Introduction
In several places, I have have presented a comparison between the physical object (a bicycle) and the intangible (a song). A song is like a bicycle (the consumer good) AND a bicycle factory (the producer good). Unauthorized copying is trespass, because it is like sneaking into the factory and running the assembly line.
Stephen Davis argues that the analogy is flawed:
You state (correctly) that Betty's trespass is wrong because "the owner of property is entitled to exclude others from using it, even when not using it himself."
You state (incorrectly) that I'm assuming rivalry must be physical. Here is my argument (not assumption) as to why Betty interfered with John's use of his factory: "at the very same time that he was using it in the way he wanted (vacant, machinery off, lights out, etc.), she used it for her own purposes (occupied, machinery on, lights on, etc.)."
Notice the key point: the factory can't be in both states at the same time. Its use by one person necessarily excludes use by another. This is the entire reason that property rights are necessary.
You say that, if I copy your song, I'm interfering with your use. But you are still completely free to do whatever you want with your song, at any time. This is not the case in the factory example.
Thus, your argument fails.
-Stephen Davis
Davis is simply applying a different standard to physical vs. intangible objects. I will re-state Davis' argument, applying a consistent standard.
Argument for Physical Property
Suppose I build a factory, and inside I build 100 identical machines. I own the building, I own all 100 machines.
Machine #1 is plugged in and turned on. The rest of the machines (#2-100) are unplugged. I am using Machine #1 to produce 48 widgets / day. I own each widget produced. I advertise, and sell widgets on the market.
You are one of my customers. You like my widgets, and so do your friends. You like them so much you decide to manufacture a whole bunch and pass them out among your friends. Unfortunately, you do not hold title to my factory, and thus lack any legal access the machines necessary to manufacture widgets. If you are to succeed, you must resort to illegal means.
You sneak into my factory without permission, plug in machine #97, turn it on, and make a few widgets. I catch you red-handed. Naturally, I draw my weapon and line you up in my sights, prepared to use rightful deadly force in defense of my property.
You attempt to argue your way out by claiming that you rightfully own the widgets you made, because you didn't interfere with my making widgets.
I cock my weapon, while explaining the fallacy in your position:
Machine number #97 can either be on or off. Just because it is off doesn't mean I am not using it. It just means I prefer that it be off right now. Since it cannot be both on and off at the same time, your turning it on interferes with my use.
We may extend this reasoning to include the entire factory. Each of the 100 machines can either be on or off. Thus there are 10,000 different combinations of "on" and "off" for the array of machines (10,000 different "states"). Although the state can be changed (by turning machines on or off), at any one point in time, the factory must be in one particular state, to the exclusion of all other possible states.
As factory owner, I have the right to decide which of the 10,000 possible states I prefer. If your action (turning on or off a machine) causes a different state than I desire, then you have interfered with my use, because it is not possible for my preferred state to exist at the same time as your preferred state.
You argue that I was making 48 widgets / day before your action, and I am still able to make 48 / widgets / day after your action. You wonder how you could possibly be interfering with my use. I shift the aim of my weapon, and continue to explain:
The numbers chosen (48 widgets / day, 100 machines, 10,000 combinations) are completely arbitrary. The principle would hold true if it was 26 widgets / day, and 59 machines, and 3481 combinations. As the guy who built all this machinery, I own 100% of all possible use, and that includes owning 100% of all the widgets you made.
You begin to tremble. You say you should own the widgets you made, because you used your own labor.
That's true but completely irrelevant. You had no right to bring your "labor" anywhere near my machines. I step closer, focusing you in my sights.
Your eyes widen considerably. Smiling from ear to ear, you next claim that you gained ownership of Machine #97 YOURSELF, because you plugged it in. After all, a machine that is not plugged in is completely useless. You even say that YOU'VE done ME a GREAT FAVOR by increasing the overall productive capacity of MY OWN FACTORY factory. Think of how many more widgets can be made now, because Machine #97 is operating.
That's true but irrelevant. You had no right to do anything with my machines. Do you really believe that you gain ownership of a machine's productive capacity, simply because you did a tiny amount of labor in plugging the machine in? The person who built the machine owns it, not the person who plugs it in. How preposterous! At this point I seriously wonder if you are in any way reasonable.
Increasingly desperate, you suggest that I surrendered ownership of my entire factory because I published my address on my website, and because I advertise. This is so ridiculous, I cannot respond. Instead, I demand back the widgets that you made on my machine.
You inform me that you "gave the widgets away to your friends". You also told your friends that they should come here, "plug some more machines in", and "make more widgets" to give away to their friends. And if that pesky factory owner shows up, just use the above arguments.
In fact, tell him that this is now the PEOPLE"S FACTORY! As many machines as possible must be plugged in and operated, and all widgets produced must be given away to the people. Widgets are no longer a manufactured consumer item. Widgets are now a basic right, a matter of entitlement.
This is where I begin to lose my patience. My finger finds its way to the trigger, final aim is taken.
"Get the hell off my property, and don't come back", I say.
"You're trying to impose a negative servitude on me", you say.
