they might be protecting a physical piece of paper. they may bind their employees to secracy and thereby influence them from 'speaking certain words' and 'writing certain patterns' . yet to call the information that they are seeking to protect Intellectual Property, is still Not Correct. and a step beyond all that you need to do to speak plainly.
you could say they are taking steps to protect information. why do you want to talk about who 'owns it' ? who knows it is the key isnt it?
the coke formula isnt property, its information that is not owned by anyone, merely known to some, and not to others. so i object to the use of the word property, and indeed Intellectual Property, in how you have used them to make your argument for the possibility of trade secrets and entrepeneurial attempts to handle information flows.
you can call me pedantic, but i think its a big deal. and not a subtle point at all but key
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Rich, this is a response to your posts. You make excellent points, and I wish to address them. I'm trying to address them all, without making huge quotations...here goes...
I actually agree with your understanding of rights and morality; however, I disagree about its application to information. I would agree that scarcity is the basis of property, and that property rights are economically efficient. On the other hand, free contracts are also undeniably moral and often lead to economic efficiency. The right to make a contract demanding non-distribution of information is not based upon a right to rule. It is based in part on the consumer's desired access to the information, which one believes would otherwise be untennable. The other part is the producer's plan for assuring commercial profit. There is no guarantee restricting the information as such will be more profitable than an alternative business model that freely distributes it. It seems moral; however, that the producer is free to choose. The consumer should be free too. If several forms of information fulfill the same ends, they need only contract with the one that imposes the least cost to them, in terms of their own labor and freedom - in price and contractual restrictions of liberty. If they disagree with all such contracts, they may choose to do without. Attempts to circumvent these contracts should also be viewed as immoral. At the least, someone who has some form of restricted information should be forced to reveal its source or face obstruction of justice charges. Purposefully attempting to acquire information without a contract from a known illegal source (violating his contract) should be viewed little different than purposefully violating the contract itself.
Obviously, denying someone use of some information is most likely economically inefficient. But no one having that information at all is more inefficient. Turning to alternative business models that do no advocate information restriction only promote efficiency if they can profitably satisfy consumer desire. I am not arguing that they are incapable or even simply less profitable for all forms of information. I am saying that there are cases where using contracts to restrict information is more efficient at creating that information.
I am not talking about the server market, which is obviously dominated by Linux, FreeBSD, etc. I am talking about desktop users. One of the reasons Linux is commercially successful is the necessity of support services in such areas, especially when things get wildly complicated, as they can in the amount of customizations available to Linux.
The "people are just used to it"/inertia argument for MS Windows is not valid. People would have to believe the time necessary to learn Mac/Linux is worth some other form of value. In other words, they'll bail on MS if they thought Mac/Linux was easier/more productive to use (including stability) or costs less (everyone nowadays knows they'll have to buy a new version of windows in the not too far future). That people still prefer Windows (including vendors, who could simply refuse MS exclusivity contracts and become more profitable if what you say is true) is a testament to their preference in basically paying to not lean something new.
If Linux installation is too difficult for most home users, but it is simple to learn and easy to use, there would be a huge market for desktop Linux vendors who would do this installation service. So long as the service itself costed less than MS's license per copy of Windows, it would be quite competitive. Hardware vendors themselves could collectively fund Linux variants to serve this purpose, such as but not limited to Ubuntu, as well as drivers for desirable hardware not produced by their manufacturer. Yet...it's still lacking. I look forward to the day when this changes, because I'm not a huge MS fan in general.
One thing I will easily admit when it comes to Linux vs. MS is unfair ability in advertising, aided by the regulation and corporate tax structure on the media, which will favor MS over Linux. IBM has advertised Linux, but never to my knowledge as a desktop user OS, only as commercial/server solutions.
MS is also involved in a lot of legal crap, but in my view, much of it isn't their fault - they are being unfairly sued, such as the netscape case. The Novell agreement and threats were out of hand, however. The company definitely uses resources unproductively towards legal privilege rather than attempt to innovate and collaborate.
Applying to how I view IP law, I don't think there would ever be a case where two people could independently/coincidentally create the same information available for copyright. I don't think patents are moral or purposeful. I would only apply copyright to those who freely accepted a contract of terms for receiving/using the information. I would go even further to say that all copyright violations would only face penalty of forfeiture of a portion of commercial revuenue, taking into account things like the duration since the copyright date, making all information at some point freely commercially and noncommercially transmissable.
Back to the game example, I really don't play many volunteer-driven or subscription/ad-supported games. Given the market demand for the games I also enjoy, it seems quite apparent that scarce resources (human labor) are being used to best satisfy our desires. You are saying that absent IP laws, we would benefit because you assume the production process is more efficient. But not necessarily in this area. And not necessarily to my benefit. And if this hinders my ability to produce in order to satisfy my desires, then I shift my actions. This may effect others negatively...and so on and so on. I'm aware of what is not seen. I would not see any more of the products that I enjoy. I think it would be the corporate stockholders, producers, artists, developers, and me that would be harmed, while those who wanted their work for free or wanted them to produce (and me to buy) something different would positively benefit. In other words, it seems more like an attempt for others to rule us than for either EA or me to rule each other or you. You are forcing us to engage in what we view as an inefficient business model, as the producer is essentially banned from enforcing a contract that is designed to prevent their sales from turning into tips.
