I have two arguments in favor of intellectual property, one deontological the other is consequential.
1. The deontological argument: I find Rothbard's argument in favor of IP quite convincing. I quote Rothbard:
In the purely free market, the inventor could mark his machine copyright, and then anyone who buys the machine buys it on the condition that he will not reproduce and sell such a machine for profit. Any violation of this contract would constitute implicit theft and be prosecuted accordingly on the free market.
Copyrights, in other words, have their basis in the prosecution of implicit theft. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant stole the former's creation by reproducing it and selling it himself in violation of his or someone else's contract with the original seller.
The usual counter argument against this is that third parties who are have not been part of the original contract between the producer of the copyrighted content and the buyer should not be subject to it. I think this line of reasoning is not very convincing. It assumes that contracts have to be made only in the physical presence of both parties. Yet that's not how most contracts work. For example if I post a sign on my house requiring that all those who wish to enter must wear shoes I make a contract with all my potential guests without being physically present.
If a musician produces an album which begins with the following disclaimer: "Those who wish to listen to the album have to pay to Jones Johnson (details on www.JonesJohnson.com)", then this would work in the same way as the sign about the shoes. Anyone who picks this album and decides to listen to it implicitly participates in the contract.
Now what if someone removed the initial disclaimer? I believe people should assume by default that all albums have such disclaimer, just as people assume by default that you can't rape people in theaters or murder people in parks (unless its Block's murder park of course). After all everyone knows that Britney Spears doesn't give her albums for free, so when you copy such album from bitorrent or emule, you know that you are doing this in violation of the terms of Britney Spears. You can't claim ignorance of that (at least in the vast majority of cases).
In general, we want to create a free society in which all associations between people are voluntary. However if a software company produces a product and conditions the use of the product on certain terms, then ignoring these terms would be aggression and not a voluntary association. Whether you decide to call it intellectual property or simply contract enforcement doesn't really matter. Whether it is scarce or not also doesn't matter. What matters is that if you decide to use something someone else created, you should abide by the terms or not use it at all.
2. The consequential argument: Most likely that in the future, when nanotechnology will reach its peak, we will be able to create every physical material given a software program. I expect that industry as such will disappear and only software programs will continue to evolve to create better and better material goods out of any raw material. In this world physical property will be so cheap that even the poorest will have more of it that they need. After all you would be able to create a house for yourself from raw material just by using a very complex software program without much additional cost. So while physical goods will be very cheap, software programs, that is intellectual goods, will be expensive and their amount will determine who is rich and who is poor. Therefore I expect that virtually all people would be employed as programmers. Without enforcement of intellectual property in such world almost any work would have to be done voluntarily. The incentives to innovate will be quite low. The market signals will be very vague as well since when everything is free or nearly free, prices won't be able to guide us as to which software program should be written next and how to improve existing programs. Without enforcement of intellectual property we might very well deterioriate to full fledged socialism.
I see you're up to speed with Ray Kurzweil and the singularity.
I won't address (1) because I find deontology to be meaningless/worthless, but as for (2), there is a large body of literature covering the very question of whether IP enforcement would actually help or harm industries that produce IP. Why not actually address that?
I'm using Ubuntu (by your reasoning, a piece of socialist software) and I don't find it any worse than Windows, often better and faster. When replicators come around, I may actually prefer open-source food!
Why anarchy fails
With regards to a sign outside your house, each visitor enters into a discrete contract when they read it and tacitly accept its terms. Physical presence isn't the point. The point is that contracts are only enforceable against parties to the contract. The point is that your visitors read the terms of contract on the sign/ticket/notice and tacitly accept the terms by proceeding to come onto your property, as their only personal right to be on your property is in terms of the contract. You have a real right in your property as owner - they need some sort of personal right to be there, which the owner has granted them exclusively in terms of contract.
There is no real property right in 'intellectual property' to begin with, so you're comparing apples with oranges. If a musician, for example, contracts with a specific party such that this party assumes an obligation not to disclose, reproduce or distribute certain information to 3rd parties provided to him by the musician, this is perfectly legitimate... The musician may bring an action, in terms of contract, against the party he contracts with if this party violates these terms. But the musician never has a real right in the information to begin with. The contract here does not embody the granting of a personal right against a real right, as a contract allowing someone to make use of your property does. The contract is merely limiting the real right of the 2nd party in terms of his self-ownership to disclose, reproduce or distribute information known to him.
