tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63744194594877688422024-02-08T03:13:46.409-08:00Intellectual SpaceThe Libertarian Theory of Intangible PropertyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-73820593012544064032015-08-21T10:29:00.001-07:002015-08-21T10:29:13.413-07:00Copyright Discussion with Ryan GriggsRyan Griggs has offered his comments about copyright, libertarianism,
and my direct, logical proof that intangible works are best understood
as factories. Griggs:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There's
no discussion of what makes production 'mass' production. Logical
deduction builds seamlessly, one analytical step on another. The chain
is broken. This isn't (logical)deduction. It's assertion. There goes
“logical." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Factories aren't created by homesteading. Homesteading is the
acquisition of previously unowned resources. It's one of three ways of
legitimate property acquisition. Is the creation of a factory traceable
far back through time to the first instance of homesteading of that land
upon which it sits? Sure. But that has nothing to do with the argument.
There goes "direct."</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
"Production"
is the rearrangement of rightly owned matter into a more useful
configuration. An arbitrary border is ascribed to separate the new
configuration from the rest of the universe, and the matter within the
border is termed a "good". The newly-produced good can be said to have
been "created", or "brought into existence", but in the physical sense,
the producer has created nothing. The newly-produced good is just a
re-arrangement of pre-existing matter. In the economic sense however,
production is creation. <br />
<br />
Rather than "creation", I
often use the term "homesteading" to refer to such an act of production,
because it serves as a reminder that transformation, not discovery, is
the crucial element in original appropriation of property. Since the
newly-produced economic good was brought into existence, it was not
previously owned, thus the producer has rightly acquired title to
something previously un-owned. Whether to use the term "homesteading" in
this context is merely a semantic problem. Libertarians agree that
producer owns product.<br />
<br />
All economic activity is aimed
at producing consumer goods - things that are directly useful to
individual humans. However, many goods are produced that are not
directly useful to individual humans, but rather are themselves useful
in producing consumer goods. Such indirectly useful goods are called
"capital goods", or "producer goods". <br />
<br />
"Mass
production" occurs when, by virtue of the existence and use of a capital
good, many identical instances of a consumer good are produced (or
"manufactured", or "brought into existence", or "homesteaded") faster
and less expensively than what could possibly occur absent the capital
good. Since mass production is impossible without use of the capital
good, the existence of many identical instances of a consumer good
implies the existence and use of a capital good. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This
sentence is literally unintelligible: "Writing and recording the song
must be viewed as the homesteading of a factory, because it is precisely
this human action that makes mass-production possible." Writing is the
same as homesteading a factory? What? The act of recording sounds is
homesteading a factory? Huh?</blockquote>
<br />
Yes, writing
and recording a song is the production (or "creating", or
"homesteading", or "building", or "making', etc. ) of a factory, because
it makes mass production possible. Prior to the writing and recording
of the song, if you wish to enjoy a music performance, you must first do
the hard work of producing (or "creating", or "homesteading", or
"building", or "making', etc.) your own new piece of music. Production
must always precede consumption. You are free to make your own original
music, just as you are free to build your own car from scratch. You
will find it is enormously less expensive to buy a copy of a
mass-produced car. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
How in the world is copying something in violation of a contract "trespass?" </blockquote>
<br />
Contract
law covers disputes between people who already have a contract between
them. It is important to keep in mind that one may only contract with
one's own property. Contracts to buy, sell, license, or copy intangible
works must be based on an underlying property right. So, copying a song
in violation of a contract would be a breach of contract, not trespass.
<br />
<br />
Tort law covers disputes between people with no
contractual relationship. Copying by a person with no contractual
relationship is known as "copyright infringement", best understood as
trespass (not theft). Unauthorized copying is trespass because it is the
use of a capital good owned by another. Copying interferes with the
owner's use because it reduces the owner's use below 100% of the maximum
possible use. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Trespass is the violation of the physical borders of another's private property (stepping into someone's home, taxation, etc.).</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
If you define trespass as the violation of the <i>"physical" </i>borders,
you have simply smuggled your desired conclusion (property must be
physical) into your premise. That's the oldest trick in
philosophy. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Copyright'
literally means the right to copy. If a seller of a good, say, a bit
.mp3 data says prior to the sale that as a condition of sale the buyer
may not 'copy,' that is, create an identical .mp3 file from the one that
is being sold to him, we may say that the seller of the file is
retaining 'copyright.' If the buyer agrees to the sellers condition,
then he is bound by this condition. In other words, the buyer has agreed
to a contract in which he receives a certain file *conditional on* his
never 'copying' it. That's the proper libertarian analysis of copyright.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This is why Rothbard said copyright was legitimate in a libertarian society.</blockquote>
<br />
One
may only contract with one's own property. If there is no property
right in the pattern of information, then there is simply no basis to
form the contracts that Rothbard describes. In the real world,
relatively free people do indeed form contracts to buy, sell, license,
copy, and refrain from copying intangible goods. Intangible goods get
delivered to happy customers millions of times per day, every day.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[The
legitimacy of copyright] has nothing to do with mass production, or
factories, or homesteading, or acts like writing or recording.</blockquote>
The human action of writing and recording a song is producing ("homesteading", "creating", "making" ) of a<i> </i>good.
"Mass production" and "factories" are crucial to the understanding,
because the song can function as a consumer good (for listening) or as a
capital good (for mass producing copies). The writer ("homesteader")
can sell you the consumer good (one song copy for listening), without
selling you the capital good (the factory for making many copies).<br />
<br />
Selling
the consumer use of a thing while retaining the producer use of the
thing is not unique to intangible goods. For example, it is very common
for housing developers to sell a new house on the condition that the
mineral rights to the land remain with the developer. If you buy a new
house under those conditions, you are free to dig up your back yard to
put in a swimming pool. You are not free to dig up your back yard to
extract petroleum, that would be a breach of contract. If another
unrelated person came to your yard and extracted petroleum, it would be
trespass against the property rights <i>of the developer, </i>as well as against you. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
Your
discussion questions have absolutely nothing to do with whether
copyright is valid according to the libertarian. The method of
production of a good is totally irrelevant to libertarian analysis of
the validity of the sort of transactions that may occur involving that
good. The point is that a good is a good, 'mass produced' or not. </blockquote>
You are correct that "a good is a good, mass produced or not". You've
ignored the point. The point of noting that song copies are mass
produced is that, like any mass produced consumer good, there has got to
be a factory somewhere, and the factory is also a good. Like any other
factory, a song-master is owned by the person who built it. Making
copies is the intended use of the factory, and the factory owner is
entitled to 100% of the produce from the factory. Unauthorized copying
is the unauthorized use of the factory owned by another, i.e. trespass. <br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-43022173683318916632015-07-22T10:51:00.000-07:002015-08-28T10:06:45.610-07:00Scarcity - Correctly Understood<h3>
All economic goods are scarce </h3>
<br />
All economic goods are scarce. This simply means that the supply of the good is less than infinite. There is a chance that all of the good will be consumed, making further consumption impossible.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Nothing is ever created or destroyed</h3>
<br />
The total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is fixed. Matter can be transformed into energy, energy into matter. All the different chemical elements and compounds, and all forms of energy, are simply different arrangements of atoms (or sub-atomic particles, or disturbances in the Higgs field, or whatever nature's fundamental building blocks turn out to be). For our purposes here, "atoms" means the fundamental building blocks of nature, and "matter" means any arrangement of atoms, including energy. <br />
<br />
In all of history, human activity has never created or destroyed anything. All we do is transform matter as we find it into an arrangement we find more useful. The name given to this act of transforming matter into usefulness is "homesteading", while the useful thing is called a "good".<br />
<br />
<h3>
Elements of a Good </h3>
<h3>
</h3>
All goods are comprised of two factors:<br />
<br />
1. Matter <br />
2. Human effort<br />
<br />
For example, imagine an arrangement of matter called "iron ore" laying inside a larger arrangement of matter called "a hillside". We know that iron can be very useful, because it can be fashioned into a cast-iron skillet, and a zillion other things. However, this particular batch of iron is not an economic good, because laying undiscovered and dormant in a hillside, the iron is not in position to do us any good at all. So long as the iron lies in the hillside, it might just as well be at the bottom of the ocean, or on Mars, or a distant galaxy. It might just as well not exist at all. In terms of being an economic good, iron in the hillside <i>does not exist. </i><br />
<br />
To transform iron ore into an economic good, somebody must first discover it, then go dig it up, bring it out, refine the ore, and do all the other things necessary to transform it into something that a person finds useful. <br />
<br />
The same pattern - matter + human effort - holds true for all goods. There is some arrangement of atoms that occurs in nature, and some human effort in transforming the atoms into a different arrangement.<br />
<br />
<h3>
What Causes Scarcity? </h3>
<h3>
</h3>
Here is the key insight to understanding scarcity:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Matter is infinite, human effort is limited. </blockquote>
<br />
The scarcity of economic goods is completely related to the limitations on human effort, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantity of matter.<br />
<br />
Consider the organic compound known as petroleum. Petroleum is useful for making gasoline and hundreds of other products. Like any other economic good, petroleum is scarce, and seemingly becoming more scarce all the time. After all, once petroleum is pumped out of the ground, refined into gasoline, and burned up, it is gone forever, right? It's only a matter of time before it is all used up, right? It's tempting to think that the scarcity of petroleum has to do with the limited quantity that exists. But it isn't so.<br />
<br />
What we call "petroleum" is just another arrangement of atoms. Burning it up transforms the arrangement, but destroys nothing. Even if we pumped out and burned up every last drop of naturally occurring petroleum, if we wanted more of it, all we would have to do is figure out how synthesize more petroleum from the matter at hand. Doing so may be prohibitively expensive, or even technologically impossible to accomplish. But all that means is that there is insufficient human effort available to solve the problem. The scarcity of petroleum is not a function of its quantity, even if the quantity goes down to zero. Human effort is always the limiting factor creating scarcity. This is true of iron, petroleum, and every other economic good, without exception. <br />
<br />
<h3>
What About So-Called "Free Goods"?</h3>
<br />
Atmospheric air is widely cited as the quintessential example of a "free good", meaning that atmospheric air is supposedly non-scarce. But we can see that atmospheric air follows the same pattern. Atmospheric air blanketing planet Earth is not immediately useful. In order to make use of air, a person must bring it under control by inhaling, i.e. flexing the diaphragm muscles, drawing air into the depths of the lung tissue, where the precious oxygen can be extracted and exchanged for carbon dioxide, and exhaled as a waste product.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Every breath you take is an act of homesteading. </blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
Baker's First Postulate:</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
Every economic good is comprised of two factors - matter and human effort.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Baker's Second Postulate:</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
The supply of matter is infinite and literally inexhaustible, while the supply of human effort is limited.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Baker's Third Postulate:</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
Economic scarcity derives entirely from the limitation on human effort, and has nothing to do with the quantity of matter.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i> </i><br />
<i> </i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-82510835759155663162015-01-13T14:26:00.000-08:002015-01-13T14:29:30.127-08:00Proof of IP ValidityI would like to convince you that copyright is a valid form of property, in accordance with libertarian principles of non-aggression and original acquisition of property by homesteading. I propose the following two axioms.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;">1. The existence of a mass-produced good is proof that a factory exists. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">2. The existence of a mass-produced good is proof that the factory was used. </span></blockquote>
<br />
Is there any possible argument against those two claims? I fail to see one. In every corner of modern civilization we see mass-produced goods - food, clothing, electronics, vehicles, medicines. In every case, there is a factory somewhere, transforming some type of raw material with some type of machinery that makes more efficient use of human labor, i.e., a capital good that makes possible the mass-production of a consumer good.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Axiom 1 implies the human action of homesteading </h4>
<h4>
</h4>
Factories do not occur in nature, they must be created by a homesteader. The existence of a factory implies that an act of homesteading occurred. Prior to the act, mass-production of this particular consumer good was impossible. After the act, and because of the act, mass-production is now possible. According to libertarian property theory, the homesteader rightly owns the factory, and the produce from the factory. <br />
<br />
<h4>
Axiom 2 implies the human action of using </h4>
<h4>
</h4>
Axiom two states that if a mass-produced good exists, then the factory must have been used. This follows from an understanding of what a factory is. To obtain finished mass-produced goods, there must be an input of some type of raw material, energy, and human effort. Even if the factory is "completely automated", there still must be a human decision to operate.<br />
<br />
Thus, on observing the existence of any mass-produced good, the following questions can be asked:<br />
<br />
1. Who homesteaded (thus owns) the factory?<br />
2. Who used the factory to make these particular instances of the mass-produced good?<br />
3. Is the person who used the factory authorized by the owner to do so?<br />
<br />
If the user is not authorized, then use is trespass.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Application to Copyright</h4>
<h4>
</h4>
<br />
Multiple identical copies of a song are an example of a mass-produced consumer good. In light of the above, this proves the existence of, and the use of a factory. When it comes to mass-producing song copies, what exactly is "the factory", and who is using it? <br />
<br />
Writing and recording the song must be viewed as the homesteading of a factory, because it is precisely this human action that makes mass-production possible. Before writing and recording, it was impossible to mass-produce identical song-copies. Now, with the existence of the song-master, it is possible. The creation of a new song brings into existence a mass-production capability that did not exist prior. Therefore the writer is a homesteader, and rightly owns the factory and its produce, according to libertarian theory, just as with any other mass-produced good.<br />
<br />
Making copies of the song must be viewed as using the factory, because there is no other way for mass-produced goods to come into existence other than using a factory. The salient question is whether or not the person who made the copies was authorized by the factory owner, for exactly the same reasons as above.<br />
<br />
If the user is not authorized, then copying is trespass. <br />
<br />
<h4>
Conclusion</h4>
<h4>
</h4>
Unauthorized copying is trespass.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Discussion Questions</h4>
<h4>
</h4>
<br />
Are there any examples of mass-produced goods which do not require the existence of a factory?<br />
<br />
Are there any examples of mass-produced goods which do not require the use of a factory?<br />
<br />
Is there some sense in which copying digital media files is not mass-production?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-33433779294528714382014-09-24T18:14:00.003-07:002014-09-25T10:05:34.879-07:00Is a Recipe both a Factory and a Widget? <ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-5" id="li-comment-925">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-925">
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
</blockquote>
<div class="comment-text">
<blockquote>
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 22, 2014, 10:38 pm
</div>
Ok. Is a recipe both a factory and a widget? What makes particular
ideas, knowledge, information, patterns, recipes, etc. both a factory
and a widget?</blockquote>
<br />
When a pattern of information is itself a consumer good, it is a widget. When a pattern of information can be used to make identical copies of a consumer good, it is a factory. There are two different senses in which you might be asking about the possible intellectual property rights in a "recipe" - depending on whether you consider the recipe to be a consumer good itself, or merely an element in making a consumer good known as a "cake". <br />
<br />
<h4>
Sense #1 - The Pattern Itself is a Consumer Good</h4>
<h4>
</h4>
In one sense, a "recipe" can be like a story, written on paper. We would wonder if this particular recipe is sufficiently complex and large enough to warrant a copyright. If copies of the recipe could function as a consumer good, then in that sense the "recipe" is like a widget. Certainly a book with many recipes is unique and original enough to warrant a copyright, just like any other book. A book of recipes is like a widget.<br />
<br />
A book of recipes could also be like a factory, because you could use it to mass-produce book-copies. When used for mass-production, I refer to the book as one "book-master", to distinguish it from the many "book-copies". <br />
<br />
<h4>
Sense #2 - The Pattern Itself is Not the Consumer Good </h4>
<h4>
</h4>
In a different sense, we might wonder about trying to own the underlying methods of cake-making described in the recipe. Such a property right would be a "patent". As we've discussed, I don't find patent to be valid, because a patent merely describes how homesteading could be done, but is not an act of homesteading itself.<br />
<br />
In this sense, a "recipe" is not like a widget, because you cannot eat the recipe.</div>
<div class="comment-text">
In this sense, the "recipe" does not give you the ability to mass-produce cakes. For that, you need a physical cake-factory and also a recipe. Thus, a "recipe" by itself is not like a factory.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Cakes, Recipes, Methods and Songs </h4>
<h4>
</h4>
A song-copy is like a cake, because you can listen to a song-copy, just like you can eat the cake. The song-master is like a cake-factory, because it can be used for mass-production of song-copies, just like a big physical building with lots of machines inside could be used for the mass-production of cake-copies.<br />
<br />
A songwriting instruction book "Methods for Writing Pop Songs" is like a recipe instruction book "Methods for Baking Great Cakes". We can copyright the pattern of information printed on the pages, but we cannot patent the underlying methods described.<br />
<br />
Kinsella has done such a thorough job at conflating copyright and patent, I likely will spend the rest of my natural life attempting to unravel his confusion.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Logical Rule </h4>
<h4>
</h4>
Rule: If it contains the ability to make many identical copies of a good, then it is a factory. If not, then not.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-21134881180773419382014-09-20T14:06:00.000-07:002014-09-20T14:06:06.223-07:00Stephan Kinsella on Alexander Baker<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
</div>
<div class="meta">
<br /></div>
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 20, 2014, 5:33 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://roadmap.liberty.me/2014/09/18/lost-in-intellectual-space/?replytocom=81#respond">Reply</a></div>
<div class="meta">
</div>
I will not reply anymore to Baker’s various screeds advocating
intellectual fascism, since he always deletes them. He has lost my
contribution due to his insane advocacy of his pretend little niche. He
thinks he has some contribution to make intellectually or artistically
but there is no evidence for either but for his insane, embarrassing
megalomaniacal braggadocio (I know he’s just a pretend-engineer, but he
can look up the words he doesn’t grok). I think Baker is a completely
dishonest fraud and thinker of no import whatsoever, and what’s more, I
think he has barely enough intelligence to realize this, which is why he
compounds the error by adding lie upon lie. He has no argument
whatsoever for IP, but he insists on doubling down–to his shame. What a
shame. How sad. Shame, Baker, Shame. You’ve become a pathetic advocate
of dishonesty, fascism, socialism, and lies. And in the name of some
distorted, half-baked version of fake-engineer (for I doubt he is really
even a real engineer, though masquerading as one), he adopts the
posture of some knowledgeable, truth-seeking person, when the truth is,
as is apparent, his just sad, desperate, dishonest, and ultimately
intentionally advocating malevolent ideas. And he repeats it over and
over–this is the sin or pride, and of self-interested blindedness. He
wants to make money doing his alleged craft–so he crafts an elaborate
excuse for the laws the he thinks will allow him to do so. He is no
different than a government school teacher arguing for property taxes to
support government schools. Yet unlike her, he parades under the banner
of liberty, sullying it. That is his doing. That is his choice. Baker
is evil, and is not a libertarian. He is an exemplar of the reason why
we have the drug war, taxes, the state, drones, the whole shebang.
Congratulations, Baker, congrats.<br />
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-82379211440813073952014-09-20T10:16:00.000-07:002014-09-20T14:41:43.455-07:00Principles of Tort Law According to Matt Gilliland, J.D.We at liberty.me are very fortunate to have among us doctor of
jurisprudence Matt Gilliland. In opposing copyright, and wishing to
educate me on principles of tort law, Gilliland has offered various
comments in response to my article “Tell it to Tatiana”. Frankly his
comments don’t make much sense to me, but then again, I haven’t yet
earned my J.D. Hopefully Gilliland will come and clear things up here.<br />
<br />
My position, and the accepted libertarian position, is that all legal
rights are property rights. This begins, first and foremost, with the
property right we all have in our own physical body. Property rights
also extend to those things that have been rightly homesteaded, or
acquired through voluntary contractual exchange with other homesteaders.
Only valid property may be the subject of a contract.<br />
Accepting the above, an important conclusion can be drawn:<br />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
All legal wrongs are property violations.</h3>
The corollary of which is:<br />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
If there is no property violation,</h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
there is no legal wrong.</h3>
Confusingly, Gilliland appears to both agree and disagree with my
assertion that “all legal wrongs are property violations”. Says he:<br />
<blockquote>
I did not claim that tort actions did not require the
violation of a property right. In fact, you’ll notice that I explicitly
said that the damages must result from a property violation. This does
not mean that the damages themselves are property violations — in fact,
many and possibly most damages aren’t.</blockquote>
Um, what? “Damages” is a legal term that refers to the actual loss
suffered by the plaintiff. For example, if you smash my car, in every
day speech we might say the car is “damaged”. But this is not the same
as legal “damages”. To avoid confusion, let us refer to crumpled car
parts as an “injury to property”. The legal “damages” here would be the
amount of money needed to fix the car, and a Court could “award damages”
to the me (the plaintiff), and order you (the defendant) to pay.<br />
<br />
With that hopefully cleared up, let me repeat. In a just, sane,
libertarian society, all legal wrongs arise from property violations,
i.e injury to property. And included in “property” is the human body.
Legal damages flow as compensation to correct the property injury.<br />
<br />
So does Gilliland agree, or disagree? I’m not sure, and I hope he clears it up.<br />
<h3>
Plagiarism</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
“Plagiarism”, currently understood as a form of copyright
infringement, occurs when the defendant falsely claims authorship of
what is actually the Plaintiff’s original work (say, a song). It has
been claimed by Matt Gilliland and others that plagiarism could be
prosecuted without copyright law.<br />
I offered a hypothetical example in which I downloaded one of Tatiana
Moroz’s songs, falsely claimed authorship, then licensed the song to a
TV show. Gilliland agrees that, without copyright, Tatiana has no case
against me. This is troubling enough. But Gilliland asserts that the TV
producer would have a “Fraud” action against me, because I lied about
authorship. I don’t think that’s correct, because the TV producer does
not suffer an injury to property.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Fraud</h3>
“Fraud” (modernly synonymous with “intentional misrepresentation”) is an intentional tort defined as follows:<br />
<br />
an intentional deception by the defendant, relied upon by the plaintiff, causing harm to the plaintiff’s person or property.<br />
<br />
Gilliland attacks the problem this way:<br />
<blockquote>
Because the consent [to the song license contract] is not
valid since the contracted-for song by you is not delivered, there is a
functional theft of the license price. Other losses derive from that
property violation. Damages must derive from a property violation, but
not all damages have to themselves be property violations.</blockquote>
Um, what? First, I <b><i>did</i> </b>deliver the
contracted-for song. The TV producer listened to the song, liked it,
agreed to license it, and I delivered exactly the song he bought. I am
happy, he is happy. Where is the property injury?<br />
<br />
Second, what “other losses derive from that [supposed] property
violation”? When I pointed out that the authorship of the song may not
matter at all to the TV producer, Gilliland responded with:<br />
<blockquote>
Res ipsa. Why would you claim authorship if it didn’t matter?</blockquote>
I said that authorship didn’t matter <b><i>to the licensee.</i> </b>Typically,
TV shows don’t give screen credit to writers of licensed background music. They
don’t care. They just want an appropriate piece of music to massage the
audience’s emotions.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Res Ipsa Loquitor</h3>
Moreover, “Res Ipsa” is a latin legal term “Res Ipsa Loquitor” which
literally means “The thing speaks for itself”. Res Ipsa applies to
negligence cases, not fraud, and can only serve as a substitute to show
duty of care and breach of duty. Res Ipsa is not a substitute for
showing damages. This is an established principle in existing Common
Law, and I believe it is good law. If Gilliland feels Res Ipsa should be
redefined in a libertarian world, then he should say so.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Question for Matt Gilliland</h3>
So in continuing my exploration of how a Kinsellist world might operate, I ask Matt Gilliland:<br />
Can you provide an example where damages arise from something other than a property injury?<br />
<br />
--------<br />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mattgilliland/" rel="external nofollow">Matt Gilliland</a> September 17, 2014, 9:34 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/17/principles-of-tort-law-according-to-matt-gilliland-j-d/?replytocom=894#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
You have incredibly poor reading comprehension, and even poorer
understanding of how damages work. It is likely to your benefit that I
don’t have time to engage further, and I’m fairly confident it would do
no good, as you haven’t managed to understand much of anything I spent
time writing yesterday.<br />
P.S. – It’s hilarious that you’re being pissy about the J.D. thing;
you *bragged* about your knowledge with the appeal to the fact that you
were a law student and knew all about this, and then *bragged* about
having passed the FYLSE, and said it was the hardest law exam in the
country. I suppose you were hoping no one would realize that it meant
you couldn’t get into an accredited school or failed out of one after
your first year. You got called out, and now you’re just babbling
incoherently based on your faulty reading of what I wrote on your other
topic.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-74106360243193823782014-09-20T10:12:00.004-07:002014-09-20T10:12:35.285-07:00No Copyright? Tell it to Tatiana<a href="http://tatianamoroz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/pic_sm_armyclose2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://tatianamoroz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/pic_sm_armyclose2.jpg" height="400" width="266" /></a>Tatiana Moroz is a wonderfully talented singer-songwriter, lover of
liberty, and member here at liberty.me. A few months ago I engaged her
on the issue of copyright.<br />
<br />
I asked Tatiana if it was OK that I downloaded her songs, put my own
name on as writer, and then licensed them for use on a TV show so that I
could collect the license fees and performance royalties for myself.<br />
<br />
Tatiana was reluctant to take a position on copyright, with me
anyway, and I get it. I think she feels really conflicted. On the one
hand, she instinctively understands that her songs are just that – HER
songs. On the other hand, she’s been told that copyright is somehow
“illegitimate”, imposing a “negative servitude” on others, and a
“violation” of the property rights of others.<br />
<br />
My discussion style is highly confrontational, which doesn’t make me a
lot of friends around here. Such is my choice, and it might have at
least something to do with your willingness to endorse the abolition of
my property rights over my songs.<br />
<br />
But what about Tatiana? She is a sweetheart with a golden voice and
wonderful words. So tell her. Call out Tatiana Moroz, by name, and
explain to her PERSONALLY why she doesn’t own her songs, and why I
should be allowed to put my name on them as author, and do anything I
want with them.<br />
<br />
<br />
--------<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol class="commentlist">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mattgilliland even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-848"><div class="comment_container" id="comment-848">
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mattgilliland/" rel="external nofollow">Matt Gilliland</a> September 16, 2014, 9:43 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/tell-it-to-tatiana/?replytocom=848#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“I asked Tatiana if it was OK that I downloaded her songs, put my
own name on as writer, and then licensed them for use on a TV show so
that I could collect the license fees and performance royalties for
myself.”<br />
Way to butcher that strawman.</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-851">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-851">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 10:17 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/tell-it-to-tatiana/?replytocom=851#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Matt – How is this a strawman argument? Please explain Matt. <br />
Plagiarism is copyright infringement. Without a property right in a
pattern of information, then there’s nothing wrong with plagiarism. <br />
A slightly different question is this:<br />
Why can’t I just take Tatiana’s music, use it in my TV show without Tatiana’s permission, and without crediting her?</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mattgilliland even depth-3" id="li-comment-854">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-854">
<img alt="Avatar of Matt Gilliland" class="avatar user-41-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/41/b3bb2298561b5bc786d9cf428861e4d5-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mattgilliland/" rel="external nofollow">Matt Gilliland</a> September 16, 2014, 10:24 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/tell-it-to-tatiana/?replytocom=854#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“Plagiarism is copyright infringement. Without a property right in
a pattern of information, then there’s nothing wrong with plagiarism.”<br />
It pains me that you somehow typed this without thinking about the fact that it’s fraud.<br />
“Why can’t I just take Tatiana’s music, use it in my TV show without Tatiana’s permission, and without crediting her?”<br />
I don’t have a problem with that qua libertarianism. I would dislike
it personally because I place a value on giving credit to people, but as
someone who has had their graphic design work used quite a bit without
credit (and who has made money on that freely-released work anyway, in
spite of your doomsaying to the contrary), I don’t think it should be
illegal because it doesn’t violate property rights.</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-858">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-858">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 10:39 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/tell-it-to-tatiana/?replytocom=858#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Hi Matt – With all due respect, I know exactly what fraud is, and you obviously do not. <br />
Fraud requires 3 elements – deception, reliance, and damages. Without
showing damage to property, there is no fraud. As I pointed out to
Dave, “lying” is only wrong when used to deprive another of property. No
property – no fraud. <br />
You might want to know that I’m a 3rd year law student, and I’ve
passed the California FYLSE, widely considered to be the toughest law
exam in the U.S.</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mattgilliland even depth-5" id="li-comment-859">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-859">
<img alt="Avatar of Matt Gilliland" class="avatar user-41-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/41/b3bb2298561b5bc786d9cf428861e4d5-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mattgilliland/" rel="external nofollow">Matt Gilliland</a> September 16, 2014, 11:03 pm
</div>
With all due respect, 3L, I have my J.D., which means I also know
that having taken the FYLSE indicates that you either couldn’t get into
an ABA-accredited law school, or you failed out at an accredited school.
It is most certainly NOT considered among the profession to be the
toughest law exam in the US — it merely has the lowest passage rate
(because, as pointed out above, those taking it are not exactly top of
the barrel). Congrats on passing it, but you can’t even spot fraud in
your own hypo, so you may very well find the *actual* bar exam to be
troublesome. Please check your unjustified pretension at the door.<br />
In your hypothetical, you put your name on the songs *and licensed
them for use*. That’s fraud against the licensee, because without
knowledge of the original authorship, the licensee cannot effectively
consent.<br />
Damages in fraud don’t have to be to a property right; if as a result
of your hypothetical fraud, reputation damages to the parent company
were suffered because some people don’t like being lied to about
authorship, this would suffice for the damages element, even though one
does not own reputation, because the licensee is in a worse state than
would have been the case if the representations made had been
non-fraudulent.</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-861">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-861">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 11:25 pm
</div>
<a href="http://liberty.me/members/matt/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Matt</a>
– I don’t want to get in a pissing match with a JD who works for a
website and never passed any bar exam. You’re way over my pay grade. <br />
If I license Tatiana’s song to a TV show, with my name, yes I
deceived them. Perhaps they relied upon my deception, if my name somehow
encouraged them to buy. Perhaps not, if their decision was based solely
on the music. In either case, they are not damaged. <br />
They paid for a song, I delivered a song. Right Mr. Esquire?</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mattgilliland even depth-5" id="li-comment-862">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-862">
<img alt="Avatar of Matt Gilliland" class="avatar user-41-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/41/b3bb2298561b5bc786d9cf428861e4d5-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mattgilliland/" rel="external nofollow">Matt Gilliland</a> September 16, 2014, 11:34 pm
</div>
<a href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@alexander</a><br />
You’re right, you shouldn’t get into a pissing match with me on this,
because you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.<br />
If you offer a song written by you and deliver a song written by you,
then consent was ineffective, and even if there weren’t damages, the
contract would be voidable at the option of the licensee. I already
explained how there would quite easily be damages as a proximate result
of the fraud, since damages in such a claim don’t have to be to a
property right. They can be any harm or loss that puts one in a worse
position after than before, even if a property right is not affected. If
the TV show lost even just Tatiana as a viewer, that would be damages
sufficient to meet the element.</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-864">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-864">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 17, 2014, 12:22 am
</div>
@ Matt – there several things to parse out here, most importantly
that you are ignoring the proper plaintiff, i.e. victim – Tatiana. <br />
1. All legal rights are property rights, all legal wrongs are
property wrongs. This is the libertarian view. I’m quite aware that
there are any number of statist “laws” that purport to find “rights” and
“wrongs” unrelated to property. They are all bogus. <br />
If you wish to allow tort action against a defendant when the
plaintiff has suffered no property injury, then this completely defeats
the anti-IP theory you’re trying to defend. You copy my song, so I sue
you for defamation, or negligent infliction of emotional distress, or
something else. <br />
Right? The whole point of Kinsellism is to DISALLOW legal action
against copiers, by REMOVING the property right that makes legal action
possible. If a property injury was unnecessary for a tort action, as you
suggest, then Kinsella’s thesis is moot. <br />
2. You assert that lying about authorship would somehow render
consent to license ineffective, but you don’t explain how or why. Not
every detail is automatically relevant. Whose name appears as author
MIGHT make a difference to the licensee, but it might not. Even if it
does, it could cut either way. <br />
You’re correct that a reduction in audience size would be the
licensee’s damages, AND THAT IS A PROPERTY DAMAGE, because the licensee
can trace audience size to ad revenue. Absent this connection to
licensee’s bottom line, the licensee is not damaged. <br />
3. And, suppose using my name INCREASES the audience share enjoyed by
the licensee. The licensee is certainly not damaged in that case. OK?