...
What about the long-term future? There is good reason to believe nearly all goods will be information-based. Nanofactories may produce most any physical good based on a few raw materials and information. Much of life will take place in virtual reality. Ads could be filtered out by more intelligent filters. Robotics may replace physical labor. Minds may be freed from any one body.
Socialists would mis-label this as a post-scarcity society. It would become all too clear that information production is a scarce service and must be attached to efficient business methods to promote mass production, or a design suited to the largest audience possible. If there is a distortion between the pricing of the labor and the consumer product, production is not arranged efficiently. It would become a gift economy full of prosumers aiming to fulfill their own desires and allowing the public to emulate them. This is a backwards step from the efficiency of division of labor and capital employed in mass production.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Maxliberty:I can see you have given up trying to defend your undefendable position and have resorted to childish name calling.
You post strawmen, and cannot back up your statements, then say I am being childish?
I'm not calling you a liar as an insult. I thought it was the gentler alternative to idiot. Because you are either stupid or dishonest when you fabricate false positions for your debate opponents, and refuse to back up your statements with facts.
nirgrahamUK:they might be protecting a physical piece of paper.
Indeed, that is all they are protecting. A piece of paper.
You can't protect an idea without being able to stop the ability of others to think and communicate.
Of course there's a person in this thread who will argue that if you can contract with someone not to think of the formula (intentionally reverse engineer) or to communicate it (an NDA), then it is "possible" for "the market" to protect ideas.
Which is utterly flawed and fallacious short of contracting with every living being on the planet.
meambobbo:At the least, someone who has some form of restricted information should be forced to reveal its source or face obstruction of justice charges.
i feel i should point out that you are proposing a presumed guilty until proven innocent policy.
if you used to own a watch and you cant find it. and one day you see me and im wearing a watch that you think looks just like it. you cant simply asume i stole it and demand i prove where i purchased it and thats its not your watch, the burden on proof is on you to prove i stole it.
kiba: Does anybody know what Jacksklark is actually saying? His theory goes way over my head. I have not seen any calculational chaos in the many examples that I know throughout history nor do I ever see any breakdown for market of new digital goods.
Does anybody know what Jacksklark is actually saying? His theory goes way over my head.
I have not seen any calculational chaos in the many examples that I know throughout history nor do I ever see any breakdown for market of new digital goods.
Mises's arguments against socialism argued that free pricing was required to determine what was profitable or unprofitable, which would determine what should be produced and in what proportion, according to an endlessly complex arrangement of capital. Basically, to know if the production process was efficient, one only had to know whether the production of each part of the process was efficient. Attempting to judge whether it was or wasn't according to central planning and consumer desires was inept at answering this.
Similarly, those who invest in some IP can sell its rights to publishers on a market, giving free pricing to information production. Capital is allocated among a variety of uses towards the IP that is most profitable. Nearly all arguments for "alternative business models" under no IP views effectively shift the profitability of any investment in an informational good from the consumer desire for the good itself (normally measured in sales of usage rights), toward consumer desires for related non-scarce goods, such as advertisements or merchandise or a physical copy of the information.
But no one can "own" the informational good and it commands no market price. There is a disconnect between the pricing of the labor required to produce the information and the prices of the ultimate goods sold. If someone produced an informational good that was highly desired but failed to correctly market it by producing non-desired related goods, he could not determine if the investment was profitable by selling the rights to the information to those who would better know how to market it. There may be entire cases where such marketing is simply impossible. Thus, these forms of information would appear to hold no profitability. With IP laws, such information would show stronger consumer demand than the information produced without IP law. Producers cannot be exactly sure what information to produce to best please consumer desire, only that which increases consumer demand for other goods and services.
Take for example a case where a game was only half completed and could not be marketed. The rights to the various pieces of information could be liquidated. The artwork or musical score for example, may have turned out to be profitable, while the code did not. Prices for the artists, coders, and the IP they produce would adjust accordingly. Without IP law, these assets have no price, and it can only be considered that the whole project was unprofitable. It could also lead to paradoxes as well. A project may be profitable, being simply pieced-together information from previous projects that were unprofitable.
I would argue that this isn't as nearly as applicable to IP as it is to socialism, although it is in principle the same. Entrepreneurs can still calculate the profitability of some form of information production. But there are no intermediate prices. Calculation would be based upon a larger, more complex production process, which is prone to less efficiency...and a less clear understanding of what exactly to produce.
liberty student: GilesStratton:Perhaps you'd best stop with the cheap shots against religion. You of all people should be able to appreciate a good cheap shot.
GilesStratton:Perhaps you'd best stop with the cheap shots against religion.
You of all people should be able to appreciate a good cheap shot.
I can, just not when they're aimed at something I favour.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
liberty student: Maxliberty:I can see you have given up trying to defend your undefendable position and have resorted to childish name calling. You post strawmen, and cannot back up your statements, then say I am being childish? I'm not calling you a liar as an insult. I thought it was the gentler alternative to idiot. Because you are either stupid or dishonest when you fabricate false positions for your debate opponents, and refuse to back up your statements with facts.