You have not provided a sound legal argument for why this contract should be enforceable against 3rd-parties. Your example of ticket-rule contracts does not involve 3rd-parties. Everyone who reads the sign and comes onto your property is a party to contract, and in fact it is you as owner who are granting your visitors personal rights against your real right of ownership which they would not have possessed prior to entering into the contract. If someone never read the sign and therefore never entered into the contract, they have no personal right to be on your property, and are trespassing.
In order for your analogy to be relevant, you will have to show that the musician (or whoever initially knows the information in question) has a real right of ownership in this information to begin with.
A compact disk used to store information is physical property in terms of which an owner has a real right of ownership. The information stored upon it, however, is just information - 'intellectual property' in terms of contemporary, incorrect statute law.
You realise that there is a distinction? That if you are applying your analogy above, the ticket contract only applies to the physical compact disc in question, and not to the information stored upon it. If the music were ripped off the CD into .mp3 format, copied onto another CD, or otherwise reproduced in any way, the analogy falls apart.
When actual physical property is stolen from X by Y and sold to Z, X may vindicate his claim of ownership over the property, which was never transferred, and claim it back from Z, even if Z received the property in good faith from Y, i.e. not realising that it was stolen.
If Z received the property in good faith, he now has a personal claim against Y in terms of the contract of sale he entered into with him. However, if he did not receive it in good faith, he doesn't have a personal claim against Y.
However, as you can see, X needs to have an original real right (ownership) in the property in order for him to claim it back from Y. You have not demonstrated this to be the case with regards to intellectual property. What does it matter to 3rd parties that Brittney Spears doesn't want people to listen to her music for free, if she has no real right to claim against them? Just wanting something doesn't give you a legal right, I'm afraid.
The consequential argument: Most likely that in the future, when nanotechnology will reach its peak, we will be able to create every physical material given a software program. I expect that industry as such will disappear and only software programs will continue to evolve to create better and better material goods out of any raw material. In this world physical property will be so cheap that even the poorest will have more of it that they need. After all you would be able to create a house for yourself from raw material just by using a very complex software program without much additional cost. So while physical goods will be very cheap, software programs, that is intellectual goods, will be expensive and their amount will determine who is rich and who is poor. Therefore I expect that virtually all people would be employed as programmers. Without enforcement of intellectual property in such world almost any work would have to be done voluntarily. The incentives to innovate will be quite low. The market signals will be very vague as well since when everything is free or nearly free, prices won't be able to guide us as to which software program should be written next and how to improve existing programs. Without enforcement of intellectual property we might very well deterioriate to full fledged socialism.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-consequences/
Intellectual property can't stifle and encourage innovation at the same time, by the way. It's either doing one or the other - or at least there is an overall net effect to consider.
There is no real property right in 'intellectual property' to begin with, so you're comparing apples with oranges. If a musician, for example, contracts with a specific party such that this party assumes an obligation not to disclose, reproduce or distribute certain information to 3rd parties provided to him by the musician, this is perfectly legitimate... The musician may bring an action, in terms of contract, against the party he contracts with if this party violates these terms. But the musician never has a real right in the information to begin with. The contract here does not embody the granting of a personal right against a real right, as a contract allowing someone to make use of your property does.
What does it matter to 3rd parties that Brittney Spears doesn't want people to listen to her music for free, if she has no real right to claim against them? Just wanting something doesn't give you a legal right, I'm afraid.
Eugene,
suppose I steal some marble and create a statue out of it do I own the statue?
Secondly I buy a statue made by Michaelangelo from a collector, do I own the statue?
It is clear that creation is neither a necessary nor sufficient criterion for ownership.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Eugene: Do you believe non disclosure agreements can be enforced? I believe they can be. So if person A says to person B: "I will tell you story about X only if you agree not to tell it to anyone else. If you do tell it you'll have to compensate me with 1000 dollars". If person B agrees to these terms he has to respect them, otherwise he will be liable in court. In the same way a musician tells me in his voice in the recording that if I am to listen to this recording I will have to pay for it at his website. Here a contract between the musician and anyone who listens to this recording takes place. The individual can then either accept or reject the contract, but he can't ignore it just like he can't ignore the sign on the house.
Perfectly reasonable to me. However if I break this contract and release this history to third parties then only me will be liable - third parties are not bound by this contract, therefore they can do whatever they wish with the story and they wont be hold accountable no matter how many times they reproduce the story.