Me and the licensee are both happy. Why would the licensee sue me? <br />
4. What about Tatiana? Tatiana is the proper plaintiff here, in my
view. But my view absolutely requires a property right over the pattern
of information known as her song. Absent copyright, I certainly didn’t
didn’t defraud Tatiana, because I didn’t make any representations to
Tatiana at all. Absent a property right in her song, what are Tatiana’s
damages?</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mattgilliland even depth-5" id="li-comment-868">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-868">
<img alt="Avatar of Matt Gilliland" class="avatar user-41-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/41/b3bb2298561b5bc786d9cf428861e4d5-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mattgilliland/" rel="external nofollow">Matt Gilliland</a> September 17, 2014, 1:05 am
</div>
“most importantly that you are ignoring the proper plaintiff, i.e. victim – Tatiana. ”<br />
No, I’m not ignoring her. She just hasn’t had her property rights violated. Sorry.<br />
“All legal rights are property rights”<br />
Yes.<br />
“all legal wrongs are property wrongs”<br />
Sorry, but no. Damages don’t have to be direct damages to property, as I’ll show using your example in a moment.<br />
“If you wish to allow tort action against a defendant when the
plaintiff has suffered no property injury, then this completely defeats
the anti-IP theory you’re trying to defend.”<br />
Incorrect once again. Because the consent is not valid since the
contracted-for song by you is not delivered, there is a functional theft
of the license price. Other losses derive from that property violation.
Damages must derive from a property violation, but not all damages have
to themselves be property violations.<br />
“You assert that lying about authorship would somehow render consent
to license ineffective, but you don’t explain how or why. Not every
detail is automatically relevant. Whose name appears as author MIGHT
make a difference to the licensee, but it might not. Even if it does, it
could cut either way.”<br />
Res ipsa. Why would you claim authorship if it didn’t matter? OF
COURSE authorship claims matter, even if they don’t have anything to do
with property rights. There’s definitely a value to presenting works
licensed directly from creators, because even without IP, people still
care about authorship. I also mentioned that, at best, it’s voidable if
not void. There’s a claim there whether the licensee chooses to make it
or not.<br />
“You’re correct that a reduction in audience size would be the
licensee’s damages, AND THAT IS A PROPERTY DAMAGE, because the licensee
can trace audience size to ad revenue. Absent this connection to
licensee’s bottom line, the licensee is not damaged. ”<br />
One does not have a right to revenue or audience. Come on.<br />
“And, suppose using my name INCREASES the audience share enjoyed by
the licensee. The licensee is certainly not damaged in that case. OK? Me
and the licensee are both happy. Why would the licensee sue me?”<br />
If the licensee doesn’t want to sue you, I’m fine with that. That’s obviously their option. <br />
“What about Tatiana? Tatiana is the proper plaintiff here, in my
view. But my view absolutely requires a property right over the pattern
of information known as her song. Absent copyright, I certainly didn’t
didn’t defraud Tatiana, because I didn’t make any representations to
Tatiana at all. Absent a property right in her song, what are Tatiana’s
damages?”<br />
She has none. Sorry. I know that grinds your gears.</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-870">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-870">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 17, 2014, 1:32 am
</div>
Matt, this is painful. First you claim that tort actions need not
be founded on property violations. But then you say copyright
enforcement is illegitimate, because no property right was violated. <br />
Well, which is it? Do tort actions require property damage, or not? <br />
You keep saying that if the plaintiff is “in a worse position”, that
will suffice to show damages. That’s a crass equivocation. When we speak
of being “in a worse position”, that MEANS PROPERTY DAMAGE. <br />
And for crying out loud, are you really going to hang your JD hat on
this: “One does not have a right to revenue or audience.” Matt, YOU are
the one who offered a reduced audience as a showing of damages,
remember? That was your case counselor, not mine, LOL. <br />
I simply connected the dots of proximate causation from the audience reduction, to loss of ad revenue, to lost profits.</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mattgilliland even depth-5" id="li-comment-871">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-871">
<img alt="Avatar of Matt Gilliland" class="avatar user-41-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/41/b3bb2298561b5bc786d9cf428861e4d5-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mattgilliland/" rel="external nofollow">Matt Gilliland</a> September 17, 2014, 1:42 am
</div>
I agree that this is painful.<br />
I did not claim that tort actions did not require the violation of a
property right. In fact, you’ll notice that I explicitly said that the
damages must result from a property violation. This does not mean that
the damages themselves are property violations — in fact, many and
possibly most damages aren’t.<br />
“Matt, YOU are the one who offered a reduced audience as a showing of
damages, remember? That was your case counselor, not mine, LOL. ”<br />
Yes, and it’s completely consistent with what I’ve said. A reduction
in audience is a damage that derives from the violation of a property
right (the fraud) but is not itself the violation of a property right.
It’s almost as if you aren’t reading my responses. Allow me the liberty
of quoting myself, since you missed it the first go-around: “Because the
consent is not valid since the contracted-for song by you is not
delivered, there is a functional theft of the license price. Other
losses derive from that property violation. Damages must derive from a
property violation, but not all damages have to themselves be property
violations.”</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-marcerr odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-849">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-849">
<img alt="Avatar of Chip Marce" class="avatar user-3097-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/3097/6493edc9c21a35d7eb610212d5c2c3e4-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/marcerr/" rel="external nofollow">Chip Marce</a> September 16, 2014, 9:57 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/tell-it-to-tatiana/?replytocom=849#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Heh, heh. <br />
That said, i think there is a happy medium to be found. I don’t see
the point of patents; in essence they reward the first person to run to
the patent office. Copyrights? Hmmm. More of a grey area there. I do
not agree with copyrights that last more than say a generation.</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-853">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-853">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 10:21 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/tell-it-to-tatiana/?replytocom=853#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Chip – The application of my theory shows no property right in a
“method” (i.e. patent), but does find one in a finished intangible work
(i.e. copyright). <br />
If there is a property right, it should be forever. If you think
copyright should expire, it seems you don’t find a property right at
all.</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-852">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-852">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 16, 2014, 10:18 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/tell-it-to-tatiana/?replytocom=852#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Lying about authorship is a separate issue from who owns the copyright, or whether the copyright system is legitimate.</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-855">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-855">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 10:27 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/tell-it-to-tatiana/?replytocom=855#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Dave – All legal rights are property rights, and all legal wrongs are property violations. <br />
Thus “Lying” is only illegal when used to deprive another person of
property. “Fraud”, for example requires 3 elements – deception,
reliance, damages. If the plaintiff cannot show damage (to property)
there is no fraud. <br />
Lying can even be virtuous, as with lying to a robber who demands to know where the jewels are hidden. <br />
“Lying about authorship” has a name. It’s called “plagiarism”. Absent
copyright, what does Tatiana do about plagiarism? And what does she do
about any form of copyright infringement, like simply using her music on
a TV show?</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-865">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-865">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 17, 2014, 12:42 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/tell-it-to-tatiana/?replytocom=865#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Lying is illegal when committing fraud, as in, I trick you into
giving me money, and the money is property. Thus your statement is
trivially true, but does not mean what you seem to imply. If you receive
money intended for someone else by lying about your authorship, that is
fraud, regardless of whether the song or whatever is copyrighted, or
who owns the copyright, or whether or not copyright is legitimate.</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-4" id="li-comment-869">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-869">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 17, 2014, 1:13 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/tell-it-to-tatiana/?replytocom=869#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Not so fast Mr. Burns. <br />
There are 3 parties in my example – Tatiana, me, and the TV producer.
You want to construe plagiarism as fraud. Who is the plaintiff, and who
is the defendant? Who is damaged, and who is unjustly enriched?</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-875">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-875">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 17, 2014, 5:33 am
</div>
Plaintiff got lied to and paid money. Defendant lied and received money.</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-5" id="li-comment-876">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-876">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 17, 2014, 5:43 am
</div>
Defendant offered X for sale and delivered Y, lying that it was X. Sounds like fraud to me.</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-878">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-878">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 17, 2014, 1:16 pm
</div>
WHO is the plaintiff? WHO is the defendant?</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-5" id="li-comment-885">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-885">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 17, 2014, 6:38 pm
</div>
I will leave that as an exercise for the interested reader.</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-anarchistmetalhead odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-895">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-895">
<img alt="Avatar of _ _" class="avatar user-2926-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/2926/c1d11435e743442130d18e68cb275870-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/anarchistmetalhead/" rel="external nofollow">_ _</a> September 17, 2014, 11:05 pm
</div>
tatiana is not a party in the scenario, it is simply fraud against the tv producer</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-856">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-856">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 10:29 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/tell-it-to-tatiana/?replytocom=856#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
What do you say to Tatiana Moroz?</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-frankmarcopolos odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-863">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-863">
<img alt="Avatar of Frank Marcopolos" class="avatar user-205-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/fcdc2717695a22d59b44baf6e691f929?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/frankmarcopolos/" rel="external nofollow">Frank Marcopolos</a> September 16, 2014, 11:36 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/tell-it-to-tatiana/?replytocom=863#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I usually say. “Good morrning, ma’am,” but then again I’m kinda polite.<br />
Note: This is a joke. (Not guaranteed to be funny to all persons on Earth.)</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-davidmontgomery even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-886">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-886">
<img alt="Avatar of David Montgomery" class="avatar user-95-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/95/4489b4a899eff8d272210101f1feb0cb-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/davidmontgomery/" rel="external nofollow">David Montgomery</a> September 17, 2014, 7:06 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/tell-it-to-tatiana/?replytocom=886#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
If I were Tatiana, I would desperately hope that Lady Gaga,
Beyonce, Katy f’ing Perry, Christina Aguilera, Rhianna, Pink, and
Shakira all took one of my songs and falsely claimed to be the author of
said song. I would further hope that each of those songs took turns
going to the top of the charts. When the truth outed that I was the
actual author of those songs, rather than suing them I would send them
gift baskets and heartfelt letters thanking them for launching my name,
reputation and career into the stratosphere.</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-890">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-890">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 17, 2014, 8:00 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/tell-it-to-tatiana/?replytocom=890#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ David Montgomery – Yours is a crystal clear example of what the
Marxists call “new socialist man”. Tatiana should ignore what used to be
her property rights, and work “according to her abilities” and be happy
and proud to serve her community, without expecting any financial
compensation. <br />
You are perfectly free to have this view. But let’s please call it what it is: Intellectual Communism.</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-davidmontgomery even depth-3" id="li-comment-897">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-897">
<img alt="Avatar of David Montgomery" class="avatar user-95-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/95/4489b4a899eff8d272210101f1feb0cb-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/davidmontgomery/" rel="external nofollow">David Montgomery</a> September 18, 2014, 5:07 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/tell-it-to-tatiana/?replytocom=897#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Intellectual Communism is an oxymoron. <br />
I’m not suggesting that falsely claiming authorship would be the
right thing for those pop stars to do or that there should be a system
that institutionalizes false authorship claims; only that this scenario
would be a massive boon to Tatiana’s career, reputation and earnings
power. Use some common sense and you’ll see why viewing this unlikely
event as a nightmare rather than a boon is absurd.</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-898">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-898">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 18, 2014, 5:54 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/tell-it-to-tatiana/?replytocom=898#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Getting 100,000,000 people to listen to your complaint about
plagiarism is just as difficult as getting 100,000,000 people to listen
to your song. <br />
Your assertion that Tatiana would automatically become famous because
a famous singer plagiarized her song is unsupported. Famous singers
become famous in large part because they are very skilled at publicity.
So what if Tatiana can “prove” she really wrote Katy Perry’s latest hit?
Prove it to whom? The 200 people that visit her website? Who cares?<br />
You’re attempting a utilitarian economic argument which suggests that
Tatiana will be economically better served by surrendering her property
rights than by enforcing them. This is straight out of the Communist
Manifesto. Modernly, it smacks of “Zeitgeist”. <br />
Conversely, the “Common Sense” that I rely on is the Austrian School
of Economics, and free market economics in general. Abolishing copyright
is abolishing property rights in producer goods. The results of
abolishing property rights in producer goods are theoretically
understood, and empirically well-documented in the real world (e.g. farm
produce in the Soviet Union, Bangladesh, factory production in North
Korea, etc. )<br />
Do you see? Getting 100,000,000 people to listen to your complaint
about plagiarism is just as difficult as getting 100,000,000 people to
listen to your song.</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-25198044036224919612014-09-20T10:07:00.001-07:002014-09-22T17:31:01.230-07:00Top Stephan Kinsella Supporter Admits Hoax . . . FinallyI’ve had lengthy philosophical discussions with Stephen Davis, a
vocal and energetic support of Kinsellist ideology. Our longest thread
ever is in the comments to this article:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/17/top-stephan-kinsella-supporter-admits-hoax-finally/homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/">homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/</a><br />
<br />
Finally, at long last, Stephen Davis had the intellectual honesty to
admit what I’ve been saying all along. Kinsella’s anti-IP theory is
simply an elaborate philosophical hoax. Kinsella has cleverly built his
conclusion (property must be physical) into his premise (“rivalry” must
be physical, “use” must be physical, etc.).<br />
<br />
After following him down every intellectual dark alley and up every
intangible steep mountain, and showing at every turn that IP behaves
identically to PP, Stephen Davis finally stated the logical rule upon
which he bases his arguments:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
If X isn’t physical, X cannot be property.<br />
-Stephen Davis</blockquote>
<br />
Thank you, sir. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Kinsella will not
be happy, of course. But you can sleep well knowing you did the right
thing.<br />
<br />
<br />
----------<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 19, 2014, 4:01 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/17/top-stephan-kinsella-supporter-admits-hoax-finally/?replytocom=899#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Alexander, the premise is not built into the conclusion. It takes
careful thought to realize that property rights are only necessary in
physical things. Your arguments are based on an alternate universe in
which intangible things are analogous to physical things, but, here on
planet Earth, they are not.<br />
Have you read chapter 2 of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s _A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism_?</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-900">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-900">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 20, 2014, 1:11 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/17/top-stephan-kinsella-supporter-admits-hoax-finally/?replytocom=900#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
It doesn’t take much thought at all to understand your / Kinsella’s argument. It is:<br />
<br />
1. Premise 1 – Property must be rivalrous (see Hoppe, et al.)<br />
2. Premise 2 – Rivalry must be physical (assumed, by definition).<br />
3. Conclusion – Therefore property must be physical. QED.<br />
<br />
That’s it. Your conclusion is built into Premise 2.<br />
<br />
Here are some reasons why, HERE ON PLANET EARTH, the analogy between physical and intangible things is appropriate:<br />
<br />
1. Intangible objects can affect the outcome of human events, just like physical objects.<br />
<br />
2. Intangible objects have discernible borders, just like physical objects.<br />
<br />
3. Intangible goods are brought into existence by mixing labor with
owned physical goods (i.e. homesteading), just like physical goods.<br />
<br />
4. Copies of intangible goods can be mass-produced, just like physical goods.<br />
<br />
5. The quantity of copies is finite, and limited by human effort, just like physical goods.<br />
<br />
6. People voluntarily contract to buy and sell intangible goods, just like physical goods.<br />
<br />
You have given 0 reasons why the analogy is invalid.<br />
<br />
Yes, I love Hoppe’s – “A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism.” One of
the more important points is that abolishing the property rights in
producer goods will lead to the “Calculation Problem” and the “Incentive
Problem”.<br />
<br />
Curiously though, Hoppe does not provide a definition of “scarce” in
Chapter 2. I submit to you that all scarcity derives from the limitation
on human effort.</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
<ol class="commentlist">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-899"><ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-900"><ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-3" id="li-comment-907">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-907">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 22, 2014, 3:29 pm <a class="comment-reply-login" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/wp-login.php?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fhomesteadip.liberty.me%2F2014%2F09%2F17%2Ftop-stephan-kinsella-supporter-admits-hoax-finally%2F" rel="nofollow">Log in to Reply</a>
</div>
“Premise 1″ is a recognition that the entire reason property
rights are necessary is because of the existence of rivalrous things.
This is a seemingly simple but critical insight.<br />
<br />
As Hoppe says, “For a concept of property to arise, there must be a
scarcity of goods. Should there be no scarcity, and should all goods be
so-called “free goods” whose use by any one person for any one purpose
would not in any way exclude (or interfere with or restrict) its use by
any other person or for any other purpose, then there would be no need
for property.”<br />
<br />
So, Hoppe defines a “scarce” good as a good whose use by any one
person for any one purpose would in some way exclude (or interfere with
or restrict) its use by any other person or for any other purpose.<br />
<br />
He says: “I might, for instance, want to use my body to enjoy
drinking a cup of tea, while someone else might want to start a love
affair with it, thus preventing me from having my tea and also reducing
the time left to pursue my own goals by means of this body. In order to
avoid such possible clashes, rules of exclusive ownership must be
formulated. In fact, so long as there is action, there is a necessity
for the establishment of property norms.”<br />
<br />
Also: “[C]hoosing always implies the incurrence of costs: foregoing
possible enjoyments because the means needed to attain them are scarce
and are bound up in some alternative use which promises returns valued
more highly than the opportunities forfeited.”<br />
<br />
Notice the reason why property rights are necessary in “scarce”
goods: one person can’t use a “scarce” good for one purpose without
“preventing” another person from using it for another purpose. This is
what is meant by “conflict” over “scarce” goods; one person is prevented
from using particular “scarce” means because it is “bound up in some
alternative use.”<br />
<br />
“Premise 2″ is based on the insight of “Premise 1.” Only because of
the existence of “scarce” goods are property rights necessary, and the
nature of “scarce” goods is such that they must be physical.<br />
<br />
The beauty of ideas, knowledge, information, patterns, recipes, etc.
(i.e., intangible things) is precisely that they are not “scarce” in
this sense. Human action may be limited by the nature of our bodies and
the physical things around us, but thankfully we can all use the same
intangible things simultaneously without “preventing” other people from
using them. If I want to use the same intangible thing as you, that
thing is not “bound up in some alternative use”; you are completely free
to use it and my actions do not “prevent” you from doing anything.<br />
<br />
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that your six claims are correct
and that they’re relevant to the discussion of property rights. So
what? The question is, why are property rights necessary in intangible
things?<br />
<br />
As the explanation above makes clear, intangible things are not
“scarce” in the sense that physical things are, and people can’t
“conflict” over them in the sense that they can over physical things.
Therefore, property rights in intangible things are not necessary, and
we should be glad for this!<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-909">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-909">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 22, 2014, 7:11 pm <a class="comment-reply-login" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/wp-login.php?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fhomesteadip.liberty.me%2F2014%2F09%2F17%2Ftop-stephan-kinsella-supporter-admits-hoax-finally%2F" rel="nofollow">Log in to Reply</a></div>
<div class="meta">
</div>
@ Stephen -<br />
<br />
Again, thank you for your honesty. You are stating again that your
premise (#2 above) includes your conclusion (that property must be
physical). This is absolutely disallowed in logical argument. You are
free to say whatever you want on this issue. But it is not correct to
characterize your writing as “an argument”.<br />
<br />
Rather, you are accepting as SELF-EVIDENT, A PRIORI that “physical”
is a necessary component of “scarce” and / or “rivalrous” and / or
“use”.<br />
<br />
Assuming a priori, self-evident facts is not necessarily wrong.
Austrian theory is founded on such. However, it is disingenuous to
disguise an a priori assumption as an argument. You and Kinsella should
have the intellectual honesty to label your position for what it is: an
assumption, not a conclusion.<br />
<br />
As for me, I am not willing to assume that intangible things are
non-scarce, non rivalrous. As I have argued, intangible goods are scarce
and rivalrous for exactly the same reason as physical goods – the
limitation on human effort.<br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-2" id="li-comment-911">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-911">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 22, 2014, 8:16 pm <a class="comment-reply-login" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/wp-login.php?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fhomesteadip.liberty.me%2F2014%2F09%2F17%2Ftop-stephan-kinsella-supporter-admits-hoax-finally%2F" rel="nofollow">Log in to Reply</a></div>
<div class="meta">
</div>
Alexander, do you accept Hoppe’s definition of a “scarce” good?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-913">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-913">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 22, 2014, 8:21 pm <a class="comment-reply-login" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/wp-login.php?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fhomesteadip.liberty.me%2F2014%2F09%2F17%2Ftop-stephan-kinsella-supporter-admits-hoax-finally%2F" rel="nofollow">Log in to Reply</a></div>
<div class="meta">
</div>
What definition? Again (2nd time):<br />
<br />
Curiously though, Hoppe does not provide a definition of “scarce” in Chapter 2.<br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-4" id="li-comment-914">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-914">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 22, 2014, 8:22 pm <a class="comment-reply-login" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/wp-login.php?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fhomesteadip.liberty.me%2F2014%2F09%2F17%2Ftop-stephan-kinsella-supporter-admits-hoax-finally%2F" rel="nofollow">Log in to Reply</a>
</div>
A good whose use by any one person for any one purpose would in
some way exclude (or interfere with or restrict) its use by any other
person or for any other purpose.<br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-915">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-915">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 22, 2014, 8:24 pm <a class="comment-reply-login" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/wp-login.php?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fhomesteadip.liberty.me%2F2014%2F09%2F17%2Ftop-stephan-kinsella-supporter-admits-hoax-finally%2F" rel="nofollow">Log in to Reply</a>
</div>
You are using “use by one does not interfere with use by another”.
Which is my definition of “rivalrous”, from a year ago. See
“Definitions of Key Terms”.<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-4" id="li-comment-916">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-916">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 22, 2014, 8:26 pm <a class="comment-reply-login" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/wp-login.php?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fhomesteadip.liberty.me%2F2014%2F09%2F17%2Ftop-stephan-kinsella-supporter-admits-hoax-finally%2F" rel="nofollow">Log in to Reply</a>
</div>
That wording is taken exactly from Chapter 2 of Hoppe’s _A Theory
of Socialism and Capitalism_ and I’m asking whether you agree with it.
Are you saying that, yes, you agree with it?<br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-918">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-918">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 22, 2014, 8:27 pm
</div>
Obviously I agree with the definition of “rivalrous”, because it is in my definitions.<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-5" id="li-comment-919">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-919">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 22, 2014, 8:29 pm
</div>
Ok, great. So what is your definition of “interfere”?<br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-920">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-920">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 22, 2014, 8:39 pm
</div>
Interfere – A human action that has the effect of reducing the owner’s use below 100% of theoretical maximum use.<br />
<br />
What is YOUR definition of “interfere”, just so I can demonstrate the logical implications of each definition.<br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-5" id="li-comment-921">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-921">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 22, 2014, 8:53 pm
</div>
Both Hoppe and I are using “interfere” in the usual sense: to
prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out
properly.<br />
This is why Hoppe uses the language “to exclude, interfere with, or
restrict.” One person’s use of a thing “prevents” another’s; one
person’s use of a thing means for another person that that thing is
“bound up in some alternative use.”<br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-922">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-922">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 22, 2014, 9:00 pm
</div>
OK, I accept that definition of “interfere”, as long as you don’t mean “physically” exclude, “physically restrict, etc. <br />
Go on.<br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-5" id="li-comment-923">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-923">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 22, 2014, 9:14 pm
</div>
Ok. This is where you lose me.<br />
<br />
If one person’s use of a thing “prevents” another’s, and if one
person’s use of a thing means for another person that that thing is
“bound up in some alternative use,” how can that apply to anything other
than physical things? How can one person’s use of ideas, knowledge,
information, patterns, recipes, etc. “prevent” another’s use? If one
person is using ideas, knowledge, information, patterns, recipes, etc.
and another person wants to use them, how can it be said that those
things are “bound up in some alternative use”?<br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-924">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-924">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 22, 2014, 9:29 pm
</div>
You are failing to appreciate that the pattern is two different
things – the factory AND the widget. You only want to consider the
widget. You are absolutely correct, your use of one widget does not
interfere with my use of another widget.<br />
<br />
When you copy, YOU ARE NOT USING THE WIDGET. YOU ARE USING THE FACTORY.<br />
<br />
If you copy a bicycle, you do not interfere with the bicycle owner. You interfere with the factory owner.<br />
<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-5" id="li-comment-925">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-925">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 22, 2014, 10:38 pm
</div>
Ok. Is a recipe both a factory and a widget? What makes particular
ideas, knowledge, information, patterns, recipes, etc. both a factory
and a widget?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-917">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-917">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 22, 2014, 8:26 pm <a class="comment-reply-login" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/wp-login.php?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fhomesteadip.liberty.me%2F2014%2F09%2F17%2Ftop-stephan-kinsella-supporter-admits-hoax-finally%2F" rel="nofollow">Log in to Reply</a>
</div>
The existence of a mass-produced consumer good is proof of the existence and use of a factory.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-910">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-910">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 22, 2014, 7:17 pm <a class="comment-reply-login" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/wp-login.php?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fhomesteadip.liberty.me%2F2014%2F09%2F17%2Ftop-stephan-kinsella-supporter-admits-hoax-finally%2F" rel="nofollow">Log in to Reply</a>
</div>
@ Stephen -<br />
I appreciate you weighing in on this:<br />
The existence of a mass-produced consumer good is proof of the existence and use of a factory.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ol>
<hr />
<h3 class="comment-reply-title" id="reply-title">
<br /></h3>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-8064205409835724622014-09-20T10:02:00.000-07:002014-09-20T10:02:38.013-07:00Who Owns the Car? You Be The Judge!s a thought experiment, suppose you were judge / jury and asked to
decide a dispute about ownership of a car. Suppose we live in a
Kinsellist society, with respect for property rights in physical things,
but no observance of patent, copyright, or any form of IP.<br />
<br />
Albert possesses a car, which appears to be a brand-new “Pluto 4000″,
a well-known sophisticated car model manufactured by Brian Motors.
Albert claims he built the car with his own hands and own materials,
from scratch.<br />
<br />
Brian owns the car factory, and does business as “Brian Motors”.
Brian claims that Albert sneaked into the factory and made the car-copy
using the factory’s machines. However, there are no security photos or
fingerprints directly implicating Albert.<br />
<br />
Albert’s car is an exact match of the other Pluto 4000 model cars
which have been produced in Brian’s factory. Brian asserts that it is
literally impossible for anyone to manufacture a Pluto 4000 car-copy
without access to the factory, thus Albert must have trespassed. Albert
denies ever going into the factory, and sticks to his story about making
the car from scratch.<br />
<br />
Who do you believe? Why?<br />
<br />
<br />
---------<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol class="commentlist">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-katy0shae even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-815"><div class="comment_container" id="comment-815">
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/katy0shae/" rel="external nofollow">Sarah Meyer</a> September 16, 2014, 4:46 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/who-owns-the-car-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=815#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Ooh fun, I’ll play. Albert owns the car. <br />
Albert owns the car because he has possession of it. Unless Brian can
somehow prove that Albert stole the car from him, a reduction in
inventory – a missing asset – he has no claim on Albert’s car. Why do we
care how the car was made if nothing was stolen from Brian? <br />
Now, we may care how the car was made if Albert begins miraculously
producing multiple cars and selling them for profit… but your story only
indicates that Albert is in possession of one car which he presumably
is not selling for a profit.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-818">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-818">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 5:06 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/who-owns-the-car-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=818#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Sarah – I’m not clear on your position. Are you saying trespass
is not illegal, or that the match between cars is insufficient proof of
trespass?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-katy0shae even depth-3" id="li-comment-827">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-827">
<img alt="Avatar of Sarah Meyer" class="avatar user-3215-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/3215/7b05d5d2fa4de690ce55e86d20e9792b-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/katy0shae/" rel="external nofollow">Sarah Meyer</a> September 16, 2014, 6:03 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/who-owns-the-car-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=827#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Your question was “who owns the car” not, “did Albert trespass”…
besides, if Albert did trespass I’m not sure the ownership of the
property would transfer back to Brian anyways. Albert still owns the
car.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-830">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-830">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 6:20 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/who-owns-the-car-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=830#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Good point Sarah. Indeed I was assuming that trespassory use of
the factory would confer ownership of produce to the factor owner. That
is my understanding of libertarian principles, and of real-world common
law. Perhaps you haven’t had much prior occasion to consider trespass.
