My use of my song is to mass-produce and sell copies. Your unauthorized
copying interferes with my use to the precise extent that my use is
reduced below 100%. That is a wholly OBJECTIVE measure of your
interference of my use.
------------
95 Comments
It would seem to me that ownership derives from first appropriation. That you’re a musician, you necessarily use notes (especially those of diatonic music), so you’re creating a double-standard here. You want to lay claim to a certain combination of notes and back it up with the use of aggression towards others who use that same combination, yet you don’t want to be held liable to those who actually created the diatonic system of notes. This seems very hypocritical and should be your first instruction that *creation* and ability to sell (or influence) is not the criteria of ownership.
To take your stance, you most assuredly owe many royalties to the descendants of Pythagorus, or at least if we were to follow your reasoning, you should not use diatonic music at all without his descendant’s permission. Have you secured that permission?
We don’t disagree. A property owner has no claim on anyone else’s property, unless and until the terms of a valid contract provide for the transfer of title.
But a property owner most certainly does have the right to sell the property. This is absolutely fundamental to property theory. If there is no right to sell, it is not property.
Crucial here is my point, which you Intellectual Commies ignore:
Both of the above points (no claim on other’s property, right to sell) apply precisely the same to intangible goods as physical goods.
This is false. This is Walter Block’s argument for voluntary slavery. I have already explained in detail why this is wrong. The right to property is the right to exclude others, to control the resource. It does not contain within it *necessarily* the right to sell. For example, in the case of one’s own body. One needs a more sophisticated theory of property rights and contracts to start making statements as you have.
“Both of the above points (no claim on other’s property, right to sell) apply precisely the same to intangible goods as physical goods.”
You are conflating the economic concept of “goods” with “property” or, more precisely, with “objects that are the subject of property rights.” So you are just engaging in question-begging, and do not even seem to realize it. Just because economists can classify something as a “good” does not mean that it can be “owned.” You don’t have a clear view of property theory of contract theory, so you don’t get this.
There is a very deep rabbit hole here, too bad few people follow it to see what it implies.
Every creator has a right to sell his creation.
If he can sell it, he will be paid.
Other than the mere fact that my songs are intangible, they are just like physical property in every way.
The problem behind this is not one of function, but of morals. I would not think for a minute of using Matt’s or Stephen’s written work on one of my sites, other than attributed quotes, without first asking them, and subsequently thanking them, having followed their request as to how I used it, if they expressed a preference. If I wanted to use their work badly enough to pay them if that was one of the requirements, I would do so.
Claiming that a creator has absolutely no right to expect at least this much consideration is to reject the concepts of morals and manners.
The creator of a pure idea has no right to control it, once she reveals it.
The assumption here is that there are, and should be, property rights in “things” in general–in paritcular, a some”thing” that you “create”. This is false, as I have explained in detail elsewhere. It gets tedious to repeat this refutation, and it is frustating to see people just repeat already-debunked claims over and over, trying to re-invent the wheel and pontificate without first doing the homework to justify having a public opinion.
Second, should I decide to password protect all of my articles, and release the password only to those who meet my criteria, should that not be my right?
you are free to add passwords to whatever you want. That has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright.
“I have to agree with Alexander here. If a person goes through the time and trouble of creating something, tangible or not, it should be for them to decide what it is used for, and by whom. ”
You seem to ardently disagree with this statement, then make the following statement of your own: “you are free to add passwords to whatever you want. That has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright.”
I’ll say again, I am defending the right of the creator to decide what their creation is used for, not the copyright system itself.
On the surface, your statements appear to contradict one another, but I would like to think that this is just because you misunderstood the meaning of my argument.
This is not what I claimed; this is a typical mischaracterization. It seems to happen all the time with you newbs. And that, also, is frustrating. Instead of nitpicking me to death why don’t you step back and honestly consider what you have done here.
“then make the following statement of your own: “you are free to add passwords to whatever you want. That has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright.”
I’ll say again, I am defending the right of the creator to decide what their creation is used for, not the copyright system itself.”
This is a vague and ambiguous statement. It could be used in support of IP or just normal property rights and contract. That is exactly the problem: is is used like this to equivocate.
“On the surface, your statements appear to contradict one another, but I would like to think that this is just because you misunderstood the meaning of my argument.”
I am not the one in favor of IP which contradicts the property rights I also pretend to favor, while talking about Ip without even understanding what IP law even is. It is mind-boggling to me: I encounter people like you all the time who have strong opinions on something they know almost nothing about. One of the perils of the Internet age.