Eugene: Britney Spears (or the recording company) is the creator of the album. I do believe she has rights to it. So in this sense she owns the content of the album. I don't believe like you that property has to be scarce in order to be defined as property. If a person creates a distinct work of art or of engineering he can set whatever terms he wishes to on the use of this work. Therefore this work in my view would be considered his property.
I do not believe that property has to be scarce in order to be defined as property either. I believe that something must be rivalrous for property rights to emerge. It is true that you can set whatever terms you wish upon thing you sell. It is binding only to your client not to any third parties if your client chooses to break your contract (by contract I mean something that you actually have to sign and not something implicit or EULAs that you agree or not in order to use software).
I agree. Homesteading is also not necessary nor sufficient. You can receive property as gift, and you may homestead a field that was homesteaded before you. Acquiring property is not a process that can be easily summarized. There are many ways to acquire property, there can be conflicting claims, and so forth.
However in case you agree with me that some intellectual creations deserve to be controlled or owned by their respective creators (thus becoming their property), then you'd definitely agree with me that some form of copyrights is warranted.
Regarding third parties. As I wrote before, there are no third parties. When the writer of the book writes in his own words that anyone who wishes to read his book has to pay for it, no one can be considered a third party. To be a third party you have to be oblivious of that disclaimer, which is never the case.
Precisely, because they have no real right in the information to begin with. Non-disclosure agreements are purely concerned with who knows information. They are not evidence that information is property.
You have to be able to exercise control over an object before you can claim ownership. This is compatible with the ancient Roman law sources that the entire Western legal tradition is grounded upon, as well as modern homesteading theory. The extent to which you can, or indeed are, exercising control is not so important - merely that you are judged to be able to, to some extent.
You can't exercise control over information once it is in the mind of another. That's why information cannot ever be owned. If you want to keep it a secret, keep it a secret. Or, indeed, sign a non-disclosure agreement with the people you do disclose it to. But you can only go after the person you told, who violated this agreement with you. You can't go after the people he tells.
I agree. Homesteading is also not necessary nor sufficient. You can receive property as gift, and you may homestead a field that was homesteaded before you. Acquiring property is not a process that can be easily summarized. There are many ways to acquire property, there can be conflicting claims, and so forth. "Homesteading" refers to the initial acquisition of property, eugene. Not the legitimate transfer of property. It is also possible to abandon an ownership claim in property, you know. Of course there can be conflicting claims. That's why, much as the world may hate us, you need lawyers. :) Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro | Post Points: 5
Eugene:Homesteading is also not necessary nor sufficient.
Homesteading is certainly sufficient to claim ownership. I mean, if you want to play semantics and say that someone could technically "establish a homestead" on a piece of property that someone already owns or something like that, but obviously that's not an actual case of homesteading in an ownership sense. In this context of determining ownership when one uses the term "homesteading" they are referring to being the first to occupy the land.
The point is that homesteading is also a process of creation. You gain ownership over a resource if you manage to make something useful out of it. Intellectual work is another form of creation, and I believe property rights should encompass intellectual creation as well. An individual who spent his time and money to tame the wilderness and make a use out of it deserves to own that natural resource. A man who spent his time and money to create a work of engineering or art should also in my opinion gain ownership over his creation.
Eugene, please take some time to learn a little AE. You've got a lot of posts here now and you're still making very basic economic errors. "Something useful" is subjective. What is useful to you may not be useful to others. Certainly, every human being has a unique value scale.
Eugene:2. The consequential argument: Most likely that in the future, when nanotechnology will reach its peak, we will be able to create every physical material given a software program. I expect that industry as such will disappear and only software programs will continue to evolve to create better and better material goods out of any raw material. In this world physical property will be so cheap that even the poorest will have more of it that they need. After all you would be able to create a house for yourself from raw material just by using a very complex software program without much additional cost. So while physical goods will be very cheap, software programs, that is intellectual goods, will be expensive and their amount will determine who is rich and who is poor. Therefore I expect that virtually all people would be employed as programmers. Without enforcement of intellectual property in such world almost any work would have to be done voluntarily. The incentives to innovate will be quite low. The market signals will be very vague as well since when everything is free or nearly free, prices won't be able to guide us as to which software program should be written next and how to improve existing programs. Without enforcement of intellectual property we might very well deterioriate to full fledged socialism.
Gotta disagree with a lot of that Nero.