I notice that since I pointed out I was quoting you in this thread you are unable to refute anything I have said. As i said, you are not capable of defending your previous position.
hi max perhaps you could link to the post in question or pull a qoute because i for one am unclear about what position you claim LS has become unable to defend
nirgrahamUK: they might be protecting a physical piece of paper. they may bind their employees to secracy and thereby influence them from 'speaking certain words' and 'writing certain patterns' . yet to call the information that they are seeking to protect Intellectual Property, is still Not Correct. and a step beyond all that you need to do to speak plainly. you could say they are taking steps to protect information. why do you want to talk about who 'owns it' ? who knows it is the key isnt it? the coke formula isnt property, its information that is not owned by anyone, merely known to some, and not to others. so i object to the use of the word property, and indeed Intellectual Property, in how you have used them to make your argument for the possibility of trade secrets and entrepeneurial attempts to handle information flows. you can call me pedantic, but i think its a big deal. and not a subtle point at all but key
If you actually believe what you are saying then all efforts to protect industrial secrets, design secrets, development processes, software code, would be shown by the market place to be a complete waste of time. Furthermore, the people who practice such activity would be irrational. Yet if the marketplace is demonstrating that protecting these worthless pieces of paper is improving profitability then your theory must not be correct as the protection must be adding value. Coke is an excellent example. According to you and LS the formula at this point should be widely available and there should be an identical tasting drink at a much lower price, yet there isn't. This particular example involves no government IP enforcement. Please explain the paradox, the market is doing exactly what you say is impossible.
nirgrahamUK: i feel i should point out that you are proposing a presumed guilty until proven innocent policy. if you used to own a watch and you cant find it. and one day you see me and im wearing a watch that you think looks just like it. you cant simply asume i stole it and demand i prove where i purchased it and thats its not your watch, the burden on proof is on you to prove i stole it.
I am not. All criminals are presumed guilty by someone before they are tried, or else there would be no such thing as a "suspect". They are only proven guilty by the law after a fair trial. And a fair trial includes the right to not incriminate yourself.
Allow me to explain. In your example, this would depend on the specifics of the watch. If it could be verified that only one was produced, for instance, then it would suggest that the watch was indeed yours, and you would have better evidence to prove your case. On the other hand, if the watch was a mass-produced Timex that had no known unique markings, this would be an incredibly difficult case to prove. You could bring up a civil suit against the person independent of your likelihood of winning. You would not have the privilege to compell that person to incriminate themselves...or convince a jury to presume he is guilty without explicit evidence.
Similarly, if a copyright holder were to bring a case against a person in the manner I described, they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person had reason to suspect a crime was committed, has knowledge that is potentially evidence of this crime, and refused to reveal this evidence. Given that the IP is so complex that there is no doubt that any sufficiently similar information must be a copy/direct variation, they should be able to make a solid case based upon their decision to market the IP exclusively under contract. For them to have additionally released the IP without any binding contract would defy common sense. Thus, it is reasonably conclusive to assume that anyone in possession of the IP must have received it by agreeing to their contract. The fact that someone now has the IP without agreeing to their contract means that someone has violated the contract, although not necessarily this possessor. That's evidence of a crime, and the possessor obviously has knowledge necessary to attaining justice in this case. If he refuses to reveal this evidence, that's evidence of another crime - obstruction of justice.
I don't believe copyright holders would attempt to bring such charges against many individuals, only occasionally to root out an illegal distributor. And I believe such people would regularly reveal where they received the information rather than attempt to defend themselves in court. So long as they complied, they would face no legal penalty, and could not even be compelled to dispossess the IP.
Maxliberty:If you actually believe what you are saying then all efforts to protect industrial secrets, design secrets, development processes, software code, would be shown by the market place to be a complete waste of time. Furthermore, the people who practice such activity would be irrational. Yet if the marketplace is demonstrating that protecting these worthless pieces of paper is improving profitability then your theory must not be correct as the protection must be adding value. Coke is an excellent example. According to you and LS the formula at this point should be widely available and there should be an identical tasting drink at a much lower price, yet there isn't. This particular example involves no government IP enforcement. Please explain the paradox, the market is doing exactly what you say is impossible.
max you are being disengenius. of course there can be information which can be called secret. yet this does not mean there is any sense to call it property. because its not a scarce good its not property.
you are simply expressing bad language when you claim the coke formula is IP, or property. please choose another word to consistently use and dont say IP. if you like you can say it somewhat mirrors what IP would be, if IP was not a fiction. ( a pleasant fiction for some). but i think it would be good fo yuo to acknoledge this point.
as far as coke goes :>
are there human beings that know the coke formula or is it *only* on a piece of paper? if it is known by people, which is what i assume. then over drinks at a bar a 'knower of the formula' might *unlawfully*(sic) tell it to me. i might not commit suicide. i might not forget what i was told. if i know information there is no sense of returning it to its rightful owner. that would be meaningless. perhaps the person that told me will pay a consequence for some breach of trust. but i know how to make coke. and i have not heard you describe a method that would restrict me for starting Nirola.
liberty student: Maxliberty:People believe that their ideas and inventions have value. People will protect what they think has value. Without a doubt. But if you've ever been in business, selling a product you produce, unless you price it to the market and consumer demand, rather than what you think it is worth, you're going to fail. Value in the market, is not determined on the supply side only. That is the core of Austrian economics. Maxliberty:People will make efforts to protect ideas and inventions. Sure. And sometimes they will be successful, sometimes they will encourage competition and R&D, and sometimes they will go bust. Saying "people will make efforts to protect ideas and inventions" (no insult intended) is about as insightful as saying "people will get alarm systems for their stores and offices".
