Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents

[WhistlinDave]

Intellectual property SHOULD be protected, and the creator SHOULD benefit by it if it is useful to others, but he must do it without violating the rights and property of others via immoral use of government force. (See the Benson Principle).

And I give you points for this statement. I agree.

 

[minusbear]

c) In case of performing artist, most successful ones actually make more money by live performances than by CD sales. People come to see them in concert even though they already own their CD’s.

So I, as a full time musician, have no right to protect my own creation and I should hope that I can be as successful as U2 because some kids want to just copy my music instead of buy it? So, in your world, the fruit of my labor really belongs to the community to copy and distribute as each sees fit? Because of my ability, all of those who don't have that ability should be able to freely take my productivity and use it out of their own need? I believe it was Karl Marx who said "Art should be free".

I am mostly disturbed how many people here seem to think this is a good idea.

 

[minusbear]

I would also like to add that in terms of copyright violations, it is not the government 'protecting your work by immoral force' as you put it. Most copyright violations are handled in the court system in front of a jury of one's peers or through a mutual agreement between the two parties. (settlement). The government isn't protecting your work through immoral force, but upholding the legal decision of the citizens of this country based on a jury's decision. The citizens, your peers, decided in the case it was your property to protect and you should be compensated for the theft of your property. The government is just protecting the judicial system where contract litigation is either a mutual agreement or enforced through jury.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This is not a correct application of the law of supply and demand because your premise is flawed. IP may be super abundant, but any one piece of IP, if it is truly an original creation, is unique. That is what gives it value. For you to say that IP loses value because there is so much of it out there, approaching infinity in abundance, would be true only if every piece of IP was identical to the next. But they aren't.

It is a perfect application of supply and demand-though applied to a unique, immaterial "thing".

Having a million identical widgets for sale drives their value down. Having a million unique ideas available for development or publication is not equivalent, because each idea is unique. A good song about teen angst can still make money, while a crappy song about teen angst won't make any, and doesn't lessen the value of the good song even though they are both songs and they are both about teen angst. They are unique, not the same commodity.

Yes, but a widget that exists in the quantity of a million is less valuable than the widget that exists in the quantity of 10. You misunderstood the premise.

To use Zippyjuan's example, your argument that something loses value because there is a near infinite supply doesn't hold water unless you have a million different people each coming up with their own unique, unrelated design for super efficient engines, all of which work and produce the same result. But you don't. You might have a few different designs for such an engine, but not approaching infinity.

Not true. The laws and principles of economics apply regardless of the situation. Since we have a limited number of people at any one time "chasing" an idea, and the demand for the idea can be met perfectly simply by copying, the price of the idea (not the medium it is captured in) goes to zero. If I hear your song on the radio (and can remember it perfectly), I can perform it as many times as I wish without taking a cent from you. The premise you rely on is that a copy represent a "lost profit" or "lost opportunity". But it simply isn't true. Had there been no historical precedent of legal grant of IP, this argument would never have occurred to you because of its obvious absurdity.

To me, one book might have value and I don't mind paying ten dollars for it, because the subject interests me. Another book may be of zero interest to me, so the value of that book to me is zero, and therefore I won't buy it. The two are unique; they are not the same commodity just because they both happen to be IP.

Not relevant. You are just proving my point that the "value" of IP is subjective and arbitrary.

Clear? If not, I'll elaborate. I'm writing somewhat hastily at the moment.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Can I do that with your car as well? The car has value. The book has value. I never agreed not to take it.

You've earned yourself a place in the bucket. Not just for the above ("'Deers breath and run around and it is OK to shoot them'. You breath and run around, so is it OK to shoot you?").

These are the offending posts:

Copyright is about liberty and freedom- the freedom to decide how to use what you create. It doesn't deny freedoms- it protects them. Innovation is important to the economic strength of the country as well and patents and copyright encourge innovation and discovery which create new jobs and opportunities for people. Removing that protection takes away your control over what you create and discourages innovations and creativity and society stagnates. If you want to deny intelectual property rights you should also abolish physical property rights as well since they also restrict others from using what you have.

Perhaps you can explain for us how protecting my inventions and ideas is violating any property rights of others.

It should have been clear that it is OK to think IP is good, justified, or even a net benefit. Wrong, but OK. Cloaking a statist ideology with the language of freedom is not OK.

Life is too short to engage with disingenuous people. Enjoy the bucket!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

So I, as a full time musician, have no right to protect my own creation and I should hope that I can be as successful as U2 because some kids want to just copy my music instead of buy it? So, in your world, the fruit of my labor really belongs to the community to copy and distribute as each sees fit? Because of my ability, all of those who don't have that ability should be able to freely take my productivity and use it out of their own need? I believe it was Karl Marx who said "Art should be free".

I am mostly disturbed how many people here seem to think this is a good idea.

You have the right to protect your creation in a number of ways. But it's never going to work perfectly. As I mentioned, even if your song is only heard in live venues or on totally copy-proof CDs, I can sit and write it out on paper and perform it myself if I'm so inclined. If you want to be as famous as U2, just selling records won't cut it. You have to do numerous worldwide tours, performing music that people actually want to hear. I don't like U2's arrogance regarding IP, but they do have a great business model in that they rely more on live performances than record sales.