There is no way to escape property rights. We all must occupy space in the physical world. Not to mention opportunity costs, which help us to account for the scarcity of time.
It wouldn't be state socialism, but "true" socialism; absence of property rights and "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". And why is that a bad thing? In a way it would be the culmination of capitalism. I don't think people will be employed as programmers in the future, because programs will be much too complicated for humans to understand and directly program. Writing software will be automated as well. Human work will be more like telling the computers what software to write. Designing cars or houses will be more like the work of an artist. People will gladly do that for free, so there will be no need for property rights, or prices or incentives. In a way shopping for houses will be like deciding upon the right open source operating system. In that sense, capitalism is the best way to get to socialism. The difference between capitalists and socialists is not that they want to achieve socialism and we don't, but that they want to achieve it by implementing it and we do by letting it emerge.
The problem is that technological development will be significantly hindered if the smartest people wouldn't have the highest incentives to work for the sake of the most valuable goods. Even today if it was legal to copy software programs, giants such as Microsoft, HP, SAP and others would crumble. Software engineers, who are usually very smart and capable people, would see their wages reduced by two and many of them would find employment in sectors that don't require the same amount of intellgience and creativity. If you don't let the most intelligent and productive people do the most productive things you will decrease your economic growth.
liberty student:Gotta disagree with a lot of that Nero. There is no way to escape property rights. We all must occupy space in the physical world. Not to mention opportunity costs, which help us to account for the scarcity of time.
James: In order for your analogy to be relevant, you will have to show that the musician (or whoever initially knows the information in question) has a real right of ownership in this information to begin with.
I tried to argue for information as property in a previous thread. Hopefully it adds something to the discussion here.
I also think that consequential arguments matter, and existentially so. Rules/laws/customs primarily emerge as mere human means toward subjectively valued consequences (ends). As humanity devotes ever more resources toward creation of -- and engages in division of labor and commerce in -- information, the concept of property in same is likely to only strenghten.
Rothbard's argument works only for both parties who signed the contract. Everybody else is not bound by it. Just seeing written words on a CD or book cover doesn't constitute genuine contract no more than (see my signature) "social contract" when people just happen to be born in a "state's territory" (which is not legitimate property of this abstraction called the "state").
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Eugene:The point is that homesteading is also a process of creation. You gain ownership over a resource if you manage to make something useful out of it. Intellectual work is another form of creation, and I believe property rights should encompass intellectual creation as well. An individual who spent his time and money to tame the wilderness and make a use out of it deserves to own that natural resource. A man who spent his time and money to create a work of engineering or art should also in my opinion gain ownership over his creation.
liberty student is right, Eugene. It would be much appreciated if you would actually utilize some of the wealth of resources made available to you on this website and actually read what others have written already. It will save you a lot of time trying to reinvent the wheel.
Kinsella and others have addressed this ad nauseam for years. Here is a random excerpt from an article 10 years ago about the Napster case that addresses it directly:
Some advocates of copyright and other forms of IP try to justify IP with natural law–type arguments. For example, some say that the author "creates" a work, and "thus" is entitled to own it. However, this argument begs the question by assuming that the authored work is property in the first place; once this is granted, it seems natural that the "creator" of this piece of property is the natural and proper owner of it. But "creation" does not justify ownership in things. If I homestead a farm, there need be no "creativity" involved, in the copyright sense; I need only be the first possessor of the land. On the other hand, if I carve a statue into your block of marble, I do not thereby own the resulting statue. In fact, I may owe you damages for trespass or conversion. Thus, creation is neither necessary nor sufficient for ownership. It is scarcity that is the hallmark of ownable property, and it is by first possession that one comes to own such ownable property. This can be seen by examining the purpose and nature of property rights. Were things in infinite abundance, there would be no need for property rights. But in the real world, there are scarce resources. These things can be used and controlled by only a single person.
Some advocates of copyright and other forms of IP try to justify IP with natural law–type arguments. For example, some say that the author "creates" a work, and "thus" is entitled to own it. However, this argument begs the question by assuming that the authored work is property in the first place; once this is granted, it seems natural that the "creator" of this piece of property is the natural and proper owner of it.
But "creation" does not justify ownership in things. If I homestead a farm, there need be no "creativity" involved, in the copyright sense; I need only be the first possessor of the land. On the other hand, if I carve a statue into your block of marble, I do not thereby own the resulting statue. In fact, I may owe you damages for trespass or conversion. Thus, creation is neither necessary nor sufficient for ownership.
