Intellectual Property rights

[Gumba of Liberty]

No one has cared to address the fact that the act of copying does not deny or in any fashion constitute a dispossession of anothers property. Of course they can't because the fact that a replication, duplication, or copying of an idea, set of ideas, a recipe, or any other abstract thought never has, nor cannot deprive the original individual of the same. In other words -- when you copy you create a new tangible good. The IP advocates attack the superfluous arguments and ignore the crux of the matter. Perhaps if they sat for a moment and reflected on this, they would then ponder the consequences of their inaction. They still yet cannot fathom that the very act of denying another individual full use of their own property (that is as all defined as a scarce tangible good) which IP by necessity does, is the violation of the principles of private property. If I buy a blank CD I have full use and authority to dispense of it as I so choose -- using the Government to either confiscate my property, or throw me in a cage because I choose to use the CD in a fashion you disagree with is, at the core a despicable and Government empowering set of ideals resembling nothing of individual liberty and private property. Rent-seeking for the sole purpose of exacting an aggressive profiteering racket is antithetical to free-markets and free individuals.

Before you speak of such things you should at least take into consideration the full range of arguments on either side, and the history involved.

+1 Property is property. Copying property is not stealing property.

 

[Mustang]

No one has cared to address the fact that the act of copying does not deny or in any fashion constitute a dispossession of anothers property. Of course they can't because the fact that a replication, duplication, or copying of an idea, set of ideas, a recipe, or any other abstract thought never has, nor cannot deprive the original individual of the same. In other words -- when you copy you create a new tangible good. The IP advocates attack the superfluous arguments and ignore the crux of the matter. Perhaps if they sat for a moment and reflected on this, they would then ponder the consequences of their inaction. They still yet cannot fathom that the very act of denying another individual full use of their own property (that is as all defined as a scarce tangible good) which IP by necessity does, is the violation of the principles of private property. If I buy a blank CD I have full use and authority to dispense of it as I so choose -- using the Government to either confiscate my property, or throw me in a cage because I choose to use the CD in a fashion you disagree with is, at the core a despicable and Government empowering set of ideals resembling nothing of individual liberty and private property. Rent-seeking for the sole purpose of exacting an aggressive profiteering racket is antithetical to free-markets and free individuals.

Before you speak of such things you should at least take into consideration the full range of arguments on either side, and the history involved.

Thank you. I've mentioned this fact several times throughout my posts but they have so far been ignored by the pro-IP side. The incompatibility of IP laws with the nonaggression principle has also been ignored, and I would be interested in seeing a counterpoint of substance instead of these ancillary (and for the most part irrelevant) issues.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Yeah it's just that they don't care about those arguments, this is all just an emotional response because those "creative types" lack imagination about society organizing without it and need protectionism from the gubmint to feel secure in their own work.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You don't need a CD. I keep it all online. FYI, what you're talking about isn't even illegal under current law. It's called "arranging". Arrangements can be copyrighted by the arranger. But you wouldn't know that, having never actually read the law, would you?

I know quite clearly that you need permission to re-arrange music which is copyright protected and you probably don't know that because you've never done that before

 

[Mr Tansill]

There are a few idiots on this thread (I know, I know, ad hominem, blah, blah, fluffy), and instead of responding to straw men, red herrings, other chaff, and otherwise going down some irrelevant tangent, I'll lay out the argument very simply:

1. A person creates something, let's call it a song.

2. You wish to hear this song, so you purchase the CD (and an agreement that comes with it; i.e. a condition by which you must abide) which is the medium through which the song is transferred to you.

3. The agreement is that you will not copy it (other than for personal back-up), distribute it, or otherwise provide it to another individual. Forget who you're making the agreement with - all the BS about this or that media mogul is irrelevant.

4. You now are party to a contract, and if you violate that contract, you are undermining the basic axioms of a libertarian society.