It isn’t theft. Nevertheless, trespass is generally considered to be an
actionable property violation. <br />
My most important questions were: Who do you believe, and why?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-katy0shae even depth-5" id="li-comment-834">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-834">
<img alt="Avatar of Sarah Meyer" class="avatar user-3215-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/3215/7b05d5d2fa4de690ce55e86d20e9792b-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/katy0shae/" rel="external nofollow">Sarah Meyer</a> September 16, 2014, 6:51 pm
</div>
Well you’re right in that I haven’t had much occasion to consider
trespass…. I do recognize that your soapbox issue is intellectual
property – but in the context of the thought experiment you put out
here, there is a tangible property being considered. Assuming that there
is no physical evidence of Albert’s trespass, if I were on the jury, I
would rule in favor of Albert. I believe that if he says he did not
trespass he did not, because the burden of proof lies with Brian. Brian
can say all day long that nobody else could produce his product without
illegally using his factory, but I don’t see how he could prove such an
assertion. The existence of a copy does not necessarily translate to the
existence of trespass, and especially if there is zero evidence of
material theft…. I think I understand the logical reasoning you’re
trying to assert as it would then relate to intellectual property – but
they are apples and oranges in my opinion.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-841">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-841">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 7:23 pm
</div>
@ Sarah – Fair enough, and well put. If I may, let me try to elaborate just a little, to see if it might change your view. <br />
Suppose that at trial, Brian provided expert testimony from
metallurgists, machinists, miners, electrical engineers, chemists,
physicists, economists. All of these experts testified that it would
take millions of man-hours to produce a car from scratch, and even so,
such a car could not possibly be an exact match for the Pluto 4000,
because such a match is only possible from using the precision made
machines uniquely present in Brian’s factory. <br />
In response, Albert has no explanation, other that to repeat his denial that he ever entered Brian’s factory. <br />
Has Brian now met his burden of proof?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-katy0shae even depth-5" id="li-comment-872">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-872">
<img alt="Avatar of Sarah Meyer" class="avatar user-3215-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/3215/7b05d5d2fa4de690ce55e86d20e9792b-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/katy0shae/" rel="external nofollow">Sarah Meyer</a> September 17, 2014, 3:50 am
</div>
Given all of the evidence now presented by Brian, I am persuaded
to believe Brian over Albert regarding the trespass… but I’m still not
quite seeing how the ownership of the car would transfer to Brian by
virtue of trespass… if Albert made it, and it didn’t “cost” Brian
anything. I mean, Albert’s presumably not mass-producing these cars is
he? That would change the perceived damage to Brian wouldn’t it?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-873">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-873">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 17, 2014, 4:41 am
</div>
Common Law has evolved various ways to try to “remedy” the injured
party. “Damages” is one type of remedy, having to do with the
measurable loss by the injured party. Brian will argue that 1 car made
by Albert is one less car he can sell on the market. <br />
“Replevin” is another remedy which seeks to disgorge a wrong-doer of his “unjust enrichment”. <br />
If you have trouble accepting that use of the factory costs Brian,
think about a hotel. If a trespassor sleeps in a hotel room that would
have otherwise been vacant, does he owe the hotel owner the usual rent?<br />
In any case, thank you for your input. My true aim with this article
is simply to demonstrate that the existence of a mass-produced product
is proof of the existence of, and use of, a factory.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-katy0shae even depth-5" id="li-comment-874">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-874">
<img alt="Avatar of Sarah Meyer" class="avatar user-3215-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/3215/7b05d5d2fa4de690ce55e86d20e9792b-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/katy0shae/" rel="external nofollow">Sarah Meyer</a> September 17, 2014, 5:13 am
</div>
Hey I’m quite consciously asserting my position as “on the fence” –
which is better than I can say for most around here who really, really
like to get on you for your IP position. Something inside my gut just
tells me that I shouldn’t use somebody else’s creative works unless they
want me to… many many many artists of all types offer their works for
viewing or listening totally free of charge, or through subscription
based services. This is how folks make their living. It just doesn’t
feel right to say they don’t “own” their unique works. … That being
said, things like movies, television shows, mass produced music backed
by huge production companies – I figure once a certain critical mass has
been reached then the art kind of morphs into a publicly consumable
item at which point could be and often times is consumed without
royalties. Is it right?? Eh, I don’t know. Doesn’t seem like it really
hurts anybody. If I download a song from a piracy website and listen to
it on my own iPod and don’t sell it, at the same time millions of other
people around the world are hearing the same song on the radio, or
watching the video on youtube, or whatever – who on earth did I hurt??<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-819">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-819">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 16, 2014, 5:13 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/who-owns-the-car-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=819#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Your focus in in the wrong place, as usual.<br />
What matters is whether Albert built the car with his own materials
or not. That’s it. According to your “logic,” if you first built the
car, and Albert copied your design and built it with his own materials,
you homesteaded it!<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-821">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-821">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 5:45 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/who-owns-the-car-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=821#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Stephen – We agree then that trespass is illegal. Do you think
the match between cars is sufficient to prove trespass in this case? A
& B can’t both be telling the truth. Who do you believe, and why?<br />
By the way, real-world disputes very often come down to making these sorts of inferences. Who do you believe, and why?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-822">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-822">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 16, 2014, 5:54 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/who-owns-the-car-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=822#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Just because real-world disputes sometimes come down to making
decisions in the absence of critical information doesn’t mean it’s a
good basis for an argument about property rights.<br />
Did Albert build the car with his own materials or not? That’s what matters.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-4" id="li-comment-825">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-825">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 6:01 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/who-owns-the-car-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=825#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Right. In this case, did Albert build the car with his own materials, or not?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-826">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-826">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 16, 2014, 6:01 pm
</div>
That certainly is the critical question…<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-831">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-831">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 6:24 pm
</div>
Is there a preponderance of evidence (i.e. 51%) to prove Albert is liable for trespass?<br />
How about “beyond a reasonable doubt” (99% sure)?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-833">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-833">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 16, 2014, 6:49 pm
</div>
I don’t know.<br />
I do know that the answer is completely irrelevant to proving the case for “IP.”<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-839">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-839">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 7:10 pm
</div>
@ Stephen – This hypothetical is an example of what is called
“circumstantial” or “indirect” evidence. A bloody shoe-print is
indirect evidence that a person wearing a particular size and brand of
shoe stepped in blood. But it is also possible that a talented artist
came by and carefully made a painting of a shoeprint in blood. Are these
two possibilities equally likely?<br />
Clearly you are unwilling to participate in this hypothectical, and
this choice of yours is itself indirect evidence. From your choice, I
draw the unmistakeable inference that you FEAR it.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-840">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-840">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 16, 2014, 7:15 pm
</div>
You’re right, I’m unwilling to participate in this hypothetical.
It has nothing to do with fear. If we’re talking about property rights,
the question is whether Albert built the car with his own materials. If
he did, he owns it. If he didn’t, he doesn’t own it.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-857">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-857">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 16, 2014, 10:38 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/who-owns-the-car-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=857#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
If the factory has a record of the VIN, that is evidence that the
car was produced by the factory. They would also have records of what
happened to the car after it was manufactured, as in it was sold or it
went mysteriously missing.<br />
If the VIN is missing from the car, I suppose Albert might produce
evidence that he has the necessary tools, materials, and skills to
duplicate the car. If not, I would be pretty skeptical of Albert’s
claim.<br />
If the existence of the car is the *only* evidence, I don’t think
Brian would bother prosecuting for trespass. Why aren’t we discussing
theft? Given what little I know about how cars are made, it seems like
it would be nearly impossible for Albert to use the factory to make a
car by himself and get away without leaving any evidence. It seems much
more likely that he managed to steal a car that was made in the ordinary
way. <br />
Is this supposed to relate to copyright in some way? What is the relevance of Kinsella to this story?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-860">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-860">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 11:08 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/who-owns-the-car-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=860#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
The relevance is to infer the existence and use of a factory from the existence of a mass-produced product.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-3" id="li-comment-866">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-866">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 17, 2014, 12:43 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/16/who-owns-the-car-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=866#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
In other words, none.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-60123418999380953002014-09-20T09:58:00.001-07:002014-09-20T09:58:12.587-07:00Jennifer Lawrence and Another Question for Intellectual Communists<div class="article-text">
There’s been a bit of a stir lately over the naked pictures of Jennifer Lawrence that hackers were able to copy and distribute.<br />
<br />
Suppose it happened to you. Suppose a guy named Zeke hacks and copies
all your personal information, including name, address, phone, bank
numbers, intimate photos . . . everything. Zeke then publishes all this
on his own site, for all the world to see. Within a few hours, hundreds
of people download copies of all your info.<br />
<br />
In my favored society, i.e. a stateless free society founded on
respect for property rights (including copyright), the legal recourse
against Zeke is clear. Zeke committed a trespass in intellectual space.
Trespass is a tort, so you make seek damages and other remedies against
Zeke, and injunctions against others prohibiting the use of the
information.<br /><br />
But what about in Kinsella’s world, i.e. a world with no property rights in patterns of information? What then?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
---------<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/rlmolimock-2/" rel="external nofollow">Russell David</a> September 11, 2014, 1:07 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/10/jennifer-lawrence-and-another-question-for-intellectual-communists/?replytocom=794#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Zeke may have committed a crime by accessing your device (or the
cloud service devices) without consent, but once it’s out there in the
public domain how have those downloading it violated your property
rights? I’m asking honestly, that wasn’t meant to be rhetorical.<br />
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-795">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-795">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 11, 2014, 1:14 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/10/jennifer-lawrence-and-another-question-for-intellectual-communists/?replytocom=795#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I’m interested in your views Russell. In your view, Zeke may have
committed a crime by “accessing” my “device”. Which means that he also
may not have committed a crime. I’ll put you down as undecided.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-796">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-796">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 11, 2014, 1:17 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/10/jennifer-lawrence-and-another-question-for-intellectual-communists/?replytocom=796#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Russell – If Zeke committed a crime, what crime did he commit? What specific action of Zeke’s constitutes the crime?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-798">
<img alt="Avatar of Michael Sørensen" class="avatar user-937-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/937/506824bda5f323bf5a0f88e932825aab-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/michaelsorensen/" rel="external nofollow">Michael Sørensen</a> September 11, 2014, 12:48 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/10/jennifer-lawrence-and-another-question-for-intellectual-communists/?replytocom=798#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I’d need some clarification on where “Zeke” got the information
from, before i could actually give a valid response to your question?<br />
</div>
</div>
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 11, 2014, 1:18 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/10/jennifer-lawrence-and-another-question-for-intellectual-communists/?replytocom=799#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I see. OK. Step me through it. If Zeke got the info this way, then …, whereas if Zeke got the information that way, then …<br />
Maybe Kinsella will drop by and exp<br />
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-29762042242328458692014-09-20T09:56:00.002-07:002014-09-20T09:56:44.403-07:00Roger Browne Deconstructed<div class="article-text">
Here are comments from Roger Browne (quoted) with my comments (interspersed).<br />
<blockquote>
1. A singer would indeed be unlikely to buy a song she
has never heard, from a songwriter she has never heard of. That’s not
the situation I was intending to describe. I’m thinking of an
established songwriter who is writing a new work.</blockquote>
Do you imagine that some babies are born as established songwriters?
Without exception, every “established” songwriter began as an unknown
songwriter.<br />
<blockquote>
Perhaps a singer commissioned the work to be written, on the basis of the writer’s reputation and previous work.</blockquote>
What previous work? See, like all socialists, you simply assume the
existence of wealth, and offer verbiage to rationalize expropriating it.
Without copyright, writers don’t bother writing, just like farmers
don’t bother growing crops when they know the produce will be taken
away. Sure, amateurs will write for fun and self-expression, just like
people plant gardens for self-expression. But nobody is going to become a
commercial farmer without a property right in the produce.<br />
<blockquote>
Or perhaps the songwriter is producing the work “on spec”
and will market it to people who wish to record it, at a price
sufficient to cover the time and effort required to create the work.
(Incidentally, many of us here were founding members of liberty.me, and
did pay money in advance for a website we’d never seen. So it can
sometimes work that way.)</blockquote>
Marketing a song to a singer on spec is done all the time. The writer
writes the song, and produces a recording called a “demo”. The writer
then sends the song to the singer in hopes the singer will like it.
Without copyright, the singer simply records the song, and the writer is
screwed.<br />
Alternatively, the writer could conceal the song from the singer. But, um, why would a singer buy a song she never heard?<br />
<blockquote>
2. No, not all business owners ensure their income stream through government-backed violence. For example, I don’t.</blockquote>
Liar. Of course you do.<br />
<blockquote>
I work hard to ensure that my customers are satisfied.</blockquote>
If you have customers, you must sell something. Whatever you sell
must be your property, otherwise you have no right to sell it. Property
rights include the right to use violence to enforce, by definition. This
is not my theory, this is standard libertarian property theory. If you
disagree, go argue with Rothbard, Mises, Hoppe, Kinsella, et al.<br />
<blockquote>
If they use my service and won’t pay, I do not invoke the
violence of the court system. Instead, I put my energy into making the
other 99.5% of my customers even more satisfied, and refuse to do
further business with the occasional dickead.</blockquote>
Will you please give me your physical address, and a written waiver
stating that you will not prosecute me for any property violations I
commit against you? Didn’t think so. It’s fatiguing exposing such lies,
but I must.<br />
<blockquote>
If my ISP provides crappy service, I don’t invoke the
violence of the court system; I just find a better ISP. (I presume the
liberty.me business model doesn’t enforce its income stream through
government-backed violence either.)</blockquote>
Of course liberty.me enforces its income stream through
government-backed violence. Good grief. What do you suppose Jeffrey
Tucker would do if someone hacked his WordPress, and deleted the entire
community? Suppose Tucker could prove who did it, and the person refused
to compensate. What then Roger Browne?<br />
<blockquote>
3. No, I do not personally, today, in the real world, rely on threat of violence to defend my property.</blockquote>
Yes, you do. Unless you give me your address and that written waiver.<br />
<blockquote>
I will use force, yes, but not violence.</blockquote>
LMFAO. Classic. My cheeks hurt from laughing so hard.<br />
<blockquote>
I will use non-violent force. . .</blockquote>
Non-violent force? Stop it, you’re killing me.<br />
. . .to prevent a burglar entering my property, and I will use non-violent force . . .<br />
<blockquote>
Like, vegetarian meat? Like a square circle?<br />
. . .to retrieve my property from a burglar, but I will never initiate violent force over mere property.</blockquote>
Yea! You finally found the word “initiate”!! Congratulations. Yes, I too will never <em><strong>initiate</strong></em> force to defend my property. My force, if any, will be purely defensive.<br />
<blockquote>
Nor will I use any type of force to stop a burglar from making a copy of my property.</blockquote>
“Copying” is not necessarily right or wrong, just like “walking” is
neither right nor wrong. If you walk on my property, you trespass. If
you walk on your own land, you’re cool. If you copy my song, you’re
trespassing, for the reasons rigorously explained throughout
Intellectual Space. If you copy something else, perhaps it is not
trespassing. It depends on the property rights involved, not the act of
“copying” per se.<br />
<blockquote>
4. It’s a fact that preventing people from making copies can only be achieved by violence or the threat of violence.</blockquote>
Of course, as with any property rights enforcement. As always, IP is no different than PP.<br />
<blockquote>
It’s a fact that preventing people from taking originals
can be achieved in many ways, both violent and non-violent. There’s no
pretence [sic], dishonesty or scare-mongering involved, so your
supposition is false.</blockquote>
Your pretense is pretending that IP enforcement requires force, while
physical property enforcement does not. That’s false. You know it’s
false. Other than the mere fact that physical things are physical, and
intangible things are intangible, there is no difference at all.<br />
<blockquote>
5. I have never, in my adult life, been intentionally dishonest.</blockquote>
Well, who wrote all those lies above?<br />
<blockquote>
6. I have no intention to deprive others of their rightful property.</blockquote>
You intend to deprive me and millions of others of our rightful
property. I will give up my song when you pry my cold, dead fingers from
around it.<br />
<br />
<br />
-------<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol class="commentlist">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-722"><div class="comment_container" id="comment-722">
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 8, 2014, 5:39 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=722#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
How can you hold a “song”? What is your definition of a “song”?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-757">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-757">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 2:05 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=757#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Stephen – I suggest you have your own article. I am happy to answer you questions, and I have questions of my own for you.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-rogerribuck even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-751">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-751">
<img alt="Avatar of Roger Browne" class="avatar user-586-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/586/fe5adb238335d4b8009d35b57d1dab12-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/rogerribuck/" rel="external nofollow">Roger Browne</a> September 9, 2014, 10:53 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=751#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
You wrote: “Do you imagine that some babies are born as established songwriters?”.<br />
No. That’s why I specifically stated that my paragraph referred to “an established songwriter who is writing a new work”.<br />
You wrote: “Without copyright, writers don’t bother writing”.<br />
You may find the following research paper enlightening: “Emergence of
Musical Copyright in Europe from 1709 to 1850″ by F M Scherer of
Harvard University. It shows how Verdi, enriched by copyright
protection, reduced his creative output, and that a golden age of
musical composition simultaneously occurred in countries that lacked
copyright protection.<br />
<a href="https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=315" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=315</a><br />
You called me “Liar” when I mentioned that I do not ensure my income stream through government-backed violence.<br />
Firstly, this is discourteous. Secondly, it’s untrue. I provide
research services to my customers. If they don’t like my research, they
don’t need to pay. If they DO like my work, and take the work and run
without paying, I still will not invoke government-backed violence. Of
course I refuse to do further work for them in the future. I may lose a
few hundred dollars, but it happens less than half a percent of the
time, and I build up a group of great customers who are satisfying to
work with.<br />
You wrote: “Will you please give me your physical address, and a
written waiver stating that you will not prosecute me for any property
violations I commit against you?”<br />
I will not ask the government to prosecute ANYONE (even you) for
property violations, for ANY address at which I might be staying. I
will, however, use force to try to prevent you from taking my property.
For example, I keep my valuables locked away securely, inside a
well-protected house. If you try to take my stuff, I will try to stop
you (for example by attempting to disable your getaway vehicle). I will
try to retrieve my stuff after you have taken it. And I will make sure
that you become a “persona non grata” in my community (you will lose
your reputation, and will probably lose your job or your customers). But
I will not invoke government violence, nor will I use violent force
against you. By “violent force”, I mean force that requires violence
against your person.<br />
You wrote: “Your pretense is pretending that IP enforcement requires force, while physical property enforcement does not”.<br />
I referred to violence, which is a subset of force. One can protect
physical property by keeping it in a secure vault (non-violent force).
But how can one protect “IP” without violence or the threat thereof?<br />
You wrote: “I will give up my song when you pry my cold, dead fingers from around it.”<br />
Believe it or not, those who don’t believe in IP do not want to pry
anything from your fingers. They are happy with a copy which your
fingers have never touched. More likely than not, they would like to get
a creator-endorsed copy from you, but if you cripple your copy with DRM
or threaten violence it only makes the third-party copy more appealing.<br />
Finally, if you wish to continue this conversation, please stop the
rudeness. I know you find it hard to come to terms with some of the
things that I am saying, but I am not lying.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-752">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-752">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 12:08 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=752#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Roger Browne: I am sorry I called you a “liar”. I promise to
never again impugn your character. You are a fine, upstanding gentleman.
Your theory is devoid of reason, littered with falshoods, and
ultimately evil, as are all forms of Communism. <br />
Your distinction between “force” and “violence’ is a red herring. OK,
force is a subset of violence. When an armed robber comes your store,
and threatens your physical property (including but not limited to the
physical property of your human body), what are you going to do?
Libertarian theory holds that the use of defensive force, up to and
including deadly force, is allowed. <br />
Thus, your assertion that one does not need “violence” or the “threat
of violence” to protect physical property is just false. This holds
whether in a statist or stateless society. If we lived in a world with
no threat of retaliatory violence, criminals of all sorts would
obviously run rampant.<br />
Obviously your (Kinsella’s) theory of Intellectual Communism cannot
withstand this scrutiny, because it is founded upon the assertion that
intangible property is somehow fundamentally different than physical
property. It isn’t. The two differ in precisely one respect – physical
property is physical, intangible property is intangible. <br />
I do congratulate you for adding another item to “The Alleged Case Against Intellectual Property”. <br />
8. Intellectual Property Requires Violence to Enforce.<br />
Rule 8: If X requires violence or the treat of violence to protect, then X cannot be rightful property.<br />
X = a convenience store.<br />
A convenience store requires the threat of violence to protect. Therefore a convenience store cannot be property? Rule 8 Fails. <br />
Your assertion that my “fingers have never touched” the copy of my
song on your hard drive is just false. My fingers built that song, and
built every single copy of that song in existence. Evidently, when you
deny that my fingers touched that copy, you mean “physically touched”.
If that’s what you mean, that’s just assuming your conclusion. <br />
Yes, if rivalry must be physical, then property must be physical, by
definition. If that is your definition, that’s all you need to say.
Everything else is a complete waste of times. Here is Kinsella’s entire
thesis:<br />
1. Property must be rivalrous (see Hoppe et.al)<br />
2. Rivalry must be physical (assumed)<br />
3. Therefore, property must be physical. <br />
That’s it. There is no need to say anything more. Of course, when we allow such conclusion smuggling, we can “prove” anything.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-753">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-753">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 12:15 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=753#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Roger Browne – I am seeking a single, consistent standard by
which we can evaluate the legitimacy of a property claim. If you want to
make a point with me, all you need to do is formulate that standard. <br />
If you write down a standard by which the legitimacy of a property
claim can be evaluated, one of two things will become apparent. Either:<br />
1. Your standard will include “physical” . . . <br />
or <br />
2. Your standard will operate identically for both species of property.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-754">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-754">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 12:15 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=754#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Go on, try it! It’s fun!!!!!!<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-rogerribuck even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-755">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-755">
<img alt="Avatar of Roger Browne" class="avatar user-586-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/586/fe5adb238335d4b8009d35b57d1dab12-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/rogerribuck/" rel="external nofollow">Roger Browne</a> September 9, 2014, 1:42 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=755#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
It’s self-evident that any theory must either “distinguish” or “not distinguish” between physical property and “IP”.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-756">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-756">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 1:57 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=756#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
That is a meaningless tautology, LOL (at your theory, not you).
That’s like saying, “A chocolate brownie must either include nuts or not
include nuts”. Every statement in the history of language either
distinguished or did not distinguish between physical property and “IP”.
<br />
I am asking you (or Kinsella, or any Intellectual Communist) to
formulate a standard by which one can evaluate the legitimacy of a
property claim. <br />
My current opinion is that Intellectual Communists refuse to
formulate such a standard in plain English, for the reasons stated
above. You are employing a dishonest double standard. (Your theory is
dishonest, repugnantly so, while you are a fine upstanding gentleman).
If I am wrong, then write down the standard.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-758">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-758">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 9, 2014, 2:20 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=758#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
You keep saying that the fact that only one person can exert
exclusive control over a physical thing is a meaningless tautology. But
this is the entire reason that property rights are necessary. Yeah, it’s
a simple statement of the reality of human life on Earth, but it’s
important to recognize.<br />
You’ve admitted that multiple people can be in possession of a song
simultaneously, even though there is only one song. That is not the case
with physical things: multiple people cannot be in possession of the
exact same physical thing simultaneously. This is the standard.<br />
There is no assumption that property must be physical; there is a
recognition that the entire reason property rights are necessary is
because there are things that only one person can control at a time and
that therefore rules determining exclusive ownership must be
established. When multiple people can control the same thing
simultaneously, the need for property rights doesn’t arise.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-759">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-759">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 2:43 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=759#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Only one person can exert exclusive control over an intangible
thing, in precisely the same way as only one person can exert exclusive
control over a physical thing. This simply flows from the definition of
“exclusive”. <br />
What you mean to say is that exclusive control is possible for physical things, and not possible for intangible things, right?<br />
And what I am saying is this:<br />
The boundary around what is a “thing” is arbitrary. The universe is a
“thing”. An atom is a “thing”. A car is a “thing”. The brakes on the
car are a “thing”. <br />
You then arbitrarily define the physical “thing” in such a way that
only one person can “use” it, then arbitrarily define an intangible
“thing” in a completely different way, so that it appears that many
people can “use” it at once. It’s intellectually dishonest (the theory,
not you). <br />
We can just as easily define “things” so that the opposite result
occurs. I’ve gone through this in excruciating detail in “Songs are Like
Factories (a deeper look).<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-761">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-761">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 9, 2014, 3:05 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=761#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Sure, exclusive control is possible for physical things and not for intangible things.<br />
Any physical thing, down to sub-atomic particles, can only be used by
one person at a time. Define the boundaries however you’d like. I’m not
relying on any special definitions.<br />
Any intangible thing can theoretically be used by everyone
simultaneously. Define the boundaries however you’d like. The reason I
say “theoretically” is because the use of intangible things is limited
only by physical reality.<br />
It is impossible to use an intangible thing without using a physical thing.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-762">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-762">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 3:44 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=762#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“Any physical thing, down to sub-atomic particles, can only be used by one person at a time”<br />
That’s ridiculous. A thousand people can use the empire state building at the same time. The empire state building is a thing. <br />
“I’m not relying on any special definitions”. <br />
Of course you are. You won’t let me say the empire state building is a thing. <br />
“Any intangible thing can theoretically be used by everyone simultaneously.”<br />
The Earth is a physical thing. We are all using it simultaneously. <br />
“It is impossible to use an intangible thing without using a physical thing.”<br />
So what? It’s impossible to use a physical thing without using some
other physical thing. If your statement is an argument against IP, why
isn’t it an argument against PP?<br />
You keep offering arguments FOR physical property, and AGAINST IP.
Everything you say favoring physical property applies equally to IP.
Everything you say against IP applies equally to PP. <br />
If you disagree, then take my challenge. Write down a standard by
which we can determine the validity of a property claim. Go for it. I
double dare you.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-763">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-763">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 9, 2014, 4:11 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=763#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
We’re talking about property rights. “Use” means “possession,”
“the state of having, owning or controlling something.” This is a very
standard definition. Only one person can “use” the Empire State
Building, or any physical “thing,” no matter how you define the
boundaries. My comments about intangible things hold using this exact
same definition: many people can “use” or “possess” the same intangible
thing simultaneously.<br />
It matters that it’s impossible to use an intangible thing without a
physical thing because we already agree that there should be property
rights in physical things. So, by advocating additional property rights
in intangible things, you are creating a conflict. You are advocating
that multiple people have simultaneous claims to the same physical
things.<br />
The standard is: can multiple people possess the exact same thing
simultaneously? If no, property rights are necessary. If yes, no
property rights are necessary.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-764">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-764">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 4:26 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=764#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
And by “possess” you mean “physically possess”, correct?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-765">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-765">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 4:29 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=765#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I’m not advocating “additional” rights. IP rights exist in a long
tradition. You’re trying to take them away. If govt. intervention is an
argument against IP, why is it not an argument against PP?<br />
“It is impossible to use an intangible thing without using a physical thing.”<br />
It’s impossible to use a physical thing without using some other physical thing. <br />
If your statement is an argument against IP, why isn’t it an argument against PP?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-766">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-766">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 4:30 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=766#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
More than 1 person can own a physical object. Good grief, what are you talking about? I co-own a house.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-2" id="li-comment-767">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-767">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 9, 2014, 6:36 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=767#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
In the case of physical things, possession must be physical. What
sense does the term make otherwise? In the case on intangible things,
possession is more of a figure of speech, as in “possessing” knowledge.
Intangible things can be “possessed” by any number of people in this
sense; physical things can’t be.<br />
Yes, IP “rights” exist in a long tradition of state censorship and control.<br />
Sure, it’s impossible to use a physical thing without using some
other physical thing. Well, property rights are necessary in those
things, as we already agree. So there’s no conflict. There is a conflict
when you advocate that multiple people have simultaneous claims to the
same physical things.<br />
Sure, people can voluntarily agree to co-own various things (houses,
businesses, etc.). But that doesn’t change the nature of such things as
far as the fact that they can only be controlled ultimately by one
person. What you are advocating is involuntary “co-ownership,” or an
actual form of communism.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-768">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-768">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 6:52 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=768#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Thank you Stephen, I’m glad you finally admit that, in your theory “possession must be physical”.<br />
Legitimizing property rights will ultimately turn on the meaning of
several key terms, among them “rivalrous”, “use”, and “possession”. If
“rivalrous” means “physically rivalrous”, then I agree, property must be
physical. If ‘use” means “physically use”, then I agree, property must
be physical. If “possession” means “physical possession”, then I agree,
property must be physical. <br />
However, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, with those definitions, proving the illegitimacy of IP requires only 3 short steps:<br />
Premise 1: Property must be rivalrous (see Hoppe, et. al.)<br />
Premise 2: Rivalry must be physical (assumed, by definition).<br />
Conclusion: Therefore property must be physical (QED). <br />
That’s it. You do not need to say anything else. Just claim your
definitions are “standard” definitions, and keep repeating them.
Everything else is complete distraction. <br />
By the way, the “standard” definition of property includes intellectual property. Where does that leave us?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-769">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-769">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 9, 2014, 6:55 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=769#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
How can you “possess” an intangible thing?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-770">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-770">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 6:56 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=770#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
By controlling it.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-771">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-771">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 9, 2014, 6:59 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=771#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
The term “control” only makes sense regarding physical things. Only physical things can be controlled.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-772">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-772">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 7:02 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=772#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
That’s ridiculous. I control my songs, with various means and
methods. Would you like to see a print-out of all of my tv performances
world-wide in the last quarter?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-773">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-773">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 9, 2014, 7:04 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=773#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Is it? Intangible things don’t exist apart from their physical manifestations. You are trying to control physical things.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-774">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-774">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 7:07 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=774#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Yes or no, does this accurately state your position:<br />
If X requires a physical container to be useful, then X cannot be property?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-775">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-775">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 9, 2014, 7:12 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=775#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
No. Useful has nothing to do with anything.<br />
When you say that you “control your songs,” what you really mean is
that you control other people’s physical things. You tell them, “you
can’t use your computer to do X,” or “you can’t use your body to do X,”
or “you can’t use your guitar to do X,” or “you can’t make money by
using your property to do X,” or whatever.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-776">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-776">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 7:17 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=776#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
You don’t like “useful”. “Useful” is a key element of property,
but whatever. OK. Let’s try again. Yes or no, is this your position:<br />
If one must employ physical means to affect control over X, then X cannot be property?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-777">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-777">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 9, 2014, 7:24 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=777#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
No, that’s not my position. Physical property requires physical means to control.<br />
Tell me, how can you “control your songs” without controlling other people’s physical things?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-778">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-778">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 7:34 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=778#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
You made an argument that, in order to control my song, I have to
control other people’s things. I’m trying to GENERALIZE your argument
into a LOGICAL RULE. OK? Otherwise you’re just making assertions. I’m
happy to explain the nuts-and-bolts of how we composers control our
compositions. <br />
But first, you are so sure of yourself, you must have a rule in your
mind that allows you to decide that a factory is valid property, but a
song is not. I need a statement of that rule. <br />
Are you willing and able to write down that rule that is in your head? Yes or no?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-779">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-779">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 7:39 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=779#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Physical property requires physical means to control. Intellectual property requires physical means to control. Same. <br />
Controlling songs requires restriction the actions of others (don’t
copy) just as controlling a car requires restricting the actions of
others (don’t drive my car). <br />
Could you please get to the part where PP and IP are different in any way?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-782">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-782">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 9, 2014, 8:15 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=782#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Physical things can only be controlled by one person at a time.
Intangible things can’t be controlled; only the physical things required
for their manifestation can be. No matter what, it all comes down to
physical things.<br />
If someone drives my car, I can’t drive my car. If I could drive my
car while someone else was driving my car, then I wouldn’t need to worry
about having the legal right to control it. Well, someone else can play
your song at the same time you play your song, so you don’t need to
worry about having the legal right to control it.<br />
Do you see the difference?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-783">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-783">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 8:37 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=783#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
You are, again, comparing apples to oranges. Here is your example, corrected. <br />
A “car” is a manufactured good that is made in a factory. Prior to
the existence of the factory, it is extremely expensive to make cars.
Now, it is cheap. With the factory running, the factory owner makes many
cars. You drive your car, I drive my car, and other people drive their
cars. <br />
A “song-copy” is a manufactured good that is made in a song-master.
Prior to the existence of the song-master, it is extremely expensive to
make song-copies. Now, it is cheap. With the song-master running, the
song-master owner makes many song-copies. You listen to your song-copy,
I listen to my song-copy, and other people listen to their song-copies.
<br />
Same. Freaking. Thing. <br />
Honestly Stephen, I already conceded victory to you (assuming your
definitions). In fact, you have achieved what Kinsella did not. You made
it from your premise to your conclusion in one step, not 3:<br />
“Intangible things don’t exist apart from their physical manifestations” – Stephen Davis<br />
This view is called “Strict Materialism”. Look it up. Although many
classical scientists felt that materialism must be correct, I can assure
you that quantum mechanics destroyed it completely. <br />
Yes, if you assume that intangible things don’t exist, then there is
no property right in them. That’s all you need to say. As for me, I
agree with Ludwig von Mises about how to tell if something is real:<br />
<a href="https://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/the-mises-test-of-external-reality/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/the-mises-test-of-external-reality/</a><br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-784">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-784">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 9, 2014, 8:39 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=784#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Dude. You don’t need to to get into all of this contrived
nonsense. I’ve read Mises. And Rothbard. I fully understand the value of
knowledge, of distinguishing between consumer use and producer use, and
all of that great stuff.<br />
However, the discussion we are having is about property rights. It is
a simple fact that you can’t drive my car while I drive my car. But I
can play your song while you play your song. Do you seriously deny this?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-3" id="li-comment-785">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-785">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 9, 2014, 8:52 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=785#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Seriously. For the sake of argument I admit that a song “exists.” I
admit that it’s “real.” I admit that it has “value.” That doesn’t
change anything.<br />
You can’t drive my car while I drive my car, but I can play your song
while you play your song. I can make your recipe while you make your
recipe. I can use your formula while you use your formula. So can
everyone else. No property rights necessary.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-786">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-786">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 9, 2014, 9:35 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=786#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
We’re going in circles now. We are talking past each other because we don’t agree what is the correct analogy. <br />
I say that a song-master is like a car-factory, because both are used
to mass-produce identical copies for sale on the market. I say that the
song-copy is like a car-copy, because both are mass-produced, and both
can only be used by 1 or a small number of people. <br />
You want to completely ignore the factory analogy, but why (other
than it destroys Kinsella’s “argument”)? You can’t just assume the
existence of cars. Cars are copied, just like songs are copied. Stop
ignoring the obvious. <br />
Hint: Answering a “why” question requires a “because” answer.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-787">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-787">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 10, 2014, 4:48 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=787#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Your entire theory rests on the “use” of intangible goods. You say
that intangible goods can be rivalrous because, if you want to make
copies for profit and someone else also makes copies, then they are
“interfering” with your “producer use” because they are reducing your
“productive capacity.”<br />
First, rivalrousness is a characteristic of a good. Whether something
is rivalrous has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone’s intended use. A
good is either rivalrous or it isn’t, based on its nature. If a good
can be used by any number of people simultaneously, then it is not
rivalrous.<br />
Second, someone else making copies of an intangible good using their
own physical property is in no way reducing your productive capacity.