It is scarcity that is the hallmark of ownable property, and it is by first possession that one comes to own such ownable property. This can be seen by examining the purpose and nature of property rights. Were things in infinite abundance, there would be no need for property rights. But in the real world, there are scarce resources. These things can be used and controlled by only a single person.
For a good overall look at this subject I recommend Kinsella's book Against Intellectual Property (which you can download here for free of course. And you can get it in audio form here as well as on iTunesU.)
Eugene: It wouldn't be state socialism, but "true" socialism; absence of property rights and "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". And why is that a bad thing? In a way it would be the culmination of capitalism. I don't think people will be employed as programmers in the future, because programs will be much too complicated for humans to understand and directly program. Writing software will be automated as well. Human work will be more like telling the computers what software to write. Designing cars or houses will be more like the work of an artist. People will gladly do that for free, so there will be no need for property rights, or prices or incentives. In a way shopping for houses will be like deciding upon the right open source operating system. In that sense, capitalism is the best way to get to socialism. The difference between capitalists and socialists is not that they want to achieve socialism and we don't, but that they want to achieve it by implementing it and we do by letting it emerge. The problem is that technological development will be significantly hindered if the smartest people wouldn't have the highest incentives to work for the sake of the most valuable goods. Even today if it was legal to copy software programs, giants such as Microsoft, HP, SAP and others would crumble. Software engineers, who are usually very smart and capable people, would see their wages reduced by two and many of them would find employment in sectors that don't require the same amount of intellgience and creativity. If you don't let the most intelligent and productive people do the most productive things you will decrease your economic growth.
I disagree. You don't homestead a land just by being there first, you have to mix your labor with it. Whether the labor is a physical one or a creative one doesn't matter. You can only initialy acquire a property if you worked to improve it. Homesteading is a process of creation, just like the process of writing a musical piece or a software.
Regarding the statue, that's a bad example. Its just like stealing a piece of metal to create a hammer. Obviously the hammer won't be yours because you stole another property to create it.
A lot of intangible industries should be smaller than they are today, for example the movie and music industry. The resources these industries use up have more productive uses.
Do you believe the music and movie industry utilize too many resources? I don't think so. Just because a technology that enables better protection from piracy is not available yet and people act immorally and indecently by distributing movies, music and software which are the work of others, doesn't mean resources are better used somewhere else. In fact the trillions of dollars that hollywood actors and producers receive today is the best proof that people actually prefer resources to be utilized there rather than in other industries. Unless of course you think movie producers are doing something immoral by trying to exclude others from selling their movies. I actually think they deserve to sell them exclusively, because without them these pieces of work wouldn't even exist.
Do you believe the music and movie industry utilize too many resources?
EmperorNero:The music and movie industries receive artificial protection from the state, in the form of copyright laws. That distorts the market towards producing more crappy movies instead of more useful things like medicine. It's like corn subsidies. Without copyright laws unimaginative 200 million Dollar movies would not be profitable and humanity would spend fewer resources on them.
So, it's the state that forces the consumers to pay for what is clearly (objectively) discernable as crap? Is it also the state that artificially protects Ferrari and Patek Phillipe in the form of property laws? That also must distort the market towards producing more crappy, unimaginative $200k cars and watches instead of more useful things like medicine.
z1235: EmperorNero:The music and movie industries receive artificial protection from the state, in the form of copyright laws. That distorts the market towards producing more crappy movies instead of more useful things like medicine. It's like corn subsidies. Without copyright laws unimaginative 200 million Dollar movies would not be profitable and humanity would spend fewer resources on them. So, it's the state that forces the consumers to pay for what is clearly (objectively) discernable as crap? Is it also the state that artificially protects Ferrari and Patek Phillipe in the form of property laws? That also must distort the market towards producing more crappy, unimaginative $200k cars and watches instead of more useful things like medicine.
Of course people buy more cars because there are property laws and they can't just steal them, that's kind of the point of property laws.
Eugene:Regarding the statue, that's a bad example. Its just like stealing a piece of metal to create a hammer. Obviously the hammer won't be yours because you stole another property to create it.
How can you steal something that someone doesn't own? It was just metal before you came along. You're the one who added "creativity". You just said being there first doesn't mean you own it. Just because someone else got to the metal first doesn't mean it's theirs, right?