Maxliberty:People believe that their ideas and inventions have value. People will protect what they think has value.
Without a doubt. But if you've ever been in business, selling a product you produce, unless you price it to the market and consumer demand, rather than what you think it is worth, you're going to fail. Value in the market, is not determined on the supply side only. That is the core of Austrian economics.
Maxliberty:People will make efforts to protect ideas and inventions.
Sure. And sometimes they will be successful, sometimes they will encourage competition and R&D, and sometimes they will go bust. Saying "people will make efforts to protect ideas and inventions" (no insult intended) is about as insightful as saying "people will get alarm systems for their stores and offices".
You can not say that on the one hand IP protection is impossible and then admit on the other that sometimes protection of ideas and inventions will sometimes be successful.
The marketplace demonstrates that protecting your ideas and inventions can be successful and aid in capturing the value of those ideas and inventions. That does not mean that your idea or invention is always guaranteed to be protected. Once again you have to distinguish between the possibility of something occurring (someone having the same idea or invention) and the probability of that event occurring.
By the way this is in response to the gentleman asking for the quotes I was referring to about LS.
meambobbo: Given that the IP is so complex that there is no doubt that any sufficiently similar information must be a copy/direct variation, they should be able to make a solid case based upon their decision to market the IP exclusively under contract. For them to have additionally released the IP without any binding contract would defy common sense. Thus, it is reasonably conclusive to assume that anyone in possession of the IP must have received it by agreeing to their contract. The fact that someone now has the IP without agreeing to their contract means that someone has violated the contract, although not necessarily this possessor. That's evidence of a crime, and the possessor obviously has knowledge necessary to attaining justice in this case. If he refuses to reveal this evidence, that's evidence of another crime - obstruction of justice.
'obviously has knowledge' ?
also is obstruction of justice a libertarian concept? i havent thought about it too much but it sounds rather statist at first glance.
Maxliberty:You can not say that on the one hand IP protection is impossible and then admit on the other that sometimes protection of ideas and inventions will sometimes be successful.
IP protection is impossible because the concept of Intellectual Propoerty is impossible.
yet
it is possible , over periods of time, to keep secrets. this is not the same thing.
so, i agree with LS
nirgrahamUK: max you are being disengenius. of course there can be information which can be called secret. yet this does not mean there is any sense to call it property. because its not a scarce good its not property. you are simply expressing bad language when you claim the coke formula is IP, or property. please choose another word to consistently use and dont say IP. if you like you can say it somewhat mirrors what IP would be, if IP was not a fiction. ( a pleasant fiction for some). but i think it would be good fo yuo to acknoledge this point.
It is irrelevant what you call it. The market is not concerned with what your defintion of property is. You think that because you don't think of it as property that it reduces the value to zero. The marketplace places a value on ideas and inventions. These things are bought and sold and protected all without any government intervention or government protection in many cases. Your flawed to think that ideas are nothing and without value because they possess the possibility of being owned by another person.
Instead of repeating your mantra you should actually look at what people do in the marketplace. That is the only answer you need. What you say should be happenning in the marketplace is not happening. Your theory is not consistent with the observable actions in a free market place. Again, please explain what everyone in the market is doing and why it contradicts what you say should be happening. Please don't cry government intervention because the vast majority of efforts to protect ideas and inventions are not under government enforcement.
This is where you and LS fail. Your theory does not explain what is actually happening.
nirgrahamUK: Maxliberty:You can not say that on the one hand IP protection is impossible and then admit on the other that sometimes protection of ideas and inventions will sometimes be successful. IP protection is impossible because the concept of Intellectual Propoerty is impossible. yet it is possible , over periods of time, to keep secrets. this is not the same thing. so, i agree with LS
So what is it that is being kept secret ? You have to stop repeating your mantra and actually look at what is happening and then explain it.
You say it is not the same but you can't explain the difference and that is because there is no functional difference between protecting your ideas and inventions and protecting your property. Most people view the product of their own mind to be theirs depsite you running in circles claiming its not. Ideas can be owned by more than one person but that doesnt make it any less mine.
Again, explain why the market acts in contrast to your mantra.
you want me to explain why people keep trade secrets? im sure we both know that,..
you want me to explain why some people want to legally codify IP laws, well its to get monopoly prices and restrict competition. they are also absurd as they are calling the things that they value property.
property cease to be property when those that owned and those that might consider them place no value on them. they get abandoned.
conversely lots of thing can be valued and not be property. example. i might value my reputation. i might sufffer real costs to maintain my rewputation. my reputation is not my property. it would be absurd to frame laws that would protect my reputation property. yet it is not absurd to allow me to be free to act in my chosen interest even in such fields as care for my reputation.
so i reject your claim that LS and i fail. and i challenge you to defend your language. IP ? nonsense.
