Are Intellectual Property Rights a Positive Right?

[T.hill]

Property as a principle of natural law is the extensions of ones-self through the labor that is invested in it. It can be physically protected by the owner without the action of outside forces thus making it a negative right. Within the scope of protection of our social contract.

Now unlike physical property, intellectual property is distinct as it only exists in the mind. Some argue that creations of the mind deserve protection as well, but absent of IP laws is there any other practical way to protect IP? If not I would assert that IP rights are not naturally inherent and require the forced action of others to exist, therefore being a positive right. Or a government created right.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Neither IP nor "social contract" exist in reality. They are the products of quite illogical thought experiments, mercantilism (in the case of IP), and misunderstandings of Natural Law.

 

[Matt Collins]

Just because it has aspects of property, does not mean it is actually property.

 

[Neil Desmond]

It's all in our mind, the notion of property, the idea that money has value, etc.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Neither IP nor "social contract" exist in reality. They are the products of quite illogical thought experiments, mercantilism (in the case of IP), and misunderstandings of Natural Law.

Wait, so you taking ideas that I took the time to develop and write... and sold them for a profit... that's not a violation of "natural law"? I guess not trying to profit off someone else's hard work isn't a "violation of natural law"? If it was hundreds of years ago, and most of the work in producing a book was physically making copies, I might feel differently, but now?

I don't really know the answer to this one, so I'm playing devil's advocate, but I've never been COMPLETELY satisfied by the anti-IP arguments. Fraud technically isn't mechanically the same thing as standard theft, but its still considered cheating and thus rightly illegal. Why not selling someone else's work?

 

[Matt Collins]

It's all in our mind, the notion of property, the idea that money has value, etc.

No, because one can have possession over property, be it real, physical, or one's body. Intellectual "property" isn't something one can actually have possession over.

 

[Neil Desmond]

No, because one can have possession over property, be it real, physical, or one's body. Intellectual "property" isn't something one can actually have possession over.

The reason this isn't true is because possession doesn't necessarily equate with ownership. For example, when you take your car to a repair shop, the repair shop is in possession of your car, but that doesn't mean that the repair shop is now the owner of your car.

 

[fisharmor]

The reason this isn't true is because possession doesn't necessarily equate with ownership. For example, when you take your car to a repair shop, the repair shop is in possession of your car, but that doesn't mean that the repair shop is now the owner of your car.

He wrote "can", not "must".

 

[Neil Desmond]

He wrote "can", not "must".

What difference does that make?

 

[mczerone]

Property as a principle of natural law is the extensions of ones-self through the labor that is invested in it. It can be physically protected by the owner without the action of outside forces thus making it a negative right. Within the scope of protection of our social contract.

Now unlike physical property, intellectual property is distinct as it only exists in the mind. Some argue that creations of the mind deserve protection as well, but absent of IP laws is there any other practical way to protect IP? If not I would assert that IP rights are not naturally inherent and require the forced action of others to exist, therefore being a positive right. Or a government created right.

Yes, IP is a positive right: it grants a privilege to certain actors by refusing other's freedom to act in a peaceful manner with their own bodies and property.

The state is a necessity in any type of IP regime.

However, consider that iTunes, for example, might contract with a performer or record label not to list/sell any "covers" of a new song for a length of time. This would give the artist a great platform for exclusivity, while other people would still be free to take that song idea and craft something that's more to their own tastes, or to the market's tastes. Maybe the "copier" publishes it on YouTube or their own private site, or just sells home-printed CDs at their shows. The original artist still has their iTunes contract, and iTunes still gets the original. But the world can still find great new innovation via competition.

If your idea, song, invention was good enough, you and iTunes win. If it was a sub-par release, someone else has the opportunity to make something great from it. Either way, the consumer, our culture, wins. And no one's rights are violated. And the artist gets paid what the market values his or her work to be worth.

 

[PierzStyx]

It's all in our mind, the notion of property, the idea that money has value, etc.

There is some truth to this statement. The idea that building a fence makes something "mine" as opposed to "yours" is entirely in our head. Its merely how we've chosen to define property. Same thing with money. Money isn't wealth no matter how much leftists say otherwise. Wealth consists of things, normally creature comforts. I don't have a lot of cash, but I have all my necessities plus a couple of TVs, an X-BOx, video games, computers, a tablet, movies, a car, etc. etc. Am I not wealthy as to the things of the world then?