Do you seriously not see the fallacy in this line of thinking? Again all of these arguments have been debunked for years. Please read the material that is available to you.
Regarding the statue, I think it should be obvious that you can't take something that is not yours. Kinsella specifically said that the marble is not yours. On the other hand when you compose a musical piece you don't take something that is not yours in order to do it.
Regarding utilization of resources in the movie industry. If we now abandoned all copyrights, would you feel that it is completely your right to distribute movies freely? I definitely would think this is at the least immoral. I imagine if all people were actually decent they wouldn't distribute content that they did not create but in fact respected the rights of the authors. In fact since buying a dvd with a movie obligates you not to distribute it, and any kind of distribution is against the law (even without copyrights laws), then if people did not commit the crime of distributing this content, even in a society without copyrights protection such content will be kept private and payed for. Therefore to argue that resources are badly utilized really defines common sense.
Eugene:Regarding the statue, I think it should be obvious that you can't take something that is not yours. Kinsella specifically said that the marble is not yours. On the other hand when you compose a musical piece you don't take something that is not yours in order to do it.
Who the hell said anything about composing music? We were talking about homesteading. We were talking about your nonsense notion that "you can only initialy acquire a property if you worked to improve it". We already established the guy who had the marble first didn't improve it at all. So according to you, he never owned it. (Even though he had it first).
I can't believe anyone could believe such nonsense. Next thing you'll be telling me that the value of something is dependent upon the amount of labor that went into making it.
Eugene and some others here are missing an important point, confusing patterns with physical property. One can not create a matter, only to re-arrange it, however, I believe one can create a pretty original pattern (in music it is almost impossible nowadays, hehe). But we are not talking merely about creation, but about legitimate ownership of things, which must always include homesteading. One can homestead (and I think this concept was introduced in a first place because of that) only scarce resources, to avoid conflict with other people and so on. That's why owning physical property that you homesteaded is possible and legitimate and it is useful. While owning a pattern, even if you are original creator (that is also hard to prove), is impossible, unless it is only in your head and no one knows about it.
Some could argue, that having IP "rights" is "useful" too (from pragmatical point of view), but please, prove it just once. No one did so far. Even if they did, it would still face the problem of impossibility of such a thing (in a sense, that there can't be any real conflict between same two ideas in a heads of two people. My idea of 4 chord progression patterns do not prevent you from using the very same pattern in YOUR head.
One can not homestead an idea. If one could, then, how Kinsella pointed out countless times, people could "own" other peoples' minds so to speak and it would insantly trump physical property rights and they would even become redundant.
The Lockean definition of homesteading is accepted by libertarians. It speaks about "mixing your labor" with the resource. You can't simply declare that a land is yours, you have to work the land first. Therefore initial ownership is a result of labor, just as an intellectual property is a result of labor. You simply can't say that property rights have nothing to do with work because homesteading is defined through work. So if we view work as an important ingredient in achieving ownership, why do you think it is so inconsistent to appreciate the work a person has done in creating a work of art or of engineering and give him property rights over his own creation?
Is it hard to prove? I don't think so. It is extremely easy to prove that a piece of software or a movie was written by some person.
Now I agree that work alone is not sufficient to grant ownership. Homesteading requires both work and natural resource. Intellectual property requires both work and a very specific virtually unrepeatable pattern.
Regarding the consequentiolist approach to IP. I think I've shown a good example of how IP can seriously deter technological progress, in some not very distant future.
Eugene:The Lockean definition of homesteading is accepted by libertarians.
The Keynesian idea of government stimulus being necessary is accepted by almost everyone. In both situations I ask, so the hell what?
So if we view work as an important ingredient in achieving ownership, why do you think it is so inconsistent to appreciate the work a person has done in creating a work of art or of engineering and give him property rights over his own creation?
This is your problem. You think I can't own something unless I "apply creativity" to it. That's total nonsense. I ask you again: How could the marble be stolen if no one owned it? No labor was mixed with it, no "creativity" was applied to it until the other guy came along and made a sculpture out of it. So by your definition the marble, the sculpture...it belongs to the second guy. He didn't steal anything. No one owned it because there was no "creativity" applied to it until he came along.
Total nonsense.
Intellectual property requires both work and a very specific virtually unrepeatable pattern.
What??? It the pattern is "unrepeatable", what the hell do you need IP for????
You've done no such thing. The only thing you've done since you created this thread is regurgitate the same tired arguments that have been debunked for years. Seriously...