Productive capacity is the maximum amount of goods that can be produced
in a given period using given resources. In the case of someone else
making copies of an intangible good using their own physical property,
both your intangible good and your physical property are unchanged, so
your resources are exactly the same.<br />
Third, your use of the term “interfere” is bizarre. If you have a
thing and can do whatever you want with it at the exact same time that
someone else has the same thing and can do whatever they want with it,
there is no possible way that you could interfere with each other in any
normal sense of the term. What you are saying amounts to: “It is true
that we both can do whatever we want with the thing simultaneously, but I
don’t want someone else to do particular things with the thing.
Therefore, because they are going against my wishes, they are
interfering with me.” This is a highly problematic conception of
“interference” for obvious reasons.<br />
So why would someone simply acting against your wishes be violating
your property rights? After all, you still have the thing and can do
whatever you want with it at the exact same time that the other person
can do the same. This is where you make clear what your entire theory
boils down to: you say that you “built” the thing, so you own “100% of
all possible use.”<br />
As has already been pointed out, creation is not an independent
source of property rights. If I create a beautiful statue out of marble
that belongs to someone else, I don’t own the statue. So why do you keep
insisting that you have some sort of property right just because you
“built” something?<br />
The fact is, if any number of people can do whatever they want with
the same thing simultaneously, no conflict is possible over that thing.
Someone else doing something you disapprove of does not constitute a
conflict. By insisting that you have a veto right over other people’s
bodies and physical things in cases where their actions in no way
conflict with yours, you are creating conflict where there is none.<br />
At the end of the day, your theory is a contrived way of saying that
you should have control over the way other people use their bodies and
physical things because you deserve to have control over the intangible
goods you create. That’s it.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-788">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-788">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 10, 2014, 8:09 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=788#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Nicely written Stephen. Your essay seeks to show that physical
goods and intangible goods behave differently from one another. I could
easily take your entire essay above, substitute physical goods for
intangible goods, and it would come out exactly the same. Not only COULD
I do that, I HAVE done that.<br />
<a href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/29/29/?refer=libertyme" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/29/29/?refer=libertyme</a><br />
It still simply boils down your definition of “rivalrous”. You mean
“physically rivalrous”. With that definition is play, I’ve already said
you are right. But, again, I’m not willing to accept that definition as a
premise, any more than you would accept IP as a premise.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-2" id="li-comment-790">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-790">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 10, 2014, 8:43 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=790#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Thanks.<br />
No, you are wrong about the word substitution. The word “physical”
appears 5 times in my post above, and at no point do I rely on it for
any definitions. I don’t mean “physically rivalrous.” I mean rivalrous,
as in the standard economics definition. A good that can be used by any
number of people simultaneously is not rivalrous.<br />
Please, respond to my actual points. Specifically:<br />
- If you have a thing and can do whatever you want with it at the
exact same time that someone else has the same thing and can do whatever
they want with it, in what possible way could you interfere with each
other?<br />
- Do you think creation is an independent source of property rights?<br />
- Do you think that, if any number of people can do whatever they
want with a thing simultaneously, that someone else doing something you
disapprove of constitutes a conflict?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-792">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-792">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 10, 2014, 11:14 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=792#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“If you have a thing and can do whatever you want with it at the
exact same time that someone else has the same thing and can do whatever
they want with it, in what possible way could you interfere with each
other?”<br />
When you copy my song, I am NOT able to do with my “thing” what I
WANT to do with my “thing”. Just because Machine #97 is off does not
mean I am not using it. It simply means that I prefer that it is off
right now. Having Machine #97 off IS MY USE. It is not possible for
Machine #97 to be on and off at the same time. Therefore your turning it
on interferes with my use.<br />
“Do you think creation is an independent source of property rights?”<br />
There is no such thing as “creation”. The sum total of matter and energy in the Universe is fixed.<br />
“Do you think that, if any number of people can do whatever they want
with a thing simultaneously, that someone else doing something you
disapprove of constitutes a conflict?”<br />
If you’re using my thing, it’s a conflict. If you’re using your own
thing, it’s not a conflict. When you copy my song, you are using my
thing. You are using my Machine #97 in my factory.<br />
Even though Machine #97 was off, and even though I am still able to
make the same number of copies myself, you are using my machine. I
prefer that Machine #97 remain off. Since I built Machine #97 myself,
with my own labor and my own raw materials, I own Machine #97. Simply
because you learned the location of Machine #97, and are ABLE to operate
it, despite my efforts to stop you, does not mean you are legally
allowed to do so. Machine #97 is mine. Stop using it, or I will sue you
for trespass.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-4" id="li-comment-800">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-800">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 11, 2014, 1:42 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=800#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“There is no such thing as ‘creation’. The sum total of matter and energy in the Universe is fixed.”<br />
I’m glad that you recognize this. You keep using the word “built”
though, as though that’s an independent source of property rights, which
it’s not.<br />
“When you copy my song, I am NOT able to do with my ‘thing’ what I
WANT to do with my ‘thing’. Just because Machine #97 is off does not
mean I am not using it. It simply means that I prefer that it is off
right now. Having Machine #97 off IS MY USE. It is not possible for
Machine #97 to be on and off at the same time. Therefore your turning it
on interferes with my use.”<br />
You are freely admitting exactly what my criticism of your position
is. You are saying: “It is true that we both can do whatever we want
with the thing simultaneously, but I don’t want someone else to do
particular things with the thing. Therefore, because they are going
against my wishes, they are interfering with me.”<br />
You ARE able to do what you want with your thing; you just don’t WANT
someone else to do a particular thing with their thing, which you are
simply asserting is yours. Your machine #97 can be on or off. Their
machine #97 can be on or off. Each can be INDEPENDENTLY CONTROLLED,
unlike the machine you are trying to analogize to. It is true that a
machine can’t be both on and off at the same time, but in the case of a
thing that, by its nature, allows any number of people to do whatever
they want with it simultaneously, its use is not restricted to being on
or off. This is the fact that you can’t bring yourself to admit.<br />
“If you’re using my thing, it’s a conflict. If you’re using your own
thing, it’s not a conflict. When you copy my song, you are using my
thing. You are using my Machine #97 in my factory.”<br />
Again, you are freely admitting exactly what my criticism of your
position is. You think that you deserve to have control over the
intangible goods you create, period. You just assert that it’s your
thing, and skip over the reality that any number of people can do
whatever they want with the thing simultaneously.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-801">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-801">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 11, 2014, 2:48 pm
</div>
Re: “Built”. <br />
“Transformation into usefulness” is an essential element of
homesteading, Kinsella notwithstanding. Beginning with John Locke’s “mix
the labor with the land”, libertarians including Rothbard and Hoppe
acknowledge the importance of transformation into usefulness.<br />
If mere discovery and embordering were sufficient to legitimize
property, then Columbus could claim the entire Western Hemisphere.
Kinsella is completely by himself with his foolish notion of
homesteading, but his theory requires it. <br />
So, yes, “build” is a source of property rights, when “build” is
understood to mean “transform previously un-owned resources into
usefulness”. <br />
Re: The Machine Analogy. <br />
You have ignored my challenge and question 5 separate times. I will
ask once again. If you do not answer this time, your future comments
will be deleted. <br />
<a href="http://liberty.me/members/stephen/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Stephen</a> Davis:<br />
Focus purely on PHYSICAL PROPERTY. I built a PHYSICAL factory with
100 PHYSICAL machines. I make PHYSICAL widgets with my PHYSICAL
machines. For whatever reason, I decide that, right now, I will turn
PHYSICAL Machine #1 on, and make widgets. PHYSICAL Machines #2-100 are
off. <br />
You PHYSICALLY enter my PHYSICAL building, and begin PHYSICALLY operating PHYSICAL Machine #97 to make PHYSICAL widgets. <br />
Your operating PHYSICAL Machine #97 does not in any way interfere
with my ability to operate PHYSICAL Machine #1. In this example, up to
99 people could use the PHYSICAL Machines, without interfering.
Obviously, I could have made 1000 PHYSICAL Machines. Or 1,000,000
Machines. Or 5,234,724,856,122,638,354 Machines. <br />
Any number of people can use the PHYSICAL Machines, and it does not interfere with my using MACHINE #1. <br />
Mr. Davis, sir. Please completely ignore the issue of IP. Please
discuss the PHYSICAL property rights issues in this hypothetical. <br />
Does your use of PHYSICAL Machine #97 interfere with my property rights? Why or why not?<br />
Thank you.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-2" id="li-comment-802">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-802">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 11, 2014, 3:13 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=802#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“Focus purely on PHYSICAL PROPERTY. I built a PHYSICAL factory
with 100 PHYSICAL machines. I make PHYSICAL widgets with my PHYSICAL
machines. For whatever reason, I decide that, right now, I will turn
PHYSICAL Machine #1 on, and make widgets. PHYSICAL Machines #2-100 are
off.<br />
You PHYSICALLY enter my PHYSICAL building, and begin PHYSICALLY operating PHYSICAL Machine #97 to make PHYSICAL widgets.<br />
Your operating PHYSICAL Machine #97 does not in any way interfere
with my ability to operate PHYSICAL Machine #1. In this example, up to
99 people could use the PHYSICAL Machines, without interfering.
Obviously, I could have made 1000 PHYSICAL Machines. Or 1,000,000
Machines. Or 5,234,724,856,122,638,354 Machines.<br />
Any number of people can use the PHYSICAL Machines, and it does not interfere with my using MACHINE #1.<br />
Mr. Davis, sir. Please completely ignore the issue of IP. Please
discuss the PHYSICAL property rights issues in this hypothetical.<br />
Does your use of PHYSICAL Machine #97 interfere with my property rights? Why or why not?”<br />
You own all 100 machines because you homesteaded them or contracted
for them. Each machine can be on or off; no machine can be both on and
off simultaneously. If you turn machine 1 on and leave machines 2-100
off, someone turning on any of machines 2-100 is interfering with your
use of those machines. Someone turning on machine 97 isn’t interfering
with your use of machine 1; they are interfering with your use of
machine 97. Thus, they are violating your property rights.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-803">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-803">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 11, 2014, 4:46 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=803#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“You own all 100 machines because you homesteaded them or
contracted for them. Each machine can be on or off; no machine can be
both on and off simultaneously. If you turn machine 1 on and leave
machines 2-100 off, someone turning on any of machines 2-100 is
interfering with your use of those machines. Someone turning on machine
97 isn’t interfering with your use of machine 1; they are interfering
with your use of machine 97. Thus, they are violating your property
rights.” – Stephen Davis<br />
Perfect! I agree. Next:<br />
You wish to construe each Machine as 1 “thing”, and that’s fine. But
note that we could just as easily construe the entire factory as 1
“thing”.<br />
Depending on the total number of PHYSICAL Machines, the factory has
some theoretical upper-limit on production. If all Machines were
running, some total quantity of PHYSICAL widgets could be produced per
day. As factory owner, I decide how many machines to operate. <br />
Even if I am only producing 1% of the quantity of widgets that I
theoretically COULD produce, because I am only running 1% of my PHYSICAL
Machines, I still have a right to deny you use of Machine #97, simply
because I own it. <br />
The total number of Machines is irrelevant. This principle would hold
true if there were 3 Machines. Or 1 billion Machines. The easy way to
express this is as a percentage. I own 100% of the produce of my
factory, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY MACHINES EXIST, and REGARDLESS OF HOW
MANY MACHINES ARE RUNNING. <br />
If 37 PHYSICAL widgets are produced on my PHYSICAL Machines, I own
them all. If 6,325,943,123,788 PHYSICAL widgets are produced, I own them
all. It doesn’t matter how many I COULD have made by running more or
fewer PHYSICAL Machines. If some trespasser uses Machine #97, those
widgets are mine also. <br />
Mr. Davis, I believe we are in complete agreement about this PHYSICAL property hypothetical. <br />
Now let me ask you about intangible goods. <br />
My song-master is an INTANGIBLE factory with INTANGIBLE Machines
inside. What makes you think you have any right to operate machine #97?<br />
If you want to construe my “song-master” as 1 “thing”, that is like
saying the “factory” is one “thing”. Fine. In that case, you must look
to the TOTAL PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY of the entire “song-master”. Your
copying reduces my percentage of use below 100%, the same way that using
Machine #97 reduces my percentage of use for the entire factory. <br />
If you want to construe my “song-master” as a collection of
individual “Machines”, each capable of making song-copies, that’s fine
too. Yes, it is true that your use of Machine #97 does not interfere
with my use of Machine #1, but that is irrelevant. Your use of Machine
#97 interferes with MY use of Machine #97. <br />
The intellectual dishonesty in your position is thus made plain. You
arbitrarily construe “thing” differently when analyzing PP versus when
you analyze IP. <br />
My song is not like 1 machine, it’s like a whole bunch of machines, and I homesteaded them all. Every . . . last . . . one.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-4" id="li-comment-813">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-813">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 16, 2014, 3:20 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=813#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
In the physical example, whether your property rights are being
violated has nothing whatsoever to do with productive capacity. So, why
does productive capacity suddenly enter into the equation in the case of
intangible things?<br />
In the physical example, no machine can be both on and off
simultaneously. Nor can the factory be in different states
simultaneously. Intangible things, however, regardless of how you
construe “thing,” can be in any number of states simultaneously. It’s
only the physical things required to bring intangible things into
existence that can’t be in multiple states simultaneously.<br />
A song is not like a factory because a factory can’t be in different
states simultaneously; a song can be. The things required to bring a
song into existence can’t be in different states simultaneously, which
is why property rights are necessary in those things.<br />
A song can be brought into existence in various ways. Here are a few examples:<br />
- A human body + standing room + a computer + electricity + cables + instruments + knowledge of music<br />
- A human body + standing room + action of whistling melody + knowledge of a pattern of information<br />
- A human body + standing room + acoustic guitar + action of playing
guitar and whistling melody + knowledge of patterns of information<br />
- A computer + electricity + cables + speakers + a digital file containing a pattern of information<br />
Are property rights necessary in bodies, standing room, computers,
electricity, cables, instruments, guitars, and speakers? Yes. A song can
not be brought into existence without property rights in these things. <br />
Are property rights necessary in actions, knowledge, and patterns of
information? No. A song can be brought into existence in any number of
ways without property rights in these things.<br />
If you came up with an idea for a car and built one, then someone
else saw your car and built their own, did you homestead their car?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-814">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-814">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 4:02 pm
</div>
“In the physical example, whether your property rights are being
violated has nothing whatsoever to do with productive capacity. So, why
does productive capacity suddenly enter into the equation in the case of
intangible things?”<br />
“Productive capacity” is simply another way of saying “The existence
of machines capable of mass-producing cheap copies.” Prior to the
homesteading of the machines, there is no property right in the
machines, because the machines do not exist. <br />
Observing that a “mass-productive capacity” exists now, when it did
not exist before, is proof that somebody homesteaded machines into
existence. <br />
As a thought experiment, suppose you were on a jury and asked to
decide a dispute about ownership of a car. Albert possesses a car, which
he claims he built with his own hands and own materials, from scratch.
Brian owns a car factory, and Brian claims that Albert sneaked into the
factory and made the car using the factory’s machines. There are no
security photos or fingerprints. Albert’s car is an exact match of the
other cars which are known to have been produced in Brian’s factory. Who
do you believe?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-816">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-816">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 4:48 pm
</div>
“A song is not like a factory because a factory can’t be in different states simultaneously; a song can be.”<br />
The “song” cannot be in two different states simultaneously, exactly
as with the factory. This is the entire point of “Songs are like
Factories (a deeper look).” When you copy, you’re using Machine #97.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-817">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-817">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 4:58 pm
</div>
“Are property rights necessary in bodies, standing room,
computers, electricity, cables, instruments, guitars, and speakers? Yes.
A song can not be brought into existence without property rights in
these things.”<br />
When you speak of the “impossibility” of bringing things into
existence, I assume you mean “legally impossible”. It is physically
possible to do all sorts of things, with no recognized property rights
at all. <br />
It is legally impossible to do anything without a property right in
one’s own body. It is legally impossible to grow a crop of tomatoes
absent a property right in the farmland.<br />
However, suppose you had a property right in your body, and in your
land, but not in the tomatoes grown upon your land. In that scenario, it
is legally possible to grow tomatoes, just as it is legally possible to
write a song without a property right in the resulting song. <br />
As always, your effort to show some kind of functional distinction between PP and IP fails.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-5" id="li-comment-820">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-820">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 16, 2014, 5:30 pm
</div>
Right, so by your own admission, “productive capacity” is a
redundant concept when it comes to property rights. It’s about
homesteading. Period.<br />
All that matters is whether Albert built the car with his own materials. Period.<br />
A song is information. As such, it most undeniably can be in many
states simultaneously, just like recipes, knowledge, formulas, etc. You
refuse to acknowledge this and fall back on your analogies as though
they are arguments. They are not.<br />
The difference between PP and so-called “IP” is that property rights
in physical things are necessary to avoid conflict: if two people want
to use the same physical thing simultaneously for different purposes,
they can’t. If two people want to use the same so-called “IP”
simultaneously for different purposes, they can. It’s as simple as that.
It really is.<br />
Make an argument against this. Seriously. Make an argument without
saying that songs are like factories and I’m using machine #97. If I’m
making a cake with the same recipe as you, using my own tools and
ingredients, am I using your property? Of course not.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-823">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-823">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 5:57 pm
</div>
@ Stephen – all of law, including property rights, is based on analogy. If you reject reasoning by analogy, you reject law. <br />
No 2 legal cases are identical, ever. We understand the present case
by applying abstracted principles from prior cases. This case is like
that case, because . . .<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-5" id="li-comment-824">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-824">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 16, 2014, 6:00 pm
</div>
Right, but if you keep neglecting the obvious and critical
difference that many people can use the same information simultaneously
for different purposes but can’t use the same physical things…<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-828">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-828">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 6:09 pm
</div>
ZZZZZ. You can use the same “information” without interfering just
as you can use the same “factory” without interfering (remember,
Machine #97 wasn’t plugged in, so you say you’re not interfering). <br />
Kinsella’s entire argument is just a convoluted diatribe based on the assumption the rivalry must be physical.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-5" id="li-comment-832">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-832">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 16, 2014, 6:47 pm
</div>
I have already explained multiple times how my view is not based
on any assumption that rivalry must be physical. Yet you keep misstating
the same things. I am not assuming that rivalry must be physical. It
just turns out that, because of the nature of human life on planet
Earth, only physical things are rivalrous. In order to justify your
theory, you are creating another world that doesn’t exist and
analogizing to that world.<br />
People can’t use the same physical thing simultaneously for different
purposes without interfering. I have already explained in depth how
this is the case in your machine example. The machine is only one
machine. It can only be in one state at one time.<br />
I have also already explained in depth how your concept of
“interference” is bizarre and amounts to: “It is true that we both can
do whatever we want with the thing simultaneously, but I don’t want
someone else to do particular things with the thing. Therefore, because
they are going against my wishes, they are interfering with me.”<br />
Notice that it doesn’t matter at all how I define a “thing.” Any
intangible “thing,” no matter how you define it, can be used by any
number of people simultaneously.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-835">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-835">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 6:53 pm
</div>
The Earth is a physical thing. Billions of people all use it simultaneously for different purposes.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-5" id="li-comment-836">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-836">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 16, 2014, 6:55 pm
</div>
Correct. I didn’t say that everything physical thing must be
subject to property rights. We’ve already talked about atmospheric air.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-837">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-837">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 6:56 pm
</div>
And I’ve already explained how we both can use the same factory at
the same time without interfering. Your use of Machine #97 does not
interfere with my use of Machine #1. I’m telling you what you can and
cannot do with your own body, because I don’t want you to use Machine
#97. <br />
Every time you attempt to show that IP behaves differently, it doesn’t.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-5" id="li-comment-838">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-838">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 16, 2014, 6:58 pm
</div>
It doesn’t interfere with your use of machine #1, it interferes
with your use of machine #97. And it interferes with your use of your
factory. We’ve been over this.<br />
You can’t magically create an alternate universe in which a song is a
factory and claim that physical property doesn’t behave differently
from “IP” in that world as though that’s an argument for planet Earth.
It’s not.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-842">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-842">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 8:09 pm
</div>
A new song provides the new ability to mass-produce identical
copies of a consumer good. That’s why it is a factory. In what sense is a
song NOT like a factory?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-5" id="li-comment-843">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-843">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 16, 2014, 8:15 pm
</div>
A song is NOT like a factory because it can be used by many people
simultaneously. A factory can’t be. A song is a pattern of information,
knowledge, a formula, etc.<br />
I can whistle a song while someone else plays it on their guitar
while someone else plays it with their band while someone else does a
mash-up while someone else records their spin on it while someone else
makes another song inspired by it while… and on and on and on.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-844">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-844">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 8:23 pm
</div>
I can run Machine #1 while someone else runs Machine #2 while
someone else runs Machine #3 with their band while someone else uses
Machine #4 to make “mashed-up” version of the widget while someone else
uses Machine #6 to “put their spin” on what widgets should look like
while someone else makes another widget inspired by it while… and on and
on and on.<br />
No difference.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-5" id="li-comment-888">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-888">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 17, 2014, 7:37 pm
</div>
I mention (2) because there are things that people could
theoretically conflict over in the future. Say, “atmospheric air” or
“the Earth.” At this point in time, no property rights are necessary in
these things because people are not coming into conflict over them. But
it’s theoretically possible.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-891">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-891">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 17, 2014, 8:12 pm
</div>
You rule appears to be:<br />
If X requires the contemporaneous use of a physical object in order to be useful, then X cannot be property. <br />
Call it a “container’. Call it a “tool”. Call it “abracadabra”. I don’t care what you call it. What’s your rule?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-5" id="li-comment-892">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-892">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 17, 2014, 8:20 pm
</div>
If X isn’t physical, X cannot be property.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-845">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-845">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 16, 2014, 8:29 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=845#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Big difference.<br />
None of the things you list can be done with the machines at the same
time as the owner wishes something different to be done with the
machines without coming into conflict.<br />
In the case of the song everyone can do all of the things I list
simultaneously, regardless of what any other person wishes, without
coming into conflict.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-846">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-846">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 16, 2014, 8:40 pm
</div>
None of the things you list can be done with the song at the same
time as the songwriter wishes something different to be done with the
“machines” without coming into conflict (because I wish Machine #97 to
be off). <br />
In the case of the factory everyone can do all of the things I list
simultaneously , regardless of what any other person wishes, without
coming into conflict (because they are all using separate machines).<br />
Same thing. Every time. Always will be. <br />
Someday you might wonder why the Austro-libertarians use these kinds
of rigorous analyses, except have failed to do so with IP. You’ve had
your philosophical pocket picked by Kinsella.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-847">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-847">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 16, 2014, 8:53 pm
</div>
You may not like this, but it comes down to the fact that a
machine is physical. If people are in your factory while you don’t want
them there, they are in conflict with you because your factory can’t be
both vacant and occupied at the same time. If people in your factory
turn certain machines on while you want them off, they are in conflict
with you because those machines can’t be both on and off at the same
time.<br />
You may not like this, but a song doesn’t physically exist. It can’t
be controlled like a factory or a machine. A song requires physical
things in order to manifest, and yes, property right are necessary in
those physical things.<br />
Tell me, what’s the difference between a song and a recipe?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-867">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-867">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 17, 2014, 12:46 am
</div>
“You may not like this, but [KINSELLA'S ENTIRE ARGUMENT] comes down to the fact that a machine is physical.”<br />
Trumpets blare!!!! Hooray for Stephen Davis!!!!!!!!! <br />
You’re right, I don’t like it. I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Dances around table like celebrating a touchdown)<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-879">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-879">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 17, 2014, 1:24 pm
</div>
Ok… so what’s the difference between a song and a recipe?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-880">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-880">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 17, 2014, 2:18 pm
</div>
Short answer – Both a recipe and a song are a pattern of
information. With a recipe, the pattern is a description of how a good
MIGHT be produced. With a song, the pattern ITSELF IS the good, already
produced. <br />
Rigorous allegorical answer:<br />
The book “How to Bake Great Cakes” contains several recipes
(instructions, methods) for different types of cake (For chocolate cake –
start with a bowl, add flour, sugar, eggs, etc). The book “How to
Profit in the Cake Business” contains instructions about cake-factory
design, cake marketing, etc. <br />
Clyde purchases and reads one copy of each book. Acting on his new
knowledge, Clyde builds a cake-factory. Now Clyde is able to
mass-produce identical cake-copies for sale on the market.<br />
The book “How to Write Great Songs” contains several recipes
(instructions, methods) for different types of songs (For Hip Hop songs –
start with a drum beat, add a bass line, chord progression, lyrical
catch-phrase, etc). The book “How to Profit in the Song Business”
contains instructions about song-mastering, song marketing, etc. <br />
Clyde purchases and reads one copy of each book. Acting on his new
knowledge, Clyde writes and records a song-master (which is a factory).
Now Clyde is able to mass-produce identical song-copies for sale on the
market.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-881">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-881">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 17, 2014, 2:28 pm
</div>
The Stevie Wonder song “I Wish” is a pattern of information. Using
it, I pick up my acoustic guitar and I use my body to perform actions
that result in the production of my version of the song. The pattern is
of no use to anyone if it is not manifested by physical things.<br />
A recipe a pattern of information. Using it, I pick up my tools and
ingredients and use my body to perform actions that result in the
production of my version of the recipe. The pattern is of no use to
anyone if it is not manifested by physical things.<br />
So no, the pattern itself is not the “good, already produced.” The
pattern itself is certainly useful for guiding action, but if not
manifested using physical things, it can’t be enjoyed.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-882">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-882">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 17, 2014, 5:29 pm
</div>
Performing the song for your guests is like serving the cake to
your guests (distribution). Listening to the song is like eating a piece
of cake (consumption).<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-883">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-883">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 17, 2014, 6:13 pm
</div>
I don’t have to be “distributing” a song. A song literally can’t
be brought into existence unless physical things manifest it. Computers
and speakers are the equivalent of labor-saving machinery. They do
things that formerly required human bodies and instruments but no longer
do. They can bring a song into existence by translating a pattern of
information, just as a human body and an instrument can bring a song
into existence by translating a pattern of information.<br />
Sure, you could look at playing a song or baking a cake as
“distribution” if you want, and listening to a song or eating a cake as
“consumption” if you want, but that in no way changes the fundamental
reality of how songs and recipes are brought into existence. They are
just patterns of information and they have no existence if they are not
manifested by physical things.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-884">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-884">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 17, 2014, 6:26 pm
</div>
You’re back to the “container” argument – Rule #5 here:<br />
<a href="http://homesteadip.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-alleged-case-against-intellectual.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://homesteadip.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-alleged-case-against-intellectual.html</a><br />
You are absolutely correct that a song requires the use of physical
things (a “container”) in order to be useful. So what? Here’s your rule.
<br />
5. Intellectual property requires a physical container. Storing,
transmitting and consuming IP can only be accomplished with tangible,
physical things like paper, CDs, hard drives, modems, copper wire, DNA,
and the human brain. Without physical property, IP disappears. IP is
therefore meaningless, and the only correct system of rights is in
physical, tangible things.<br />
Rule 5. If X requires a physical container in order to be useful, then X cannot be property.<br />
X=orange juice<br />
Without a physical container, orange juice just spills on the ground, which is useless.<br />
Therefore orange juice cannot be property?<br />
Rule 5 fails.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-887">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-887">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 17, 2014, 7:35 pm
</div>
No, that’s a bogus rule. It doesn’t matter whether something
requires a “container.” A guy using his body and an acoustic guitar to
perform the action of playing a song, guided by a pattern of
information, is not a “container.” And of course, they are many physical
things that require containers. (I know you’re just trying to establish
a rule.)<br />
As I mentioned earlier, and I know you don’t like this, it comes down
to whether something is physical. But, this is not an assumption: it is
arrived at after analyzing the nature of the human condition and why
property rights are necessary. If two people want to use the exact same
physical thing at the exact same time for different purposes, they
can’t. If two people want to use the exact same intangible thing at the
exact same time for different purposes, they can. So, in order to make
conflict-free interaction possible, property rights in physical things
are necessary, but property rights in intangible things are not.<br />
(1) Is it physical?<br />
No > property rights are not necessary<br />
Yes > property rights may be necessary<br />
(2) Are people actually conflicting over the use of the thing?<br />
No > property rights are not necessary yet<br />
Yes > property rights are necessary<br />
I feel the need here to say again that “conflict” or “interference”
doesn’t simply mean other people doing things that you disapprove of.
Conflict or interference always, necessarily, comes down to conflict
over physical things. It makes no sense to say that people are
conflicting over a song, or over religion, because it is impossible to
conflict over those things. People are really conflicting over the use
of computers, speakers, and guitars, or the Gaza strip, say.<br />
So, your entire theory actually comes down to who should control
physical things, who should control computers and speakers and guitars
and the like. You are talking about assigning partial property rights in
physical things. Will you admit this?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis even depth-5" id="li-comment-889">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-889">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 17, 2014, 7:37 pm
</div>
I mention (2) because there are things that people could
theoretically conflict over in the future. Say, “atmospheric air” or
“the Earth.” At this point in time, no property rights are necessary in
these things because people are not coming into conflict over them. But
it’s theoretically possible.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-793">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-793">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 10, 2014, 11:19 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/08/roger-browne-deconstructed/?replytocom=793#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“At the end of the day, your theory [of intellectual property] is a
contrived way of saying that you should have control over the way other
people use their bodies and physical things because you deserve to have
control over the intangible goods you create.” – Stephen Davis<br />
“At the end of the day, your theory [of physical property] is a
contrived way of saying that you should have control over the way other
people use their bodies and physical things because you deserve to have
control over the physical goods you ‘create’.” – Alexander Baker<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ol>
<br />
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-77188623150507214772014-09-20T09:55:00.001-07:002014-09-20T09:55:00.511-07:00Kinsella: Music Without Intellectual Property<div class="article-text">
Below is the section “Music Without Intellectual Property” from Stephan Kinsella’s <a href="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Kinsella-DoBusinessWithoutIntellectualProperty-v10.pdf">“Do Business Without Intellectual Property”.</a>
Kinsella would have done well to learn just a little about the subject
before writing about it. Had he done so, he might have discovered that
music must be written (by a writer) before it is performed (by an
artist).<br />
<br />
Here are Kinsella’s talking points (quoted) with my comments (interspersed)<br />
<blockquote>
Music without Intellectual Property<br />
• Free distribution. Musicians make their money from other sources.
Let people copy your hits. Let YouTube flourish. People will want to buy
tickets to hear your concerts.</blockquote>
There’s no free lunch, and no free distribution. YouTube enforces copyright. And, uh, <b><i>writers don’t have concerts.</i></b><br />
<blockquote>
• Artists have learned that covers are actually great. It’s a great compliment. It never harms the original artist.</blockquote>
Of course artists think covers are great. That’s what recording
artists do – they cover material written by writers. Writers have always
wanted artists to cover their songs – the more, the better. Of course,
as valid property owners, writers may seek rent. In music, that rent
takes a couple of forms – “mechanical royalties” which pay per unit
sold, and “performance royalties”, which pay for a performance on TV or
radio.<br />
When a second artist covers a song, and fails to pay the writer
royalties, of course it doesn’t harm the first artist. It harms the
writer.<br />
Of course it is a “great compliment” when someone steals your stuff.