Maxliberty: So what is it that is being kept secret ? You have to stop repeating your mantra and actually look at what is happening and then explain it. You say it is not the same but you can't explain the difference and that is because there is no functional difference between protecting your ideas and inventions and protecting your property. Most people view the product of their own mind to be theirs depsite you running in circles claiming its not. Ideas can be owned by more than one person but that doesnt make it any less mine. Again, explain why the market acts in contrast to your mantra.
the information is being kept secret . yet intellectual property is not being kept secret.
why?
because information exists. and intellectual property doesnt.
see my prior post on reputation for example
nirgrahamUK: and how convincing do you find that?
and how convincing do you find that?
Wow, a lot has happened since I last posted. I haven't read through and sorted out what has been said for the past couple of days, but before I do I would like to respond to your question.
I find the argument I presented very convincing, but we have to be aware of the parameters we have set up. In order to use Mises' argument we have to assume three things:
1) Good F (which is required to produce good G, Weel and Car - as by your example) is on the inventors side of the disconnect, meaning it has not been developed and the Idea is still super scarce.
2) Good F is not developed by a third party, i.e. an independent inventor.
3) We also assume that good F recieves a price of 0 on the market, which assumes away all IP or business models based on limiting the supply of the good.
This is why I support an inventors' copyright which I detailed earlier (this would not prohibit discovery and sale by a third party, but would prohibit direct copying of the inventors idea). This would solve the Misesian IP paradox, since good F will be produced giving way to good G - (consumer satisfaction is greater under the monopoly price, since good G would not have been made), but does not prohibit third party invention.
Secondly, thank you nirgrahamUK for your calm response as well as presenting your reasoned arguments. Even if we don't fully agree, we can still attempt to go about listening and learning from one another.
nirgrahamUK: 'obviously has knowledge' ? also is obstruction of justice a libertarian concept? i havent thought about it too much but it sounds rather statist at first glance.
Eh...true. One could always say "maybe my grandma did it" or "I honestly don't remember," and it would be difficult to prove otherwise. If one could show that one habitually ended up with such media, maybe the case would be different.
I don't think obs of justice in and of itself is statist; however, it certainly shows potential for abuse, similar to the witnesses for hire forced into that position due to the nature of the drug war.
I'd like to 2nd Jack on the well-mannered discussion.
nirgrahamUK: Maxliberty: So what is it that is being kept secret ? You have to stop repeating your mantra and actually look at what is happening and then explain it. You say it is not the same but you can't explain the difference and that is because there is no functional difference between protecting your ideas and inventions and protecting your property. Most people view the product of their own mind to be theirs depsite you running in circles claiming its not. Ideas can be owned by more than one person but that doesnt make it any less mine. Again, explain why the market acts in contrast to your mantra. the information is being kept secret . yet intellectual property is not being kept secret. why? because information exists. and intellectual property doesnt. see my prior post on reputation for example
The original information is the intellectual property. So you protect the original information you protect the IP. They are the same. You still are unwilling to explain what is actually happening in the marketplace. On the one hand you agree that people will have ideas put these ideas on paper and then protect these ideas which makes perfect sense. Then you add there is no possible way they can protect their idea. It is a complete contradiction.
Again, explain why people are protecting their ideas when you say it is physically impossible?
nirgrahamUK: you want me to explain why people keep trade secrets? im sure we both know that,.. you want me to explain why some people want to legally codify IP laws, well its to get monopoly prices and restrict competition. they are also absurd as they are calling the things that they value property.
Classic anti-ip dodge of the arguement. Nowhere have I mentioned any state IP laws. I have only talked about the free-market. You can only argue in context of the state IP laws because the free-market does not act how you predict it will. In a free-market your theory that people will not protect original information/IP is demonstrably false. I have demonstrated it with the Coke example and there are many more cases just like that. If you eliminated the state tomorrow people will still make successful efforts to protect what is traditionally thought of as IP and do things to maximize the value of that IP. It is happening now in the free-market and would continue.
nirgrahamUK: conversely lots of thing can be valued and not be property. example. i might value my reputation. i might sufffer real costs to maintain my rewputation. my reputation is not my property. it would be absurd to frame laws that would protect my reputation property. yet it is not absurd to allow me to be free to act in my chosen interest even in such fields as care for my reputation.
Two things, your reputation is what other people think in their heads so you have no control over that, so you can not own exclusively what other people think in their head. What you could do is pay people to not say or write bad things about you. IP protection is not about controlling what other people think it is about the actions they take with the information they receive. The actions can be controlled primarily with contracts but there may be other mechanisms as well like not giving you the information.
Secondly, IP is what you think in your head and you have complete control over that. You are the owner of your thoughts but if you have contracted to not take actions on those thoughts then you are bound by that. Also, if you and I think the same thing then it is no less my thought because you also think it.
Finally, the probability of you and another person having the exact same idea or invention is very low. So again, IP protection is not about controlling people's thoughts but controlling their actions regarding an idea/information of agreed upon value that you are supplying to them. That is a perfectly legitimate free-market function, it doesn't violate your rights, it doesn't limit your mind but it limits with your agreement the permissable actions that you can take.
If you agree that contracts are a permissable form of IP protection in a free-market then there is nothing left to discuss and you are in fact an advocate of allowing people to protect IP. It would be great if you and LS could actually discuss what is really happening as opposed to repeating your tired mantra.