Like in any other area of production, you can create all you want and still not profit if there's no demand.

 

[Zippyjuan]

You've earned yourself a place in the bucket. Not just for the above ("'Deers breath and run around and it is OK to shoot them'. You breath and run around, so is it OK to shoot you?").

These are the offending posts:





It should have been clear that it is OK to think IP is good, justified, or even a net benefit. Wrong, but OK. Cloaking a statist ideology with the language of freedom is not OK.

Life is too short to engage with disingenuous people. Enjoy the bucket!

Cool a bucket- something I can use to slop the hogs with! Or chill the champagne in.

Thank you for playing.

Because you can steal something doesn't mean you should be allowed to do so- whether that is an idea or an object (all objects came from ideas and without the protection of patents many of the things you take for granted today may have never been invented).

Maybe we should just toss out the whole Constitution and start over again.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Cool a bucket- something I can use to slop the hogs with!

Thank you for playing.

NO! You do not get to use my bucket. It is for my sole-exclusive-intellectually-propertized-protected-super-secret-internet-stuff use.

Even if by some chance the government deemed you worthy of using MY bucket or I were to sell you a limited use license, keep in mind that you still have to share it with the other occupants.

My bucket!

 

[WhistlinDave]

This is not a correct application of the law of supply and demand because your premise is flawed. IP may be super abundant, but any one piece of IP, if it is truly an original creation, is unique. That is what gives it value. For you to say that IP loses value because there is so much of it out there, approaching infinity in abundance, would be true only if every piece of IP was identical to the next. But they aren't.

It is a perfect application of supply and demand-though applied to a unique, immaterial "thing".

If something is "unique" then law of supply and demand says the value goes up, not down. This was the point I was trying to make.

Having a million identical widgets for sale drives their value down. Having a million unique ideas available for development or publication is not equivalent, because each idea is unique. A good song about teen angst can still make money, while a crappy song about teen angst won't make any, and doesn't lessen the value of the good song even though they are both songs and they are both about teen angst. They are unique, not the same commodity.

Yes, but a widget that exists in the quantity of a million is less valuable than the widget that exists in the quantity of 10. You misunderstood the premise.

No, I didn't misunderstand the premise. That's why I used a quantity of a million. If you have more supply, price goes down. I was trying to illustrate that identical widgets are not the same as unique ideas. A million of one doesn't equal a million of the other because it's "same thing" vs. "each is unique."

To use Zippyjuan's example, your argument that something loses value because there is a near infinite supply doesn't hold water unless you have a million different people each coming up with their own unique, unrelated design for super efficient engines, all of which work and produce the same result. But you don't. You might have a few different designs for such an engine, but not approaching infinity.

Not true. The laws and principles of economics apply regardless of the situation. Since we have a limited number of people at any one time "chasing" an idea, and the demand for the idea can be met perfectly simply by copying, the price of the idea (not the medium it is captured in) goes to zero. If I hear your song on the radio (and can remember it perfectly), I can perform it as many times as I wish without taking a cent from you. The premise you rely on is that a copy represent a "lost profit" or "lost opportunity". But it simply isn't true. Had there been no historical precedent of legal grant of IP, this argument would never have occurred to you because of its obvious absurdity.

But saying it's an obvious absurdity, and/or saying or implying that there is no good reason for such a legal precedent, is an ad hoc argument. The reason IP laws exist is precisely because it IS possible to copy information (unlike a tangible good) and thereby deprive a creator of the ability to be compensated for the results of their work. When the results of your work can simply be copied, without IP rights, you can work your butt off and someone else can profit from it, or get the fruits of your labor for free without your consent, and to me that is an obviously absurd situation.

If your boss said to you on payday, "Well thanks for all your hard work, and by the way, we decided not to pay you for your efforts any more, but thanks, and see you tomorrow, keep up the good work!" Would you keep working there? I hope you wouldn't, because your work should be rewarded (in a free market system).

Now, the hearing a song on the radio example might get ridiculous. If someone says I can't sing a song I just heard on the radio for my own enjoyment, that's ridiculous. It isn't depriving anyone of any income opportunity, obviously. But--if I hear a song on the radio and now I sing that song to an audience and make money doing it, then I should pay a portion of that income to the person who wrote the song. Because, without their creation, I would not be making that money by performing my copy. I don't see anything sinister about that; it's common courtesy and common sense to me.

To me, one book might have value and I don't mind paying ten dollars for it, because the subject interests me. Another book may be of zero interest to me, so the value of that book to me is zero, and therefore I won't buy it. The two are unique; they are not the same commodity just because they both happen to be IP.

Not relevant. You are just proving my point that the "value" of IP is subjective and arbitrary.

Clear? If not, I'll elaborate. I'm writing somewhat hastily at the moment.

I agree, it is subjective, and some ideas have more value to some people than other ideas. But again, I was trying to explain my original point, that you cannot say intellectual property is worth zero simply because so much of it exists. Because each piece of it is unique. When you have only one of a unique thing, it has more value, not less.