4a. If you come into possession of this CD, through the unlawful violation of another party, you are also subject to the restrictions of purchase. The sharing of the song, and the agreement in #3 are one and the same.

I now see the whole idea that this stuff is property is the problem. Forget the whole argument about "property" rights, intellectual property, etc (words, words, and more words). It's an unnecessary convolution. You're violating a contract, an agreement. There are no "rights" beyond this most basic, fundamental, and sacred idea.

So basically, screw the whole "property" structure this argument and law has been constructed around - quite simply, you're in violation of a contract - a condition by which the "creator" of this information agreed to "share" it with you.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

IP AS CONTRACT
The Limits of Contract
The law, then, should protect individual rights to one’s
body, and to legitimately acquired scarce resources (property).
There is not a natural right to ideal objects—to one’s
intellectual innovations or creations—but only to scarce
resources. Many opponents of IP rights typically support
only contractual arrangements to protect ideas and innovations—
private contracts between property owners.80 Suppose,
for example, that A writes a book and sells physical
copies of it to numerous purchasers B1, B2 . . . BN, with a contractual
condition that each buyer B is obligated not to make
or sell a copy of the text. Under all theories of contract, any
46 — Against Intellectual Property
of the buyers B becomes liable to A, at least for damages,
if he violates these provisions.81
But the advocates of the contractual approach to IP are
mistaken if they believe that private contract can be used
to recreate the same type of protection afforded by modern
IP rights. Patent and copyright are good against all
third parties, regardless of their consent to a contract. They
are real rights that bind everyone, in the same way that my
title to a parcel of land binds everyone to respect my property—
even if they do not have a contract with me. A contract,
by contrast, binds only parties to the contract. It is like
private law between the parties.82 It does not bind third
parties, i.e., those not in “privity” with the original parties.83
Thus, if the book purchaser B relates to third parties T
the plot of the purchased novel, these third parties T are
not bound, in general, by the original contractual obligation
between A and B. If I learn how to adjust my car’s carburetor
to double its efficiency, or if I learn of a poem or
movie plot someone else has written, why should I have to
pretend that I am ignorant of these things, and refrain
from acting on this knowledge? I have not obligated myself
by contract to the creator. I do not deny that contractual
obligations can be implicit or tacit, but there is not even an
implicit contract in such situations.
Nor can it be said as a general matter that I have stolen
or fraudulently acquired the information, as there are many
legitimate ways for individuals to acquire information. Artistic
works, by their very nature, typically are made public. Scientific
discoveries and innovations likewise can become
known beyond the parties to confidentiality agreements. And
it certainly cannot be said that my use of my carburetor, or
writing a novel using the same plot, physically interferes with
the creator’s use of his own tangible property. It does not
even prevent the creator from using his own carburetor idea
to improve his own car or others’, or from using that plot.
So, my adjusting my carburetor is not a breach of contract;
it is not theft; and it is not physical trespass on the
inventor’s tangible property. Twiddling my carburetor does
not violate the inventor’s rights. At most, my use of this
idea will diminish its value to the inventor by hampering his
ability to monopolistically exploit it. As we have seen, however,
one cannot have a right to the value of one’s property,
but only in its physical integrity.84
Thus, the use of contract only gets us so far. A book
publisher may be able to contractually obligate his purchasers
to not copy his book, but he cannot prevent third
parties from publishing and selling it, unless some contract
prohibits this action.

http://mises.org/books/against.pdf

 

[Mustang]

There are a few idiots on this thread (I know, I know, ad hominem, blah, blah, fluffy), and instead of responding to straw men, red herrings, other chaff, and otherwise going down some irrelevant tangent, I'll lay out the argument very simply:

1. A person creates something, let's call it a song.

2. You wish to hear this song, so you purchase the CD (and an agreement that comes with it; i.e. a condition by which you must abide) which is the medium through which the song is transferred to you.