You and LS are confusion exclusivity with ownership. I can own something without being the exclusive owner and until there is another owner then I am the exclusive owner. If maintaining my exclusive exercise of ownership through contracts is beneficial and voluntarily agreed upon what on earth is wrong with that?
It's not worth it. Life has so much more to offer than arguing with some internet crank who just keeps repeating the same positions you have already defeated earlier in the argument.
The property is not exclusive argument on it's face is totally indefensible and ridiculous. Then add in the you own it though if it is in your head. But when someone else has it in their head you don't own it. Maybe you both own it. Maybe neither owns it. Maybe the angels square dance on Thursday nights. But when you make a contract you can protect what is in your head (also known as keeping your own secret, so really we're protecting ourselves against ourselves).
Whatever.
@NUK It's the same crap over and over. I'm sorry if I ever led you to believe you could argue with him and it would eventually reach a conclusion. It never does. He can continue like this for hundreds more posts. He'll never admit he was wrong and he'll continue to misrepresent your position.
Maxliberty:You and LS are confusion exclusivity with ownership.
It's just a waste of otherwise productive time.
i am close to agreeing LS.
i just wonder whether Max is willing to go so far as to claim that it could be sensible to talk about Reputation Property, in similar terms as he talks about IP and we talk about Pyhsical (i.e. real) property./
because of course free market individuals might be expected to 'protect' all three 'things'
I confronted him on this awhile back in a thread by PeterWellington. What is the definition of property?
Forget the utilitarian arguments, forget the emotional arguments, forget the moral arguments.
What is property? Is IP property?
The rest, contracts, safe deposit boxes, the market, is all moot if we can't come to a conclusion on an objective definition of property.
I don't believe IP is property, for the simple reason that it is not scarce. As Max tried to indicate, it is exclusive only until it is not. Sorta like saying water is dry until you get caught out in the rain. It simply does not pass muster.
So while I enjoy people trying to explain how liberty works, or how IP or non-IP could work, it all seems so redundant and pointless. When you have to justify reality, then you're fighting a losing battle. The facts, A = A are what you can lean on regardless of language, time, or situation.
liberty student: It's not worth it. Life has so much more to offer than arguing with some internet crank who just keeps repeating the same positions you have already defeated earlier in the argument. The property is not exclusive argument on it's face is totally indefensible and ridiculous. Then add in the you own it though if it is in your head. But when someone else has it in their head you don't own it. Maybe you both own it. Maybe neither owns it. Maybe the angels square dance on Thursday nights. But when you make a contract you can protect what is in your head (also known as keeping your own secret, so really we're protecting ourselves against ourselves). Whatever. @NUK It's the same crap over and over. I'm sorry if I ever led you to believe you could argue with him and it would eventually reach a conclusion. It never does. He can continue like this for hundreds more posts. He'll never admit he was wrong and he'll continue to misrepresent your position. Maxliberty:You and LS are confusion exclusivity with ownership. It's just a waste of otherwise productive time.
Why do you bother responding and then do not even add anything other than your whining? Like I said you can't defend your arguements, you can't deal with reality. Just keep pretending that in a free society everyone will be in universal agreement with whatever you say. Your a gutless coward.
nirgrahamUK: i am close to agreeing LS. i just wonder whether Max is willing to go so far as to claim that it could be sensible to talk about Reputation Property, in similar terms as he talks about IP and we talk about Pyhsical (i.e. real) property./ because of course free market individuals might be expected to 'protect' all three 'things'
Good agree with LS but unlike him you should at least have the guts to defend your own arguements. You have to think for yourself, if you only rely on what you read without your own critical thinking you end up like LS just repeating something out of a book with no ability to intellectually defend the flaws that exist when confronted with reality.
i have defended my own arguments. i have pointed out glaring contradictions to you that you have glossed over as semantics. its not semantic, its you being wrong.
you've made ridiculous statements about thoughts being property that cant be born out. having a thought, and owning thought property are two different things, the first is fine the second is nonsense. you claim that because actors in the marketplace spend money and say that they are spending money to protect their thougts, that the thougts they feel they are protecting are due the title 'property', just because it seems to you that things that people value are property. i value friendship. i dont own any friends. think on it.
nirgrahamUK: i have defended my own arguments. i have pointed out glaring contradictions to you that you have glossed over as semantics. its not semantic, its you being wrong. you've made ridiculous statements about thoughts being property that cant be born out. having a thought, and owning thought property are two different things, the first is fine the second is nonsense. you claim that because actors in the marketplace spend money and say that they are spending money to protect their thougts, that the thougts they feel they are protecting are due the title 'property', just because it seems to you that things that people value are property. i value friendship. i dont own any friends. think on it.
Just try an answer one real world example. I know it is hard for you to stick to reality but here goes:
In a free-market with no government: Someone(A) thinks of a song and writes this song down on a piece of paper. A now wants to sell this song to someone(B) who pays a price for the song and agrees contractually to not reproduce the song or allow others to reproduce the song without A's permission.
Please don't add any additional scenarios or other circumstances to the base scenario:
Since your arguement is that in a free society either no one will attempt to protect IP(or whatever you would like to call it) and or any attempt to protect it, since it doesnt really exist will fail please answer the following:
Please explain why either party is prohibited from engaging in the above scenario?