Most IP debates seem avoid the fact that most people will not create without some benefit, and miss the point that if the artist starves, creation ends.
Your argument has two premises; that most people will not create without some [monetary] benefit, and that without copyright individuals cannot receive a monetary benefit from the things they create. Both of these are demonstrably false.
Sorry, communism has a predictable result: starvation. If you take away the property right in farmland, farmers don’t grow crops. The notion that entrepreneurs will undertake all of the risk and expense to mass-produce any kind of product without a property right in the produce is just . . . well, wrong.
If Kinsella’s (necessarily bloody) revolution ever succeed, the entertainment industry would be reduced to amateurs and charity. Of course, Kinsella could never prevent all contracts for IP, and most likely there would evolve a vibrant “black market” as free people navigated around Kinsella’s totalitarian dictates.
My name is Stephan. Not Stephen, not Steven, not Steve.
“I said that reducing the incentive to produce reduces production.”
Who cares? What has this to do with what rights there are? Can you not answer a direct, simple question? Res ipsa loquitur.
“Whatever that incentive is, whether money, satisfaction, status, or anything else, when it either increases or decreases, production will follow.”
So the hell what? and…….? connect it up, counselor.
My point on incentive is that for some people the potential to profit is a large part of their incentive to create, probably for some their only incentive.
I am sure we agree that the copyright laws are not the answer, but the fact remains that these people want some protection. I believe that they are entitled to that, in whatever form it takes, so they can see their desired incentive realized.
As bad as government interference is, these laws will not soon be repealed unless and until there is an alternative that is effective enough to keep these people from lobbying for more laws.
Dave has expressed his opinion that technology is not yet available, and I don’t see the widespread acceptance of private contracts yet, either. Both of these are likely in the near future, though.
Until there is something to replace the current copyright laws, there will be people who want them to remain in effect. I do not have anything personally invested into the argument, other than the fact that I do not wish to see people who wish to be protected left completely without protection in the meantime.
“Sorry for the misspelling, Stephan, it was not intentional. Since I was not working today, I left my glasses in the other room, and these days it is difficult to distinguish between some letters at this distance.”
Fine. It’s just a personal thing. People never misspell Stephanie. So it boggles my mind that they do it with Stephan.
“My point on incentive is that for some people the potential to profit is a large part of their incentive to create, probably for some their only incentive.”
But that’s not really a point. It’s not a coherent argument. It’s jsut a scattered observation. You have to connect it up to some conclusion if you want to make some normative proposition.
“I am sure we agree that the copyright laws are not the answer”
honeslty, I never talk or think this way. I would never say this. I would never talk about what is or is not “the answer” without first identifying “the quesiton.” In fact, I dont think I would have ever become a libertarian without such a mindset. I cannot see how you or others do, without this mindset, to be honest.
“, but the fact remains that these people want some protection. I believe that they are entitled to that, in whatever form it takes, so they can see their desired incentive realized.”
But you see you have simply asserted what you “believe” with no argument whatsosever.
“As bad as government interference is, these laws will not soon be repealed unless and until there is an alternative that is effective enough to keep these people from lobbying for more laws.”
This obvious observation is also not an argument in favor of these laws’ validity. So why do you say such obvious things? Mihgt as well say “drug laws are bad but if you violate them you might go to jail.” This statement is both obvious, and irrelevant.
“Until there is something to replace the current copyright laws, there will be people who want them to remain in effect.”
This also is not an argument in favor of copyright. It’s like saying that until we have a replacement for prostitution or drug laws, they will remain illegal. okay… so??
” I do not have anything personally invested into the argument, other than the fact that I do not wish to see people who wish to be protected left completely without protection in the meantime.”
What you want is frankly irrelevant. This is not a coherent argument for a given libertarian policy.
I’m not for copyright law as such, but I’m against insisting that people do without protection if that is what they want.
What people want is immensely important, maybe not in the laboratory but in real life. They will strive to gain what they want no matter what we think is right.
Maybe this can be continued sometime tomorrow?
So who knows what you are “for”. Apparently even you do not. You want to oppose people who want to abolish copyright, but you do not want to be in favor of copyright. I have seen this dissonant crap hundreds of times. Make up your mind and take a stand, or if you are not sure, ask questions and stop asserting things.
“What people want is immensely important, maybe not in the laboratory but in real life. They will strive to gain what they want no matter what we think is right.”
Another totally useless, bullshit truism. I mean this says nothing useful or valuable or meaningful at all.