There are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property
if I carve a statue into your block of marble, I do not thereby own the resulting statue. In fact, I may owe you damages for trespass or conversion. Thus, creation is neither necessary nor sufficient for ownership.
I agree with this entirely. If its YOUR piece of marble I can't just use creativity to make it mine. It is yours because you homesteaded it. Homesteading does not always mean that you should mix your labor with it, sometimes you can just pick the stuff up. Therefore just as Kinsella said creation is neither necessary not sufficient for ownership. However some creations such as "mixing your labor with an unonwed resource" or creation of intellectual work are sufficient for ownership. When I said "virtually unrepeatable pattern" I meant that it is unlikely that two people in the world came up with the same pattern, like a book or a movie. That's why you can't have an ownership of cars, or of fantasy books. You need a unique pattern like "Harry Potter and the order of the phoenix book".
In a world where physical scarcity won't exist everything of value will be intellectual. Without intellectual property we will have socialism, and socialism stagnates progress. I know I won't let that happen. Besides I trully believe a person has a right to control his intellectual work, and make sure that if others use it, they use it on his own terms. Intellectual property provides this protection. In fact this protection wouldn't be needed had people acted decently.
Eugene: if I carve a statue into your block of marble, I do not thereby own the resulting statue. In fact, I may owe you damages for trespass or conversion. Thus, creation is neither necessary nor sufficient for ownership. I agree with this entirely. If its YOUR piece of marble I can't just use creativity to make it mine. It is yours because you homesteaded it. Homesteading does not always mean that you should mix your labor with it, sometimes you can just pick the stuff up. Therefore just as Kinsella said creation is neither necessary not sufficient for ownership. However some creations such as "mixing your labor with an unonwed resource" or creation of intellectual work are sufficient for ownership. When I said "virtually unrepeatable pattern" I meant that it is unlikely that two people in the world came up with the same pattern, like a book or a movie. That's why you can't have an ownership of cars, or of fantasy books. You need a unique pattern like "Harry Potter and the order of the phoenix book". In a world where physical scarcity won't exist everything of value will be intellectual. Without intellectual property we will have socialism, and socialism stagnates progress. I know I won't let that happen. Besides I trully believe a person has a right to control his intellectual work, and make sure that if others use it, they use it on his own terms. Intellectual property provides this protection. In fact this protection wouldn't be needed had people acted decently.
Show me this world. Then provide coherent IP theory. You can skip step one, if you want..
Eugene:I agree with this entirely. If its YOUR piece of marble I can't just use creativity to make it mine. It is yours because you homesteaded it. Homesteading does not always mean that you should mix your labor with it, sometimes you can just pick the stuff up.
I'm beginning to think you're just a troll. You literally just got through telling me that you can't just claim something is yours, that you need to "mix your labor with it" or "apply creativity" for you to be able to own it. And now that you finally understand how idiotic that is after I've pointed it out multiple times, you're changing your story and claiming you agree with the Kinsella.
However some creations such as "mixing your labor with an unonwed resource" or creation of intellectual work are sufficient for ownership.
If the resource is unowned, why does it matter if you "mix your labor" with it? You just got through telling me that wasn't necessary. Seriously, are you on drugs?
And the second part of that sentence is a fallacy of begging the question. You're assuming that "intellectual work" is something that can be owned in the first place. It isn't. It is not property. That's what everyone has been trying to tell you. You're talking about a pattern. A pattern is not a scarce resource. If Jim learns Jack's song it doesn't stop Jack from playing it. Jim hasn't stolen anything from Jack. Jack has exactly everything he had before. Ideas are not property. They are not scarce. They cannot be taken away from anyone. Property is only that which is scarce...and by that it is meant that property is only that which one person's use limits another person's use.
In a world where physical scarcity won't exist everything of value will be intellectual.
And in a world of sugarplum fairies and leprechauns my biggest problem would be making sure my teeth didn't rot out from all the gumdrops and lucky charms marshmellows.
Without intellectual property we will have socialism
You have offered not even a hint of evidence for this rather large claim.
I know I won't let that happen.
Do you wear a cape to work or something?
Besides I trully believe a person has a right to control his intellectual work, and make sure that if others use it, they use it on his own terms.
Then you should probably find out who was the first human to build a structure with walls and roof, and pay the living ancestors their proper royalties. Same goes for the first person to construct a device situated above the floor that allows you to place your ass down, taking weight off your feet, but at the same time keeping you elevated off the ground. Some people call this a "chair". The guy who first thought that up has a "right to control his intellectual work", right? I'll bet you owe that guy's family a bundle.