So if how one defines property, how one defines wealth, is all in one's head, if they're just ideas given form, but we protect those ideas, then why not protect other ideas too? I find the argument that one can't possess IP to be foolish. If I have a book that I can show I have written then I can show my physical IP. I should then have the right to decide how that property of mine gets used, who buys my property, how my property is sold, and to work in the market to get as much money as I can for my property sale. The fact that my property can be easily replicated is irrelevant. Just because something can be easily stolen is no argument for allowing the thief to take it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

There is some truth to this statement. The idea that building a fence makes something "mine" as opposed to "yours" is entirely in our head. Its merely how we've chosen to define property. Same thing with money. Money isn't wealth no matter how much leftists say otherwise. Wealth consists of things, normally creature comforts. I don't have a lot of cash, but I have all my necessities plus a couple of TVs, an X-BOx, video games, computers, a tablet, movies, a car, etc. etc. Am I not wealthy as to the things of the world then?

So if how one defines property, how one defines wealth, is all in one's head, if they're just ideas given form, but we protect those ideas, then why not protect other ideas too? I find the argument that one can't possess IP to be foolish. If I have a book that I can show I have written then I can show my physical IP. I should then have the right to decide how that property of mine gets used, who buys my property, how my property is sold, and to work in the market to get as much money as I can for my property sale. The fact that my property can be easily replicated is irrelevant. Just because something can be easily stolen is no argument for allowing the thief to take it.

Physical manifestations of ideas (machines, chemicals, etc) are property-this is not controversial. It is the notion that abstract ideas are "property" and that copying said ideas is "theft" is the controversial thing-the latter has never been logically, soundly proven.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Physical manifestations of ideas (machines, chemicals, etc) are property-this is not controversial.

I don't get it. What is it that PierzStyx says that's contrary to this?

It is the notion that abstract ideas are "property" and that copying said ideas is "theft" is the controversial thing

The notion that physical objects are "property" and taking or using them is "theft" can be just as controversial.

-the latter has never been logically, soundly proven.

Are you saying that physical property theft is "proven" but intellectual property has never been "proven"? That doesn't seem to make any sense. Please explain what you mean by this; what is there to prove? BTW, all proof is logical and sound (there's no need to be redundant).

The notion of property is something that is either recognized or not recognized, not something that is proven. What is "property" is a definition, and proof doesn't apply to definitions. One either recognizes or doesn't recognize that someone else's physical or intellectual property belongs to them.

 

[CaptUSA]

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

- Thomas Jefferson


That being said, he did begrudgingly approve of limited IP privileges out of the utility for them. I agree with Jefferson here.

 

[Matt Collins]

Yes, IP is a positive right: it grants a privilege to certain actors by refusing other's freedom to act in a peaceful manner with their own bodies and property.

Yes, you're close. But it's not actually a right, it's a privilege. The government can't grant rights, it can only grant privileges.

 

[osan]

Property as a principle of natural law is the extensions of ones-self through the labor that is invested in it. It can be physically protected by the owner without the action of outside forces thus making it a negative right. Within the scope of protection of our social contract.

Our what?

There are two types of contract, explicit and implied. An explicit contract exists when wet signatures are made on paper between the parties entering into the agreement, therein stipulating the conditions to which the signatories agree.

An implied contract is entered into, for example, when you go into a restaurant, are seated, order, and are served. The restaurant grees to provide you with what you order and you agree to pay.

In each case six conditions must be met. Absence of any of the conditions means no contract exists. Of particular intesix conditions are met andrest here are offer, acceptance, and intent. The "social contract", as I have come to understand it, makes no offer, but rather the demand that you enter. The presence of force alone makes null any notion of a social contract, but let is leave that aside for now. Unless you accept the demand, acceptance is also absent, the proponents of this notion now batting 0 for 2. Finally, there must be intent to enter into relations that bind you to the other parties.

Unless all three of those factors are present, there is no contract. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can say that by no means has anyone ever made me an offer, nor have I accepted (cannot if it is not made) and I have never intended to enter into legal relations with... well, whom, exactly? Everyone? There are people in this world I would not crap on, much less enter into contractual relations with them.

The notion of "social contract" is bogus in every way imaginable. There is not the most immeasurably small epsilon of legitimacy to it. I would recommend you dispense with referring to it, save to disparage the idea as the fraud that it is.

Now unlike physical property, intellectual property is distinct as it only exists in the mind.

Not unlike the "social contract".

Some argue that creations of the mind deserve protection as well, but absent of IP laws is there any other practical way to protect IP?