Like, when I steal the shirt off your back and wear it, I’m
complimenting you on your sophisticated taste in clothing.<br />
<blockquote>
• If someone steals your stuff, try cheering for a change. Welcome emulation and competition!</blockquote>
Competition means everybody is free to write their own songs, like
everybody is free to homestead and farm their own land. Competition does
not mean that everybody gets to use my song for free, any more than
everybody gets to use your farmland for free.<br />
<br />
<br />
----------<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol class="commentlist">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-rogerribuck even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-707"><div class="comment_container" id="comment-707">
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/rogerribuck/" rel="external nofollow">Roger Browne</a> September 8, 2014, 10:31 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/07/kinsella-music-without-intellectual-property/?replytocom=707#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
A writer could charge enough to the first buyer of their work,
that the writer can continue to write. Once they’ve been paid for their
creativity, they can be free from worry about who does (or does not)
cover their work.<br />
Writers can adapt their business model to the reality of the world
around them, instead of trying to ensure their income stream through
government-backed violence. The smart writers (such as Cory Doctorow)
have already adapted successfully to a post-scarcity digital
environment.</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-708">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-708">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 8, 2014, 1:04 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/07/kinsella-music-without-intellectual-property/?replytocom=708#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Why would a singer buy a song she has never heard, from a songwriter she has never heard of?<br />
All business owners ensure their income stream through
government-backed violence, right? All property owners may use violence
to protect their property, right Roger Browne? <br />
Roger Browne, you personally, today, in the real world, rely on threat of violence to defend your property, correct?<br />
So trying to pretend that copyright enforcement relies on violence,
while other property does not, that’s just dishonest scare-mongering,
right?<br />
And your dishonesty is intentional, right?<br />
And your dishonesty is intended to deprive others of their rightful property, correct?</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-rogerribuck even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-714">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-714">
<img alt="Avatar of Roger Browne" class="avatar user-586-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/586/fe5adb238335d4b8009d35b57d1dab12-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/rogerribuck/" rel="external nofollow">Roger Browne</a> September 8, 2014, 2:18 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/07/kinsella-music-without-intellectual-property/?replytocom=714#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Alexander, it seems like I touched a nerve there. Anyway, I’ll address all of the points that you raised.<br />
1. A singer would indeed be unlikely to buy a song she has never
heard, from a songwriter she has never heard of. That’s not the
situation I was intending to describe. I’m thinking of an established
songwriter who is writing a new work. Perhaps a singer commissioned the
work to be written, on the basis of the writer’s reputation and previous
work. Or perhaps the songwriter is producing the work “on spec” and
will market it to people who wish to record it, at a price sufficient to
cover the time and effort required to create the work. (Incidentally,
many of us here were founding members of liberty.me, and did pay money
in advance for a website we’d never seen. So it can sometimes work that
way.)<br />
2. No, not all business owners ensure their income stream through
government-backed violence. For example, I don’t. I work hard to ensure
that my customers are satisfied. If they use my service and won’t pay, I
do not invoke the violence of the court system. Instead, I put my
energy into making the other 99.5% of my customers even more satisfied,
and refuse to do further business with the occasional dickead. If my ISP
provides crappy service, I don’t invoke the violence of the court
system; I just find a better ISP. (I presume the liberty.me business
model doesn’t enforce its income stream through government-backed
violence either.)<br />
3. No, I do not personally, today, in the real world, rely on threat
of violence to defend my property. I will use force, yes, but not
violence. I will use non-violent force to prevent a burglar entering my
property, and I will use non-violent force to retrieve my property from a
burglar, but I will never initiate violent force over mere property.
Nor will I use any type of force to stop a burglar from making a copy of
my property.<br />
4. It’s a fact that preventing people from making copies can only be
achieved by violence or the threat of violence. It’s a fact that
preventing people from taking originals can be achieved in many ways,
both violent and non-violent. There’s no pretence, dishonesty or
scare-mongering involved, so your supposition is false.<br />
5. I have never, in my adult life, been intentionally dishonest.<br />
6. I have no intention to deprive others of their rightful property.</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-718">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-718">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 8, 2014, 3:57 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/07/kinsella-music-without-intellectual-property/?replytocom=718#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Alexander, the internet allows artists to distribute their music
worldwide for next to nothing. This was not even remotely possible until
recently.<br />
I heard a song the other day. I learned some information. Am I
legally allowed to whistle it now? Sit at home and play it on my guitar?
Play it at the bar down the street? Perform it during my concert on
Saturday?</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-720">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-720">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 8, 2014, 4:39 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/07/kinsella-music-without-intellectual-property/?replytocom=720#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
It’s up to whoever owns the publishing rights.</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-721">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-721">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 8, 2014, 5:34 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/07/kinsella-music-without-intellectual-property/?replytocom=721#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Alexander, why did you delete this comment?<br />
“I heard a song the other day. I learned some information. Am I legally allowed to whistle it now?<br />
Yes, all you want.<br />
Sit at home and play it on my guitar?<br />
Yes, all you want.<br />
Play it at the bar down the street? Perform it during my concert on Saturday?<br />
Not unless the venue is paying performance royalties (rent on property).<br />
The moment you start using my property to make money, I deserve a cut. It’s only fair.”<br />
I presume you deleted it because you realized that it undermines your
position. Something isn’t a property rights violation unless money is
being made? But I think this is precisely what you are getting at. You
think that you have some sort of right to profit, some sort of property
right in other people’s money.<br />
Why not just leave the comment up and then clarify your position?</div>
</div>
</li>
</ol>
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-44450204794817040392014-09-20T09:45:00.000-07:002014-09-20T09:45:03.518-07:00Scarcity Arises From the Limitations of Human Action<div class="article-text">
Economic goods are scarce. One might think that
scarcity arises from the quantity of things in existence. After all,
look around. There are only so many rocks, so many fruit trees, an so
on. This view, however, is wrong.<br />
<br />
Other than naturally-occurring, super-abundant free goods (like
atmospheric air), goods must be produced. All production involves the
expenditure of human effort. Human effort is limited. No matter how hard
you try, there is only so much you can do.<br />
<br />
The supply of physical matter is literally inexhaustible. The
quantity of aluminum, just near the Earth’s surface, is so vast that we
could increase our usage by 1000 times, for the next million years, and
still not “use up” even one trillionth of the aluminum known to exist in
common bauxite ore. The quotes around “use up” are present because, in
fact, we never use up anything. The total of matter and energy in the
universe is fixed. Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed. All we do
is move things around, to make them more useful to us.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, aluminum products are scarce. Why? Because aluminum
sitting in the hillside is useless. To be useful, we mortals have to go
get it. The limit on aluminum goods has nothing whatsoever to do with
how much aluminum exists. It is purely a limit on human action.<br />
<br />
While aluminum is common, diamonds are quite rare. Does this mean
diamonds may be considered naturally scarce, simply because they are
uncommon in nature? No. We can produce any quantity of diamonds that we
are willing and able to produce. Nowadays, you can <a href="http://www.lifegem.com/index.aspx?BType=GTxt&BAg=HCrem&gclid=CjwKEAjw-JqgBRCAyqjoic27nlQSJABBTpFEOwPe-siW-Vc6AzkYXpa7bSihGqMDamDyuk9MbjWDYBoCYo_w_wcB">have a diamond made from the cremated remains</a> of your late loved one.<br />
<br />
There is even <a href="http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/meteoritescomets-and-asteroids/diamond-planet-may-not-be-such-a-gem/">an entire planet made of diamond!</a> All we need to do is send some explosives out there, blast that baby to smithereens, and tow the pieces home 40 light-years.<br />
The supply of matter is infinite. Goods made from this matter are
scarce, because human effort is limited. With this distinction in mind,
consider the following from praxeologist Hans-Hermann Hoppe:<br />
<blockquote>
Once thought and expressed, [intangible objects] are
free, inexhaustible goods. I whistle a melody or write down a poem, you
hear the melody or read the poem and reproduce or copy it. In doing so
you have not taken anything away from me. I can whistle and write as
before. In fact, the entire world can copy me and yet nothing is taken
from me. (If I didn’t want anyone to copy my ideas I only have to keep
them to myself and never express them.)</blockquote>
An intangible good, like a song, is scarce for exactly the same
reasons as physical goods. It takes human effort to create the song in
the first place, and it takes human effort to make copies. Yes,
song-copies are “inexhaustable” in the sense that, once published, we
will never run out of the raw material needed to manufacture more
copies. This is no different than noticing that we will never run out of
the raw material needed to make aluminum bicycles, or diamond rings.<br />
<br />
Songs, bicycles and diamonds will all exist in the quantity that humans are willing and able to produce.<br />
<br />
------------<br />
<br />
<h2>
72 Comments</h2>
<ol class="commentlist">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-pgveer even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-599">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-599">
<img alt="Avatar of PG (Pierre-Guy) Veer" class="avatar user-3693-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/aec2604974bb76a3cae3046b0b4ebf2c?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/pgveer/" rel="external nofollow">PG (Pierre-Guy) Veer</a> September 3, 2014, 6:06 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=599#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
This text would be good in an “introduction to economics” section.
It’a good counter-story to the “peak resource” fear-mongering going
around.<br />
However, I do disagree about the “unlimitedness” of resources.
Although we seem to find new sources everyday, oil and gas are limited
since they come from organic decomposition. We can synthesize them, but
it’s way too expensive. Granted, we’ll probably learn to use alternative
sources withing a few generations (as we did with fiber optics vs
copper), but within a human lifespan, it’s finite<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-600">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-600">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 3, 2014, 6:10 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=600#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Notice this is merely a series of disconnected assertions
masquerading as an argument. The conclusion is out of the blue, and
wrong, as are many of the preceding ad hoc comments and propositions
which the conclusion allegedly follows from.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-614">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-614">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 2:57 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=614#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Kinsella -<br />
My conclusion is that scarcity always arises from a limitation on
human effort, and never from a lack of physical matter. If that is
wrong, you should have no trouble providing a counter-example. Go for
it.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-erichennigan odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-651">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-651">
<img alt="Avatar of Eric Hennigan" class="avatar user-726-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/726/4e296b3364a25a1f359794986968829c-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/erichennigan/" rel="external nofollow">Eric Hennigan</a> September 5, 2014, 2:59 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=651#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I think that if one wishes to defend intellectual property, they
ought to formulate their argument as a small set of connected
statements. That brings clarity to both the logical steps taken and the
claims made. For example, Roderick Long uses this format to attack “The
Hoppriori Argument” <a href="http://praxeology.net/unblog05-04.htm#10" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://praxeology.net/unblog05-04.htm#10</a>.<br />
Also, do not argue by analogy unless you can prove the analogy valid
in all necessary respects. Intellectual goods and physical good quite
clearly have different properties. Those differences significantly
affect the property claims and rights related to the respective goods,
causing the analogy to break down.<br />
I’ve also noticed that the word “scarce” consists of (at least) two
different components: rarity and rivalrousness. I personally completely
avoid using the word scarce when I debate IP, because I wish to be clear
in what I say, and need to be extra-careful that I don’t accidentally
make a definitional substitution.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-4" id="li-comment-657">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-657">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 5, 2014, 9:21 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=657#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
You make good points, but literary criticism does not count as counterargument or supporting argument, does it?<br />
What do you see as the critical issue in this discussion?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-601">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-601">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 3, 2014, 7:05 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=601#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Give me an example of a good that is scarce for some other reason than the limit on human action. Anyone.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-2" id="li-comment-605">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-605">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 12:14 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=605#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Alexander is free to come up with an idiosyncratic definition of
scarcity and abundance. But if we stick to the standard economic
definitions, his article proves the reverse of his claim.<br />
According to the standard usage among economists, the distinction
between scarce goods and abundant goods corresponds to the need for
economizing. If a good is scarce, a given amount of the good will
satisfy only so many uses, leaving some unsatisfied. So the consumer
must prioritize uses. When a good is abundant, there is no need to
economize; all imaginable uses can be satisfied by the existing amount
of the good, with some left over (with uses including “sell it on
ebay”). I am not sure how the “limit on human action” does or does not
relate to this.<br />
A song that does not exist yet is scarce. There are no units of it to
satisfy any needs or uses. A song that exists is abundant. Once it
exists, there is no need to economize its use, a single unit can satisfy
all imaginable uses. Alexander has pointed out that however many copies
or performances or variations of a song may exist, there is only one
song, identified by the composer, the title, the melody, and the lyrics
(if any).<br />
Copies of a performance are scarce. If I want to keep a CD in my car,
I can’t also use it in my bedroom. To cover both uses, I would need to
have 2 CDs. But there is only one song. The song performance is scarce
only because the information defining it must be recorded on or
transmitted over a physical medium, and the physical media are scarce.<br />
We could go on complicating the metaphysics. For instance, different
arrangements of the same song may involve considerable creative input
from persons who are not considered the composer. No two performances
will be identical. Different songs can be merged as medleys, mash-ups,
or by using samples from one song in the composition of another song.
Title, composer, melody and lyrics may uniquely identify a song, but are
not really sufficient to define it fully. Hands wave now.<br />
So. Can we regard songs as scarce goods? They are not intrinsically
scarce, so the question really is, do we have a good moral or practical
reason for artificially making them scarce? <br />
So, are songs more like mathematics or pork bellies? Is
scarcity/abundance the critical issue in determining whether songs
should be property or not?<br />
We have a few examples of non-physical goods (language, mathematics,
scientific discoveries, “patentable” processes) that everyone involved
in this discussion agrees should not be treated as property. With rare
exceptions (atmospheric air) we agree that physical goods may be owned.
We’ve been arguing about items covered by current copyright law. Are
there any other non-physical goods, not covered by copyright, that
currently can be owned? <br />
The best candidate I can think of is a commodity contract. If I buy
one, someone is obligated to deliver some goods to me at a certain time
and place, and I am obligated to pay. Are we considered to own some
non-physical property? Or maybe it’s better to just think of us as
having obligations. I can buy & sell such contracts, but all I
possess is a piece of paper with writing on it. Maybe it should be
thought of as a debt. Is a debt property?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-609">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-609">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 2:19 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=609#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Dave Burns -<br />
This article is about the CAUSE of scarcity, not the definition. That
said, agreeing upon a definition of “scarce” is a good idea. I
certainly can’t agree with your definition, because you reach this
conclusion:<br />
“When a good is abundant, there is no need to economize; all
imaginable uses can be satisfied by the existing amount of the good,
with some left over (with uses including “sell it on ebay”).”<br />
Therefore things sold on eBay are not scarce??? Things sold on eBay are not rightful property???<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-4" id="li-comment-621">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-621">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 6:09 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=621#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I meant that all imaginable uses would include the possibility of selling the item instead of using it. Sorry for being unclear.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-622">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-622">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 6:18 pm
</div>
Therefore things sold on eBay are not scarce??? Things sold on eBay are not rightful property???<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-5" id="li-comment-644">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-644">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 8:44 pm
</div>
Alexander said: “Therefore things sold on eBay are not scarce??? Things sold on eBay are not rightful property???”<br />
The reverse. If something is abundant, I could try to sell it on
ebay. I could try, but would likely fail. (With ebay, you never know.) I
wished to point out that I was not limiting the meaning of “use” to
exclude sale. As long as I can sell a unit of good, I have a use for it.
Okay?<br />
Maybe Alexander would like to twist this around so that songs are
scarce. But which goods are we discussing? The song itself is unique,
and not for sale on ebay. Ebay will sell you a CD, which is a physical
object with information encoded on it. This is definitely scarce, but it
is not what Alexander wants to own. Itunes will sell you the service of
delivering a file to your PC. This also is not the property that A
wants to claim ownership of. <br />
Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, it is possible to use the legal
system to make an abundant good scarce artificially. The question is,
are there good moral and practical reasons for doing so? So even if
Alexander could sell his property on ebay, this would not prove that the
good was fundamentally scarce. We may imagine a tyrannical regime that
would charge people for use of atmospheric air, treating it as a scarce
good owned by someone, but that does not mean that atmospheric air
actually would become scarce.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-654">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-654">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 5, 2014, 8:33 pm
</div>
“Therefore things sold on eBay are not scarce??? Things sold on eBay are not rightful property???”<br />
Ebay seems generally to “sell” scarce, owned resources. But not every
“sale” so-called means the transfer of title to the “sold” “thing.”
Some contracts have only one title-transfer: the monetary payment, which
is triggered by a set of specified conditions. the condition can be the
performing of an action (a “service” contract), some random event (a
gamble or insurance contract), etc. None of this language means the
thing “sold” is owned or ownable. To state this is to betray an amateur
understanding of contract law and legal theory.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-4" id="li-comment-675">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-675">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 7, 2014, 12:42 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=675#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
But you ignored my point. You argue that scarcity is caused by the
need for human effort to create a good, therefore songs are scarce
because they require human effort to create. Is that correct?<br />
But the cause of scarcity, whether you have identified it or not, is not
relevant here. My post showed that when we use the standard definition
of scarcity, your conclusion that songs are scarce is wrong. Intangible
goods are not scarce because we do not need to economize them. I can use
the same unit of good to satisfy my most urgent use, my least urgent
use, and all those in between. In fact, you have argued that everyone’s
uses depend on a single good.<br />
The fact that we can attempt to impose an artificial scarcity on such goods does not mean they actually are scarce.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-davidmontgomery odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-602">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-602">
<img alt="Avatar of David Montgomery" class="avatar user-95-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/95/4489b4a899eff8d272210101f1feb0cb-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/davidmontgomery/" rel="external nofollow">David Montgomery</a> September 3, 2014, 7:25 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=602#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
There is no extra labor involved in instructing a computer to copy
a file once versus 100,000 times. In contrast, per your examples you
need more raw material for every additional aluminum bicycle and every
additional diamond ring you manufacture. You have to go mine and refine
those materials. Making 99,999 more bikes and diamond rings not only
takes more labor, but also more capital goods. Digital files are not
subject to these limitations.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-2" id="li-comment-607">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-607">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 12:22 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=607#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Digital files take up disk space, and making or accessing copies
requires electricity. In this sense they are just like other goods, part
information and part physical medium. Maybe someday 3d printers will be
able to make neazrly anything, and the distinction will matter een
less.<br />
Ownership of physical objects make sense. To own information makes less sense.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-610">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-610">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 2:31 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=610#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ David Montgomery -<br />
I like your approach, but you are mis-matching the elements of the analogy. Here is your analysis, corrected:<br />
There is no extra labor involved in instructing a computer to copy a file once versus 100,000 times . . .<br />
just as . . .<br />
There is no extra labor involved in instructing a factory to copy an automobile once versus 100,000 times.<br />
The supply of raw material needed to mass-produce song-copies is
infinite, just as the supply of raw material needed to mass-produce cars
is infinite. <br />
Obtaining and transforming the raw material into car-factories and
car-copies requires human effort and the expenditure of scarce
resources, just as obtaining and transforming the raw material into
song-factories and song-copies requires human effort and the expenditure
of scarce resources.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-davidmontgomery even depth-3" id="li-comment-639">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-639">
<img alt="Avatar of David Montgomery" class="avatar user-95-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/95/4489b4a899eff8d272210101f1feb0cb-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/davidmontgomery/" rel="external nofollow">David Montgomery</a> September 4, 2014, 7:17 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=639#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
This is a crackpot answer. Let’s do a demo to illustrate your
claim. I’ll copy a digital file 100,000 times and you can demo how to
punch 99,999 into your fictional bike making machine which has an
“infinite supply of raw material” to make them.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-garywood odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-604">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-604">
<img alt="Avatar of GARY WOOD" class="avatar user-3813-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/3813/13888cb2d9e1a5ab5bfd830374e5f11f-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/garywood/" rel="external nofollow">GARY WOOD</a> September 3, 2014, 10:55 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=604#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Food and material goods are limited to the availability of the
matter they are made of. Ideas and intellectual property, like all
knowledge, have no physical properties and are easily shared. Humans are
successful as a species because we share our knowledge with others
through language, music, and art. Intellectual property has value but
like anything the more it costs the less there will be of it. Taking
someone’s food or material goods is more of a crime than singing the
Happy Birthday song without paying a fee to its author.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-2" id="li-comment-606">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-606">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 12:18 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=606#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Knowledge and information need a pysical medium to be stored in or
transmitted over. A brain, a page, a computer disk, a radio frequency.
Otherwise I agree.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-613">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-613">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 2:48 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=613#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Dave Burns -<br />
“Knowledge and information need a pysical medium to be stored in”<br />
So does orange juice.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-4" id="li-comment-623">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-623">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 6:19 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=623#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
<a href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Alexander</a> –<br />
I was trying to adjust Gary’s statement that knowledge “ha[s] no
physical properties”. Technically he is correct, but only in the sense
that we conceptually can separate knowledge from the physical medium in
which it is encoded. Knowledge never exists without a physical medium of
some kind, though of course the same knowledge may appear in different
media.<br />
As for orange juice, it needs a container to be usable/drinkable. If I
spill it on the ground, it is still orange juice, but no one wants to
drink it. If I remove information from all physical media, it no longer
exists.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-626">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-626">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 6:34 pm
</div>
Orange juice on the ground ceases to be orange juice in exactly
the same way as information devoid of a hard drive ceases to be
information. <br />
One of the core principles of quantum mechanics is that information
is never lost, it simply changes form. When you destroy a hard drive,
the information it stored still exists, because somewhere in the
universe are sub-atomic particles all in different states than they
would have been, had the information on the hard drive been different to
being with. The information has been transformed from being useful, to
useless. <br />
What we typically mean when we say “information” is really “useful
information”. And what we mean when we say “orange juice” is “useful
orange juice”. <br />
If you mix enough dirt with orange juice, at some point the reasonable person concludes it is no longer orange juice . . .<br />
just as . . .<br />
If you mix enough noise with information, at some point the reasonable person concludes it is no longer information. <br />
As always, IP and PP are the same.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-5" id="li-comment-655">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-655">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 5, 2014, 8:34 pm
</div>
“One of the core principles of quantum mechanics is that information is never lost, it simply changes form. ”<br />
So, in a lifeless universe, there is still … information? <br />
Anyway, who cares? These pseudo-scientific faux-deep statements are
trotted out as if they justify socialistic IP laws. THey do not.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-637">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-637">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 7:10 pm
</div>
@ Alexander –<br />
“Orange juice on the ground ceases to be orange juice”<br />
I don’t think you have convinced me.<br />
“The information has been transformed from being useful, to useless.” <br />
So you’re saying the information could conceivably be retrieved, just
that actually accomplishing this would be absurdly difficult?<br />
Is this at all relevant, or are you just quibbling?<br />
In any case, while we can move both the song and the orange juice
from one medium/container to another, we cannot copy a glass of orange
juice, at least, not yet. If we were able, would you object?<br />
“What we typically mean when we say “information” is really “useful
information”. And what we mean when we say “orange juice” is “useful
orange juice”.”<br />
Now I am quibbling, but no, orange juice is orange juice, whether it
is drinkable or not. It is juice that came from an orange. Perhaps it is
rancid orange juice, or contaminated orange juice, or orange juice in a
large mixture of other substances, but still orange juice. Now we’re
really getting metaphysical. What is the essence of orange juice? (Just
kidding.)<br />
“As always, IP and PP are the same.”<br />
So, does that mean I am free to copy songs, or I should be prevented from copying orange juice?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-640">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-640">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 7:24 pm
</div>
@ Dave Burns -<br />
Is orange juice still orange juice after I drink it and urinate into
the toilet? There is some level of purity that will be considered orange
juice, and then it will cross a threshold and no longer be considered
orange juice. This threshold is completely arbitrary and subjective, of
course. As with every other effort to name things. <br />
In reality, there are only waves of energy that collapse into
sub-atomic particles. Every “substance”, “element”, “object’, “thing”
etc. is an abstract concept.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-656">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-656">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 5, 2014, 8:37 pm
</div>
“In reality, there are only waves of energy that collapse into
sub-atomic particles. Every “substance”, “element”, “object’, “thing”
etc. is an abstract concept.”<br />
this is a reductionist, monistic, simpleminded approach. Objects are
not abstract concepts. And legitimate concepts have referents. And you
can’t say that all that exists is sub-atomic particles. There is mind
and brain, person and body. these are different concepts with different
referents. there is human action, and human behavior. etc. THey “exist.”
The concept mind is not *the same as* the concept brain.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-5" id="li-comment-647">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-647">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 9:03 pm
</div>
@ Alexander –<br />
“Is orange juice still orange juice after I drink it and urinate into the toilet?”<br />
Do you even remember the reason for this quibble, or are you just
quibbling for quibbling’s sake? The molecules are the same, but the
orange juice will be chemically changed by being digested and
metabolized. What does this have to do with the original point? I can
freeze the orange juice and launch it into space, and it will still be
orange juice, but will not require a container. Eventually it will
sublimate, etc. etc. but for a good long while it would not need a
container.<br />
Can we end the quibblefest now?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-611">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-611">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 2:35 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=611#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Gary Wood -<br />
You wrote:<br />
“Food and material goods are limited to the availability of the matter they are made of.”<br />
There is an infinite supply of the matter from which food and material goods are made.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-3" id="li-comment-624">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-624">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 6:22 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=624#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Alexander<br />
Saying “There is an infinite supply of the matter from which food and
material goods are made” seems to imply that we have access to this.
Perhaps it would be better to express it as “There is an infinite
[amount] of the matter from which food and material goods are made.”<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-628">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-628">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 6:42 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=628#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Dave Burns -<br />
Great! There is an infinite amount of the matter from which food and material goods are made. <br />
Besides the physical matter, there is only one other component of physical goods – human effort. <br />
Matter is infinite, effort is limited. Bravo!!!<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-5" id="li-comment-629">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-629">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 6:47 pm
</div>
And the sky is blue. What is your point?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-634">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-634">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 7:05 pm
</div>
@ Everyone, including Dave Burns -<br />
The limitation on human effort is the only cause of scarcity. Period.
Intangible goods are scarce for exactly the same reason that physical
goods are scarce. <br />
Perhaps you only now realize the implications of this insight?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-5" id="li-comment-646">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-646">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 8:53 pm
</div>
@ Alexander –<br />
“Intangible goods are scarce for exactly the same reason that physical goods are scarce.”<br />
And intangible goods are abundant for exactly the same reason that physical goods are abundant. So?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-612">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-612">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 2:45 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=612#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Gary Wood -<br />
“Ideas and intellectual property, like all knowledge, have no physical properties and are easily shared.”<br />
When you say “shared” you mean “mass-produced and distributed”. When
you say “easily”, you mean “requires some amount of human effort”. <br />
Songs, bicycles and diamond rings can all be mass-produced and distributed. Doing so requires some amount of human effort. <br />
As always, when we correctly match the elements of the analogy, there is NO difference between IP and PP.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-3" id="li-comment-615">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-615">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 4, 2014, 3:09 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=615#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Baker’s view is anti-free market. He thinks that it’s wrong to
emulate or copy or learn or complete. For example if someone came up
with the idea of a log cabin or a bicycle, and it was useful and others
observed this and learned from it, it would be impermissible for them to
make a bicycle or to use their own logs and land to make a log cabin.
This is a horrible, illiberal, protectionist view that has literally
nothing to do with liberalism or the free market, individualism,
capitalism and competition. It’s sad people can’t easily see this. This
is why we have patent and copyright law. This is why people are going to
jail and being extradited for copying files, this is why a trillion
dollars a year (perhaps) is being extracted from the economy from patent
fees, etc. That so-called liberals are supporting this is truly
dismaying.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-618">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-618">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 3:36 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=618#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Kinsella -<br />
The above post is possibly your most concentrated disinformation
effort so far, quite an accomplishment. Must I really spend time denying
all these lies? <br />
1. I don’t think it’s wrong to emulate. If I did, I would support emulate-rights. <br />
2. I don’t think it’s wrong to learn. <br />
3. I don’t think it’s wrong to compete (or complete). <br />
4. I don’t support property rights in “ideas”. There is a difference
between an “idea” and unique pattern of information. Sure, there will be
a gray area as to whether a pattern is sufficiently complex and unique
to validate a property right. The precise same gray area occurs in
assigning property rights in physical things. <br />
5. I am not a “liberal” in the current meaning of the word. You’re
free to ideologically label me if you like, after all, I have labeled
you an “Intellectual Communist”. But please don’t say “so-called
liberal”, because it implies that I refer to myself that way.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-5" id="li-comment-625">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-625">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 6:33 pm
</div>
Alexander said “There is a difference between an “idea” and unique
pattern of information.” I agree. But does that mean there is a
difference between an idea and a song? In other parts of the
conversation, you’ve made it clear that when you say “unique pattern of
information,” you are not referring to the binary code of an MP3 file or
something like that, but the coordinates of your “intellectual space.”
Why could we not expand the idea of intellectual space to include ideas,
so that all ideas can be expressed as a unique pattern of information
in intellectual space?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-630">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-630">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 6:48 pm
</div>
@ Dave Burns -<br />
“Why could we not expand the idea of intellectual space to include
ideas, so that all ideas can be expressed as a unique pattern of
information in intellectual space?”<br />
Yes, but add location. An “idea” is an intellectual object, made of
intellectual matter, that resides at a unique location in intellectual
space. <br />
“http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/definitions-of-key-terms/”<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-5" id="li-comment-645">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-645">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 8:50 pm
</div>
@ Baker -<br />
“An “idea” is an intellectual object, made of intellectual matter, that resides at a unique location in intellectual space. ”<br />
So why have you excluded such a large category of ideas (math,
science, language, patentable ideas) from being copyrighted? Oh yeah,
homesteading. I look forward to the explanation.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-650">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-650">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 4, 2014, 9:37 pm
</div>
“1. I don’t think it’s wrong to emulate. If I did, I would support emulate-rights.”<br />
Well, you do.<br />
“2. I don’t think it’s wrong to learn.”<br />
Yes, you do. <br />
“3. I don’t think it’s wrong to compete (or complete).”<br />
Yes, you do.<br />
“4. I don’t support property rights in “ideas”. There is a difference between an “idea” and unique pattern of information.”<br />
Hhahhahaha HAHAHAHAHH you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. <br />
“Sure, there will be a gray area as to whether a pattern is
sufficiently complex and unique to validate a property right. The
precise same gray area occurs in assigning property rights in physical
things.”<br />
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHH. seriously. seriously. are you serious, dude? hahahha. Everyone now knows you are a joke here.<br />
“5. I am not a “liberal” in the current meaning of the word.”<br />
FINALLY something to agree on. FINALLY.<br />
” You’re free to ideologically label me if you like, after all, I
have labeled you an “Intellectual Communist”. But please don’t say
“so-called liberal”, because it implies that I refer to myself that
way.”<br />
You don’t have any coherent labels. But I’ll give you one–you are a
socialist, and an ignoramus. You should shut the hell up, listen and
learn. Instead of pontificating like an amateur on things you know
little to nothing about. Everyone knows that you have a self-interest in
copyright, “Ace.” Nobody gives a flying fuck.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-3" id="li-comment-627">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-627">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 6:41 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=627#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Alexander, if “there is NO difference between IP and PP,” does
that mean you object to me making copies of my kitchen table or my
computer keyboard? Does someone else possibly own the design used to
create the physical objects I have purchased, who could prosecute me for
copying them? If so, how can you support copyrights but reject patents?
Or maybe physical objects also should be copyrightable?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-632">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-632">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 6:54 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=632#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Physical objects ARE “copyrightable”. Please understand that,
correctly understood, “copyright” is simply a prohibition of trespass.