Through copying something as many times as you want, then yes you can create a near infinite supply of that IP; it's no longer unique. That reduces it's value to zero. If that's what you were saying, then I agree. But that is why IP rights exist, because again, people should be able to profit from the results of their work. Without any concept of IP, then people whose work yields a valuable result that is intangible and able to be copied, may find themselves shortchanged for their work.

I don't see why people are willing to pay a painter to do work to paint their house, and they're willing to pay for the food they eat, and they will pay for a car, they will pay for a shirt or a new pair of shoes, they will pay for all the other products of someone's work, but they think musicians or authors or other creators should not get paid for their work. I don't understand why one person's work should be compensated while another person's shouldn't. If someone chooses to work for free, that is their decision, but they're the only one with the right to decide that, not me. If they want to make money on their creation, they should also have that choice. (Libertarianism is the concept that I don't own other people.)

There is a difference between a free market and anarchy. If you had two supermarkets next to one another, and either owner is free to walk into the other and take anything they want, without paying for it, and go back to their own store and then sell it for a profit, that is not a free market. That is anarchy. A free market does have to have some basic property rights in order to function. This applies equally to work that results in intangible valuable products too, not just work that results in tangible valuable products. That's why the concept of IP exists.

 

[Zippyjuan]

NO! You do not get to use my bucket. It is for my sole-exclusive-intellectually-propertized-protected-super-secret-internet-stuff use.

Even if by some chance the government deemed you worthy of using MY bucket or I were to sell you a limited use license, keep in mind that you still have to share it with the other occupants.

My bucket!

What! You gave it to me and now you want it back? Geez. I guess you can't trust grownups anymore, can you Wally? LOL!

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Cool a bucket- something I can use to slop the hogs with! Or chill the champagne in.

Thank you for playing.

Because you can steal something doesn't mean you should be allowed to do so- whether that is an idea or an object (all objects came from ideas and without the protection of patents many of the things you take for granted today may have never been invented).

Maybe we should just toss out the whole Constitution and start over again.

By definition thievery involves the expropriation of property (which is a theory to describe a moral philosophy and human interaction in a world of scarce resources) that one individual or group benefits by removing the ability of the original owner it's use, ownership, possession, etc.

Ergo, by definition you cannot steal an idea, recipe, arrangements, etc. You are not deprived of any property if I copy, reproduce, or otherwise make another of with the use of my own property (CD's, VCR, DVD, Computer, Brain, etc.). Indeed, IP deprives others of the use of their property (CD's, Paper, Brains, etc. etc.) that the author or originator has no right over or to.

Now, we haven't even delved into voluntary contractual agreements which are an entirely separate issue that as any contract only applies to the signers of and no EULA's do not constitute such agreements. State-IP is plain old monopoly grants which destroy economic incentive, productivity, and progress. Commerce would really shut down if folks didn't have 30+ year monopolies /snark /snark

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If something is "unique" then law of supply and demand says the value goes up, not down. This was the point I was trying to make.



No, I didn't misunderstand the premise. That's why I used a quantity of a million. If you have more supply, price goes down. I was trying to illustrate that identical widgets are not the same as unique ideas. A million of one doesn't equal a million of the other because it's "same thing" vs. "each is unique."



But saying it's an obvious absurdity, and/or saying or implying that there is no good reason for such a legal precedent, is an ad hoc argument. The reason IP laws exist is precisely because it IS possible to copy information (unlike a tangible good) and thereby deprive a creator of the ability to be compensated for the results of their work. When the results of your work can simply be copied, without IP rights, you can work your butt off and someone else can profit from it, or get the fruits of your labor for free without your consent, and to me that is an obviously absurd situation.

If your boss said to you on payday, "Well thanks for all your hard work, and by the way, we decided not to pay you for your efforts any more, but thanks, and see you tomorrow, keep up the good work!" Would you keep working there? I hope you wouldn't, because your work should be rewarded (in a free market system).

Now, the hearing a song on the radio example might get ridiculous. If someone says I can't sing a song I just heard on the radio for my own enjoyment, that's ridiculous. It isn't depriving anyone of any income opportunity, obviously. But--if I hear a song on the radio and now I sing that song to an audience and make money doing it, then I should pay a portion of that income to the person who wrote the song. Because, without their creation, I would not be making that money by performing my copy. I don't see anything sinister about that; it's common courtesy and common sense to me.



I agree, it is subjective, and some ideas have more value to some people than other ideas. But again, I was trying to explain my original point, that you cannot say intellectual property is worth zero simply because so much of it exists. Because each piece of it is unique. When you have only one of a unique thing, it has more value, not less.

Through copying something as many times as you want, then yes you can create a near infinite supply of that IP; it's no longer unique. That reduces it's value to zero. If that's what you were saying, then I agree. But that is why IP rights exist, because again, people should be able to profit from the results of their work. Without any concept of IP, then people whose work yields a valuable result that is intangible and able to be copied, may find themselves shortchanged for their work.

I don't see why people are willing to pay a painter to do work to paint their house, and they're willing to pay for the food they eat, and they will pay for a car, they will pay for a shirt or a new pair of shoes, they will pay for all the other products of someone's work, but they think musicians or authors or other creators should not get paid for their work. I don't understand why one person's work should be compensated while another person's shouldn't. If someone chooses to work for free, that is their decision, but they're the only one with the right to decide that, not me. If they want to make money on their creation, they should also have that choice. (Libertarianism is the concept that I don't own other people.)