Conclusion to Physical Property
The point made by the allegory above should be obvious by now. The factory owner and a trespasser are disputing the use of physical machines. The trespasser offers increasingly absurd rationale in trying to legitimize his unauthorized use of the factory owner's property. The final destination of this philosophical approach is, and must always be, pure communism.Introduction to Intellectual Property
The allegory above takes place in physical space. Now let us repeat the exercise in intellectual space.
We will substitute an intellectual factory in place of the physical factory; an intellectual machine for each physical machine, and an intellectual widget for each physical widget. Other than that, we will present the identical allegory.
Writing, recording, selling and distributing a song is just like building a widget factory, selling and distributing widgets. The crucial thing to remember is that a digital song file can function as both the consumer good (the widget) or as the producer good (a widget-making machine). If you want to understand what is really going on, it is essential that you keep these two functions separate in your mind.
A song is a widget. You get the widget in your ear, and for some reason, you like it. I write songs. I am in the business of designing and manufacturing widgets, in the hopes that you and others will like them enough to buy them. I write and record a song. This is like building a factory with widget-making machines inside.
Argument for Intellectual Property
Suppose I write a song. A digital song file is like a factory, because you can use it to mass-produce copies of the consumer good. So in creating the song, it is as if I built the factory, and inside it I built 100 identical machines. I own the building, I own all 100 machines.
I realize that the potential reproductive capacity of my song is vast. However, making new copies entails the expenditure of further resources on my part. I make a decision to begin making a small number of copies at first, which is like plugging in just one machine in my factory, out of the many I could potentially use at some future time.
Machine #1 is plugged in and turned on. The rest of the machines (#2-100) are unplugged. I am using Machine #1 to produce 48 song-copies / day. I own each song-copy produced. I advertise, and sell song-copies on the market.
You are one of my customers. You like my song-copies, and so do your friends. You like them so much you decide to manufacture a whole bunch and pass them out among your friends. Unfortunately, you do not hold title to my song, and thus lack any legal access the machines necessary to manufacture song-copies. If you are to succeed, you must resort to illegal means.
When you make a song-copy without permission, it is like sneaking into my factory without permission, plugging in machine #97, turning it on, and making a few widgets. I catch you red-handed. Naturally, I draw my weapon and line you up in my sights, prepared to use rightful deadly force in defense of my property.
You attempt to argue your way out by claiming that you rightfully own the song-copies you made, because you didn't interfere with my making song-copies.
I cock my weapon, while explaining the fallacy in your position:
Machine number #97 can either be on or off. Just because it is off doesn't mean I am not using it. It just means I prefer that it be off right now. Since it cannot be both on and off at the same time, your turning it on interferes with my use.
We may extend this reasoning to include the entire factory. Each of the 100 machines can either be on or off. Thus there are 10,000 different combinations of "on" and "off" for the array of machines (10,000 different "states"). Although the state can be changed (by turning machines on or off), at any one point in time, the factory must be in one particular state, to the exclusion of all other possible states.
As factory owner, I have the right to decide which of the 10,000 possible states I prefer. If your action (turning on or off a machine) causes a different state than I desire, then you have interfered with my use, because it is not possible for my preferred state to exist at the same time as your preferred state.
You argue that I was making 48 song-copies / day before your action, and I am still able to make 48 song-copies / day after your action. You wonder how you could possibly be interfering with my use. I shift the aim of my weapon, and continue to explain:
The numbers chosen (48 song-copies / day, 100 machines, 10,000 combinations) are completely arbitrary. The principle would hold true if it was 26 song-copies / day, and 59 machines, and 3481 combinations. As the guy who built all this machinery, I own 100% of all possible use, and that includes owning 100% of all the song-copies you made.
You begin to tremble. You say you should own the song-copies you made, because you used your own labor.
That's true but completely irrelevant. You had no right to bring your "labor" anywhere near my machines. I step closer, focusing you in my sights.
Your eyes widen considerably. Smiling from ear to ear, you next claim that you gained ownership of Machine #97 YOURSELF, because you plugged it in. After all, a machine that is not plugged in is completely useless. You even say that YOU'VE done ME a GREAT FAVOR by increasing the overall productive capacity of MY OWN FACTORY. Think of how many more song-copies can be made now, you vomit, because Machine #97 is operating.
That's true but irrelevant. You had no right to do anything with my machines. Do you really believe that you gain ownership of a machine's productive capacity, simply because you did a tiny amount of labor in plugging the machine in? The person who built the machine owns it, not the person who plugs it in. How preposterous! At this point I seriously wonder if you are in any way reasonable.
Increasingly desperate, you suggest that I surrendered ownership of my entire song because I published my address on my website, and because I advertise. This is so ridiculous, I cannot respond. Instead, I demand back the song-copies that you made on my machine.
You inform me that you "gave the song-copies away to your friends". You also told your friends that they should come here, "plug some more machines in", and "make more song-copies" to give away to their friends. And if that pesky factory owner shows up, just use the above arguments.
In fact, tell him that this is now the PEOPLE"S SONG! As many machines as possible must be plugged in and operated, and all song-copies produced must be given away to the people. Song-copies are no longer a manufactured consumer item. Song-copies are now a basic right, a matter of entitlement.
This is where I begin to lose my patience. My finger finds its way to the trigger, final aim is taken.
"Get the hell off my property, and don't come back", I say.
"You're trying to impose a negative servitude on me", you say.
Conclusion
Anti IP is Communism.