If you don’t understand, please review -<br />
<a href="http://homesteadip.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-intangible-goods-are-scarce-and.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://homesteadip.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-intangible-goods-are-scarce-and.html</a><br />
In other words, copying something may or may not constitute trespass
in intellectual space. If it constitutes trespass, then it is a
violation of “copyright”. If not, then not.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-5" id="li-comment-642">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-642">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 7:51 pm
</div>
There is no helpful discussion of trespass or homestead there or at <a href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/definitions-of-key-terms/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/definitions-of-key-terms/</a>. <br />
Let me see if I can unreel it myself. Each song is a unique location
in intellectual space. By composing the song, by making decisions about
what melody to use, etc., you drive a stake at the location in
intellectual space. Anyone who performs a song that is similar is
trespassing.<br />
But this does not explain the distinction you make between songs and
bicycles with regard to homesteading. Most bicycles have a basic
similarity, but songs also have many conventional aspects that the
composer does not reinvent each time. Mathematical theorems are even
more analogous to songs, in that some element of originality is
required, with similar creativity and effort involved, with even more
technical constraints.<br />
Let’s face it, you just define “homestead” as “Alexander wins”. You
have decided it means whatever it must mean for your conclusions to
follow. But why should I buy into that?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-643">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-643">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 7:55 pm
</div>
Alexander said, “Physical objects ARE “copyrightable”.” <br />
Which are and which are not, and why? Oh, I get it, the ones that are homesteaded are copyrightable! <br />
Okay, again a plea to explain “homesteading” in some sensible nonarbitrary way.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-5" id="li-comment-649">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-649">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 4, 2014, 9:33 pm
</div>
“Physical objects ARE “copyrightable”. Please understand that,
correctly understood, “copyright” is simply a prohibition of trespass.
If you don’t understand, please review -”<br />
hahahhahah. are you stupid or dishonest or just ignorant?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-633">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-633">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 7:02 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=633#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Dave -<br />
By IP, I mean IP in general. According to my analysis, “copyright” is
valid property, because “copyright” only applies to homesteaded
objects. “Patent” is not valid property, because a “patent” applies to a
method by which homesteading COULD happen, but is not an act of
homesteading itself.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-5" id="li-comment-641">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-641">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 7:31 pm
</div>
“Homesteading” is a magic word for you, isn’t it? Writing a song
is homesteading. But writing a mathematical theorem, or designing a
bicycle, innovating language, or devising a scientific experiment are
not. I can copy a bike or a glass of orange juice, but not a song,
because the song was homesteaded in “intellectual space” but bicycles
and orange juice were not and cannot be homesteaded in intellectual
space. You’ve decided that “homestead” just means whatever you want it
to mean, and the contents of “intellectual space” are completely
arbitrary.<br />
Can I homestead molecules? If I developed a nanotech gizmo that
allowed me to construct molecules according to my imagination within the
constraints of physics, could I copyright the result? Songs are like
bicycles but words and notes are not like bicycle parts or molecules?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-652">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-652">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 5, 2014, 7:53 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=652#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Homesteading – acquiring legal title to ownership of a resource by
transforming previously un-owned matter into a more useful state.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-2" id="li-comment-653">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-653">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 5, 2014, 8:28 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=653#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Homesteading includes embordering, as Hoppe explains. It does not always involve “transforming.”<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-660">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-660">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 5, 2014, 10:17 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=660#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I certainly agree on “borders”, I use the term “bounded”. Yes, it
is imperative that we be able to understand what is inside, and what is
outside, the proposed property object. <br />
Rothbard, Hoppe and I disagree with you on “transform”. <br />
Rothbard: “For remember always the basic principle: that all
resources, all goods, in a state of no-ownership belong properly to the
first person who finds and transforms them into a useful good (the
“homestead” principle).”<br />
<a href="http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nine.asp" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nine.asp</a><br />
Hoppe: “In particular, once a good has first been appropriated or
homesteaded by mixing one’s labor with it (Locke’s phrase) then
ownership in it can only be acquired by means of a contractual transfer
of property title from a previous to a later owner . . .”<br />
Hoppe: “Finally, it would be equally impossible to engage in
argumenta- tion, if one were not allowed to appropriate in addition to
one’s body other scarce means through homesteading, i.e., by putting
them to use before someone else does, or if such means were not defined
in objective, physical terms.”<br />
<a href="http://library.mises.org/books/Hans-Hermann%20Hoppe/Economics%20and%20Ethics%20of%20Private%20Property%20Studies%20in%20Political%20Economy%20and%20Philosophy.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://library.mises.org/books/Hans-Hermann%20Hoppe/Economics%20and%20Ethics%20of%20Private%20Property%20Studies%20in%20Political%20Economy%20and%20Philosophy.pdf</a><br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-4" id="li-comment-661">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-661">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 5, 2014, 11:34 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=661#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“Rothbard, Hoppe and I disagree with you on “transform”.”<br />
Uh, no. Hoppe does not. He and I are in complete agreement on all
these matters. And as Hoppe was his best student, it is unlikely
Rothbard’s views are that different, though he did have malformed views
on IP. Unlike you, he had an excuse.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-662">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-662">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 5, 2014, 11:51 pm
</div>
Uh, was Hoppe misquoting himself? LFMAO.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-5" id="li-comment-666">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-666">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 6, 2014, 4:13 pm
</div>
I don’t understand your question.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-667">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-667">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 6, 2014, 4:56 pm
</div>
Hoppe uses Locke’s “mix the labor with the land”. That’s transformation. <br />
You say transformation is not necessary. Logically then, either Hoppe is misquoted above, or you’re wrong. So which is it?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-5" id="li-comment-669">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-669">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 6, 2014, 5:16 pm
</div>
“oppe uses Locke’s “mix the labor with the land”. That’s transformation.<br />
You say transformation is not necessary. Logically then, either Hoppe is misquoted above, or you’re wrong. So which is it?”<br />
Hoppe sees Lockean labor-mixing, transformation, as one type of
embordering. I was very clear on this from the outset. Primarily because
I am not trying to figure this out as I go, as you apparently are.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-670">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-670">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 6, 2014, 5:28 pm
</div>
A border is a dividing line between what is inside / outside the property. “Embordering” is making a border known to others. <br />
Transformation refers to re-arranging matter so that it better serves human needs. <br />
If I understand you, then defining a border around un-owned land,
while doing nothing useful with the land, is sufficient to establish a
property right?<br />
What would be an example of “embordering”, without “transforming into usefulness”?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-2" id="li-comment-659">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-659">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 5, 2014, 9:39 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=659#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Please help me understand how you distinguish between language
innovations, mathematical theorems, various sorts of designs, and
scientific concepts and experiments on one hand (not homesteadable),
and songs, novels, essays, poems, video recordings, audio recordings,
etc. (can be homesteaded, or at least correspond to “objects in
intellectual space” that have been homesteaded). Do you consider the
unhomesteadable items to be non-resources, pre-owned, unownable,
untransformed, untransformable, non-matter, or useless? Or maybe
something else prevents me from homesteading them?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-668">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-668">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 6, 2014, 5:05 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=668#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I distinguish between valid and invalid property claims by
applying the rules of property. I’ve given several examples in the
articles here. <br />
If you want to understand, you must apply. Choose a specific example
of a good to be analyzed, apply the key definitions, work forward, and
see what result you obtain. If you get stuck, I will correct and
complete your analysis. You will learn Intellectual Space, and in the
process I will learn how better to present my thesis.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-4" id="li-comment-676">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-676">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 7, 2014, 12:56 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=676#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Alexander, you are ducking again. Why can’t I homestead a
mathematical theorem? I think it is because you are using the term
“homestead” to beg the question, to arbitrarily determine that songs
may be property but other intangible goods may not, according to your
preconceived notions.<br />
How is deriving an original theorem different from writing a song, with
regard to homesteading? Both involve technical constraints, skill,
effort, creativity. Aesthetics will influence the song more than the
theorem, but that is not relevant. The main difference is, if I make use
of a theorem, no laws threaten me with punishment. I can use it to
write software, to develop further theorems, or to solve problems,
without the permission of the author. Why is there no neighborhood of
your “intellectual space” for mathematical theorems?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-679">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-679">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 7, 2014, 1:26 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=679#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
If the pattern of information ITSELF is the consumer good, then it
is rightful property. If the pattern merely describes HOW to make
something, then not.<br />
There IS a neighborhood in intellectual space for math theorems. Math
theorem are made of intellectual matter, and are considered
intellectual objects. Math theorems lack sufficient size, complexity and
usefulness to function as consumer goods. <br />
As I have explained ad nauseum, deciding when an object functions
sufficiently to warrant property requires a completely subjective,
arbitrary assessment of size, complexity, usefulness, originality, etc. <br />
Not every song is homesteadable. If I write a song that is only 4
melody notes, I can certainly say that it is a new song. But it is not
sufficiently large, complex and original enough to warrant property
rights. It’s too insignificant.<br />
Physical objects require precisely the same subjective, arbitrary assessments to assign property rights.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-2" id="li-comment-689">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-689">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 7, 2014, 2:25 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=689#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“Math theorems lack sufficient size, complexity and usefulness to function as consumer goods.”<br />
I’m just letting that sink in. Okay, consumers for such goods are a small group, I must admit. But they do exist.<br />
Some theorems are extremely useful. Public key Cryptography would not
exist without several theorems from number theory, and PKC is *very*
useful.<br />
I really doubt that mathematicians have any trouble generating more
complexity than one of your songs. At the very least they could beat
“Bebop a lula” or “Happy birthday.”<br />
So, if I advise the mathematicians to start making their theorems
bigger, will that satisfy you, and you will call for ownership of
mathematical theorems? This would be easy for them to do, though it
turns their tradition on its head.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-691">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-691">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 7, 2014, 3:24 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=691#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
If a math theorem is sufficiently complex and original, bounded,
useful, etc meeting all the specs, then it could be homesteaded. <br />
There is nothing magic about a “song” automatically making it
homesteadable, nor is there anything magical about a theorem making it
non-homesteadable. <br />
If you want to homestead a math theorem, then stake your claim, put up your fences, and defend it.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-4" id="li-comment-694">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-694">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 7, 2014, 6:42 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=694#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“If a math theorem is sufficiently complex and original, bounded,
useful, etc meeting all the specs, then it could be homesteaded.”<br />
So, you seem to finally admitting that all “sufficiently complex and
original, bounded, useful” intangible goods can homesteaded and owned.
So most of science and mathematics, of language, most useful products of
the mind should have been included in intellectual property and we
should all be paying license fees to speak English and do addition and
subtraction, except people were just too stupid to think of it, instead
of finding the idea horrifying, absurd, and impractical.<br />
I apologize for wasting your time, I didn’t think you actually
believed that. I guess that was my mistake, I kept expecting you to make
some lame distinction between songs and other intangible goods. But you
think anything can be owned.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-695">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-695">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 7, 2014, 6:57 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=695#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“As I have explained ad nauseum, deciding when an object functions
sufficiently to warrant property requires a completely subjective,
arbitrary assessment of size, complexity, usefulness, originality, etc.”<br />
If it was subjective and/or arbitrary, the legal system couldn’t handle it. Maybe you mean intersubjective? <br />
And it would face merely practical (not conceptual) limits, as
anything too small, simple, useless or boring would never bring a return
on invested effort. No need to prevent people from claiming ownership
of worthless garbage.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-3" id="li-comment-700">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-700">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 7, 2014, 2:53 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=700#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
So, I can sue you for trespass if you remove a speck of mortar from my block wall?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-703">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-703">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 7, 2014, 10:55 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=703#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I would be surprised if you bother. What sort of damages would you want? <br />
In a limited sense, you’re right, a court could dismiss a case
arbitrarily, even if the stakes are higher. The fact that there is a
practical limit doesn’t mean it is completely subjective and arbitrary.
If it was so subjective and arbitrary, maybe the court *would* punish me
disproportionately for some de minimis damage to your wall, or fail to
punish me for demolishing it.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-3" id="li-comment-701">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-701">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 7, 2014, 2:58 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=701#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
All property claims are based on purely subjective, arbitrary
assessments of borders, usefulness, transformation, size, complexity,
etc. <br />
See #3 here:<br />
<a href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/25/the-alleged-case-agains-intellectual-property/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/25/the-alleged-case-agains-intellectual-property/</a><br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-704">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-704">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 7, 2014, 11:24 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=704#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
You are exaggerating. You are spin doctoring the meaning of subjective and arbitrary.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-680">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-680">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 7, 2014, 1:31 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=680#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ David -<br />
If you are unwilling to apply yourself, you will never learn.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-693">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-693">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 7, 2014, 6:21 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=693#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
How can the song, the pattern of information, which does not exist
in the real world but only in intellectual space, how can it be
consumed directly? The MP3 file is not even the consumer good, it is
input to the process that produces the recorded performance which is the
consumer good. So the song in intellectual space is not a consumer good
and can’t be rightful property?<br />
So the design, the description of how to homestead something, can
never be “sufficiently complex and original, bounded, useful, etc” to be
homesteaded, is that it?<br />
Underneath the ambiguous terms, we are talking about inventing stuff,
right? So you’re saying, writing a song is homesteading, is “acquiring
legal title to ownership of a resource by transforming previously
un-owned matter into a more useful state.” And this “resource” is
intangible, it’s true form exists in intellectual space, which is not
part of the ordinary universe but a conceptual metaphysical realm. But
inventing the telephone was not homesteading, it was just creating a
description of how to make phones. There is no corresponding location in
design space or idea space or intellectual space to represent the idea
of a telephone or a design of a telephone, because that only tells us
how to “acquire legal title to ownership of a resource by transforming
previously un-owned matter into a more useful state” but when Bell
created that idea he did not actually “acquire legal title to ownership
of a resource by transforming previously un-owned matter into a more
useful state.”<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-690">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-690">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 7, 2014, 3:06 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=690#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“If the pattern of information ITSELF is the consumer good, then
it is rightful property. If the pattern merely describes HOW to make
something, then not.”<br />
And why is that?<br />
Because the former is an act of homesteading, the latter is merely a
description of how an act of homesteading could occur. Must be the 10th
time answering.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-705">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-705">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 7, 2014, 11:25 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/scarcity-arises-from-the-limitations-of-human-action/?replytocom=705#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Arbitrary.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ol>
<hr />
<br />
<br />
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-63137703944004767372014-09-20T09:41:00.000-07:002014-09-20T09:41:00.148-07:00The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, i.e. Property Rights<div class="article-text">
In attempting to distract from the vaccuous nature of his anti-IP theory, Stephan Kinsella offers <a href="http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/01/non-aggression-principle-as-a-limit-on-action/">“The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not Property Rights”.</a> This alleged distinction is the reddest of red herrings, and amounts to nothing more than semantics.<br />
The cornerstone of Kinsella’s thesis is that IP is invalid because
enforcing IP necessarily imposes restrictions on the use of physical
property by others.<br />
<blockquote>
“This is my pen, my ink, and my paper. Who are you to tell me I may not write down a copy of your book?”</blockquote>
As I and several others have pointed out, <em>all</em> property
imposes restrictions on the use of other property by other people, by
definition. A key element of any valid property claim is the right to
exclude other people from using the thing that is owned. You own your
car, but you may not drive on my land. I own my hammer, but I may not
smash your windshield.<br />
This is glaring problem for Kinsella. How can IP be invalid because
it imposes restrictions on the use of the physical property of others,
while physical property imposes the exact same kinds of restrictions?<br />
<br />
Thus, Kinsella equivocates the “action” / “property” dichotomy.
According to Kinsella, a valid property claim places restrictions on the
<em>action</em> of another, but does not impose restrictions on the <em>property rights</em>
of another. This is just silly. Obviously Kinsella wishes to attach one
term (“property rights”) to IP (so that it may be discredited), and a
different term (“action”) to PP (so that it is favored).<br />
<br />
As Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains, all human action involves the use of
the actor’s property. This flows directly from the right to
self-ownership. I may act, only because I have a property right in my
own human body. If we adopted universal communism, under which every
person owns an equal share of every other person, then no person could
act without the permission of everyone else. Since asking permission is
itself an act, no human action would be possible at all.<br />
<br />
<strong>There is no such thing as human action that does not involve
the use of the actor’s property. If I impose a restriction on your
action, then I also impose a restriction on the use of your property.
Period.</strong><br />
<br />
Adopting Kinsella’s semantics, we see that, as always, IP is no different than PP.<br />
<br />
When you copy my song, you are acting. My copyright disallows you the
ACTION of copying. OK? You still own your pen and paper. You still own
your computer. Copyright represents no physical invasion of any sort.
Copyright simply places a limitation on your actions, which, according
to Kinsella, is allowable under the law.<br />
<br />
<br />
----------<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol class="commentlist">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-594"><div class="comment_container" id="comment-594">
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 3, 2014, 3:15 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/the-non-aggression-principle-as-a-limit-on-action-i-e-property-rights/?replytocom=594#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
You simply repeat here arguments I already exposed as flawed in
the very post you link to. Sigh. I trust sensible readers to judge who
has the better argument. I will say that you mischaracterized my view,
in this sentence: “According to Kinsella, a valid property claim places
restrictions on the actions of another, but does not impose restrictions
on the property use of another. ”<br />
Hint: your insertion of the word “use” is the problem with your re-statement.<br />
As for your reliance on Hoppe–this is ironic. Given this:<br />
“Daily Bell: Where do you stand on copyright? Do you believe that intellectual property doesn’t exist as Kinsella has proposed?<br />
Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: I agree with my friend Kinsella, that the
idea of intellectual property rights is not just wrong and confused but
dangerous. And I have already touched upon why this is so. Ideas –
recipes, formulas, statements, arguments, algorithms, theorems,
melodies, patterns, rhythms, images, etc. – are certainly goods (insofar
as they are good, not bad, recipes, etc.), but they are not scarce
goods. Once thought and expressed, they are free, inexhaustible goods. I
whistle a melody or write down a poem, you hear the melody or read the
poem and reproduce or copy it. In doing so you have not taken anything
away from me. I can whistle and write as before. In fact, the entire
world can copy me and yet nothing is taken from me. (If I didn’t want
anyone to copy my ideas I only have to keep them to myself and never
express them.)<br />
Now imagine I had been granted a property right in my melody or poem
such that I could prohibit you from copying it or demanding a royalty
from you if you do. First: Doesn’t that imply, absurdly, that I, in
turn, must pay royalties to the person (or his heirs) who invented
whistling and writing, and further on to those, who invented
sound-making and language, and so on? Second: In preventing you from or
making you pay for whistling my melody or reciting my poem, I am
actually made a (partial) owner of you: of your physical body, your
vocal chords, your paper, your pencil, etc. because you did not use
anything but your own property when you copied me. If you can no longer
copy me, then, this means that I, the intellectual property owner, have
expropriated you and your “real” property. Which shows: intellectual
property rights and real property rights are incompatible, and the
promotion of intellectual property must be seen as a most dangerous
attack on the idea of “real” property (in scarce goods).<br />
Daily Bell: We have suggested that if people want to enforce
generational copyright that they do so on their own, taking on the
expense and attempting through various means to confront copyright
violators with their own resources. This would put the onus of
enforcement on the pocket book of the individual. Is this a viable
solution – to let the market itself decide these issues?<br />
Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: That would go a long way in the right
direction. Better still: more and more courts in more and more
countries, especially countries outside the orbit of the US dominated
Western government cartel, would make it clear that they don’t hear
cases of copyright and patent violations any longer and regard such
complaints as a ruse of big Western government-connected firms, such as
pharmaceutical companies, for instance, to enrich themselves at the
expense of other people.<br />
”<br />
Hoppe Interview on Anarchy and Intellectual Property: <a href="http://c4sif.org/2011/03/hoppe-interview-on-anarchy-and-intellectual-property/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://c4sif.org/2011/03/hoppe-interview-on-anarchy-and-intellectual-property/</a><br />
See also Hoppe on Intellectual Property c4sif.org/2010/12/hoppe-on-intellectual-property/<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-595">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-595">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 3, 2014, 3:28 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/the-non-aggression-principle-as-a-limit-on-action-i-e-property-rights/?replytocom=595#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Kinsella – It is my sincere desire to characterize your position
accurately. Please rewrite the passage(s) in which I state your view. I
will substitute the correct version into this article, with a footnote
to explain the revision.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-596">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-596">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 3, 2014, 3:37 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/the-non-aggression-principle-as-a-limit-on-action-i-e-property-rights/?replytocom=596#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
YOu said: ” “According to Kinsella, a valid property claim places
restrictions on the actions of another, but does not impose restrictions
on the property use of another. ””<br />
But property rights of others *do* place restrictions on my *use* of
my property–but that is not al imitation on my property rights. As i
pointed out, others’ property rights place limits on what I can
*do*–using *whatever* means I have at my disposal, whether it’s just my
body, or some other scarce means, whether i own the means or not. The
limitation has nothing to do with my property rights. If you own your
body I have no right to punch it with my first, to stab it with my
knife, or with a stolen knife. The limitation is on my action and this
does *not* mean that my ownership of a knife is “limited” by your
property rights.<br />
You guys want to point to things we are not permitted to do–because
of property rights (!)–as a reason to restrict property rights. Thus,
when I point out that your IP ideas would restrict my property rights,
you say “well what’s the big deal, all property rights are limited.” but
htey are not. It is actions that are limited.<br />
You instead should argue “well property rights always restrict
actions others can perform.” And then you would argue: “so therefore if
IP in a song means you can’t perform certain actions, how can you
object?” The reply is this: first, just b/c property rights limit some
actions you can perform, does not mean that *any* restrictions on action
are unobjectionalble. Second, this would make it clear you are
question-begging, since you are trying to show that there are property
rights in patterns of information, by showing that it’s okay to restrict
people’s actions with respect to other, noncontroversial forms of
property rights. So you are just question begging. You have to assume
property rights in ideas are legitimate to say that it’s legitimate ot
restrict people’s actions. You can’t reverse it, which is what you are
trying to do, which is just a muddy form of equivocation and
question-begging.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-616">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-616">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 3:16 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/the-non-aggression-principle-as-a-limit-on-action-i-e-property-rights/?replytocom=616#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Kinsella -<br />
“You have to assume property rights in ideas are legitimate to say that it’s legitimate ot restrict people’s actions. ”<br />
Just as . . .<br />
You have to assume property rights in physical things are legitimate to say that it’s legitimate ot restrict people’s actions.<br />
As always, IP and PP operate identically.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-2" id="li-comment-617">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-617">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 4, 2014, 3:21 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/the-non-aggression-principle-as-a-limit-on-action-i-e-property-rights/?replytocom=617#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“@ Kinsella -<br />
“You have to assume property rights in ideas are legitimate to say that it’s legitimate ot restrict people’s actions. ”<br />
Just as . . .<br />
You have to assume property rights in physical things are legitimate to say that it’s legitimate ot restrict people’s actions.”<br />
Yes, Baker, but presumably, we *do not disagree on this*. So why do
you bring it up? The subject under contention is whether there ought to
be property rights in other things. We arleady agree in rights in
physical things–or are you going to back off on this too, now?<br />
“As always, IP and PP operate identically.”<br />
Well, slavery laws operate “identically” too. I mean if you own a
human, such as a Jew, you can make jew lampshades from them. It’s your
right. Amiright? So… it’s kind of irrelevant to the humanitarian and
the liberal whether they “operate identically.”<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-619">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-619">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 3:50 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/the-non-aggression-principle-as-a-limit-on-action-i-e-property-rights/?replytocom=619#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Kinsella -<br />
My approach is to apply one consistent standard in analyzing the legitimacy of property, whether physical or intangible. <br />
Your approach is to apply two different standards – one for analyzing
physical property, and the other for analyzing intangible property. <br />
If you wish to show that IP is invalid, shouldn’t you apply exactly
the same standard which already shows physical property to be valid? <br />
That’s why I “bring it up”.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-4" id="li-comment-631">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-631">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 6:52 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/the-non-aggression-principle-as-a-limit-on-action-i-e-property-rights/?replytocom=631#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Baker -<br />
But your standard is not consistent. You object to people copying songs, but you do not object to people copying bicycles.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-635">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-635">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 7:07 pm
</div>
That is because “copying” is not the legal issue. The legal issue
is trespass. “Copying” something may or may not be trespass. It is
trespass that is illegal, not “copying” per se. <br />
Copying my song is trespass in intellectual space, copying a bike is not.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-636">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-636">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 7:09 pm
</div>
If you walk on my land, you are trespassing. That doesn’t mean
that “walking” is the legal issue. Trespass is the issue. Do you see?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-638">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-638">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 7:12 pm
</div>
@ Baker –<br />
You give the conclusion but no argument. Why is copying a bicycle not
trespass, if copying a song is trespass and IP and PP are identical?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-5" id="li-comment-648">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-648">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 9:10 pm
</div>
Alexander said, “If you walk on my land, you are trespassing. That
doesn’t mean that “walking” is the legal issue. Trespass is the issue.
Do you see?”<br />
So again homesteading is the issue. Does that make your standard
consistent? Why can you homestead teh song, but no one can homestead the
bike? Or maybe some bikes can be homesteaded but others can’t?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-620">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-620">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 4, 2014, 4:07 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/03/the-non-aggression-principle-as-a-limit-on-action-i-e-property-rights/?replytocom=620#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
@ Kinsella -<br />
You are the one who claims that IP and PP operate differently. You
claim that IP interferes with valid property rights of others, while PP
merely restricts the actions of others. <br />
As I’ve shown, IP and PP operate the same. You appear to be close to acknowledging as much.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ol>
<hr />
<br />
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-39387809375026157422014-09-20T09:37:00.001-07:002014-09-20T09:37:48.958-07:00Copyright Enforcement is Property Enforcement<div class="article-text">
Steven Andrew Stalma asks:<br />
<blockquote>
Could you explain how force should be used against someone who copies your music?</blockquote>
Unauthorized copying is a form a trespass. It’s like sneaking into a
factory and using the machines to make widgets for yourself. It’s like
“borrowing” someone’s car without permission, then returning it.<br />
Trespassers may be sued under tort law. How a free society will
provide a legal system is a great discussion. But whatever your solution
for trespass, that’s the solution.<br />
<blockquote>
How can there be an objective measure of justice in such a matter?</blockquote>
Assessing and enforcing a just remedy is a standard problem in tort
law. Money damages is the simplest and most common remedy (you pay him X
dollars). There are injunctions (stop doing X), as well as others.<br />
None of this is in any way unique to intangible property.<br />
<br />
<br />
------------<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol class="commentlist">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-davidmontgomery even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-570"><div class="comment_container" id="comment-570">
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/davidmontgomery/" rel="external nofollow">David Montgomery</a> September 2, 2014, 4:26 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=570#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Alexander, this isn’t an article. It’s a forum discussion: <a href="http://liberty.me/discuss/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://liberty.me/discuss/</a><br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-danielshafrir odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-572">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-572">
<img alt="Avatar of Daniel Shafrir" class="avatar user-568-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/568/2918a9f7ea5c32404ff94cef85f508c6-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/danielshafrir/" rel="external nofollow">Daniel Shafrir</a> September 2, 2014, 1:05 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=572#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
It’s also easily addressed by saying that copying is not stealing. Have you read Kinsella’s “Against Intellectual Property”?<br />
A good suggestion for an article wood be to refute the points made by
Kinsella and his peers on this subject so that one could even discuss
whether this is trespass let alone what one can do to deal with it.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-575">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-575">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 2, 2014, 2:13 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=575#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“A good suggestion for an article wood be to refute the points
made by Kinsella and his peers on this subject so that one could even
discuss whether this is trespass let alone what one can do to deal with
it.”<br />
Great minds think alike Daniel. See:<br />
<a href="https://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/25/the-alleged-case-agains-intellectual-property/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/25/the-alleged-case-agains-intellectual-property/</a><br />
For more, see:<br />
<a href="https://homesteadip.liberty.me/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://homesteadip.liberty.me/</a><br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-danielshafrir odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-589">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-589">
<img alt="Avatar of Daniel Shafrir" class="avatar user-568-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/568/2918a9f7ea5c32404ff94cef85f508c6-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/danielshafrir/" rel="external nofollow">Daniel Shafrir</a> September 3, 2014, 5:41 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=589#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Sorry. Should have dug deeper before commenting. I now saw the
article and the 92(!!!) comments on it. I disagree wholeheartedly with
what you say and your conclusions, but the debate has raged long enough
(with you on your article and between others in different places) so I
won’t rehash comments.<br />
While I disagree with what you say, I apologize for assuming you hadn’t
started off with refuting the arguments before laying out the
presumption that damages should be paid.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-4" id="li-comment-608">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-608">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 4, 2014, 12:34 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=608#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Do you think he refuted the arguments, or knocked down some strawmen?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-rogerribuck odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-573">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-573">
<img alt="Avatar of Roger Browne" class="avatar user-586-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/586/fe5adb238335d4b8009d35b57d1dab12-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/rogerribuck/" rel="external nofollow">Roger Browne</a> September 2, 2014, 1:48 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=573#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“Unauthorized copying is … like sneaking into a factory and using the machines to make widgets for yourself.”<br />
No Alexander, your analogy is wrong and misleading. Unauthorized
copying would be buying a widget and using your own factory to make more
widgets for yourself.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-574">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-574">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 2, 2014, 2:06 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=574#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
A factory is a productive capacity that makes that lowers the
per-unit cost of manufacturing widgets. It is possible to build cars one
at a time, without a factory. But the existence of the factory allows
mass-production, making each car far less costly to build. <br />
If you own just a car, you do not have the ability to mass-produce
cars cheaply. However, if you own a car AND a car factory, now you can
mass-produce cars very cheaply. <br />
If a song file is not a factory, then how did you gain the ability to cheaply mass-produce song copies? <br />
If you own your own song factory, then why did you not have the ability to mass-produce song-copies prior to obtaining the file?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stevenstalma odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-585">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-585">
<img alt="Avatar of Steven Andrew Stalma" class="avatar user-1218-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1218/ee8b3743d23cde7e37e795e9e2ad19a9-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stevenstalma/" rel="external nofollow">Steven Andrew Stalma</a> September 2, 2014, 11:19 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=585#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“It’s like sneaking into a factory and using the machines to make
widgets for yourself. It’s like “borrowing” someone’s car without
permission, then returning it.”<br />
Very clever.<br />
Consider this, if I am using your machines at night, or stealing your
car, I would be depriving you of the full 100% use of that
thing–regardless of if you knew I was doing it or not.<br />
The above examples are forms of trespass because as the owner, you’re being denied the full use of said things. <br />
What if you come out at night and find your car is missing? And you catch the thief when he returns it?<br />
And what if the factory decides to schedule an early morning shift to come in–and the trespasser is discovered?<br />
In both of these cases–upon being discovered–the party who has been
trespassed against would be depriving the property owners of the full
100% use of their thing. Not only that, but it is in effect stealing
gasoline and electricity as well. And causing wear on the machines.<br />
Where as with my digital copy of your tracks, you still retain at all times 100% full agency over them.<br />
It does not cost you anything.<br />
And clearly it causes no wear or extra useage to what you have, right?<br />
Once you release digital good into the world, there is nothing you can do stop people from making copies and giving them away.<br />
To argue against this is to say that you could sue someone who sings your songs live.<br />
So my question is this, and if you plan on responding to me, please answer me this one simple question:<br />
If you discovered that I was giving away your audio tracks for free,
and I refused to pay you a dime, would you have me locked in jail? <br />
Yes or No. I need to know who I am dealing with here.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stevenstalma even depth-2" id="li-comment-586">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-586">
<img alt="Avatar of Steven Andrew Stalma" class="avatar user-1218-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1218/ee8b3743d23cde7e37e795e9e2ad19a9-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stevenstalma/" rel="external nofollow">Steven Andrew Stalma</a> September 3, 2014, 1:03 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=586#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
My apologies, edit:<br />
In both of these cases–upon being discovered–the party who HAS
TRESPASSED would be depriving the property owners of the full 100% use
of their thing. Not only that, but it is in effect stealing gasoline and
electricity as well. And causing wear on the machines.<br />
Sorry.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-587">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-587">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 3, 2014, 1:33 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=587#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Copying deprives the owner of the full 100% use of their thing. Thank you for correctly expressing usage as a percentage. <br />
And copying causes wear and tear on the song as well (subject of a new article).<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-2" id="li-comment-588">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-588">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 3, 2014, 4:48 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=588#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
More metaphors. The only way to have exclusive possession of
information is to keep it secret. Copying deprives no one of anything
that they actually have. The physical medium that records some
information may become worn or torn. Abstractions are not physical and
so do not get worn or torn.<br />
Why does Alexander insist on using metaphor? Because his argument would sound absurd if he said what he meant.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-danielshafrir odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-591">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-591">
<img alt="Avatar of Daniel Shafrir" class="avatar user-568-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/568/2918a9f7ea5c32404ff94cef85f508c6-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/danielshafrir/" rel="external nofollow">Daniel Shafrir</a> September 3, 2014, 5:56 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=591#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
If you want to take it that way (and basing on logic used in your
other article and in comments to it), then copying deprives the owner of
the full 100% of his own copy. If he sold at least one copy to someone
who then shared it, then the sharer is being deprived of the full 100%
of THEIR copy (not of the original copy). The original artist who
created his copy voluntarily gave up one of his copies in exchange for
money.<br />
I agree with your critics here and in the other article. The arguments
don’t hold water. Or rather I should say your metaphors don’t hold
water. And the only way the logic works is by using weird metaphors, as
Dave noted. For instance “wear and tear” on the song is a nice metaphor
that will make people think that the more I share the more the original
gets depreciated. Well in that case I shouldn’t re-listen to my
fully-paid-for music, lest I trespass against the artist’s property.