There is a difference between a free market and anarchy. If you had two supermarkets next to one another, and either owner is free to walk into the other and take anything they want, without paying for it, and go back to their own store and then sell it for a profit, that is not a free market. That is anarchy. A free market does have to have some basic property rights in order to function. This applies equally to work that results in intangible valuable products too, not just work that results in tangible valuable products. That's why the concept of IP exists.

Since when is that a right or has anything to do with property rights? You are arguing that competition should be banned because it may 'deprive someone of income opportunity'...Of course you haven't made the connection yet, but that is your argument and it's absurd on many levels. No one has a right to a monopoly period, nor has the right to deprive other's of the just use and disposition of their property. On what moral authority do you have to force me not to use my own property in ways you view as competition to you?

 

[WhistlinDave]

Since when is that a right or has anything to do with property rights? You are arguing that competition should be banned because it may 'deprive someone of income opportunity'...Of course you haven't made the connection yet, but that is your argument and it's absurd on many levels. No one has a right to a monopoly period, nor has the right to deprive other's of the just use and disposition of their property. On what moral authority do you have to force me not to use my own property in ways you view as competition to you?

And that's what makes Intellectual Property different. The fact that you purchased it doesn't make it your property in the same sense that purchasing a car or a table makes it your property. Because, as previously noted, there are differences between tangible property and intangible (intellectual property). One of those differences is that when you purchased it, by doing so you agreed to the terms under which it was sold to you, and those terms say you are NOT free to do anything you want with it. You can enjoy it for your own use but not copy it or make money with it. In the old days, on the record it would say "All rights reserved, Copyright __ __ __ Record Company, Unauthorized Reproduction is Prohibited" or something to that effect. Books have a similar copyright message in them, telling you this. These days it's in the terms of use agreement when you sign up for iTunes or Amazon or wherever.

So the "seller" is selling you ONE copy, under an agreement that you will only use that one copy for personal use. Not to be copied, and not for commercial use. If you want to turn around and sell that one copy at a garage sale, go right ahead. That one copy is your property and selling it to someone else without retaining a copy yourself is not prohibited by the terms you bought it under.

But the seller did not sell it to you with the understanding that you are free to make as many copies as you want and/or do anything with those copies you want. (Unless they specifically stated that in their terms of sale, which would make it a Creative Commons work, and there are lots and lots of creators out there giving their stuff away for free in this manner, and that is their choice just as someone who doesn't want to give it away also is free to make that choice.)

The fact that you don't agree with the terms something was sold to you under doesn't mean you are free to ignore those terms. The seller is ONLY selling it to you under those terms, and by buying, you are agreeing to those terms, and otherwise you are not allowed to purchase your ONE copy. That might seem bogus, but that's the deal.

Now, you can certainly buy something under different terms, allowing you to do anything you want with it (i.e. copy it over and over, and sell it or make money with it), but then instead of paying a dollar for a song, or a few dollars for a book, you will pay thousands of dollars. That's a different type of ownership; it gives you license to copy and use it commercially. It's easy to see why people charge a lot more before they will sell you something under that kind of an agreement instead of the standard one.

This isn't about me or anyone else claiming any moral authority; it is about the fact that you really aren't free to do anything you want with your property when that property was "sold" to you without that permission attached. I used quotes because in a sense, you don't fully own that property. You own one copy of it, and with restricted permission for its use at that. And that's why you were able to buy it so inexpensively.

Placing terms and conditions on a sale happens all the time. When you buy a prescription drug, that is your property, but you are not legally allowed to give that drug to anyone you please. It was sold to you under the agreement that it's for your personal use only. That's just one example.

Here's another example. You buy a house. Now, the owner hates his next door neighbor. The neighbor has been trying to buy the property forever, but the owner refuses to sell it to them because he hates the guy. So when they sell to you, they put a clause in the purchase agreement saying "Buyer agrees he/she will NEVER sell the property to Mr. Farley next door, and agrees to place this same language in the contract of sale to any subsequent purchaser of the property." Now, you bought the house, and you can do anything you want with it, except you cannot sell it to the next door neighbor, because those are the terms the house was sold to you under, and you agreed to it when you bought the house.

As far as your ideas of "competition," you are using a different definition of the word than I would. Let's say you write and record a song, and make some money with it. If I want to compete, then I should write my own song. That is competition. If I take your song and make money with it without your permission, that isn't "competition." That is me profiting from your creativity and work, without your permission. Copying someone else's work and profiting from it without their permission isn't much different from stealing some of my competitor's goods and selling them myself, without having worked to produce those products myself. Is that really a fair model for "competition?" I don't think it is.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

And that's what makes Intellectual Property different. The fact that you purchased it doesn't make it your property in the same sense that purchasing a car or a table makes it your property. Because, as previously noted, there are differences between tangible property and intangible (intellectual property). One of those differences is that when you purchased it, by doing so you agreed to the terms under which it was sold to you, and those terms say you are NOT free to do anything you want with it. You can enjoy it for your own use but not copy it or make money with it. In the old days, on the record it would say "All rights reserved, Copyright __ __ __ Record Company, Unauthorized Reproduction is Prohibited" or something to that effect. Books have a similar copyright message in them, telling you this. These days it's in the terms of use agreement when you sign up for iTunes or Amazon or wherever.