3. The agreement is that you will not copy it (other than for personal back-up), distribute it, or otherwise provide it to another individual. Forget who you're making the agreement with - all the BS about this or that media mogul is irrelevant.

4. You now are party to a contract, and if you violate that contract, you are undermining the basic axioms of a libertarian society.

Forget the whole argument about "property" rights, etc. It's an unnecessary convolution. You're violating a contract, an agreement. There are no "rights" beyond this most basic, fundamental, and sacred idea.

The problem here is the implicit assumption that ALL contracts are legal under a libertarian society, which is untrue. The burden of proof lies on the pro-IP side to explain why private property can be legally prevented from certain uses via an adhesion contract which even in today's non-libertarian society are often found to be unconscionable and hence unenforceable.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

There are a few idiots on this thread (I know, I know, ad hominem, blah, blah, fluffy), and instead of responding to straw men, red herrings, other chaff, and otherwise going down some irrelevant tangent, I'll lay out the argument very simply:

1. A person creates something, let's call it a song.

2. You wish to hear this song, so you purchase the CD (and an agreement that comes with it; i.e. a condition by which you must abide) which is the medium through which the song is transferred to you.

3. The agreement is that you will not copy it (other than for personal back-up), distribute it, or otherwise provide it to another individual. Forget who you're making the agreement with - all the BS about this or that media mogul is irrelevant.

4. You now are party to a contract, and if you violate that contract, you are undermining the basic axioms of a libertarian society.

Forget the whole argument about "property" rights, intellectual property, etc (words, words, and more words). It's an unnecessary convolution. You're violating a contract, an agreement. There are no "rights" beyond this most basic, fundamental, and sacred idea.

What does this have to do with IP as we are conversing about? As far as I am aware there are among the anti-IP crowd very few of us who would deny that there does exist and can exist within the propertarian axiom contractual agreements for the express purpose of protecting ones ideas. However, once the trade secret, idea, or otherwise becomes distributed and reaches a party whom was not part of the original contract, it is fully open and anyone can then use that information for whatever purposes they choose to. That is to say, suppose you agree to be hired upon the fact that you sign a NDA in regards to a trade secret. You decide to break the contract -- you should be held accountable (fired) -- however now the information is in the public domain available to individuals whom have no contractual obligation. This is the only compatible form of 'IP' if you want to call it that, with individual liberty and private property. IP today has nothing whatsoever to do with the aforementioned.

I've discussed this in great length with advocates for IP and they've concluded the same, that the State-IP regime is incompatible with a free society & individual liberty, but that contracts arisen in the market between individuals are fully compatible. The problem is, that the market-IP (e.g. informed contracts) is not as rigid and harsh as the State interfering because it is bound to non-aggression.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

There are a few idiots on this thread (I know, I know, ad hominem, blah, blah, fluffy), and instead of responding to straw men, red herrings, other chaff, and otherwise going down some irrelevant tangent, I'll lay out the argument very simply:

1. A person creates something, let's call it a song.

2. You wish to hear this song, so you purchase the CD (and an agreement that comes with it; i.e. a condition by which you must abide) which is the medium through which the song is transferred to you.

3. The agreement is that you will not copy it (other than for personal back-up), distribute it, or otherwise provide it to another individual. Forget who you're making the agreement with - all the BS about this or that media mogul is irrelevant.

4. You now are party to a contract, and if you violate that contract, you are undermining the basic axioms of a libertarian society.

Forget the whole argument about "property" rights, intellectual property, etc (words, words, and more words). It's an unnecessary convolution. You're violating a contract, an agreement. There are no "rights" beyond this most basic, fundamental, and sacred idea.

So basically, screw the whole "property" structure this argument and law has been constructed around - quite simply, you're in violation of a contract.

Still the same fundamentally incorrect argument cap'n was trying to make. By calling ideas "property" you are creating fiction. It simply isn't property. There is no contract involved when one purchases a piece of IP anymore than when he purchases a rock. The piece of property has changed hands, and the new owner can do whatever he wants with it, just like any other product.