Heck, I shouldn’t even hum it on the bus. Or for instance the whole
“song factory” analysis above. None of that made sense to me. Anyone who
has a laptop has a song factory. Maybe not an “original-song factory”
but a “copy-song factory”. You imply that having a factory that produces
clones of pre-existing goods are illegitimate. What about drug
companies that make generics of others’ brand-name drugs? Same thing.
You cried out requesting that your detractors have same rules for IP and
PP and yet you don’t do it yourself.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stevenstalma even depth-3" id="li-comment-663">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-663">
<img alt="Avatar of Steven Andrew Stalma" class="avatar user-1218-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1218/ee8b3743d23cde7e37e795e9e2ad19a9-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stevenstalma/" rel="external nofollow">Steven Andrew Stalma</a> September 6, 2014, 12:08 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=663#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I was going to reply, but then I realized someone had made the point I had in mind before I could:<br />
“If you want to take it that way (and basing on logic used in your
other article and in comments to it), then copying deprives the owner of
the full 100% of his own copy. If he sold at least one copy to someone
who then shared it, then the sharer is being deprived of the full 100%
of THEIR copy (not of the original copy). The original artist who
created his copy voluntarily gave up one of his copies in exchange for
money.”<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-665">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-665">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 6, 2014, 12:30 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=665#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
The copier does not obtain a property right, because the copier
did not homestead the property. The songwriter is the homesteader. No
matter how many song-copies are made, there is still only one song . . .
<br />
Just as . . .<br />
No matter how many bicycle copies are made, there is still only one factory.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-592">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-592">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 3, 2014, 6:33 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=592#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“Anyone who has a laptop has a song factory.”<br />
Sorry Daniel, but that’s ridiculous. How on earth could you with your
laptop produce a song, prior to the composer writing the song?<br />
The ability to mass-produce copies of a song comes into existence AFTER the song is (1) written and (2) recorded.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stevenstalma odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-664">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-664">
<img alt="Avatar of Steven Andrew Stalma" class="avatar user-1218-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1218/ee8b3743d23cde7e37e795e9e2ad19a9-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stevenstalma/" rel="external nofollow">Steven Andrew Stalma</a> September 6, 2014, 12:11 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=664#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
How about this one Alexander:<br />
If someone made a replicator device, like in the Star Trek series, should we ban this device?<br />
Because the classic Star Trek replicator does exactly what my laptop can do to audio files: it creates an exact copy.<br />
So to be consistent with your point of view, would this device
infringe upon the first owner’s full usage of the original item that was
replicated?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-danielshafrir even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-603">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-603">
<img alt="Avatar of Daniel Shafrir" class="avatar user-568-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/568/2918a9f7ea5c32404ff94cef85f508c6-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/danielshafrir/" rel="external nofollow">Daniel Shafrir</a> September 3, 2014, 8:21 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/09/02/35/?replytocom=603#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Read on. I said a copy song factory. Read it all in context, please.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ol>
<br />
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-82937129709772578162014-09-20T09:33:00.001-07:002014-09-20T09:35:52.251-07:00Trashing Anti-Copyright Strawmen #1Liberty.me member Joseph Fetz has chimed in trying to defend<b> Intellectual Communism. </b><br />
Fetz (quoted), is one of Kinsella’s favorite arguments, necessitating my responses (interspersed).
<br />
<blockquote>
“Own” [a song] is begging the question. Sure, we can
prove who owns a truck by regressing through property titles and
transactions of that scarce resource. However, if I have a recording of a
song, one that I found on the internet and downloaded, what criteria
proves ownership?</blockquote>
Ownership of a song is proven by regressing through property titles and transactions of that scarce resource, just like a truck.<br />
<blockquote>
It would seem to me that ownership derives from first appropriation.</blockquote>
Absolutely correct. Rightful ownership accrues according to the homestead principle. Hence the URL of my thesis “Homestead IP”.<br />
<blockquote>
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.</blockquote>
The diatonic scale is a series of sound wave frequencies, like 440
cycles per second. Nobody invented frequencies. Waves are a naturally
occurring phenomenon, like aluminum sitting dormant in the hillside.
There is an infinite supply of “notes” (particular frequencies) that
anyone may use in building a musical composition, if one is willing and
able to do the hard work necessary. Similarly, there is an infinite
supply of aluminum in the hillside that anyone may use in building a
bicycle, if one is willing and able to do the hard work necessary.<br />
<br />
“Musical notes” pre-exist man, are non-scarce, thus non-ownable. A
new song is created by an individual, from previously un-owned raw
material, and transformed into a useful and unique new object.<br />
<br />
“Aluminum” is not own-able. A bicycle made of aluminum is own-able. Why? It was homesteaded.<br />
<br />
“The English Language” is not own-able. A unique original story made of English words is own-able. Why? It was homesteaded.<br />
<br />
“The Diatonic Scale” is not own-able. A unique song made of diatonic notes is own-able. Why? It was homesteaded.<br />
<blockquote>
To take [Alexander Baker's pro-copyright] 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?</blockquote>
A pattern of information is own-able, the supply of raw material from
which the pattern is constructed is not own-able. Please stop
conflating the two. It’s a strawman argument.<br />
<br />
<br />
---------<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol class="commentlist">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-536"><div class="comment_container" id="comment-536">
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 1, 2014, 9:38 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/29/intellectual-commies-trashing-a-few-strawmen/?replytocom=536#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Saying that “the diatonic scale is a series of sound wave
frequencies” is like saying that musical notation is a bunch of dots and
lines on paper. The diatonic scale was definitely invented. <br />
If you can homestead a song, why couldn’t someone homestead English?
All you need is a slightly more tyrannical mechanism than the current
copyright regime. <br />
All this talk of homesteading and raw material is just metaphor. What
you’re trying to say is, you compose a song and it takes effort and
skill. And then you would like to sell use of the song. You wish to sell
the means to copy the song, yet prevent people from copying it. And
because copying technology has advanced so far, this is getting
difficult. So you want the state (or a DRO) to give you a way to
penalize people who make copies or samples or mashups or sing your song
without your permission, whether or not they have entered an agreement
with you.</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-541">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-541">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 1, 2014, 1:55 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/29/intellectual-commies-trashing-a-few-strawmen/?replytocom=541#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Yes, “talk of homesteading and raw material is just metaphor.”
That’s true of the “physical ” universe just as much as the intangible
universe. there is no such thing as a “car”, or a “machine” or any
“object”. There are only disturbances in the quantuum field which
somehow collapse waves into sub-atomic particles, as far as we are
beginning to understand nature. <br />
Yes, composing a song (or building a factory) takes “effort and
skill”. In other words, the consumption of scarce resources. It also
requires the use of language (or sub-atomic “particles”), an infinite
resource.</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-542">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-542">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 1, 2014, 2:03 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/29/intellectual-commies-trashing-a-few-strawmen/?replytocom=542#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“So you want the state (or a DRO) to give you a way to penalize
people who make copies or samples or mashups or sing your song without
your permission, whether or not they have entered an agreement with
you.”<br />
Yes, the law exists to resolve property disputes. If we have an
agreement, property disputes are governed under contract law. If not,
then tort law. <br />
A free society will certainly have a legal system. The understanding
of legal principles that evolves from the decisions of courts over time
is something we might call “Common Law”.</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-554">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-554">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 2, 2014, 12:22 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/29/intellectual-commies-trashing-a-few-strawmen/?replytocom=554#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Was any of that relevant? Why do you never answer when I ask about
the difference between “homesteading” a song and “homesteading”
language, math, industrial design, or science? <br />
The mechanism of law enforcement is sufficiently arbitrary. It seems
to me that “homesteading” describes the ambition of the French
government toward the French language pretty well. The problem is, it is
immoral, absurd, and impractical, not impossible.</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-560">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-560">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 2, 2014, 1:58 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/29/intellectual-commies-trashing-a-few-strawmen/?replytocom=560#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I did answer you Dave. In fact, I posted the answer as its own article. <br />
<a href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/31/when-is-a-pattern-property/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/31/when-is-a-pattern-property/</a><br />
A “poem” is an object, built by an individual. “Language” is the raw
material from which the poem is built. A “bicycle” is an object, built
by an individual. “Aluminum” is the raw material from which the the
bicycle is built. <br />
“Language” is an infinite resource. “Aluminum” is an infinite resource.</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-563">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-563">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 2, 2014, 2:29 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/29/intellectual-commies-trashing-a-few-strawmen/?replytocom=563#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
A metaphor is not an argument.</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-3" id="li-comment-571">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-571">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 2, 2014, 4:27 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/29/intellectual-commies-trashing-a-few-strawmen/?replytocom=571#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Tweak the semantics and restate your claim as, a performance is an
object, built by performers or by a machine. A song is then raw
material.</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-723">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-723">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" height="60" width="60" />
<br />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> September 8, 2014, 5:43 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/29/intellectual-commies-trashing-a-few-strawmen/?replytocom=723#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Alexander, aren’t you into Mises and Rothbard? Human action
involves using knowledge, patterns, information, etc. to guide action.
These things are applied to scarce means.<br />
Why do you want to create artificial scarcity where it doesn’t exist? Why do you want to limit freedom unnecessarily?</div>
</div>
</li>
</ol>
<hr />
<h3 class="comment-reply-title" id="reply-title">
Thoughts? Comments? </h3>
<div class="comment-form-comment">
<textarea cols="45" id="comment" name="comment" rows="8" style="width: 90%;"></textarea></div>
<div class="form-submit">
</div>
<div class="comment-subscription-form">
<input checked="checked" id="subscribe_comments" name="subscribe_comments" style="-moz-appearance: checkbox; -webkit-appearance: checkbox; width: auto;" type="checkbox" value="subscribe" /> <label class="subscribe-label" for="subscribe_comments" id="subscribe-label">Notify me of follow-up comments by email.</label></div>
<div class="comment-subscription-form">
<input id="subscribe_blog" name="subscribe_blog" style="-moz-appearance: checkbox; -webkit-appearance: checkbox; width: auto;" type="checkbox" value="subscribe" /> <label class="subscribe-label" for="subscribe_blog" id="subscribe-blog-label">Notify me of new posts by email.</label></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-72186782372364192252014-09-20T09:30:00.003-07:002014-09-20T09:31:28.481-07:00Intangible Good ARE Rivalrous (nushell)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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
------------<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2>
95 Comments</h2>
<ol class="commentlist">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mattgilliland even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-424">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-424">
<img alt="Avatar of Matt Gilliland" class="avatar user-41-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/41/b3bb2298561b5bc786d9cf428861e4d5-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mattgilliland/" rel="external nofollow">Matt Gilliland</a> August 25, 2014, 7:58 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=424#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
You have the right to use the song. You do NOT have a right to
achieve a specific purpose by the use, i.e., to sell copies to
particular people, because that would imply a property right in those
people. You have a right to offer the song for sale, but the fact that
someone else is offering it for sale does not violate any actual
property rights you possess.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-430">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-430">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> August 25, 2014, 11:40 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=430#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Matt, you are absolutely correct. As a songwriter, I do not have a
claim on a single penny of anyone else’s money. I DO have a claim on
100% of the sales, whether that ends up being $1,000,000 or nothing.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mattgilliland even depth-3" id="li-comment-431">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-431">
<img alt="Avatar of Matt Gilliland" class="avatar user-41-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/41/b3bb2298561b5bc786d9cf428861e4d5-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mattgilliland/" rel="external nofollow">Matt Gilliland</a> August 25, 2014, 11:42 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=431#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
You’ve asserted that, but you haven’t established it. If I make
something of the same configuration (be it a song, book, or whatever)
with my resources, then I have the right to the sales.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-464">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-464">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> August 26, 2014, 6:18 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=464#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
You don’t have a right to “sales.” What a ridiculous claim. A
“sale” is a transaction between you and a person who wishes to pay you
money for some action or service. You have no right to a transaction.
This is the central problem with your approach, which is severely
flawed–in fact which would undermine property rights. To have a right to
a sale, is to have a right to a transaction–a possible future event–and
presumbly to the money you “could have” or “would have” made. I.e. this
is a claim to a property right in future property owned by potential
customers. But you have no property right in things owned by others.
This is really totally illiberal reasoning.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-4" id="li-comment-514">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-514">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> August 29, 2014, 4:48 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=514#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
<a href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Kinsella</a>
– Of course I have a right to sales. Good grief. If you own a truck,
don’t you have the right to sell it? Of course you do. You have a right
to 100% of the proceeds from the sale of your truck.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-josephfetz odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-516">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-516">
<img alt="Avatar of Joseph Fetz" class="avatar user-577-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/7313af1d26cdddf2b679a33a9c0a32f4?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/josephfetz/" rel="external nofollow">Joseph Fetz</a> August 29, 2014, 8:15 am
</div>
“Own” is begging the question. Sure, we can prove who owns a truck
by regressing through property titles and transactions of that scarce
resource. However, if I have a recording of a song, one that I found on
the internet and downloaded, what criteria proves ownership? <br />
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. <br />
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?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-5" id="li-comment-545">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-545">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 1, 2014, 3:06 pm
</div>
Saying you have a right to contractually provided for proceeds
from the sale of a truck does not mean you in general have a “right to
sales,” any more than your right to receive money from the buyer means
you have a general “right to money”.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-547">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-547">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 1, 2014, 5:21 pm
</div>
<a href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@Kinsella</a>,<br />
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. <br />
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. <br />
Crucial here is my point, which you Intellectual Commies ignore: <br />
Both of the above points (no claim on other’s property, right to
sell) apply precisely the same to intangible goods as physical goods.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-5" id="li-comment-548">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-548">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> September 1, 2014, 6:39 pm
</div>
“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.”<br />
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.<br />
“Both of the above points (no claim on other’s property, right to
sell) apply precisely the same to intangible goods as physical goods.”<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-556">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-556">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 2, 2014, 12:50 am
</div>
Us Intellectual Commies? Comrade, have you defected? I thought you
denied the justice of patents or ownership of language, science, math
and other pure knowledge! From each according to his willingness, to
each according to his curiousity!<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-425">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-425">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> August 25, 2014, 8:38 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=425#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Matt is exactly right. To say you have a right to “sell copies” is
just a disguised way of saying you have a property right in others’
bodies and owned resources. It’s to claim a property right in future
potential revenue–i.e. in the money owned by possible future customers.
But there is no such right. IP is simply protectionism–protection from
competition, and censorship.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-fooquuxman odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-429">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-429">
<img alt="Avatar of Foo Quuxman" class="avatar user-3212-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/f46812b4ee575ba06d2d8a70ba305627?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/fooquuxman/" rel="external nofollow">Foo Quuxman</a> August 25, 2014, 11:28 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=429#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
More to the point, if someone has a “right to be paid for their
creations” then it must be illegal to compete with any business, even
indirectly. Because any competition diminishes the value that they can
earn from it.<br />
There is a very deep rabbit hole here, too bad few people follow it to see what it implies.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-3" id="li-comment-515">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-515">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> August 29, 2014, 4:50 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=515#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
No creator has a right to be paid.<br />
Every creator has a right to sell his creation.<br />
If he can sell it, he will be paid.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-434">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-434">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> August 25, 2014, 11:47 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=434#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Kinsella, my selling song copies is just a form of rent-seeking.
If that’s a claim against “others’ bodies and owned resources”, then so
is any other product or rent or anything sold on the market. <br />
Other than the mere fact that my songs are intangible, they are just like physical property in every way.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-3" id="li-comment-450">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-450">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 7:36 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=450#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
So why is it that if you sell me a song and a cigarette, I can
roll another cigarette as similar to that one as I like, but I can’t
record a song like yours without your permission?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-427">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-427">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 25, 2014, 10:16 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=427#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
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. Insisting that once
a creator releases their work to the public that creator ceases to have
any rights to expect profit for their work merely discourages
creativity.<br />
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.<br />
Claiming that a creator has absolutely no right to expect at least this
much consideration is to reject the concepts of morals and manners.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-2" id="li-comment-447">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-447">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 7:12 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=447#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
A creator can sell or not sell. She can do a kickstarter campaign
or ask for donations, she can make it convenient to pay, do live gigs,
etc. etc. What is rude is for her to demand control over my PC, over
what research I can do, what I can think, say, sing, encrypt, decrypt,
reverse-engineer, play, sample, mash up or record.<br />
The creator of a pure idea has no right to control it, once she reveals it.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-467">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-467">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> August 26, 2014, 8:07 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=467#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“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. ”<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 even depth-3" id="li-comment-475">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-475">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 9:35 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=475#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
So, Stephen, how has this claim been debunked? Your frustration
tells me that you have to go through this repeatedly. Are people like me
just ignorant, or is there a deficiency in your argument that you have
not yet noticed, and which you may want to address?<br />
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?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-478">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-478">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> August 26, 2014, 9:42 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=478#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I am frustrated; I tire of googling my old stuff for people. Do it
yourself. Yes, you are just ignorant. You should be careful about
making pronouncements in such areas that you are just figuring out. IMO.<br />
you are free to add passwords to whatever you want. That has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 even depth-5" id="li-comment-482">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-482">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 10:08 pm
</div>
Have you carefully read all of my comments before you proclaimed me to be the source of your frustration?<br />
“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. ”<br />
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.”<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-486">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-486">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> August 26, 2014, 10:25 pm
</div>
“Have you carefully read all of my comments before you proclaimed me to be the source of your frustration?”<br />
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.<br />
“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.”<br />
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.”<br />
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. <br />
“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.”<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-4" id="li-comment-489">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-489">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 10:37 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=489#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Passwords obviously are allowed (though it may not be a practical
idea to punish our customers). The only question is, if someone cracks
your password system, or buys a copy and leaks the cleartext
(intentionally or otherwise), what are you entitled to then?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-490">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-490">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 10:40 pm
</div>
I suppose you could ask the same question of the chance of someone cracking your safe and taking your cash.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-5" id="li-comment-501">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-501">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 27, 2014, 1:11 am
</div>
Cracking passwords and safes would be very analogous, if the owner of the safe put their safe out in public.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-432">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-432">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 25, 2014, 11:42 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=432#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Foo, competition makes for higher quality. Profiting by someone
else’s labor while diminishing their profit potential is something else.<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mattgilliland even depth-2" id="li-comment-433">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-433">
<img alt="Avatar of Matt Gilliland" class="avatar user-41-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/41/b3bb2298561b5bc786d9cf428861e4d5-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mattgilliland/" rel="external nofollow">Matt Gilliland</a> August 25, 2014, 11:46 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=433#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
All my published works are released with a CC0 or CC-BY-SA
license. I’ve still managed to make a decent amount of money with them.<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-437">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-437">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> August 26, 2014, 12:00 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=437#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Matt, <br />
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. <br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-4" id="li-comment-468">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-468">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> August 26, 2014, 8:09 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=468#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Baker fails to marshal an argument, notice. He just says “if A is
right, X would be reduced to charity.” What kind of argument is that? Is
the libertarian theory of rights based on arguments about what should
not be charity?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-476">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-476">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 9:38 pm
</div>
Alexander seems to be talking about incentive. This appears to be a
clear and simple argument: Reduce the incentive to produce and you
reduce the production.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-5" id="li-comment-494">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-494">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> August 26, 2014, 11:05 pm
</div>
So what is the argument, Vroman? Property rights should be
determined by economic analysis of incentives? Is that what you are
saying?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-495">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-495">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 11:16 pm
</div>
No, Stephen, I said that reducing the incentive to produce reduces
production. Whatever that incentive is, whether money, satisfaction,
status, or anything else, when it either increases or decreases,
production will follow.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-5" id="li-comment-496">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-496">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> August 26, 2014, 11:21 pm
</div>
“No, Stephen”<br />
My name is Stephan. Not Stephen, not Steven, not Steve.<br />
“I said that reducing the incentive to produce reduces production.”<br />
Who cares? What has this to do with what rights there are? Can you not answer a direct, simple question? Res ipsa loquitur.<br />
“Whatever that incentive is, whether money, satisfaction, status, or
anything else, when it either increases or decreases, production will
follow.”<br />
So the hell what? and…….? connect it up, counselor.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-497">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-497">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 27, 2014, 12:00 am
</div>
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-5" id="li-comment-500">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-500">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> August 27, 2014, 1:06 am
</div>
Mike:<br />
“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.”<br />
Fine. It’s just a personal thing. People never misspell Stephanie. So it boggles my mind that they do it with Stephan.<br />
“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.”<br />
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.<br />
“I am sure we agree that the copyright laws are not the answer”<br />
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.<br />
“, 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.”<br />
But you see you have simply asserted what you “believe” with no argument whatsosever.<br />
“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.”<br />
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. <br />
“Until there is something to replace the current copyright laws, there will be people who want them to remain in effect.”<br />
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??<br />
” 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.”<br />
What you want is frankly irrelevant. This is not a coherent argument for a given libertarian policy.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-503">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-503">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 27, 2014, 1:19 am
</div>
I’m off of the computer, but I’ll give it one more try tonight.<br />
I’m not for copyright law as such, but I’m against insisting that people do without protection if that is what they want.<br />
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.<br />
Maybe this can be continued sometime tomorrow?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-5" id="li-comment-504">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-504">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> August 27, 2014, 1:34 am
</div>
“I’m not for copyright law as such, but I’m against insisting that people do without protection if that is what they want.”<br />
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.<br />
“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.”<br />
Another totally useless, bullshit truism. I mean this says nothing useful or valuable or meaningful at all.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-506">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-506">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 27, 2014, 1:45 pm
</div>
Good morning, Stephan.<br />
One last try here, then I’m going to give up.<br />
Please take this as a whole statement.<br />
“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.”<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-5" id="li-comment-509">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-509">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> August 27, 2014, 10:16 pm
</div>
“last try” at what, Vroman? I don’t see a coherent question.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-557">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-557">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 2, 2014, 12:54 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=557#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Yes, such a shame no one has an incentive to update English with
words describing new phenomena. My babushka was standing in the word
line for hours last week, and they ran out just as she got to the front
of the line. So frustrating.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-2" id="li-comment-446">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-446">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 6:58 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=446#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“most people will not create without some benefit”<br />
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?<br />
” if the artist starves, creation ends.”<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-454">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-454">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 1:29 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=454#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“Did someone pay you for making your response, or did you do it without benefit?”<br />
Thanks, Dave! I’m glad you think my comments are works of art! <img alt=";)" class="wp-smiley" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif" /> <br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-4" id="li-comment-471">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-471">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 8:26 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=471#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Of course writers are creators. Your argument applies to the words
you are contributing to this discussion freely. So why are you paying
for the priviledge of schooling me?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-477">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-477">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 9:39 pm
</div>
I suspect much the same as the reason you are paying. <img alt=";)" class="wp-smiley" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif" /> <br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-435">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-435">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 25, 2014, 11:47 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=435#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Alexander, what are your thoughts on the difference between an original copy and a cover?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-438">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-438">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> August 26, 2014, 12:27 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=438#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
As a songwriter, I LOVE it when artists cover my song. The more versions, the BETTER.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 even depth-3" id="li-comment-441">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-441">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 12:42 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=441#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Thanks. I’ve always been curious about how some original artists feel about covers.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-436">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-436">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 12:00 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=436#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Matt, you have interpreted my premises incorrectly.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-439">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-439">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> August 26, 2014, 12:31 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=439#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Mike,<br />
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). <br />
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”.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-442">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-442">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 12:44 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=442#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Exactly, Alexander. That is the point I was working toward. It
sounds good, but without generations of change it will only happen by
force, and that would be a big step backwards.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-4" id="li-comment-451">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-451">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 7:45 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=451#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Are you supporting the full monopoly, with DMCA provisions against
crypto research, lawsuits, and Internet censorship, or might you settle
for the moderate reform agenda of the Swedish Pirate Party, with broad
scope for fair use? I’ve seen Alexander claim that we should still be
paying Bach’s heirs for performing the toccata and fugue in D minor.
Seems to me if you’re going to go that far, we should be paying the
heirs of Newton and Leibniz for using calculus.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-455">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-455">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 1:34 pm
</div>
Once the original creator is gone, that’s it. In my opinion, that
creator should have a significant say in how their work is utilized, but
that is not to say that the right to control it should be transferable
to a third party.<br />
I also distinguish between works of art (creations) and scientific
discoveries (did Newton create gravity, or just help to explain how it
affects objects?).<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-4" id="li-comment-466">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-466">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 7:56 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=466#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“Once the original creator is gone, that’s it. [Not] transferable to a third party.”<br />
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?<br />
” distinguish between works of art (creations) and scientific discoveries”<br />
Why?<br />
” (did Newton create gravity[...]?)”<br />
No, he created calculus.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-479">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-479">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 9:45 pm
</div>
For your second question, I see a clear difference between discovery and creation.<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-4" id="li-comment-487">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-487">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 10:30 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=487#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“I see a clear difference between discovery and creation.”<br />
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?<br />
“how can the creator be expected to manage his creations after his death?”<br />
I’m not clear what you mean by managing the creations, alive or dead.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-453">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-453">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 8:15 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=453#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
This story has a nice ring to it, but lacks historical accuracy.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-3" id="li-comment-488">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-488">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 10:31 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=488#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I was referring to Mike’s “won’t voluntarily contribute” story.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-hook odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-440">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-440">
<img alt="Avatar of Double Crossed Radio X X" class="avatar user-3025-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/ec1c0bb381869283bb71310c5870b57f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/hook/" rel="external nofollow">Double Crossed Radio X X</a> August 26, 2014, 12:33 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=440#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I have heard (not done any research on my own) that the peer to
peer sharing has increased sales in the music industry, even with free
copies available. Is there an opportunity cost involved in reducing the
free exposure (voluntary advertising of your works) to new listeners
through this kind of gray market sharing? Or, is it just reducing the
ultimate potential that you hope to realize? I have purchased over
$10,000 worth of music in my life. The stuff I really like makes me
want to hear more of that artist and I usually buy as much as is
available over time. Someone I have never heard of probably isn’t going
to get me to take a chance on them. Being able to download a few of
their songs helps me to decide if I want to buy more or not. I have no
problem supporting artists whose works I enjoy. It is in my best
interest to do so, if I want more. I know not everybody thinks this
way, but I think the YouTube stuff and torrents have helped the music
industry, especially those artists not signed to any recording deals. <br />
I would be interested in what you thought about this.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-444">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-444">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> August 26, 2014, 1:40 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=444#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Giving away free samples to gather customer attention is a
long-standing marketing strategy, in music and many other industries.
Obviously, the idea is to give away only a small part of the total
inventory, in the hopes that customers will be enticed to buy. <br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mattgilliland odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-483">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-483">
<img alt="Avatar of Matt Gilliland" class="avatar user-41-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/41/b3bb2298561b5bc786d9cf428861e4d5-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mattgilliland/" rel="external nofollow">Matt Gilliland</a> August 26, 2014, 10:11 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=483#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“Changing the law so that the producer is forced to give away his ENTIRE INVENTORY for free is a different matter altogether.”<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-4" id="li-comment-511">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-511">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> August 29, 2014, 1:38 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=511#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Um . . . what? You’re using a triple-negative, and I’m not aware
of any relevant time period during which there was no copyright. WTF are
you talking about?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-558">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-558">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 2, 2014, 12:56 am
</div>
Music, poetry, and theater existed and thrived before copyright was invented. I think that’s what he meant.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-561">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-561">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> September 2, 2014, 2:08 am
</div>
Oh, OK. People built roads and houses before there were property registries, deeds, titles, etc.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-565">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-565">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 2, 2014, 2:38 am
</div>
Yes, obviously, property existed before title registries. Did
copyright exist before copyright enforcement? Did Nero have the
praetorians enforce his rights to his musical compositions? No. If they
even thought of it, they put it down as impractical.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-2" id="li-comment-452">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-452">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 8:10 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=452#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Engstrom and Falkvinge give a history of copyright in their book
The Case for Copyright Reform. They released it Creative Commons, so you
can download it free and legal at <a href="http://www.copyrightreform.eu/case-for-copyright-reform" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.copyrightreform.eu/case-for-copyright-reform</a>. It turns out that copyright has always been a tool of censorship used to control artists.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-hook odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-459">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-459">
<img alt="Avatar of Double Crossed Radio X X" class="avatar user-3025-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/ec1c0bb381869283bb71310c5870b57f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/hook/" rel="external nofollow">Double Crossed Radio X X</a> August 26, 2014, 2:31 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=459#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Thanks Dave.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-3" id="li-comment-472">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-472">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 8:28 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=472#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
The book also discusses revenue trends in the music industry
lately, showing that profits from sales od CDs is down, but other
sources of revenue have made up for the differentce (for artists).<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-443">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-443">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> August 26, 2014, 1:31 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=443#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Isn’t it plainly obvious that the musical writer / artist has been
rendered into a charity case? This occurs because the writer / artist
has been stripped of the property right necessary to even attempt to
start a business.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-ccuthbert even depth-2" id="li-comment-445">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-445">
<img alt="Avatar of Cathy Cuthbert" class="avatar user-1821-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/b1a33398239257d86712aba02b78e9eb?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/ccuthbert/" rel="external nofollow">Cathy Cuthbert</a> August 26, 2014, 4:44 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=445#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I suspect it’s because the barriers to entry are low. The starving
writer/artist is a rather old and universal archetype. You seem to be
saying that this is something new. (!?!)<br />
Btw, your conflating anti-IP with communism is just off the wall.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-449">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-449">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 7:28 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=449#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Why? Communism for ideas, thoughts, language, anything that we can
share without reducing our share. Property for other stuff. What’s
wrong with that?<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 even depth-4" id="li-comment-456">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-456">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 1:38 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=456#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
This sounds good on the surface, Dave, but how does the addition
of incentive to create, as Alexander mentioned earlier, change this
equation?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-hook odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-458">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-458">
<img alt="Avatar of Double Crossed Radio X X" class="avatar user-3025-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/ec1c0bb381869283bb71310c5870b57f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/hook/" rel="external nofollow">Double Crossed Radio X X</a> August 26, 2014, 2:30 pm
</div>
The incentive becomes being the creator. It is important to be
known as the person who composed this song, and that song. Eventually
you have a reputation that generates sales on each new release. There
are many ways to market this. With present technology an artist could
seek subscribers (patrons) who would have exclusive access to new
material. Unauthorized use of this new material could be made to be a
violation of membership, and the artist could sue the offender for
violation of contract. <br />
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.<br />
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. <a href="http://mises.org/daily/4662" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://mises.org/daily/4662</a><br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 even depth-5" id="li-comment-460">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-460">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 2:40 pm
</div>
Double Crossed, you mention something I have asked about before as
a solution: Subscription. As I mentioned earlier, the government
solution is a stopgap solution. The time is here, or fast approaching,
where it finally can be replaced with technology, but until it is, the
artist who wants protection should still have it. Forcing this person to
give up their desired protection would be as bad as forcing the person
who did not want protection to take it.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-hook odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-462">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-462">
<img alt="Avatar of Double Crossed Radio X X" class="avatar user-3025-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/ec1c0bb381869283bb71310c5870b57f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/hook/" rel="external nofollow">Double Crossed Radio X X</a> August 26, 2014, 3:09 pm
</div>
Mike Vroman, I am sympathetic to the artist, but Forcing people
who don’t even like the creation of the artist to pay for the
enforcement of his “intellectual property right” should also be
considered in this discussion. The artist has the same problem the tool
manufacturer has when the product they sell is loan/shared with others
thus lowering the potential sales. If someone purchases the product,
they now own it. Copying and reselling is wrong, and I support this
form of copyright protection, but sharing is totally a different case. I
share books with friends all the time. Does this impact sales?
