Intellectual Property rights

[Xenophage]

You're conflating scarcity in the universe with material being economically scarce to humans.

If material is not economically scarce to humans they likely won't delineate property in it because they don't have to.

Of course, as you said I could homestead some air into a bottle.

I don't think anyone would buy it though cause they could get some very similar air by breathing in.

But if you own it, you own it. Where's the moral principle? Or is property a moral principle to you at all? I am not conflating scarcity in the universe to economic scarcity. I'm trying to point out that you are. Everything is 'scarce' in the sense of the universe and the law of identity and all that, but not everything you own is scarce. You tried to say so.

With economic scarcity, there's an obvious delineation between what is and what is not scarce. Rocks are not scarce, and because everyone can find a rock then why bother with property rights over rocks? Or the air inside a jar? Just because you can't find a buyer to sell it, doesn't mean it isn't yours.

 

[Xenophage]

I'll concede that it may well be an incomplete definition. Will you agree that it is a truism, that the owner of any property does, in fact, have an absolute right to decide the disposition of that property?

Yes, and I'll point out that a right to do something does not equal the ability to do it.

 

[Xenophage]

Great. I own the [pattern of matter and energy] that I control. If the universe wants to clone me, I don't own my clone.

The Universe probably won't clone you as the Universe is not a volatile consciousness capable of reasoned action (as far as we know!). What if a scientist wanted to clone you from a hair you left in a public bathroom?

 

[CCTelander]

Yes, and I'll point out that a right to do something does not equal the ability to do it.

Fine.

So, for example, let's say you write a song. You are then claiming that that particular abstract arrangement of notes is your property, and you have the absolute right to decide its disposition. Correct?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Just because you can't find a buyer to sell it, doesn't mean it isn't yours.

Of course the air in the bottle is mine, I never said it wasn't. And if someone wanted the specific air in my bottle they could pay me for it, unless I was really attached or wanted to consume it myself or whatever.

 

[Xenophage]

Yes, and I'll point out that a right to do something does not equal the ability to do it.

I'd like to revise: There are also limits on what you can or cannot do with your property, and you do not have an absolute right to its disposition. You cannot, for instance, use your property to deprive another of his property without consent.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

The Universe probably won't clone you as the Universe is not a volatile consciousness capable of reasoned action (as far as we know!). What if a scientist wanted to clone you from a hair you left in a public bathroom?

Are you implying that if a scientist cloned me I would own my clone?

 

[Xenophage]

Fine.

So, for example, let's say you write a song. You are then claiming that that particular abstract arrangement of notes is your property, and you have the absolute right to decide its disposition. Correct?

As long as I'm alive. When you're dead, you don't have rights.

 

[Xenophage]

Are you implying that if a scientist cloned me I would own my clone?

No, I'm saying the scientist used your DNA without your consent. This is just an interesting thought experiment, but it doesn't have much to do with my view of property rights, as I don't think you can own your DNA.

 

[CCTelander]

I'd like to revise: There are also limits on what you can or cannot do with your property, and you do not have an absolute right to its disposition. You cannot, for instance, use your property to deprive another of his property without consent.

As long as I'm alive. When you're dead, you don't have rights.

Then you have a serious conflict to resolve before your theory of intellectual property can be correct.

Let's say someone sends me a copy of your song as an MP3, and I DL it to my computer.

Or, someone who "legitimately" bought your CD is listening to your song with their window open. I happen to walk by and overhear your song.

Exactly where, when and how did you JUSTLY acquire any level of ownership over MY computer, or my very brain? And yet your theory of IP demands that you lay claim to the right to decide their disposition, at least so far as forceably removing, or forcing me to remove your song from them.

Sorry, but you have no such right.

The enforcement of your imaginary IP "rights" REQUIRES the wholesale violation of the VERY REAL property rights of innumerable other people, the overwhelming majority of whom could not possibly have entered any contract with you, legitimate or otherwise.

 

[Xenophage]

Then you have a serious conflict to resolve before your theory of intellectual property can be correct.

Let's say someone sends me a copy of your song as an MP3, and I DL it to my computer.

Or, someone who "legitimately" bought your CD is listening to your song with their window open. I happen to walk by and overhear your song.

Exactly where, when and how did you JUSTLY acquire any level of ownership over MY computer, or my very brain? And yet your theory of IP demands that you lay claim to the right to decide their disposition, at least so far as forceably removing, or forcing me to remove your song from them.

Negative. I cannot remove my song from your brain. Brains are the whole issue here. If the idea is never given material form - if it is just floating around inside your cranium as an abstract thought, I can't do anything about that and it doesn't matter anyhow, because IP does not exist until or unless an idea has been given physical form. As you correctly point out, I do not have any right to your brain. I can't force you to unlearn something.

Also, the act of experiencing a work of art is not the same as the act of copying it in *physical form*. Sure, a crude copy is stored somehow in your neurons, but to experience a work of art takes no meaningful action on the part of the listener or viewer. It is automatic. The recipient of the experience is engaged passively. If no action has taken place, no crime has taken place either. You cannot help that light goes into your eyes, or sound goes into your ears, and once its there it gets processed by your brain.

However, if you were to write the song down as sheet music, or record it, or generate a digital copy, *then* you would be engaged in IP theft, unless I had given you permission to do so. In that case I have every right to forcibly remove the copies from your possession.

 

[Xenophage]

To pontificate further: Inaction cannot be criminal. Okay, you could plug your ears and refuse to hear my music, but you should not have to expect to take some action on your own part to prevent the art from being experienced. I hear this argument all the time - that somehow experiencing something creates a copy of it. Well, yes, in a way, it does. But that doesn't mean you've stolen it.