 

[Mr Tansill]

The problem here is the implicit assumption that ALL contracts are legal under a libertarian society, which is untrue. The burden of proof lies on the pro-IP side to explain why private property can be legally prevented from certain uses via an adhesion contract which even in today's non-libertarian society are often found to be unconscionable and hence unenforceable.

Bro, ALL contracts ARE legal under a libertarian society (at least those between consenting adults). Besides, if the contract is unlawful, then the creator of the music has the simple right to withdraw from your use his product. This is pretty basic, do you see it?

 

[Revolution9]

You ignored my point. I never stated that all adhesion contracts are invalid, only that you need to justify why a contract prohibiting someone from using a product to do X after purchasing it would not be considered unconscionable (and hence unenforceable) especially considering the real world example of Apple being unable to outlaw jailbreaking despite the terms of the adhesion contract.

If the print is there and your state has not ruled against such strictures then you may have to wrangle with lawyers.

What is missing from the anti-IP people most of the time that the issue is profiting from another's work. As well all the rainbow fairy dust tales of the artists just releasing all these superb works if IP was abolished is disingenuous as a quick thought experiment states that to produce a well crafted artwork in the realms of imagery or music takes time. In the real world during that time there is overhead from eating, drinking, energy and living quarters outlay. Under your system of non-acknowledgement of the talent and time and focus taken to produce said work they should release it to the world and let a bunch of miserly bastards just take it for their own with no tribute. Under my system the artist's time is being compensated at the point the original work is duplicated. You can then play the gambit of, well if it is good people will pay him. OK..so he starts getting paid and along comes Psychopath Inc. who sees the people love the work and sends a message to his factory to immediately begin mass duplication and ship it to all the markets outlets he has garnered from picking the best artist's work to mass duplicate and giving the consumer a fair price to him, having the ability to buy mass quantities of raw materials and the artist whop originated the work not having those resources.

In the anti-IP system there will be a world of starving artists making pizzas and flipping burgers, whilst a small conglomerate of fraudulent ripoff artists gets bigger and bigger stealing one idea after another till there is never any point in any artist trying to make a living from being an artist.

Rev9

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Still the same fundamentally incorrect argument cap'n was trying to make. By calling ideas "property" you are creating fiction. It simply isn't property. There is no contract involved when one purchases a piece of IP anymore than when he purchases a rock. The piece of property has changed hands, and the new owner can do whatever he wants with it, just like any other product.

This is true once you start distributing your idea in the marketplace, however, there are forms of non-State IP which are in use today such as NDA's that are perfectly compatible under the conditions I listed -- that is it only pertains to the individual whom has signed and agreed to the contract. Think of something like the KFC recipe. Once it's out of the bag though, there exists no contractual agreement.

 

[Mr Tansill]

What does this have to do with IP as we are conversing about?

Everything, as I am attempting to re-frame the argument into terms that we should all be able to see, since it is apparent that some people here are wrapped up about an abstract convolution, and misunderstanding the underlying premise - which is that you cannot compel anyone to share their "ideas" with you.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

In the anti-IP system there will be a world of starving artists making pizzas and flipping burgers, whilst a small conglomerate of fraudulent ripoff artists gets bigger and bigger stealing one idea after another till there is never any point in any artist trying to make a living from being an artist.

Yawn.

http://www.kickstarter.com/discover

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Bro, ALL contracts ARE legal under a libertarian society (at least those between consenting adults). Besides, if the contract is unlawful, then the creator of the music has the simple right to withdraw from your use his product. This is pretty basic, do you see it?

he doesnt understand it...Ive said it like 5 times already in complete detail but instead I get bashed.

 

[Mustang]

Bro, ALL contracts ARE legal under a libertarian society (at least those between consenting adults). Besides, if the contract is unlawful, then the creator of the music has the simple right to withdraw from your use his product. This is pretty basic, do you see it?

