Intellectual Property rights

[YumYum]

I minored in the "Recording Industry" at MTSU. I wanted to be a journalist who would do reviews on all crappy music that is coming out today. The music industry collapsed while I was sitting class.

A pretty lady who was "in" the industry, and had paid her "dues", visited our class. She had graduated from MTSU with a degree in the Recording Industry, and gave our class a lecture on how to get your foot in the door. What she said pissed me off.

She told the class that after they graduate, one way they could get their foot in the door was to get hired on, working for free, cleaning the record company's restrooms. By doing this the grads would eventually rub shoulders with someone with power who might like the grad and give them a paying job in the building; like running errands and delivering mail. I exploded!

"You mean to tell me that we are paying thousands of dollars for an education to learn about this industry, and you want us to clean some billion dollar record company's toilets for free to get our foot in the door?!?"

"Yes", she said. "People have done it. It just depends how bad you want a career in the music industry."

What an evil industry. Now, that the music industry is dead, and the music is free, and the true artists (not the wannabes) can create without having to clean toilets for no pay, we should soon be hearing some great, wonderful, sweet sounding music real soon!

 

[Mustang]

The main point here that is being ignored by the pro-IP side is the question of whether abstract and non-physical concepts deserve the same protections against theft as tangible and physical objects. The fact that much time and effort goes into the production of both abstract and tangible goods is irreverent to the discussion at hand, so the appeal to emotion of needing to protect one's investment to justify IP is outside of the debate.

This is where the principle of nonaggression comes into play, since under a libertarian or "free" society no one should be allowed to initiate force against another. When it comes to physical goods, it's clear that seizing someone's tangible product would be considered as an act of aggression due to the use of force. However, for an abstract good such as a musical arrangement, no force is employed when someone copies it and the owner maintains the ability to use and reproduce the concept. Aggression only comes into play with the retaliation using IP, since the one who copied the musical arrangement would be unable to do so under the threat of force, and in that view the first act of aggression comes from not the person who copied but the person who wants to prevent the duplication.

Unless initiating force is justified in order to protect the potential for profit, the argument of the pro-IP side completely falls apart as inconsistent under the principle of nonaggression.

Of course, the pro-IP side might say copying IS in fact an act of aggression, and they are welcome to present a completely consistent method for identifying which forms of copying are forms of aggression and which are not. It will be difficult to use loss of profit as a means to prove copying is an aggressive action, since there are numerous examples that have already been brought up and accepted in this thread demonstrating that a loss of value and/or loss of initial investment in a competitive free market is not inherently aggressive.

 

[KingRobbStark]

The main point here that is being ignored by the pro-IP side is the question of whether abstract and non-physical concepts deserve the same protections against theft as tangible and physical objects. The fact that much time and effort goes into the production of both abstract and tangible goods is irreverent to the discussion at hand, so the appeal to emotion of needing to protect one's investment to justify IP is outside of the debate.

This is where the principle of nonaggression comes into play, since under a libertarian or "free" society no one should be allowed to initiate force against another. When it comes to physical goods, it's clear that seizing someone's tangible product would be considered as an act of aggression due to the use of force. However, for an abstract good such as a musical arrangement, no force is employed when someone copies it and the owner maintains the ability to use and reproduce the concept. Aggression only comes into play with the retaliation using IP, since the one who copied the musical arrangement would be unable to do so under the threat of force, and in that view the first act of aggression comes from not the person who copied but the person who wants to prevent the duplication.

Unless initiating force is justified in order to protect the potential for profit, the argument of the pro-IP side completely falls apart as inconsistent under the principle of nonaggression.

Of course, the pro-IP side might say copying IS in fact an act of aggression, and they are welcome to present a completely consistent method for identifying which forms of copying are forms of aggression and which are not. It will be difficult to use loss of profit as a means to prove copying is an aggressive action, since there are numerous examples that have already been brought up and accepted in this thread demonstrating that a loss of value and/or loss of initial investment in a competitive free market is not inherently aggressive.

Welcome to the forum. +rep

 

[noxagol]

The main point here that is being ignored by the pro-IP side is the question of whether abstract and non-physical concepts deserve the same protections against theft as tangible and physical objects. The fact that much time and effort goes into the production of both abstract and tangible goods is irreverent to the discussion at hand, so the appeal to emotion of needing to protect one's investment to justify IP is outside of the debate.

This is where the principle of nonaggression comes into play, since under a libertarian or "free" society no one should be allowed to initiate force against another. When it comes to physical goods, it's clear that seizing someone's tangible product would be considered as an act of aggression due to the use of force. However, for an abstract good such as a musical arrangement, no force is employed when someone copies it and the owner maintains the ability to use and reproduce the concept. Aggression only comes into play with the retaliation using IP, since the one who copied the musical arrangement would be unable to do so under the threat of force, and in that view the first act of aggression comes from not the person who copied but the person who wants to prevent the duplication.

