybe i disagree with it, whatever. But I can't see why adherants to IP can't just concede all the property-rights points to us, and then simply say that IP ought to be sold along with a contract that disalows copying/distributing. You can't persecute people who haven't signed the contract (downloaders), but you can go after the distributers (buyers)
the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
what's wrong with plagiarism? How can you steal that do not exist? Ok, suppose it's true and it's a form of fraud... then how it can be enforeced without violating other peoples "rights"?
Plagiarism is red herring.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
A plagiarized work could be sold fraudulently, but I would say that the vast majority of instances called plagiarism are not instances of fraud. It seems like the key usually would be "claiming to be the author".
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Skyler Collins: Plagiarism is a form of fraud. If I take someone else's work, claim to be the author, and someone buys it based on that claim, or believing I am the author, then I have misrepresented my good and comitted fraud. The buyer would then have a justifed case against me to be settled by a judge, as would anyone else defrauded in any other way in the market.
this sounds sensible.It also avoids problems of claiming plagarism is theft by explaining that the theft and fraud is in the trade of plagarised work not in plagarism of it itself.
A few problems straight away though.
1. how would th customer find out that it isn't my work?
2. why would they care who really created the work? It might bother them they had been lied to but other than that I see no reason for them to pursue the matter.
Nielsio: With the use of stickers and codes and agencies that register things. This already exists today to a certain degree. And to the extent that governments do this, this function can be decentralized just as well.
I like this idea.Can you explain what you mean a little bit more?
how would this work in the case of books or cd's?
Scott F. -
I imagine some of this responsibility would be on vendors. A vendor known for selling plagiarized works, if consumers really cared (see below), would suffer losses. It would be in their best interest to use some sort of private certification company who guarantees creatives works and their authors.
They might not care, in which case there's no complaint. It would be up to the buyer of the plaigarized work to "cry fraud." They may be only motivated enough to let the vendor know they've sold plagiarized work and let it end there, or return it for a refund of their money. I'm sure they could find the real author via the Internet if they were that interested.
This hardly justifies IP and, as has been stated, is really just a red herring.
on a different note, but sort of similar I guess: how would slander and libel be treated in a free society? My initial feeling is that no crime has been committed, and its just a matter of putting out a counter message and people choosing to trust more trustworthy sources. Does anything feel differently?
if you copy a work and say this is a work by so and so...then it is a work (copying) by so and so.
if you claim to author something (mental formulation of concepts, dialoges, fictional names etc) and didnt that would be a lie.
but the purchaser still has a story that they felt worth getting in pring or digital form.
action contracts, direct patronage schemes and real goods producers putting artists on various types of retainers would probably repalce current ip laws.
consumer advocacy groups and those interested in the furtherance of true artists and art endeavores could easily offer certified patronage and authenticity schemes.
this has been discussed at lenght here.
@ Joe, if you haven't, be sure to read Walter Block's "Defending the Undefendable". Magnificent book. Chapter 7 looks at Libelers and Slanderers.
http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf
More of an answer to your question, I think it's just a matter of gullibility. The public would be less gullible in a free society, for the reasons Block explains. Social ostracism for the frequent libelers and slanderers would be enough of a "punishment" for what is really an act of free speech.
What he^ said
Plagiarism is unethical and indecorous behavior but it's not a crime.
Clayton -