So the "seller" is selling you ONE copy, under an agreement that you will only use that one copy for personal use. Not to be copied, and not for commercial use. If you want to turn around and sell that one copy at a garage sale, go right ahead. That one copy is your property and selling it to someone else without retaining a copy yourself is not prohibited by the terms you bought it under.

But the seller did not sell it to you with the understanding that you are free to make as many copies as you want and/or do anything with those copies you want. (Unless they specifically stated that in their terms of sale, which would make it a Creative Commons work, and there are lots and lots of creators out there giving their stuff away for free in this manner, and that is their choice just as someone who doesn't want to give it away also is free to make that choice.)

The fact that you don't agree with the terms something was sold to you under doesn't mean you are free to ignore those terms. The seller is ONLY selling it to you under those terms, and by buying, you are agreeing to those terms, and otherwise you are not allowed to purchase your ONE copy. That might seem bogus, but that's the deal.

Now, you can certainly buy something under different terms, allowing you to do anything you want with it (i.e. copy it over and over, and sell it or make money with it), but then instead of paying a dollar for a song, or a few dollars for a book, you will pay thousands of dollars. That's a different type of ownership; it gives you license to copy and use it commercially. It's easy to see why people charge a lot more before they will sell you something under that kind of an agreement instead of the standard one.

This isn't about me or anyone else claiming any moral authority; it is about the fact that you really aren't free to do anything you want with your property when that property was "sold" to you without that permission attached. I used quotes because in a sense, you don't fully own that property. You own one copy of it, and with restricted permission for its use at that. And that's why you were able to buy it so inexpensively.

Placing terms and conditions on a sale happens all the time. When you buy a prescription drug, that is your property, but you are not legally allowed to give that drug to anyone you please. It was sold to you under the agreement that it's for your personal use only. That's just one example.

Here's another example. You buy a house. Now, the owner hates his next door neighbor. The neighbor has been trying to buy the property forever, but the owner refuses to sell it to them because he hates the guy. So when they sell to you, they put a clause in the purchase agreement saying "Buyer agrees he/she will NEVER sell the property to Mr. Farley next door, and agrees to place this same language in the contract of sale to any subsequent purchaser of the property." Now, you bought the house, and you can do anything you want with it, except you cannot sell it to the next door neighbor, because those are the terms the house was sold to you under, and you agreed to it when you bought the house.

As far as your ideas of "competition," you are using a different definition of the word than I would. Let's say you write and record a song, and make some money with it. If I want to compete, then I should write my own song. That is competition. If I take your song and make money with it without your permission, that isn't "competition." That is me profiting from your creativity and work, without your permission. Copying someone else's work and profiting from it without their permission isn't much different from stealing some of my competitor's goods and selling them myself, without having worked to produce those products myself. Is that really a fair model for "competition?" I don't think it is.

Your argument rests on the assumption of legitimacy of tacit contracts. This doesn't exist. By your reasoning, used media stores like Zia records(videos, music, books, etc) couldn't exist legally, as parties who did not originally purchase the book gain access to it. Copying is entirely different than theft. Not even the law considers them the same. The notion that copying=theft comes to us primarily from the creator worship beginning in the late 18th century and continues to this day (though it's entirely irrational).

It's all Mercantilist delusion.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

And that's what makes Intellectual Property different. The fact that you purchased it doesn't make it your property in the same sense that purchasing a car or a table makes it your property. Because, as previously noted, there are differences between tangible property and intangible (intellectual property). One of those differences is that when you purchased it, by doing so you agreed to the terms under which it was sold to you, and those terms say you are NOT free to do anything you want with it. You can enjoy it for your own use but not copy it or make money with it. In the old days, on the record it would say "All rights reserved, Copyright __ __ __ Record Company, Unauthorized Reproduction is Prohibited" or something to that effect. Books have a similar copyright message in them, telling you this. These days it's in the terms of use agreement when you sign up for iTunes or Amazon or wherever.

So the "seller" is selling you ONE copy, under an agreement that you will only use that one copy for personal use. Not to be copied, and not for commercial use. If you want to turn around and sell that one copy at a garage sale, go right ahead. That one copy is your property and selling it to someone else without retaining a copy yourself is not prohibited by the terms you bought it under.

But the seller did not sell it to you with the understanding that you are free to make as many copies as you want and/or do anything with those copies you want. (Unless they specifically stated that in their terms of sale, which would make it a Creative Commons work, and there are lots and lots of creators out there giving their stuff away for free in this manner, and that is their choice just as someone who doesn't want to give it away also is free to make that choice.)

The fact that you don't agree with the terms something was sold to you under doesn't mean you are free to ignore those terms. The seller is ONLY selling it to you under those terms, and by buying, you are agreeing to those terms, and otherwise you are not allowed to purchase your ONE copy. That might seem bogus, but that's the deal.