Some argue falsely. The notion that ideas can belong to someone in the same way that an automobile can is ridiculous on its face. What, for example, are we to do when two people come up with the same idea at the same time, perhaps separated by large physical distances? As things stand, the person who reaches the office of patents and trademarks first becomes the "owner". If the ridiculousness of this reality does not hit one in the teeth like a lead sapper's glove, then they may be immune to good sense.

There is a fundamental difference between an idea and a work. I have no problem with trademarks and copyrights because those are works and they CAN belong to someone, perhaps their creators, assignees, purchasers, etc.

If not I would assert that IP rights are not naturally inherent and require the forced action of others to exist, therefore being a positive right. Or a government created right.

I doubt there is anyone on the planet so much as 1% rational who would call IP an inherent right. It is clear that they are contractual in nature in the sense that they are granted and by that virtue synthetic, which is to say "artificial" (contrived). IP as currently embodied is bullshit. I also believe that the term "IP" is applied inappropriately across two entirely separate categories of consideration, namely ideas and works. IMO it should apply to works only. Ideas are up for grabs at all times. You put it out there, anything goes. Don't like it? Don't publish your thoughts. It is a simple deal that people do not like for any of a number of reasons, auto-stroking of the ego being high on the list.

 

[osan]

Just because it has aspects of property, does not mean it is actually property.

That is a very good way of putting it.

 

[osan]

Yes, IP is a positive right: it grants a privilege to certain actors by refusing other's freedom to act in a peaceful manner with their own bodies and property.

I would call this correct.

The state is a necessity in any type of IP regime.

I would modify this to say "Force is a necessity in any type of IP regime." No "state" needed per sé.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Our what?

There are two types of contract, explicit and implied. An explicit contract exists when wet signatures are made on paper between the parties entering into the agreement, therein stipulating the conditions to which the signatories agree.

An implied contract is entered into, for example, when you go into a restaurant, are seated, order, and are served. The restaurant grees to provide you with what you order and you agree to pay.

In each case six conditions must be met. Absence of any of the conditions means no contract exists. Of particular interest here are offer, acceptance, and intent. The "social contract", as I have come to understand it, makes no offer, but rather the demand that you enter. The presence of force alone makes null any notion of a social contract, but let is leave that aside for now. Unless you accept the demand, acceptance is also absent, the proponents of this notion now batting 0 for 2. Finally, there must be intent to enter into relations that bind you to the other parties.

Unless all three of those factors are present, there is no contract. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can say that buy no means has anyone ever made me an offer, nor have I accepted (cannot if it is not made) and I have never intended to enter into legal relations with... well, whom, exactly? Everyone? There are people in this world I would not crap on, much less enter into contractual relations with them.

The notion of "social contract" is bogus in every way imaginable. There is not the most immeasurably small epsilon of legitimacy to it. I would recommend you dispense with referring to it, save to disparage the idea as the fraud that it is.



Not unlike the "social contract".



Some argue falsely. The notion that ideas can belong to someone in the same way that an automobile can is ridiculous on its face. What, for example, are we to do when two people come up with the same idea at the same time, perhaps separated by large physical distances? As things stand, the person who reaches the office of patents and trademarks first becomes the "owner". If the ridiculousness of this reality does not hit one in the teeth like a lead sapper's glove, then they may be immune to good sense.

There is a fundamental difference between an idea and a work. I have no problem with trademarks and copyrights because those are works and they CAN belong to someone, perhaps their creators, assignees, purchasers, etc.



I doubt there is anyone on the planet so much as 1% rational who would call IP an inherent right. It is clear that they are contractual in nature in the sense that they are granted and by that virtue synthetic, which is to say "artificial" (contrived). IP as currently embodied is bullshit. I also believe that the term "IP" is applied inappropriately across two entirely separate categories of consideration, namely ideas and works. IMO it should apply to works only. Ideas are up for grabs at all times. You put it out there, anything goes. Don't like it? Don't publish your thoughts. It is a simple deal that people do not like for any of a number of reasons, auto-stroking of the ego being high on the list.

Herein^^ you have summarized my sentiments WRT "social contract" beautifully. Well played.

 

[osan]

Yes, you're close. But it's not actually a right, it's a privilege. The government can't grant rights, it can only grant privileges.

I think what he meant was what you wrote here - the "rights" here are similar to the sense of a contractual right, which is a contrived claim to which two or more parties agree exists between them when some set of specifications and conditions are met.