Would you like some more help figuring out who else you owe money to?
John, first of all calm down. Second of all I agreed with Kinsella the first time you showed me the paragraph. I still don't understand the point about the statue, I don't see how this invalidates anything I said. About your assumption that property must be scarce in order to be considered such, I simply disagree, so there is no point in bringing this up.
Regarding coherent IP theory. I think you will have only copyrights. The length of protection will be decided by the courts and will approximate the time assumed it would have taken other people to come up with the same pattern. For books, music and movies this will naturally lead to protection for life, for engineering inventions it might be extended for only several years. In any case, if another person proves that he came up with the same pattern independently he can of course receive the same protection.
Eugene, first of all follow some of the suggestions that have been made by multiple users and read some material on this topic as well as basic economics so that you don't keep rehashing the same debunked notions over and over again.
Second, let me illustrate the nonsensical picture you have painted. This is you talking, in chronological order:
"You don't homestead a land just by being there first, you have to mix your labor with it." "You can only initialy acquire a property if you worked to improve it." "Regarding the statue, that's a bad example. Its just like stealing a piece of metal to create a hammer. Obviously the hammer won't be yours because you stole another property to create it."
"You don't homestead a land just by being there first, you have to mix your labor with it."
"You can only initialy acquire a property if you worked to improve it."
"Regarding the statue, that's a bad example. Its just like stealing a piece of metal to create a hammer. Obviously the hammer won't be yours because you stole another property to create it."
So let's recap. You can't own land unless you "mix your labor with it". The only way you can acquire property is if you "worked to improve it". But at the same time, if someone else has some marble in their possession that they did not "work to improve" somehow they own it...even though you just said in the sentence directly before it that the only way you can acquire something is by "working to improve it". Why do I say you're all of a sudden claiming they own it? Because when I say that someone else comes along and actually does "mix their labor with it" and "work to improve it" you're telling me that the marble doesn't belong to that person because he "stole" it. (Even though he was the guy who did exactly what you said needed to be done to own something...and the guy who he supposedly "stole" it from didn't do what you specifically said he needed to do to own something.) But let's move on, because there's more:
"...initial ownership is a result of labor..." "You simply can't say that property rights have nothing to do with work because homesteading is defined through work." "It is yours because you homesteaded it. Homesteading does not always mean that you should mix your labor with it, sometimes you can just pick the stuff up."
"...initial ownership is a result of labor..."
"You simply can't say that property rights have nothing to do with work because homesteading is defined through work."
"It is yours because you homesteaded it. Homesteading does not always mean that you should mix your labor with it, sometimes you can just pick the stuff up."
So, here we have "ownership is a result of labor"...which literally means that you can't own something unless you "labor". And homesteading is defined through work...meaning you can't own something by just being the first one to it, "you have to mix your labor with it."...and then in the very next post you flip flop right over to saying homesteading is not defined through work...that "sometimes you can just pick stuff up".
Do you get it now? You jump around more than a thin-skinned frog at Mammoth Hot Springs.
Fine, then let me be clear this time. It all depends on the type of property and the circumstances. In order to acquire land you need to work to improve it. In order to acquire property over a piece of marble you just need to pick it up first. In order to acquire property over a horse, you need to tame it, in order to acquire property of intellectual work you need to create a relatively unique pattern. There is not one single rule for homesteading.
So how unique it must be? how many words should differ from two books so that they wouldn't be considered "copies"? I am interested.
So how deep under ground and how high into space must a property be? Did you actually touch/homestead/claim that square inch over there? What percentage of atoms in an object must you touch/handle/claim so it is considered "owned" or "yours"? Are the atoms coming out of the exhaust of your car yours? Are the dead skin cells coming off your body yours? What exactly are "you", and who are the owners of the atoms comprising you now (considering that they are ALL different from the ones that comprised "you" only few years ago)?
Boundary questions/problems are a lot of fun, but they say little about the validity of a conflict resolution/minimization concept. Ultimately, if a concept resolves/minimizes more conflicts than it creates, it will be accepted by humans -- boundary mental masturbations notwithstanding. IP is a concept that humans find useful, and I have a feeling it will only become stronger, with or without a state.
^
Is that supposed to be in argument in favor of IP laws?