Please explain why this will not happen in a free society?
Please explain why B would not be bound by the contract?
As an outsider to this contract please explain what action you plan to take to prevent the above scenario?
Finally, if there are examples of people doing this activity how does your theory explain that?
nirgrahamUK:you've made ridiculous statements about thoughts being property that cant be born out. having a thought, and owning thought property are two different things, the first is fine the second is nonsense.
And on this, I can see you are fixated on the word property. Would you say that most people believe their thoughts are theirs? If you actually look at what people do in a free-market then you will see that people act as if they own their thoughts, they view their thoughts as belonging to them, that is they view their thoughts as their property no matter what you think. How can you say that you have ownership over your body but not your mind?
nirgrahamUK:i have defended my own arguments.
You have. As have I. This is what Max does. He attempts to shout over and ignore what was already posted. Note, he has not clarified if IP is actually property, only that it has value, which as you demonstrate, you might value friends or love or warm sunny days, but that doesn't mean you can own those environments or emotions absolutely.
Rather than continue to feed his need for attention, I was wondering what you thought about Jeffrey Tucker's article on LRC today.
The authors make a very important point with regard to ideas. If you have an idea, it is yours. You can do with it what you want. If you share it (sing, speak, broadcast, let others see the products of your ideas), others then have copies of it. They are entitled to do with their copies of the idea precisely what you can do with your idea. They can use it how they want provided they don't prevent others from doing with it what they want. This is a simple application of the non-aggression principle that governs a free society. Whether it is fashion, language, know how, or whatever, people are free to copy.Ideas, then, are what Mises calls "free goods": copies are potentially limitless. They "do not need to be economized.""Intellectual property" is the completely wrongheaded idea that, in the words of the authors, someone has the right "to monopolize an idea by telling other people how they may, or more often may not, use the copies they own." This strikes at the heart of progress because it means not improving what exists but rather prohibiting others from using and improving it.
JT has been making a lot of utilitarian and moral arguments. But again, I think the only argument that matters is if IP is property or not. If it isn't, then whether people foolishly spend money to guard a vault of books or require NDAs of everyone, and pay to enforce those contracts is moot.
Do you agree?
liberty student:You have. As have I. This is what Max does. He attempts to shout over and ignore what was already posted. Note, he has not clarified if IP is actually property, only that it has value, which as you demonstrate, you might value friends or love or warm sunny days, but that doesn't mean you can own those environments or emotions absolutely.
i agree with this, max has failed to wrestle with this, (Reputation Property anyone?); likely because he intuits it must lead to him conceding the point.
liberty student:JT has been making a lot of utilitarian and moral arguments. But again, I think the only argument that matters is if IP is property or not. If it isn't, then whether people foolishly spend money to guard a vault of books or require NDAs of everyone, and pay to enforce those contracts is moot.
also agree with this. Its kinda sad that mises cant be around to argue these ideas with us....
also i wonder whether Reisman has ever been given a copy of Kinsella's work on it or the Book JT has been blogging.....
but im going to risk feeding the trol because he really dropped a howler on the above post
Maxliberty: In a free-market with no government: Someone(A) thinks of a song and writes this song down on a piece of paper. A now wants to sell this song to someone(B) who pays a price for the song and agrees contractually to not reproduce the song or allow others to reproduce the song without A's permission.
isnt this like me going into a Fruit store and the shopkeeper will only sell me one of his products if i promise that i wont allow my brother to to buy Papaya from any other store.
err.......its a contract involving me in either the impossibility of controlling a 3rd party if i have no power over them:; or possible worse, its a criminal contract which commits me (for fear of breach of contract) to break NAP and coerce my brother.
nirgrahamUK:isnt this like me going into a Fruit store and the shopkeeper will only sell me one of his products if i promise that i wont allow my brother to to buy Papaya from any other store.
No, it's more like me telling you that whilst you're on my property you can't say certain things. I don't have to presume to own the words to say this. Just the property that the contract concerns.
liberty student: Forget the utilitarian arguments, forget the emotional arguments, forget the moral arguments. What is property? Is IP property? The rest, contracts, safe deposit boxes, the market, is all moot if we can't come to a conclusion on an objective definition of property. I don't believe IP is property, for the simple reason that it is not scarce. As Max tried to indicate, it is exclusive only until it is not. Sorta like saying water is dry until you get caught out in the rain. It simply does not pass muster.
I simply do not agree that there is not such thing as IP. How is creating an idea any different than homesteading a peice of unowned land? You have to put the capital down, to work it, make it useful, create it. Once you have done all of these things, the idea and the land are both useful. The land is scarce, there is only one of it. So it is not right for someone to come in and say, you created this value, I did not. But I am going to take this value from you because it is aviliable. So how is does it fit, that when you create an idea, put your hard work, the same work that was involved in working the land, in to createing something that can be easily copied. An idea can be copied and be made aviliable to anyone at no cost. This means that the idea, its self is of no value to the person who created it, because everyone elses subjective value of that idea is "0" because it is aviliable just like air, or water is aviliable. This makes all of the capital that the producer of the idea sunk into the creation of the idea a sunk and lost cost. Does this mean that the producer shold forgo creation of easily copiable ideas inorder to produce bread, simply because he can not profit from creating ideas? Or would he or she have to survive on the generiousity of others for their well being.