Unless initiating force is justified in order to protect the potential for profit, the argument of the pro-IP side completely falls apart as inconsistent under the principle of nonaggression.

Of course, the pro-IP side might say copying IS in fact an act of aggression, and they are welcome to present a completely consistent method for identifying which forms of copying are forms of aggression and which are not. It will be difficult to use loss of profit as a means to prove copying is an aggressive action, since there are numerous examples that have already been brought up and accepted in this thread demonstrating that a loss of value and/or loss of initial investment in a competitive free market is not inherently aggressive.

Yes. Handling IP is a matter of contract agreements. I think CD's come with a bunch of fine print that says they are copy written, which is pretty much another way of saying, "Hey, part of buying this is agreeing to not make and distribute copies, free or not". Costs can be in more than simple dollar signs.

 

[Mustang]

Yes. Handling IP is a matter of contract agreements. I think CD's come with a bunch of fine print that says they are copy written, which is pretty much another way of saying, "Hey, part of buying this is agreeing to not make and distribute copies, free or not". Costs can be in more than simple dollar signs.

I don't see how that is a valid contract. If someone buys and now owns a CD, he/she must be free to use it as he/she wishes in order for private property to have any true meaning. A contract stating that the purchaser of a CD is not allowed to use it for X is unenforceable unless the CD is still actually owned by the manufacturer and the buyer is merely renting it. It's similar to jailbreaking an iOS product, which Apple argued was illegal since it was prohibited in the contract but that was rightfully overturned since the device is now the private property of the buyer after purchase.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes. Handling IP is a matter of contract agreements. I think CD's come with a bunch of fine print that says they are copy written, which is pretty much another way of saying, "Hey, part of buying this is agreeing to not make and distribute copies, free or not". Costs can be in more than simple dollar signs.

You can put all sorts of things on a CD, but that doesn't make it a binding contract. By your reasoning, I could write "by using this CD, you agree to kill your neighbors", and you would be bound to it. Sorry, there is no such thing as an "implicit contract" brought about by the mere purchase of anything. It's all legal fiction.

 

[affa]

If we have no IP alot of stories will go untold.
Rev9

Stories existed before IP law, and they would exist afterwards.

The argument can be made that IP inhibits progress -- for example, something like The Grey Album can be squashed, despite the fact that it is obviously original, and has artistic value.

And yes, I create things. But an idea is an idea -- different people can have them at different times, and it isn't always theft. Patent law, for example, clearly inhibits progress when applied incorrectly (which happens all the time).

It's a good thing IP did not exist when someone invented the wheel.

 

[low preference guy]

lol the Mises institute is divided and can't agree with Ayn Rand anymore their own godmother.

this is probably the most clueless statement of the week and offensive to both Objectivists and Rothbardians.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Captain America's arguments are purely based on emotion. This is my paraphrasing of his arguments.

" But...but I worked so hard to think of an idea that others would have though of someday regardless if I had thought of it at all. Its unfair that people should use my "ideas", and make money out of it. Hurr durr my idurras being stollin durr *more crying* hurr durr *more tears* IP durr...".

--------Captain America

Im not crying, you're the one who will never get rid of IP

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Guess he never saw Mozart was a Red.

shrug.

 

[Mr Tansill]

what is the purpose of property, captain?

shack!!!^^^^^^^^

 

[low preference guy]

Im not crying, you're the one who will never get rid of IP

lol. people had gotten rid of it to a pretty good degree. google "bittorrent".

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I don't see how that is a valid contract. If someone buys and now owns a CD, he/she must be free to use it as he/she wishes in order for private property to have any true meaning. A contract stating that the purchaser of a CD is not allowed to use it for X is unenforceable unless the CD is still actually owned by the manufacturer and the buyer is merely renting it. It's similar to jailbreaking an iOS product, which Apple argued was illegal since it was prohibited in the contract but that was rightfully overturned since the device is now the private property of the buyer after purchase.

what is so difficult about understanding consent of use?

-free individual owns themself
-free individual owns TIME,ENERGY,and TALENT
-Time,Energy,Talent=product
-free individual consents to other free individual to use a copy of product by consent of "listening,copying for personal use,backup " and whatever else the free individual creator of that product chooses to consent to the other individual.

When an individual does not receive consent to copy another individuals product and does things with the product which are not given with consent it is the action of fraud

fraud:
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being

 

[Mr Tansill]

IP isn't property. This quote is irrelevant.

What is it then? Do you have an apt description?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

What is it then? Do you have an apt description?

It is whatever he uses,disposes of and creates, even if it takes from another, disposes from another and creates from another.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What is it then? Do you have an apt description?