One last try here, then I’m going to give up.
Please take this as a whole statement.
“People want the protections offered by the copyright laws. The copyright laws should be abolished. The people who want them will not allow them to be abolished. Promote a better option which allows these people what they want, then let this option take over and make the copyright laws less desirable, after which it will be much easier to do away with them. Eliminate the bad by promoting a better good. Competition.”
We can theorize all we want on the definition of property, but the person making the claim will prevail unless they are forced to withdraw their claim, or convinced that their claim has no merit.
We can claim that what people want does not matter until the end of time, but to them, what they want is far more important than what we think, and they will try to get what they want. Without taking this into account, the theory is worthless.
Actually, most people do. Or do you include satisfaction as sufficient benefit? Did someone pay you for making your response, or did you do it without benefit?
” if the artist starves, creation ends.”
There are alternative business models, no one needs to starve. According to Engstrom and Falkvinge, artists’ income has risen as music has been disintermediated. It’s the middlemen who need to panic.
Thanks, Dave! I’m glad you think my comments are works of art!
Many people will not create as much or at the same level without financial gain simply because their efforts will be tied up trying to survive with a second trade, allowing them less time and energy to create. Some will choose to release their work only to close friends. A few will simply not create. At any rate, monetary gain stimulates creativity, if only by facilitating more available time and energy.
Copyright is simply a stopgap that was applied by governments at people’s request because too many people are ill-mannered enough to enjoy art while the artist starves, and won’t voluntarily contribute to offset the artist’s time and effort. Until this changes, artist’s and other creators will continue to ask for copyright protection. Not all, but more than enough.
Your explanation above has a name, and it’s called “the incentive problem”. It is the second-worst problem with communism (absolute worst being the calculation problem).
Your desire for people to “change” and “voluntarily contribute to offset the artist’s time and effort” also has a name. It’s called “New Socialist Man”.
I also distinguish between works of art (creations) and scientific discoveries (did Newton create gravity, or just help to explain how it affects objects?).
Isn’t that a bit arbitrary? The creator can’t sell this property, or leave it to heirs? Hmmm, maybe it’s not property at all?
” distinguish between works of art (creations) and scientific discoveries”
Why?
” (did Newton create gravity[...]?)”
No, he created calculus.
For the first, how can the creator be expected to manage his creations after his death? I have no rational case for this, but I personally believe that after the death of a person, although their physical property will be possessed by another, their non-physical creations should become public domain.
So the efforts of creators must be rewarded, but discoverers need no incentive? Creation more important than discovery? Less valuable? Calculus was like a remote island, just sitting there waiting to be discovered, but Gilligan’s Island had to be created with serious mental effort and economic incentives?
“how can the creator be expected to manage his creations after his death?”
I’m not clear what you mean by managing the creations, alive or dead.
I would be interested in what you thought about this.
Changing the law so that the producer is forced to give away his ENTIRE INVENTORY for free is a different matter altogether. It obviously fails as a business model, because nobody is going to bother to create any inventory of something over which they have no property right.
Considering this has not been the case in any situation in which there is no IP protection under the law, you’re attacking a strawman.
Btw, your conflating anti-IP with communism is just off the wall.
Well, I guess it doesn’t satisfy “to each according to need, from each according to ability,” it’s more like from each that is willing, and to anyone who wants some.
However, giving this responsibility to a third party (government) who taxes the general public to enforce the monopoly over content seems more than a bit draconian. This is not free market. It isn’t even close.
The Grateful Dead found a way to become the most successful performance band of all time without using the force of government to line their coffers. http://mises.org/daily/4662
You speak of technology providing a way to monitor the use of intellectual property. This seems to me to be very scary. If we become spied upon at every turn to make sure some artist’s work isn’t being used outside those uses approved at the point of sale, I think I will not buy music any longer. You see when I buy something I consider it mine. As it is now my property, I should be able to use it as I wish. I could copy to my computer and sell the original, make several copies to make sure if one gets stolen or damaged I will still own the music, share a copy with a friend, or whatever as long as I don’t try to resell the copies or charge people money to listen without paying the artist his share of the proceeds.
Motivation and incentives are more complicated than you think. It’s not that people aren’t motivated to do things that aren’t profitable, it’s that profitable activity is more sustainable and (roughly speaking) more likely to be socially beneficial.
Copyright was created by the state to censor and control information. From Engstrom and Falkvinge:
“Seeing how France had failed miserably in banning the
printing press, even under threat of hanging, [Bloody Mary] realized another solution was needed. One that involved the printing industry in a way that would benefit them as well.
