Quick Summary of Correct Principles of IP
On intellectual property:
This is a very important subject directly connected to the survival and prosperity of this nation, because it is directly connected to Liberty (without which any nation will inevitably self-destruct), which is directly connected to free speech, especially on the internet.
Here are the main points:
Intellectual property has a few major misconceptions in our society:
1) “Information can be stolen even though the author still has his copy.”
That is false because to steal something you must deprive the owner of the use of the thing. To violate a property you must either:
a) alter it,
b) remove it from the possession of the owner, or
c) materially endanger a) or b)
None of this takes place, when information is copied. What can be “stolen” is perhaps i) a secret, or ii) the ability to profit by having exclusive/controlled access to the information. Neither one of these, however, constitute a violation of the authors property if neither (a), (b), nor (c) occurred with regards to the author’s tangible and intellectual property.
The natural reality of any and all information is this:
TO HAVE INFORMATION IS TO OWN IT, just as much as you own your mind, your papers or you computer, etc.
The author owns it, but so does anyone who has a copy of the information. The author owns HIS copy, and the copier owns HIS copy. They are separate copies, and constitute TWO separate instances of intellectual property, even if it is the exact copy of the other. They are TWO properties, not one. This is the very nature of information. Each one who has a copy owns it just as much as he owns the medium on which it is recorded; he owns the information just as much as he owns his mind, his papers, his camera, or his computer.
TO HAVE IT IS TO OWN IT.
2) “The creator of information cannot profit by his work without government forced monopoly on the use of the information he created.”
That is false, because there are multiple ways for the author to profit by his work without the immoral use of government force to impose a monopoly. They are (in part):
a) Secure a contract of first use with a publisher, performer or manufacturer. Example: a movies studio may contract with a theater chain to show their movie first, etc.
b) In case of an invention, keep the secret as long as you can and be first to market and thus gain economic advantage. (Generally it buys the inventor 6 month to 2 years of natural monopoly, before others can figure out how it was done and swing into production).
c) In case of software, a paid key may be required to unlock the code.
d) In case of a performer use your recordings as an advertisement for your live performances. Most famous artists make most of their money in live performances. People come to see them in concert even though they already own all of their CD’s. Also original paintings may cost millions, even though photographic copies of them are readily available for free. etc.
e) Reap the benefits of using it yourself.
f) Rely on donations of grateful users. For example, even if Stephanie Myers did not have a contract of first use with her publisher (which she does have), but even if she didn’t, most of her grateful fans would have gladly donated $1 each or more if she asked for it, which would probably amount to millions of dollars!
The point here is that such a government monopoly is immoral, because no author has a moral right to use FORCE upon his neighbors to prevent them from using information in their possession, even if it is the exact copy of the information he created. And since he has no moral right to use such violence, he cannot delegate it to the government to do it in his behalf.
3) “The author worked hard to create the information, he deserves remuneration if other people use it, and it will be immoral if they use it without compensating him, therefore force can be used to extract the payment.”
First of all, the author can and should benefit by his work. The proper ways to do so without violating the rights and property of others are listed in section (2).
Secondly, and this is key: Not everything that is immoral is right to forbid by government force, and not everything that is morally right is right to FORCE to perform. Giving money to the poor if you can is certainly morally right and good, but it is WRONG to take this money by force, for that would be theft and plunder. It maybe morally right and desirable to give flowers to one’s mother or wife on her birthday, but it is wrong to force such performance by violence. Also it may be morally bad to waste ones talents and to live below ones abilities, but it is WRONG to use violence against such a person, as long as he does not violate the property of others. What is the principle here? I call it The Benson Principle which is also equivalent to the
Second Fundamental Principle of Liberty: If you INDIVIDUALLY have no moral right to use FORCE upon your neighbor or to violate his property, you cannot delegate such violence to any third party, including government. If you have no right to violate your neighbor’s property, you cannot rightly ask the government to do it for you either.
4) “Implied contracts, i.e. contracts that do not require an explicit agreement, exist all over in the society; therefore copyrights are implied contracts, and thus can be enforced by government.”
That is false, because by their nature, implied contracts, i.e. contracts that do not have an explicit agreement from all the parties involved, can only be properly imposed upon things that you own, and nothing else. This is because with regards to YOUR own property you do not need an agreement from anyone as to what to do with it. Thus if you own a parking lot you can post a sign “No parking after 10 pm” and you have a right to enforce it without the car owner’s explicit agreement, because you OWN the lot, and you can impose any rules you want UPON IT, and a car owner would be violating YOUR property if he did not use the property as you prescribed. However, if you posted a sign saying: “No parking after 10 pm, but if you do, it will signify that you agree that I own your house, and that you are my slave for 50 years,” and someone leaves his car on your lot after 10pm, can you take his house and make him a slave for 50 years? No! Why? Because you do not own either him nor his house, therefore for such a contract to be binding you have to have an EXPLICIT agreement from him before you can enforce it. Without an explicit agreement, the best you can do is to tow his car, and perhaps charge a fee for your trouble to offset/rectify the violation of your property, and nothing more. Implied contracts do not require explicit agreements precisely because they apply only to the things you own and nothing else.
Copyrights cannot be enforced as an implied contract because you do not own the people who copy your work. You do not own their minds, you do not own their copy machines, you do not own their papers or their computers. Therefore, you cannot impose an implied contract upon these things because you have exactly zero authority/ownership over them. You can only impose an implied contract upon your copy of the information and limit or condition access to IT, because you own THAT COPY; but you have no right or say over the copies owned by others. This is the nature of information. To deny this is to deny reality and to violate both intellectual and tangible property of others, because they own that information no less than you, the author, do, and no less than they own their minds, their papers or their computers. That’s what information is: TO HAVE IT IS TO OWN IT.
This is a brief summary of correct principles of IP.