It is purely a legal fiction invented by politicians and lawyers, primarily during the authoring of the copyright and patent acts. Prior to these laws, no one had ever heard of such a thing as IP. When audio recordings were invented, a clause in the law was added expanding the definition of copyrightable material. It is and always has been a racket that benefits corporate/business interests and their buddies in the government. To this day the RIAA, MPAA, and similar organizations have lobbies that are in business to get ever-stronger laws passed to benefit the corporations and undermine the free market of ideas.

Only politicians and lawyers are stupid/crooked enough to come up with "solutions" to problems that don't exist.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

It is purely a legal fiction invented by politicians and lawyers, primarily during the authoring of the copyright and patent acts. Prior to these laws, no one had ever heard of such a thing as IP. When audio recordings were invented, a clause in the law was added expanding the definition of copyrightable material. It is and always has been a racket that benefits corporate/business interests and their buddies in the government. To this day the RIAA, MPAA, and similar organizations have lobbies that are in business to get ever-stronger laws passed to benefit the corporations and undermine the free market of ideas.

Only politicians and lawyers are stupid/crooked enough to come up with "solutions" to problems that don't exist.

you would really make karl marx proud

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It is whatever he uses,disposes of and creates, even if it takes from another, disposes from another and creates from another.

That's even clumsier than the definition given in music law books. lol

 

[Mr Tansill]

http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=3

Perhaps proponents of anti-IP should put this in easier to understand terms.




Creating artificial scarcity of a non-scarce and infinitely reproducible good is criminal, destructive, and counter-productive. The simple concept of reproduction, where the original owner still has their good, and the addition of the replicated good does not detract from the property of the prior, and so on and so on ad infinitum. With a scarce good however, if I take it from you, you no longer are in possession of such good. There is no replication. This is the difference between scarcity and non-scarcity. Ideas, patents, copyrights, are all non-scarce. Mises called them recipes. If you cannot understand this simple difference and resort to childish ad hominem's you should at least reflect on what intellectual capacity you engage in.

Homey, the wheels come off this logic train in the first sentence. While I agree in principle that creating artificial scarcity is criminal and destructive, you falsely posit that there exists such a thing as an "infinitely" reproducible good - at least not one that you would need. In fact, crops, food, cars, etc. all fit your definition of "infinitely" reproducible. Think about it. It takes a very small amount of energy to produce a copied CD...it takes a greater amount for you to toil in the field all day and produce a harvest of corn...the point is, they both take a finite amount of energy and time. ANYTHING fits your definition, so if you deny IP, you deny all property with it. IP may be a poor choice of words and a poor characterization because it colludes something ethereal with goods which are physical, but the concept is there and it is important to recognize that the product of someone's time and energy is what you are buying.

Here's the most important point for those of you who are anti-IP: if you don't like the price, don't buy it! All the word games etc that I see being played on this board serve merely to justify stealing - I'm actually pretty surprised that I see this much in the way of communist/socialist ideas on a RP forum...

The ultimate fallacy in that article is he assumes ideas are non-physical. Ideas are absolutely physical, whether they be written words in an old book, data on a CD, or a certain combination of electrons in your brain - there is no such thing as something non-physical.

 

[Mustang]

-free individual owns themself
-free individual owns TIME,ENERGY,and TALENT
-Time,Energy,Talent=product
-free individual consents to other free individual to use a copy of product by consent of "listening,copying for personal use,backup " and whatever else the free individual creator of that product chooses to consent to the other individual.

There's a missing line of reasoning here. You go from a person needing time, energy, effort, etc, to create a product, to a person inherently being able to dictate how someone else uses this product. There's no justification for why someone can dictate any terms in a contract to someone else, no differentiation between physical and abstract products, no analysis of how the nonaggression principle comes into play, and no consideration for how the value of one's effort cannot be protected by force.

In other words, you have only an assumption and nothing more. I explained my stance on IP and how it relates to the nonaggression principle in an earlier post, which you ignored. Hence the burden of proof is on you to explain why some forms of copying should be considered an act of aggression, else your assumption and argument fall apart.

When an individual does not receive consent to copy another individuals product and does things with the product which are not given with consent it is the action of fraud

fraud:
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being

I see the word "deception" in both official definitions of fraud, and since the mere act of copying is NOT a deception it cannot inherently be considered fraud without further analysis. In fact, you invented your own definition of fraud that conveniently supports your claim, but given that is clashes with the accepted and legal definition it cannot be taken as fact. Fraud is NOT failing to receive consent to so a certain action with a product.

Example, I can buy an iPhone and make it clear my intention is to jailbreak it. Apple has no legal recourse and cannot stop me despite not having give consent, since I purchased the iPhone making it my private property. Under your definition that would be "fraud' when clearly no fraud has taken place.