She devised a monopoly where the London printing guild would
get a complete monopoly on all printing in England, in exchange
for her censors determining what was fit to print beforehand. It
was a very lucrative monopoly for the guild, who would be working hard to maintain the monopoly and the favor of the Queen’s censors. This merger of corporate and governmental powers turned out to be effective in suppressing free speech and political-religious dissent.
The monopoly was awarded to the London Company of Stationers on May 4, 1557. It was called copyright. “
Your assertion that I am “off the wall”, and “conflating” things, is based on . . . what exactly Cathy?
Chopin was perhaps the world’s greatest pianist ever. He wrote compositions so difficult to play that his work could not be copied. If you wanted to hear what he wrote, you had to pay for the privilege.
If you are good enough, you can make a good living preforming live. If you are just better than most, you may find yourself the starving artist. What is common and easily available does not command a premium price. Only with the force of government can you make your product artificially scarce and thus increase its subjective value to others. Yes it is your property, but when you chose to make it public by selling it, you lose the control over how it can be used. I do agree that you have a possible claim against those reselling your product, if you make the prohibition of such a condition of the purchase, but sharing seems to me to on the same level as loaning a tool to a neighbor so he won’t have to go purchase one himself.
How is it possible to own an idea? Are you saying that no one else has the right to ever find the same melody in their mind that you have found in your mind? Isn’t this thought control? Would you have this extended to the written word? I don’t think you would enjoy living in that world.
http://mises.org/daily/4575
This is the crux of my position. I am not defending the copyright system as it currently exists, I am defending the right of the artist to have their creation used how and by whom they desire.
The current copyright system has more problems than we can recount here, but for a time it did serve a purpose that nothing else could.
Technology can now determine who can see a creation, and whether or not they have to pay.
For example, the local newspaper allows ten free article views per month, after which you have to pay a subscription to read these articles on their website. Is anyone here saying that they should not be able to require this payment?
It is time for a discussion on how those who do the creating can protect their creations to the extent that they wish, whether they choose no protection or so much that they are the only ones who see it. That should be their choice, and to some extent also becomes a privacy concern.
If by that, you mean that they have the option of paywalling, using a subscribership model, or releasing it freely, we don’t disagree. If you mean that they have the right to use the law to control it once it has been put into the public, then we do disagree.
Stephan and I (and I hope I am alright speaking for him here; I think we have identical positions) have no problem with someone putting up a paywall and telling people they have to subscribe to see content. We would even be happy (ish) if that person sued someone who broke a contract with them by putting the content out without their consent. What we would not be okay with is that person then being able to sue third parties who then copied it further, as they are not in privity of contract. Paywalls are, in fact, a free market solution to the incentive problem.
He is being a bit over-optimistic. Existing DRM schemes are a big hassle and quickly get cracked, even though DMCA makes research in this area illegal.
Copying stuff used to be difficult. People created business models based on that fact. It no longer holds, and less so each day. Soon you will even be able to copy physical goods. 3D printers have been used experimentally to make material for surgical transplantation. Propping up those old business models makes no sense, especially when the only reason to do so is a thought-experiment that was debunked by experience before copyright existed.
Antoher stupid comment. I mean the gas chambers and concentration camps “served a purpose” in their “time”. so the hell what? Copyright NEVER served a VALID purpose. Unprincipled thinking is your problem, son.
If you don’t want someone to misinterpret what you express, then you have to take responsibility and action to ensure proper understanding, otherwise someone could have the wrong idea.
Just like
If you don’t want someone to abuse what you express, then you have to take responsibility and action to ensure its proper use, otherwise someone could abuse your idea. You can do this by;
1. Not sharing the idea with people who could abuse the idea.
2. Only share the idea under conditions where it is difficult or impossible to abuse.
As far as number 2 is concerned, stealing money from all potential abusers and using it to hire a violent goon squad is not acceptable. It places the burden of protecting the idea on everyone except for the person who decided to share it. Art, Science, and literature are things that are supposed to enrich society not deplete it.
If I copy your song, you are still completely free to “mass-produce and sell copies.” Your ability to use your song is not affected in any way, shape, or form.
Please see my new article “Songs Are Like Factories (a deeper look)”.
http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/29/29/
I use your “factory can’t be in two states at the same time”. It’s perfect, thank you.
Here’s a little hint for you: Notice your language “way, shape or form”. Notice how, by use of your words, you imply that interference must be physical.