Now, you can certainly buy something under different terms, allowing you to do anything you want with it (i.e. copy it over and over, and sell it or make money with it), but then instead of paying a dollar for a song, or a few dollars for a book, you will pay thousands of dollars. That's a different type of ownership; it gives you license to copy and use it commercially. It's easy to see why people charge a lot more before they will sell you something under that kind of an agreement instead of the standard one.

This isn't about me or anyone else claiming any moral authority; it is about the fact that you really aren't free to do anything you want with your property when that property was "sold" to you without that permission attached. I used quotes because in a sense, you don't fully own that property. You own one copy of it, and with restricted permission for its use at that. And that's why you were able to buy it so inexpensively.

Placing terms and conditions on a sale happens all the time. When you buy a prescription drug, that is your property, but you are not legally allowed to give that drug to anyone you please. It was sold to you under the agreement that it's for your personal use only. That's just one example.

Here's another example. You buy a house. Now, the owner hates his next door neighbor. The neighbor has been trying to buy the property forever, but the owner refuses to sell it to them because he hates the guy. So when they sell to you, they put a clause in the purchase agreement saying "Buyer agrees he/she will NEVER sell the property to Mr. Farley next door, and agrees to place this same language in the contract of sale to any subsequent purchaser of the property." Now, you bought the house, and you can do anything you want with it, except you cannot sell it to the next door neighbor, because those are the terms the house was sold to you under, and you agreed to it when you bought the house.

As far as your ideas of "competition," you are using a different definition of the word than I would. Let's say you write and record a song, and make some money with it. If I want to compete, then I should write my own song. That is competition. If I take your song and make money with it without your permission, that isn't "competition." That is me profiting from your creativity and work, without your permission. Copying someone else's work and profiting from it without their permission isn't much different from stealing some of my competitor's goods and selling them myself, without having worked to produce those products myself. Is that really a fair model for "competition?" I don't think it is.

You just described contractual IP, and I have no problem with that as long as it is made crystal clear before purchase, and no, little tiny print or 100 page long EULA's do not constitute such agreements as the parties involved are not properly informed. It is the sellers responsibility to make sure that their terms are not vague or obfuscated and or intentionally deceiving people through these 'terms'. As long as that is agreed upon, we have no disagreement in that particular situation.

However, remember you cannot bind someone to a contract who was never a party to it in the first place. Which means your contractual IP means nothing once it is sold to a party who was not a member (e.g. I bought a CD from a company who made clear IP, but never prohibited me from selling it to anyone else.). Thus, the party I sell it to is not bound by contractual IP, that I would be considering I didn't include such a stipulation upon my sell of it. See, this is the crux of the issue. Contractual IP is not nearly as strong or restrictive as State-writ IP monopolization which is and does violate property rights.

Never mind the fact that defending a position which constitutes a rentership society is pretty suspect (Return to Serfdom anyone? 'Private' serfdom isn't any better than 'ublic' serfdom). That's another point that many IP advocates really hate about contractual IP - it does not prevent simultaneous breakthroughs. In other words, independent entities can come up with the same idea at the same time and just because you didn't make it first down to the local State-monopoly center you can still compete because you've never signed a contract that restricts your activities.

A world of contractual IP is vastly different than State-IP. In the end, it is futile. We are made better off through the abolishment of State-IP and most IP in general. Oh, sure, some producers may not become Bill Gates, but then again, markets and capitalism is a moral and economic system that empowers the consumer's, not the producers. If you want a producer-based society you can go back to Monarchical 15th Century Mercantilist England. Unless you were part of the aristocratic elite, or the brown-nosed merchant class you were SOL and lived a life of squalor. Not exactly a pretty picture.

 

[WhistlinDave]

You just described contractual IP, and I have no problem with that as long as it is made crystal clear before purchase, and no, little tiny print or 100 page long EULA's do not constitute such agreements as the parties involved are not properly informed. It is the sellers responsibility to make sure that their terms are not vague or obfuscated and or intentionally deceiving people through these 'terms'. As long as that is agreed upon, we have no disagreement in that particular situation.

However, remember you cannot bind someone to a contract who was never a party to it in the first place. Which means your contractual IP means nothing once it is sold to a party who was not a member (e.g. I bought a CD from a company who made clear IP, but never prohibited me from selling it to anyone else.). Thus, the party I sell it to is not bound by contractual IP, that I would be considering I didn't include such a stipulation upon my sell of it. See, this is the crux of the issue. Contractual IP is not nearly as strong or restrictive as State-writ IP monopolization which is and does violate property rights.

Never mind the fact that defending a position which constitutes a rentership society is pretty suspect (Return to Serfdom anyone? 'Private' serfdom isn't any better than 'ublic' serfdom). That's another point that many IP advocates really hate about contractual IP - it does not prevent simultaneous breakthroughs. In other words, independent entities can come up with the same idea at the same time and just because you didn't make it first down to the local State-monopoly center you can still compete because you've never signed a contract that restricts your activities.

A world of contractual IP is vastly different than State-IP. In the end, it is futile. We are made better off through the abolishment of State-IP and most IP in general. Oh, sure, some producers may not become Bill Gates, but then again, markets and capitalism is a moral and economic system that empowers the consumer's, not the producers. If you want a producer-based society you can go back to Monarchical 15th Century Mercantilist England. Unless you were part of the aristocratic elite, or the brown-nosed merchant class you were SOL and lived a life of squalor. Not exactly a pretty picture.