I do not disagree that people should be able to create the same goods as one another, like the arguement about Pizzas in the article by Jeff Tucker, but I do think that people should have monopoly privlidge on goods they produce. This does not mean some one can not also bake bread, or make pizza or make a Plasma TV but it does mean that one can not go in to a factory and take the blueprints for a new car, building, or any other good and then simply use them to sell that good at a lower cost than the person worked on the blueprints or the idea. This seems tant amount to stealing, in my opinion.
If it is not so, then Mr. Tucker please let me know when you are done with the manuscript for your next book. I will be over shortly to take it and sell it to a publishing company for a few hundred dollars, this is what is best for the market, correct? that way, more people will be able to access your book and they will have value brought to them.
MaxLiberty is quite correct. One doesn't need to presume to own any ideas, or whatever. Merely property, once I own that property, provided there are no logical inconsistancies I can make whatever contracts regarding it that I desire.
If one were to rent a house in a village of Jewish people, one could attach a contract to the renting of that house specifying that one must not sing, or write down or whatever a certain, new, Neo Nazi song. I don't see what the difference is if that house becomes a CD.
nirgrahamUK:you've made ridiculous statements about thoughts being property that cant be born out. having a thought, and owning thought property are two different things, the first is fine the second is nonsense. you claim that because actors in the marketplace spend money and say that they are spending money to protect their thougts, that the thougts they feel they are protecting are due the title 'property', just because it seems to you that things that people value are property. i value friendship. i dont own any friends. think on it.
How is it ridiculous that property can not be born out? Why do our professors not want us to simply copy work of another author? Would they not be getting a superior product if we did? How come we can not simply all turn in the same paper, to our professor, we may have all indendentaly come up with the exact same idea. Please let me know. I value many things that are not exactly mine. But I also value my thoughts, that is why I sign this post. Why I expect to be reconizged for my intellectual prowess. (not my spelling as you can tell) But, would it be right for someone else to claim this post as their own, and when someone expresses interest in it to make a profit on my ideas? Please let me know.
Benjamin Burkley
Copyrite 2009
patent number 1283837175493
This post may not be copied or reproduced in anyway with out my express written concent.
By reading this post you have implicetly agreed to these terms.
hope all is well.
Benjamin Burkley:If it is not so, then Mr. Tucker please let me know when you are done with the manuscript for your next book. I will be over shortly to take it and sell it to a publishing company for a few hundred dollars, this is what is best for the market, correct?
You sure knocked that strawman over with relatively ease.
Benjamin Burkley:I do not disagree that people should be able to create the same goods as one another, like the arguement about Pizzas in the article by Jeff Tucker, but I do think that people should have monopoly privlidge on goods they produce. This does not mean some one can not also bake bread, or make pizza or make a Plasma TV but it does mean that one can not go in to a factory and take the blueprints for a new car, building, or any other good and then simply use them to sell that good at a lower cost than the person worked on the blueprints or the idea.
You've really obfuscated the point in question with a number of other issues. No, I can't go into your factory to steal the blue prints. If I stumble acrooss a good produced by your factory may I copy the design? Of course, provided I haven't contracted with you otherwise.
Benjamin Burkley:How is creating an idea any different than homesteading a peice of unowned land?
Scarcity.
GilesStratton: nirgrahamUK:isnt this like me going into a Fruit store and the shopkeeper will only sell me one of his products if i promise that i wont allow my brother to to buy Papaya from any other store. No, it's more like me telling you that whilst you're on my property you can't say certain things. I don't have to presume to own the words to say this. Just the property that the contract concerns.
Giles, allow me to try and explain
person c hears person A through the wall singing the song as A writes it down C goes on stage late that night and performs it to a packed house.
person A then sues person B for having allowed C to reproduce the song without A's permission.
Benjamin Burkley:Why do our professors not want us to simply copy work of another author?
Two reasons. The first being the same reason that people pay taxes, and it has nothing to do with it being correct. It merely has to do with it being that way. The second, they want to know what you can produce.
Benjamin Burkley:How come we can not simply all turn in the same paper, to our professor, we may have all indendentaly come up with the exact same idea.
Because you've contracted with your school/ professor. IP has nothing to do with this.
Benjamin Burkley:But, would it be right for someone else to claim this post as their own, and when someone expresses interest in it to make a profit on my ideas? Please let me know.
No, because the sentiments expressed in the post are misguided.
nirgrahamUK: Giles, allow me to try and explain In a free-market with no government: Someone(A) thinks of a song and writes this song down on a piece of paper. A now wants to sell this song to someone(B) who pays a price for the song and agrees contractually to not reproduce the song or allow others to reproduce the song without A's permission. person c hears person A through the wall singing the song as A writes it down C goes on stage late that night and performs it to a packed house. person A then sues person B for having allowed C to reproduce the song without A's permission.
In which case A is to fault, not B. A has no leg to stand on when it comes to his attempt to sue person B, so what? This example is not relevant.
If A, invites B to his house on the grounds that he does not swear in front of the children of A, known as C, and then A swears and C hears, he can not sue B. On the other hand, if B swears and C hears he can take actions against him. Contractual agreements regarding the use of property don't presume to own anything except the property in question.