That's false. Not all contracts are legal even in a libertarian society, especially those with ridiculous and unenforceable clauses that conflict with other basic principles of libertarianism.

For example, person A enters into a contract with person B that he will pay person B $10,000 by a certain date, and if failing to do that he will kill person C to settle the debt instead. That is not a valid contract in a libertarian society, and a contract attempting to control one's private property in arbitrary ways after purchase would also be considered unenforceable.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Bro, ALL contracts ARE legal under a libertarian society (at least those between consenting adults). Besides, if the contract is unlawful, then the creator of the music has the simple right to withdraw from your use his product. This is pretty basic, do you see it?

Not all contracts are moral (forget legality for a moment). Think of murder contracts. You think they should be legal? Contracts have to conform to the principles of liberty and self-ownership. Liberty is not Freedom - that is to say there exists a distinct set of actions that are immoral, unethical, and wrong. We make laws as a way of expressing these natural laws. Also, you should recognize that the only individuals bound to a contract are those that have signed and agreed to it. You cannot hold someone accountable for a contract they had nothing to do with. Which means, if someone gives away that CD to a friend, the friend is not bound by the contract between his friend and the company. So then the very act of copying, replicating, etc. is not wrong, nor a violation of any contractual or principles of individual liberty.

 

[Mr Tansill]

By calling ideas "property" you are creating fiction. It simply isn't property.

I think I just said that...is there an echo in here? I agree with the above statement.

There is no contract involved when one purchases a piece of IP anymore than when he purchases a rock. The piece of property has changed hands, and the new owner can do whatever he wants with it, just like any other product.

You are still calling it property!!!!! There absolutely IS a contract - read the back of a CD case. There is NO new owner. There is someone who has entered a contractual usage agreement, and is legally obligated to abide by it.

When you go to Disneyland to ride the rides, you entered into an agreement by which the owners of the park agree to let you ride space mountain for one day...do you get to ride the rides everyday thereafter and/or hand your ticket off everyday hence to every other individual on the planet because you bought admission to use it for one day?

Space mountain is obviously "infinitely" reproducible (there is no upper-bound on the # of times an individual could conceivably ride it)...but again, I digress into an irrelevant rabbit-hole.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Everything, as I am attempting to re-frame the argument into terms that we should all be able to see, since it is apparent that some people here are wrapped up about an abstract convolution, and misunderstanding the underlying premise - which is that you cannot compel anyone to share their "ideas" with you.

Of course you cannot, but the individual who then puts his work and ideas into the 'public' sphere, that is, he has expressed them to another individual cannot then restrict the actions of all individuals in society for his own benefit. Your arguments also have nothing to do with State-IP as we are discussing because contracts are market-based, and not a function of the State -- that is they do not originate out of the state, but between consenting parties. You can be anti-IP (as in State-IP as it is), and be for market-IP (NDA, contracts, etc.), but you have to understand that CONTRACTS ONLY BIND CONSENTING PARTIES. Once the idea or otherwise is out in the public sphere there is no contractual obligation and anyone can freely duplicate, replicate, or otherwise put to use their own property in regards to those recipes. That is a very important distinction you are missing.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I think I just said that...is there an echo in here?



You are still calling it property!!!!! There IS a contract. There is NO new owner. There is someone who has entered a contractual usage agreement, and is legally obligated to abide by it.

When you go to Disneyland to ride the rides, you entered into an agreement by which the owners of the park agree to let you ride space mountain for one day...do you get to ride the rides everyday thereafter and/or hand your ticket off everyday hence to every other individual on the planet because you bought admission to use it for one day?

Space mountain is obviously "infinitely" reproducible (there is no upper-bound on the # of times an individual could conceivably ride it)...but again, I digress into an irrelevant rabbit-hole.

the anti-IP advocates still have no clue about the philosophy shown in this video at 00:36 second mark