Heading to a file sharing website to download the song is quite different.

 

[guitarlifter]

The OP really should make a poll for this thread so we can see the spread of people for and against IP.

 

[Kludge]

You definitely did jump into the debate without any prior reading. The debate is not framed around whether or not people think you are a jerk or not a jerk (emotion is irrelevant to property rights). The debate is framed around whether or not an artist/musician/writer has property rights over what they produce from their TIME,ENERGY and TALENT.

Alright, then.

No.

 

[Conza88]

LOL @ 88 pages...

PM me if anyone actually addresses my Hoppe quote on the first page, or the videos...

Cheers.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Is the rock you claim ownership over scarce?

He's wrong anyway. Rocks ARE scarce... they're just not VERY scarce... and their value on the market is set accordingly; "rocks" in general are inexpensive. Shale, for instance sells at a pretty low price in this area, because shale is abundant. Limestone rocks, however, are a bit more expensive because they are less abundant...

There's a fundamental misunderstanding of some simple economic precepts on the other side of the debate, making it almost not worth engaging in...

 

[A Son of Liberty]

As long as I'm alive. When you're dead, you don't have rights.

You could bequeth the rights to that which you view as your property.

 

[Fulton for City Council]

That is how music licensing works for the most part. I have no problem with it currently.

You're absolutely right that's how music licensing currently works (but the rate is set by Congress, not individuals.) The reason they did that was practical, because they all knew that if they stifled people from covering people's music it would be a huge loss for our culture.

If it applies to music, why can't a market-based (not government-run) licensing system work for everything?

 

[CCTelander]

Negative. I cannot remove my song from your brain. Brains are the whole issue here. If the idea is never given material form - if it is just floating around inside your cranium as an abstract thought, I can't do anything about that and it doesn't matter anyhow, because IP does not exist until or unless an idea has been given physical form. As you correctly point out, I do not have any right to your brain. I can't force you to unlearn something.

Also, the act of experiencing a work of art is not the same as the act of copying it in *physical form*. Sure, a crude copy is stored somehow in your neurons, but to experience a work of art takes no meaningful action on the part of the listener or viewer. It is automatic. The recipient of the experience is engaged passively. If no action has taken place, no crime has taken place either. You cannot help that light goes into your eyes, or sound goes into your ears, and once its there it gets processed by your brain.

However, if you were to write the song down as sheet music, or record it, or generate a digital copy, *then* you would be engaged in IP theft, unless I had given you permission to do so. In that case I have every right to forcibly remove the copies from your possession.

Well, you dance really well, but all you're doing in actuality is dodging the issue.

Whether we're talking about the neurons of my brain, my hard drive, or the paper and ink I use to write out a score, the PRINCIPLE is EXACTLY the same. These are ALL MY PERSONAL PROPERTY, justly acquired.

Exactly where, when and how did you JUSTLY acquire ANY LEVEL of ownership over any of these items of MY personal property?

Until you can provide a satisfactory answer to that question, your theory of IP fails.

 

[Travlyr]

I have had this argument with Rothbardian IP-haters on here for years. It's gotten quite heated at some times.

They want to be able to profit for free off the intellectual effort of people more creative than them. That's intellectual slavery. And they claim to love freedom? It's an unbelievable contradiction in their general philosophy - but Rothbardian libertarians generally do not have a cohesive philosophy from which their political ideas flow. For a more rational, consistent defense of liberty look to Ayn Rand. She and I agree: intellectual property exists, it is just as essential to human beings as any other form of property, and needs to be protected.

A lot of people on this thread think musicians ought to be selfless charities, donating the fruits of their hard work for free to any asshole who thinks he deserves to have a good time. Fuck. That. I don't give two shits about anyone who wants to rip me off. Just as bad as a fucking liberal, except maybe worse, since these "libertarians" masquerade as defenders of freedom. I'll die before I give up my rights to my intellectual property.

Or, more likely, I'll simply stop producing or sharing my work.

+ rep for this.

It used to be an unbelievable contradiction for me too. But these guys don't have consistency or deep thinking skills. Take a look at this debate where Walter Block is arguing for getting a PhD in Keynesian Economics and the liberty loving an-caps & anarchist cheerleaders who think he won the debate. It is disgustingly sad because Keynesianism is the root of the problem. How anyone in the liberty movement could argue for a counterfeiting cabal to rule is beyond me... but Walter Block? Man oh man how sad. A lot of us have been saying exactly this for years. Ron Paul's books, interviews, and discussions almost always refer to the merchantilsit's cabal as the liberty thieves.

But these guys have been taught that,

• Hate the State
• All Taxes are Theft
• Anarchy does not mean chaos
• Explicit is Implicit
• The Constitution is a Social Contract designed to increase the size of the government rather than limit it.
• Rule of Law is better without the State.

All the while ignoring some basic facts of life.

• Self-ownership is only 1/2 of the equation. Self-dependency is the other 1/2 but is never addressed by them.
• The State provides valuable benefits as well as coercion and can be amended for a best fit. (For example, amended to no penalty for avoiding paying taxes).
• If taxes are defined as receiving less than 100% of the fruits of one's labor, then death and taxes are unavoidable facts of life.

The rest of us will keep fighting for freedom. When counterfeiting is finally made illegal for everybody, then liberty, peace, and prosperity will abound. But instead Stefan and many others have made it a popular fad to "Hate the State", so the gamers would rather fight liberty than fight for liberty.

Debate: It is Smart to Get a PhD in Economics? Walter Block vs Gary North


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwWoY3OuBYA&feature=player_embedded