You make some good points.

I still don't know all the answers, I just think that people should be able to decide whether they are going to be able to make money from their work or not, and with IP it becomes tricky if there is not IP protection of any kind. I create music, and I don't think people should just be able to copy it and hardly anyone ever pay for it, because I put a lot of effort into producing it and it's my unique creation. I'll probably never become well known enough to make money touring or playing live gigs, but if I did, I don't think anyone has the right to decide that should be my only source of income from my music except me. That's my decision to make if I wanted to give away my recordings basically for free, and just make money on live performances. So that's where I have a problem with the idea of abolishing IP. I don't think it's fair that some people would not be given the choice of whether they can make money from certain types of efforts (creative endeavors) if there wasn't such a thing as copyright.

Everyone else gets paid for the products of their work, so why not musicians, authors, film producers, etc.? I think creators should also be able to get paid for the products of their work, and I don't think that's evil, I think that's capitalism. I know a lot of people who are opposed to IP think it infringes their freedoms, but they have to look at the flip side of the coin and ask, is it fair and reasonable if the shoe were on the other foot? If you are the creator, then should someone else be able to dictate to you whether you have any chance at all to make money from your work? Or should that be your decision?

I guess that's where I'm coming from in the whole debate. Like I said, I don't have all the answers, I am just trying to approach it from a standpoint of fairness to those who come up with ideas and bring them to market.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Your argument rests on the assumption of legitimacy of tacit contracts. This doesn't exist. By your reasoning, used media stores like Zia records(videos, music, books, etc) couldn't exist legally, as parties who did not originally purchase the book gain access to it. Copying is entirely different than theft. Not even the law considers them the same. The notion that copying=theft comes to us primarily from the creator worship beginning in the late 18th century and continues to this day (though it's entirely irrational).

It's all Mercantilist delusion.

I didn't say people can't sell used books, used media. If you own a copy of something, you should be able to sell that copy. I've bought and sold used books and used CDs. (And used records and/or tapes way back in the day.) What I haven't done is copied any of them and then sold the copies, or copied them and then sold the one I copied from. Used book stores or used record stores aren't copying the used stuff they're selling. They're not doing anything wrong.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You make some good points.

I still don't know all the answers, I just think that people should be able to decide whether they are going to be able to make money from their work or not, and with IP it becomes tricky if there is not IP protection of any kind. I create music, and I don't think people should just be able to copy it and hardly anyone ever pay for it, because I put a lot of effort into producing it and it's my unique creation. I'll probably never become well known enough to make money touring or playing live gigs, but if I did, I don't think anyone has the right to decide that should be my only source of income from my music except me. That's my decision to make if I wanted to give away my recordings basically for free, and just make money on live performances. So that's where I have a problem with the idea of abolishing IP. I don't think it's fair that some people would not be given the choice of whether they can make money from certain types of efforts (creative endeavors) if there wasn't such a thing as copyright.

Everyone else gets paid for the products of their work, so why not musicians, authors, film producers, etc.? I think creators should also be able to get paid for the products of their work, and I don't think that's evil, I think that's capitalism. I know a lot of people who are opposed to IP think it infringes their freedoms, but they have to look at the flip side of the coin and ask, is it fair and reasonable if the shoe were on the other foot? If you are the creator, then should someone else be able to dictate to you whether you have any chance at all to make money from your work? Or should that be your decision?

I guess that's where I'm coming from in the whole debate. Like I said, I don't have all the answers, I am just trying to approach it from a standpoint of fairness to those who come up with ideas and bring them to market.

Fairness is subjective, and besides, it isn't like the creator of a product doesn't have any advantage. There is a massive advantage to being first to market. You become well known, start with a good reputation (as long as your product isn't a POS), etc. that mere copiers do not have. This is enough incentive in the first place to want to create something and trade it, never mind the fact that survival necessitates trade. You can keep your creation to yourself if you want, that is your right, but you have to ask yourself if it is really worth it...what are you gaining if you never trade it? You would rather make zero money instead of hundreds of thousands, or millions, or perhaps even more?

Now, I don't know a better system of JUSTICE (I could care less about 'fairness') than property rights, and property rights being well-defined is a very rigid moral philosophy. It is simply unjust and immoral for State-IP to exist. Life isn't fair, but life should be just. Is it fair I am not born with the mind of Einstein? Is it fair some people are born with natural talents that allow them to make millions and same people are born looking like the Cavemen dudes with little to no natural talents? Your argumentation would seem to necessitate, or at least, provide cover for force to be used to intervene against our natural rights of property and liberty.

I also have no objection for people getting paid when they trade, what I have a problem with is when they believe they have some entitlement to profit, or money, and use force to obtain it, which is what State-IP is. If you have an inferior product why should you have a right to monopoly profit just because you originated the idea? Do you think no one else would have ever come up with the idea you did? Now, every other single person in society is precluded from using this idea in any productive manner, and we all know what happens to prices when monopolies are introduced.

Also, just to answer your question why other folks get paid for the products of their work...perhaps because their work is scarce and thus economic (limited...). When something can be infinitely reproducible it's value becomes closer to zero, indeed, there would be no need for economics or property rights if we lived in a world of non-scarcity. This is the situation when it comes to the electronic world. Computers allow us to almost infinitely reproduce within it's world, and the costs to do so are a product of the scarce resources to create this world (e.g. Rare-Earth Elements, Metal, Silicon, etc.). The same goes with music. Ideas are infinitely reproducible. Why do you argue that people can own particular arrangements of musical notes, but not musical notes themselves? Surely someone, sometime had to invent, or discover this idea first, no? Furthermore, if I own something, it is not limited by time. Why is IP time limited if it is property? Why can I not pass this title down to my progeny? What would be the consequences if IP actually was property?

I suppose I'd have to pay to even speak. Just think for a second what that means for property rights and how contradictory IP is to property rights. IP is not property, never has been, never will be. It has no characteristics of property whatsoever.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I didn't say people can't sell used books, used media. If you own a copy of something, you should be able to sell that copy. I've bought and sold used books and used CDs. (And used records and/or tapes way back in the day.) What I haven't done is copied any of them and then sold the copies, or copied them and then sold the one I copied from. Used book stores or used record stores aren't copying the used stuff they're selling. They're not doing anything wrong.

Then you shouldn't mind any copying. Either way, the "creator" sees no profit-only the seller. More copies will exist in the world, but this clearly doesn't detract from the value of any other copies. (which is why you couldn't sell a copy of an antique for the same price as the antique)

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

But that's contradictory... If possessing information is owning it, then why should I compensate Dr. Paul for it if I copy his book and sell it? He still owns his copy, and now that I have his book I own it too, and I haven't deprived him of his copy, I'm making new copies and selling them. Why is that immoral to sell the book he wrote without compensating him, if there is no ownership right over knowledge or over an intellectual creation?

First of all, there is ownership right over knowledge. If someone erased your memory without your permission they would be guilty of theft and violence, and force definitely can be used against them.

Secondly, there is no contradiction here at all: to possess information is to own it, but you came into that ownership because of the efforts of the author. It is yours now, but it might be morally right to compensate him for his efforts, and it might be morally wrong to use the knowledge contrary to his wishes. The analogy: your parents gave you your body, it is yours, but that does not cancel your gratitude, and it might be morally wrong to waste your life, etc. Yes it is yours, but moral obligations still exist, though they are NOT enforceable by government force.

But even though it might be morally wrong, it is also IMMORAL for him to use force upon you to prevent you from using the information in your possession if you made no explicit contract with him. And since he has no moral right to use such force upon you, he cannot rightly ask the government to do it in his behalf, because he cannot delegate an authority he does not have. Again: not everything that is morally wrong is right to forbid by government force. It is a key principle. What is the principle here? The Benson Principle: If you have no moral right to use force upon your neighbor, neither does the government.

I'm not disagreeing that there are obvious differences between tangible property and intangible property, and I'm not disagreeing that the immoral use of force is unacceptable in enforcing intellectual property rights.

But I disagree with the basic premise that people should not have the right to control who uses, copies, and profits from their own creations that they put their work into.

That is NOT my basic premise! In fact I asserted the opposite. People SHOULD have the right to control who uses, copies, and profits from their creations, but they must do so without violating the rights and property of others. Copyright and patents violate the rights and property of everyone to “protect” the property of the author. How do they violate the rights and property of everyone? Through IMMORAL use of government force. (Immoral use of force is the definition of property violation.) How is that government force immoral? Because of the Benson Principle. You, INDIVIDUALLY, have no moral right to use such force upon your neighbor, therefore you cannot ask the government to do it in your behalf, because you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

I would never copy Ron Paul's book and sell it without his permission, because he wrote it. He took the time to put his ideas into form, to edit it, to craft it, to make it an enjoyable creation that imparts wisdom and knowledge. I didn't do any of that work and I didn't think of those ideas on my own. So why should I be able to take his ten dollar book, and copy it without his permission, and go and sell it for eight dollars all day long, and profit from it? I shouldn't. It's not my creation, it is his.

And these are very honorable sentiments, but they are NOT enforceable via government force, because NOT everything that is morally right is right to FORCE to perform. What is the principle here? The Benson Principle. It determines the proper use of government force if Liberty is to exist. It is also morally right to help the poor; not to eat too much Kentucky Fried Chicken (so you don't get fat), and to give flowers to your Mom on her birthday. It is all morally right, but is NOT enforceable by government. What is the principle here? The Benson Principle: if you, individually, have no moral right to force your neighbor to do or not to do something, you cannot ask the government to do it for you, because you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

Believing in intellectual property rights does not mean I don't believe in Liberty. On the contrary--It means I respect Liberty. In the example above, I am respecting Ron Paul's Liberty. And if I write my own book, then I would expect others to respect my Liberty by not violating my copyright, and not undermine my ability to be compensated for selling the results of my work. Not all work results in a tangible product, but that doesn't mean the product isn't real or that it's OK to deprive one of the ability to be compensated for selling the result of their work.

I just answered that. There are myriads of ways to profit from IP without violating the rights and property of others, and that do not require immoral use of government force. (See the first post in the thread).

Thanks.