Probably, but it also promotes the author to people who may not be aware
of him. Hard to determine what if any value this brings to the author,
but still if I buy a book am I the only person allowed to read it? If
that was a condition of sale, I would buy far fewer books…maybe none at
all. I have purchased and read 10 books written by Thomas Sowell, all
after someone loaned me their copy of “Vision of the Anointed”.<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 even depth-5" id="li-comment-463">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-463">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 3:26 pm
</div>
I am not suggesting that technology be used to monitor who uses a
creation, but who is able to access it. I’m afraid you thought that I
meant “monitor who uses it and punish the wrongdoers.” Not at all. What I
suggest is a subscription type of technology, where if the creator
desires a “paywall,” they can have the capability to allow only
subscribers or purchasers to access their song, book, or whatever. An
encrypted key, perhaps. Even WordPress allows a rudimentary form of
this, allowing a person to publish “public,” “password protected,” or
“private.” Eliminating all copyright protections permanently would be
akin to forcing every WordPress user to publish publicly, whether they
want to or not.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-469">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-469">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 8:12 pm
</div>
Bach did not use copyright. Where did his motivation come from?
Creativity of all kinds is part of humanity, since long before copyright
existed. <br />
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.<br />
Copyright was created by the state to censor and control information. From Engstrom and Falkvinge:<br />
“Seeing how France had failed miserably in banning the<br />
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.<br />
She devised a monopoly where the London printing guild would<br />
get a complete monopoly on all printing in England, in exchange<br />
for her censors determining what was fit to print beforehand. It<br />
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.<br />
The monopoly was awarded to the London Company of Stationers on May 4, 1557. It was called copyright. “<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-5" id="li-comment-559">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-559">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> September 2, 2014, 1:00 am
</div>
He doesn’t seem worried about incentives in science, industrial
design and invention, language or mathematics, where copyright does not
apply. Patent covers invention, but Alexander has joined the side of the
angels on that issue.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-512">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-512">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> August 29, 2014, 1:41 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=512#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Communism is the abolition of property rights, especially in
producer goods. Kinsella + minions favor the abolition of property
rights in producer goods such as songs, movies, books, games, and
software. Communism is precisely the correct term. <br />
Your assertion that I am “off the wall”, and “conflating” things, is based on . . . what exactly Cathy?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-hook even depth-2" id="li-comment-457">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-457">
<img alt="Avatar of Double Crossed Radio X X" class="avatar user-3025-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/ec1c0bb381869283bb71310c5870b57f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/hook/" rel="external nofollow">Double Crossed Radio X X</a> August 26, 2014, 2:17 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=457#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
So you say you favor the use of force and coercion by a third
party who is supported by funding also taken by force from others to
enforce the monopoly of your creation. Sounds kind of like Communism to
me, or maybe Fascism.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-461">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-461">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 2:43 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=461#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
If a person is creative enough to successfully “rent-seek” by
selling their unique creation, isn’t it also “thought control” to force
them to release it to the public without their desired exchange?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-4" id="li-comment-470">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-470">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 8:22 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=470#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
If they want to keep it secret, fine. If they broadcast it on the radio, why should they be able to punish me for recording it?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-474">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-474">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> August 26, 2014, 8:58 pm
</div>
Quiet right. As Benjamin TUcker observed over a century ago: “If a
man scatters money in the street, he does not thereby formally
relinquish title to it … but those who pick it up are thereafter
considered the rightful owners…. Similarly a man who reproduces his
writings by thousands and spreads them everywhere voluntarily abandons
his right of privacy and those who read them … no more put themselves by
the act under any obligation in regard to the author than those who
pick up scattered money put themselves under obligations to the
scatterer.”<br />
<a href="http://mises.org/daily/4575" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://mises.org/daily/4575</a><br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 even depth-5" id="li-comment-480">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-480">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 9:54 pm
</div>
You just touched on a point where I think I may have been misread. “If they want,,,”<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
Technology can now determine who can see a creation, and whether or not they have to pay.<br />
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?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mattgilliland odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-481">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-481">
<img alt="Avatar of Matt Gilliland" class="avatar user-41-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/41/b3bb2298561b5bc786d9cf428861e4d5-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mattgilliland/" rel="external nofollow">Matt Gilliland</a> August 26, 2014, 9:58 pm
</div>
No Mike, no one (even the most rabid anti-IP people) are saying
they shouldn’t be able to have a mechanical paywall. That has nothing
whatsoever to do with copyright.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 even depth-5" id="li-comment-484">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-484">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 10:15 pm
</div>
That’s where I am coming from, Matt. I admit that the copyright
system served a purpose in its time, but I also recognize its
obsolescence.<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mattgilliland odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-485">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-485">
<img alt="Avatar of Matt Gilliland" class="avatar user-41-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/41/b3bb2298561b5bc786d9cf428861e4d5-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mattgilliland/" rel="external nofollow">Matt Gilliland</a> August 26, 2014, 10:22 pm
</div>
Where I think we may differ is in what we’re perceiving when you say “that should be their choice.”<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 even depth-5" id="li-comment-491">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-491">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 26, 2014, 10:48 pm
</div>
Matt. I think we’re in close agreement, except for possibly one
point. I believe that for a time the copyright laws were the best form
of protection available, if for no other reason than no other popular
method was devised. I also don’t believe that their time is quite up
yet, not until there are suitable and widely available means of
protection to satisfy those who want to have them. We are almost there,
but not quite. In the meantime, it would be wrong to remove the desired
protections from those who want them without having a ready replacement.
Technology and private contracts will accomplish this, but they have to
be widely accepted first.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-492">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-492">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 10:51 pm
</div>
Mike wrote: “Technology can now determine who can see a creation, and whether or not they have to pay.”<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-5" id="li-comment-493">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-493">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> August 26, 2014, 10:52 pm
</div>
” I admit that the copyright system served a purpose in its time, but I also recognize its obsolescence.”<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-448">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-448">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> August 26, 2014, 7:21 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=448#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Welcome back, Alexander. By this definition, are there any goods that are not rivalrous?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-matthewmedmiston even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-498">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-498">
<img alt="Avatar of Matthew M Edmiston" class="avatar user-1699-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1699/a42c4954ff1746cfbd148b4c5680811e-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/matthewmedmiston/" rel="external nofollow">Matthew M Edmiston</a> August 27, 2014, 12:41 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=498#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
You have an idea, you express the idea, someone interprets the
expression, and from that interpretation has an idea of their own.<br />
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.<br />
Just like<br />
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;<br />
1. Not sharing the idea with people who could abuse the idea.<br />
2. Only share the idea under conditions where it is difficult or impossible to abuse.<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-matthewmedmiston odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-499">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-499">
<img alt="Avatar of Matthew M Edmiston" class="avatar user-1699-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1699/a42c4954ff1746cfbd148b4c5680811e-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/matthewmedmiston/" rel="external nofollow">Matthew M Edmiston</a> August 27, 2014, 12:47 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=499#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I’ve seen paywall and subscription suggested, that’s a good
example of finding your own protections without using the state against
people.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mikevroman65 even depth-3" id="li-comment-507">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-507">
<img alt="Avatar of Mike Vroman" class="avatar user-1273-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1273/10b72209701277fb87da8d9c5a01f340-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mikevroman65/" rel="external nofollow">Mike Vroman</a> August 27, 2014, 1:50 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=507#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Thank you, Matthew. In this area, as well as all others, as more
people find that they can help themselves more effectively and more
economically than the government, the less the government will be
demanded.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-stephendavis odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-505">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-505">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephen Davis" class="avatar user-435-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/435/c58b082f63134ab98d1aca4e0334fc51-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/stephendavis/" rel="external nofollow">Stephen Davis</a> August 27, 2014, 1:41 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=505#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“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.”<br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-513">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-513">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> August 29, 2014, 1:57 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/25/intangible-goods-are-rivalrous-nutshell/?replytocom=513#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Stephen, <br />
Please see my new article “Songs Are Like Factories (a deeper look)”.<br />
<a href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/29/29/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/08/29/29/</a><br />
I use your “factory can’t be in two states at the same time”. It’s perfect, thank you. <br />
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.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-62953633559929832342014-09-20T09:01:00.001-07:002014-09-20T09:28:48.956-07:00@ Jeffrey Tucker - YouTube Enforces Copyright<div class="article-text">
<h3>
YouTube is Glorious</h3>
YouTube is a glorious testament to the ability of creative, free
people to produce an abundance of entertainment and education content.
YouTube is huge, prosperous and still growing rapidly. And, <b>YouTube enforces copyright</b>.
These facts are not unrelated. Libertarians understand that private
property rights are an essential cornerstone of prosperity.<br />
<h3>
Incentive? Calculation? Abolishing Property is Cruel</h3>
Sadly, history is replete with examples of tyrants abolishing
property rights to producer goods, like farmland, with predictable,
disastrous results: starvation. After all, why would a farmer do the
hard work plowing, tilling, planting, watering, fertilizing, and
harvesting if only to surrender the produce? This is, of course, the
famous “incentive problem”, and it spells doom for the viability of
socialism (unless we somehow engineer a “new socialist man”).<br />
Moreover, as Mises explained, socialism suffers an even worse defect –
the “calculation problem”. If there are no property rights in producer
goods, then they cannot be bought and sold. If producer goods are not
bought and sold, then there are no meaningful prices for them.
Accounting thus becomes impossible. Society is left with no possible way
to learn which products are actually serving the needs of consumers,
and which are a tragic waste of scarce resources.<br />
<h3>
Respect For Property Generates Prosperity</h3>
Post World War II Earth provided a convincing empirical study of
libertarian property theory. Germany was divided into East and West,
Korea divided into North and South, and Hong Kong was divided from
mainland China. The relatively free market economies vastly
out-performed the socialist economies. This did not surprise anyone
familiar with Austrian economics.<br />
<br />
Similarly, the extraordinary success of YouTube is not surprising either, because (in case I forgot to mention it) <b>YouTube enforces copyright</b>.
“Copyright” is a property right in a producer good, such as a video or a
song. The content producer first makes a risky, expensive capital
investment creating the original. Then copies can be mass-produced and
delivered to consumers cheaply.<br />
<br />
YouTube has adopted a business model essentially the same as
broadcast television and radio. Copyright owners generate revenue by
selling advertising, while viewers watch for free. It should be clear
that copyright is an essential element in the viability of this model.<br />
<br />
To get you to watch an advertisement on YouTube, you have to be
interested in the video which follows. If you can watch the same video
somewhere else without advertising, you probably will. So the copyright
owner must have exclusive control over the distribution of the video.
This is the very essence of what property means: property is the right
to use, to control, and to exclude others.<br />
YouTube without copyright would fail for the exact same two reasons
that agriculture failed in Bangladesh, and manufacturing failed in North
Korea: the incentive problem and the calculation problem.<br />
<h3>
Jeffrey Tucker, Libertarian Icon</h3>
And so it is with profound confusion that I read the YouTube-related
passages of Jeffrey Tucker’s book “Liberty.Me – Freedom Is a
Do-It-Yourself-Project”. Members of Liberty.me need no introduction to
Mr. Tucker. But for anyone else who might be reading, and before I offer
my criticism, let me briefly heap sincere praise.<br />
<br />
Jeffrey Albert Tucker is an icon of libertarianism, having for years
been the editorial vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and
editor of Mises.org. He is currently the publisher of Laissez Faire
Books, and CEO of Liberty.me. With signature bow tie and soft-spoken
class and dignity, Jeffrey Tucker tirelessly advances the cause of
freedom. I and all lovers of liberty owe a great debt of gratitude to
Jeffrey Albert Tucker.<br />
<h3>
“Infringement Hysteria”</h3>
In “Liberty.me”, Tucker shares my enthusiasm at the brilliant,
relatively anarchic phenomenon that is YouTube. He acknowledges
“property rights as an essential guardian of freedom.” (p.58)<br />
But then Tucker dismisses YouTube’s decision, from its inception, to
respect intangible property as a mere “presumption”. Tucker claims that
“no one really benefited from [enforcing copyright]”, and that we
endured a period of “infringement hysteria”. Says Tucker:<br />
<blockquote>
Clearly, the law had set up an untenable situation. It
created a system too costly for everyone. It was unsustainable. But what
would change it and how? This is where the creative forces of the
market economy came to the rescue. (p.355)</blockquote>
This is where Tucker plays fast and loose with facts and reason. He’s
going to try to convince us that YouTube abandoned copyright in favor
of “the creative forces of the market economy”, as if the market does
not crucially require property. Or something. Let’s see.<br />
<h3>
Infringement is Trespass, YouTube Ads are Rent</h3>
Google bought YouTube in 2006. Whether “hysterical” or not, copyright
owners had indeed already successfully prosecuted lawsuits (see e.g.
RIAA v. Napster), and were threatening to enforce against YouTube. In
response, YouTube developed an internal policy under which copyright
owners can file disputes. Tucker explains:<br />
<blockquote>
If a given video infringed, the owner would be notified
and would then get a choice to either order a takedown or have an ad put
up on the video from which the owner would derive the revenue. (p. 355)</blockquote>
Obviously YouTube’s policy is upholding intellectual property rights.
When there are trespassers, a property owner has two choices: kick them
out, or charge rent. An infringer is a trespasser. Making an infringer
take down a video is kicking them out. Accepting ad revenue is charging
rent. This is pretty basic stuff.<br />
But to hear Tucker tell it, the reader would think that YouTube was not enforcing copyright:<br />
<blockquote>
Almost everyone took the revenue solution, simply because
it is more advantageous to the owner to gain than to slap the uploader
around using the law.<br />
What the owners have learned in the process is something that has
been obvious to many of us for a long time but, for some crazy reason,
was often lost on the enforcers. They learned that what looks like a
violation of the law and infringement on property rights can be
re-rendered as a form of peaceful advertising. (p. 355)</blockquote>
Good grief. Clearly Jeffrey Tucker is suggesting that YouTube’s
advertising policy is something besides copyright enforcement. This is
disingenuous in the extreme. In case I forgot to mention it, <b>YouTube enforces copyright</b>.<br />
<br />
The reason copyright infringement <i>looks </i>like a violation of property rights is because it <i>is</i>
a violation of property rights. The only thing that is “re-rendered”
about YouTube’s policy is that they are doing the work of upholding
property rights themselves, privately. This is a beautiful example of
how we could enforce the law in a free, stateless society.<br />
<h3>
Golden Anarchist Opportunity Missed</h3>
Instead of seizing the golden opportunity to point out private law in
action, Tucker unwittingly fuels liberty’s detractors by pitting ad
revenue <i>against </i>“the law”. It’s as if Tucker doesn’t understand
that “the law” is exactly what YouTube is enforcing. And that’s a good
thing. Do you see? Private institutions can do a great job of protecting
property. We don’t need the state.<br />
But isn’t YouTube just enforcing copyright law because the state makes them? That appears to be Tucker’s position:<br />
<blockquote>
IP enforcement through . . . copyrights has slowed the pace of development of media [and] software. (p.224)</blockquote>
Tucker doesn’t offer any evidence to support this alleged hindrance
of development. In fact, the YouTube example seems to show quite the
opposite, once we consider that <b>YouTube enforces copyright</b>.<br />
<br />
Within our current statist system, content creators are free to
release relinquish copyright altogether, or to release material under
the Creative Commons, which is a license allowing unrestricted copying.
If copyright really was a detriment to progress, one would think that a
competitor could outperform YouTube by only accepting non-copyright
material, and that users would flock to this competitor, happy to leave
behind YouTube and its “antique institution of copyright”, as Tucker
calls it.<br />
<br />
Despite spending a large amount of ink canonizing YouTube, Tucker simply ignoring the “elephant in the room”, i.e. <b>YouTube enforces copyright</b>.<br />
<h3>
Black Friday</h3>
Earlier in the book, Tucker proclaims:<br />
<blockquote>
I’m so proud of Rebecca Black I can hardly stand it. (p.55)</blockquote>
In 2011, at age 13, Rebecca Black became famous with her YouTube
video of the song “Friday”. I share Tucker’s admiration of Rebecca’s
accomplishments. While her notoriety did stem from so many people
allegedly disliking the song, music is, after all, the “entertainment”
business. Entertaining people is difficult to do. Many have tried and
failed. Rebecca Black succeeded.<br />
<blockquote>
[Rebecca Black] is among a growing number of young people who have become YouTube stars completely on their own. (p.55)</blockquote>
Wait, not so fast. Rebecca Black most certainly did <i>not </i>succeed
completely on her own. The song “Friday” was written by Clarence Jey
and Patrice Wilson. Before they did so, young Rebecca didn’t have a song
to sing. Then, Rebecca’s mom hired a production company called Ark
Music Factory to produce the song with Rebecca singing, and to produce a
music video.<br />
<h3>
There Really Was A Copyright Dispute</h3>
Reminiscent of socialists, who ignore wealth creation and merely seek
to distribute it, Tucker ignores authorship completely. He focuses on
the “worst song ever” hype that propelled Rebecca Black to fame, and
writes:<br />
<blockquote>
After some weeks, she pulled the [“Friday”] video down —
and this decision seemed like a bow to defeat at the hands of the
Internet lynch mob. In public, the given reason was a copyright dispute.
But privately, she had to feel a sense of relief. No more hate. No more
derision. No more sleepless nights of feeling inadequate. (p.57)</blockquote>
Mr. Tucker, I understand that using hyperbole like “internet lynch
mob” might be more inflammatory than plain facts about property rights.
But the fact is, there really <i>was</i> a copyright dispute here. A few of them actually.<br />
<br />
First, there is a copyright in the authorship, i.e. writing of the
song. There is a different copyright in a sound recording of the song.
This makes sense, because there can be many different recordings of the
same one song. And, there is a copyright in a video. The same video
could be synced to different audios, or the same audio could be synced
to different videos. It is quite logical that there are separate rights
of ownership to the different elements.<br />
<br />
Jey and Wilson wrote “Friday”, so they own the authorship. Rebecca’s
mom paid for the audio and video masters, so she owns those. These
people had some temporary misunderstandings about who owned what, and
that led to the temporary take-downs. They resolved their property
disputes, peacefully, and the video was re-uploaded. All is well,
Friday-wise.<br />
<br />
Tucker cites some of the lyrics of the song, and offers his view that
it conveys a libertarian theme of freedom, and rejecting prison-like
public schools. But throughout the passage, Tucker steadfastly refuses
to acknowledge the songwriters, speaking as if “Friday” was Rebecca
Black’s song:<br />
<blockquote>
[“Friday”] was sung by Justin Bieber. It was performed on
the television show Glee. It was covered by star Katy Perry in concert,
and on Jimmy Fallon’s television show with Stephen Colbert and Taylor
Hicks. (p.57)</blockquote>
Yes, but you see, “Friday” is Jey and Wilson’s song, not Rebecca
Black’s. Without copyright, Rebecca Black, and Justin Beiber, and Katy
Perry, and Glee and the others would all be free to profit from the
performance of “Friday”, without compensating the guys who actually
brought that song into existence, i.e. homesteaded it.<br />
<h3>
Selective Enforcement – A Beautiful Thing</h3>
I exclude some people from my house. Others I invite in. As a
property owner, this is my right. Indeed, this is the very essence of
property. I have exclusive control over my house, and may set whatever
peaceful standards I wish in judging whether to allow others access.<br />
<br />
In “Liberty.me”, Tucker chronicles what he claims is selective
enforcement of copyright, as if that’s a bad thing. A YouTube video
about making guns used a piece of music, and:<br />
<blockquote>
Apparently, the video infringed on the copyright of
Warner/Chappell. What’s that? That’s a music distributor. So the wrath
supposedly had nothing to do with the gun or the subject. It was removed
because the background music was alleged to be under copyright. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
But wait just one moment. There are dozens of different YouTube
videos that use that song. It’s also used in the movie Tree of Life. If
it’s copyright protected, isn’t it just a bit strange that Warner
happened to pick Cody’s video to order a takedown? (p.121)</blockquote>
I don’t know what song it even was in that gun video, nor whether
Warner/Chappell’s copyright enforcement really was selective, as Tucker
suggests. Perhaps the other videos which feature the same song licensed
it properly.<br />
<br />
But let’s assume the folks at Warner/Chappell are card-carrying
left-wing Democrats, and purposely filed a copyright claim against the
gun-making video to make a political point. So what? It is no different
than selectively denying access to your house. If I own a song, and I
only wish to allow it to be used in videos about global warming and
feeding the homeless, and not about do-it-yourself gun manufacture, that
is my right. This is the very essence of property.<br />
<br />
Evidently Jeffrey Tucker and the other intellectual communists would
prefer a world in which music owners were forced to allow access and use
of their property by whoever and whenever. Take note: As with guns, I will give up my
song when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it.<br />
<h3>
Conclusion</h3>
In the end, I am left to just scratch my head and wonder about the
curious anti-copyright author and publisher Jeffrey Tucker. The version
of his “Liberty.me” sold on Amazon contains an intriguing bit of
language near the very beginning:<br />
<blockquote>
Copyright © 2014 by Jeffrey A. Tucker</blockquote>
I know what I mean when I say “copyright”. I mean that I am staking
my claim of ownership to a unique intellectual object, uniquely situated
in intellectual space, with all the associated rights reserved.
Although currently backed by the power of the state, I firmly believe
that a free, stateless society will enforce copyright. YouTube provides a
clear look at how it can work.<br />
<br />
But what does Mr. Tucker mean by “copyright”? He places the “©”
symbol in his own books, and many of those that he publishes by other
authors. Tucker repeatedly refers to the “owners” of video content,
presumably aware that only property can be owned. Liberty.me is a
subscription-based online community, of which I and many others are
paying members. At Laissez Faire Books, Tucker grants access to paying
customers, excluding others. He clearly <i>acts</i> like a property owner over <i>his </i>intellectual property.<br />
<br />
And yet, Tucker endorses Stephan Kinsella’s brand of intellectual
communism: property rights are only legitimate in physical things,
according to them. So, what do Tucker and Kinsella mean when they write
“copyright” in their books? One can only wonder.<br />
<br />
And by the way, <b>YouTube enforces copyright. </b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>-------------</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2>
43 Comments</h2>
<ol class="commentlist">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-jeffreytucker even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-153">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-153">
<img alt="Avatar of Jeffrey Tucker" class="avatar user-3-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/064e742bc64e7b2f429303267acd0b82?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/jeffreytucker/" rel="external nofollow">Jeffrey Tucker</a> June 4, 2014, 6:01 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=153#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Ah you caught the copyright notice on the book! yes, that was a
template that was ported over from the typesetter, and clearly an error.
When you proofread a book, the front matter is not the first thing you
look at. It should be CC-A. You win the prize for being the first to
catch it! <br />
Of course Youtube enforces copyright. But as my article explains, the
original view of copyright implies 100% ownership, and this had a huge
impact on music in the 20th century. It locked down development in
mainstream music. Almost every serious innovation in music from ragtime
to jazz to rock has arisen as a reaction against intellectual monopoly —
until the industry giants take it over and resort to copyright again.
This is how government monopolists work: the winner wants to lock in the
gains. <br />
What’s been great about Youtube is how it has gradually added to the
exceptions to the point that it has become functional, very much like
the way the late medieval theologians added ever more exceptions to the
rule against usury, if only to make the system function properly. This
is what is going on with copyright on music today. <br />
A popular song is today covered a thousand times in a week,
completely contradicting the spirit of copyright but still narrowly
adhering to the letter. This is how bad law dies and this is a wonderful
thing. <br />
For more on music and copyright and IP in general see <a href="http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm</a><br />
great book.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-155">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-155">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 4, 2014, 6:35 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=155#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I have headache. Mr. Tucker, I am genuinely sincere when I praise
you for all your hard work in the cause of liberty. I really hope we can
be friends. You and I would agree on pretty much everything, except IP.
It pains me, but . . .<br />
You say “YouTube . . . gradually added to the [copyright] exceptions to the point that it has become functional.”<br />
Stop. False. YouTube offers no exceptions to copyright. None. Zero.
When you resort to blatant falsehoods, you disgrace yourself and
libertarianism. <br />
You say “Plagiarism is not even illegal now”. <br />
Stop. False. Of course plagiarism (aka copyright infringement) is
illegal now. Ex-Beatle George Harrison was civilly prosecuted for
plagiarizing the song “He’s So Fine”, to cite just one famous example of
many. <br />
You demonize copyright by calling it a “monopoly”. <br />
Stop. True. Copyright IS a monopoly over the use of a unique object.
ALL property is a monopoly (if you want to use that word). You are
making a decidedly Marxist argument, which is your right. But for
heaven’s sake, stop calling yourself a libertarian. You are an
intellectual communist, and your policies, if implemented, would result
in intellectual starvation. <br />
You say Boldrin & Levine’s “Against Intellectual Monopoly” is a great book. <br />
Stop. False. These authors are (supposedly) economists, yet present
the most hilariously inept economic analysis I have ever read. They
purport to show how a book could be profitable in the absence of
copyright. And yet they completely IGNORE the cost of producing the
book, and cite only the revenue. <br />
This is precisely the same dishonest tactic that socialists have been
perpetrating for centuries – ignore the cost of creating producer
goods, and argue over how the wealth is divvied up. <br />
Here is a more in-depth deconstruction of Boldrin:<br />
<a href="http://homesteadip.blogspot.com/2013/03/boldrin-and-levines-inept-anti-ip.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://homesteadip.blogspot.com/2013/03/boldrin-and-levines-inept-anti-ip.html</a><br />
I need some Tylenol.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-3" id="li-comment-164">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-164">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> June 4, 2014, 8:46 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=164#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
The world wonders in vain at Baker’s defense of IP. What is it? No
one knows. HE doesn’t understand the law, he makes no coherent
arguments…<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-167">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-167">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 4, 2014, 9:22 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=167#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Kinsella, you are invited to make any substantive comments
criticisms you like. If you believe I misunderstand current statist
legislated law, or principles of common law, please feel free to educate
me. If you need clarification on any particular subsection of my
thesis, ask. <br />
But vacuous trolling such as your comment here, is far beneath you. Future such garbage will be trashed.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-jaybird even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-160">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-160">
<img alt="Avatar of Jaybird" class="avatar user-1544-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1544/33478e48e0291bf46055152671b78f2c-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/jaybird/" rel="external nofollow">Jaybird</a> June 4, 2014, 8:25 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=160#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Alexander,<br />
Can I opt out of paying for the system of force required to implement
and enforce your beliefs in regards to intellectual property?<br />
-Jaybird<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-165">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-165">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 4, 2014, 8:48 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=165#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Jaybird, yes of course. I envision a Rothbardian
anarcho-capitalist society. Property rights (physical or intellectual)
must be enforced to have any meaning. Private competing firms can do a
better job of law for the same reasons they do a better job of
everything.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-dannychadwick even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-166">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-166">
<img alt="Avatar of Danny Chadwick" class="avatar user-1513-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1513/a6d727817a4f5415fd610fdd1d4456e2-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/dannychadwick/" rel="external nofollow">Danny Chadwick</a> June 4, 2014, 9:13 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=166#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
You used the phrase “intellectual communist” three times in this article. Would you mind explaining what you mean by that?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-168">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-168">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 4, 2014, 9:26 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=168#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Intellectual communist – a person who believes all intellectual property is communally owned.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-169">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-169">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 4, 2014, 9:28 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=169#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
or<br />
Intellectual communist – a person who believes that individuals do not have the right to own intellectual property<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-dannychadwick odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-171">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-171">
<img alt="Avatar of Danny Chadwick" class="avatar user-1513-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1513/a6d727817a4f5415fd610fdd1d4456e2-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/dannychadwick/" rel="external nofollow">Danny Chadwick</a> June 4, 2014, 9:35 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=171#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Ok. I think I understand. <br />
So would you be against me repeating the arguments that you’ve
detailed in this article to my friends – or would that be a violation of
your intellectual property?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-4" id="li-comment-173">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-173">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 4, 2014, 10:42 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=173#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Re-telling the principles I have given in your own words would not
violate my copyright. Copying my unique pattern of words verbatim,
without my permission, would violate my copyright. <br />
Ideas are not copyrightable. Finished works are.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-dannychadwick odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-175">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-175">
<img alt="Avatar of Danny Chadwick" class="avatar user-1513-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1513/a6d727817a4f5415fd610fdd1d4456e2-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/dannychadwick/" rel="external nofollow">Danny Chadwick</a> June 4, 2014, 10:55 pm
</div>
What if I were to print off a copy of this article and read it in a YouTube video? Would that violate your rights?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-177">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-177">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 4, 2014, 11:02 pm
</div>
Yes, if you posted my book on YouTube without permission, that would violate my copyright.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-182">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-182">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 4, 2014, 11:59 pm
</div>
“Ideas are not copyrightable. Finished works are.”<br />
This is the current legal doctrine. If I accept your arguments,
shouldn’t I question current doctrine? Why not own a theorem or an idea?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-185">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-185">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 5, 2014, 12:24 am
</div>
Dave – Not a theorem, because it does not, in and of itself, substantially function as a producer good. <br />
I invite you to study my work, where these questions are addressed in
some detail. I think these definitions will be helpful to you:<br />
Intellectual matter – that which can be understood through language.<br />
Intellectual object – an ascertainable, temporally stable and bounded
pattern of intellectual matter which can condition the outcome of human
events.<br />
Rivalrous – a quality such that use by one interferes with use by another.<br />
Intellectual property – a non-trivial, homesteaded rivalrous
intellectual object that substantially functions as productive capacity<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-218">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-218">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 6, 2014, 2:06 am
</div>
Alexander said, “Not a theorem, because it does not, in and of itself, substantially function as a producer good.”<br />
Are theorems goods? I can apply a known theorem as a particular step
in a new theorem. Then it would act as a producer good as well.<br />
What about ideas?<br />
“I invite you to study my work, where these questions are addressed
in some detail. I think these definitions will be helpful to you:”<br />
Unfortunately not. Link?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-maluka even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-172">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-172">
<img alt="Avatar of maluka" class="avatar user-1976-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1976/556821aedecafd02cda633c1db17f51f-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/maluka/" rel="external nofollow">maluka</a> June 4, 2014, 9:57 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=172#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
How do you call a person, that does not believe in the existience of intelletctual property?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-176">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-176">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 4, 2014, 10:57 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=176#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
One who denies the existence of intellectual property is an
intellectual communist, just as one who denies the existence of property
is a communist. Perhaps one could also be labeled a “primitivist”, if
one has simply not developed to the point of discovering the principle
of property, as must have been the case with pre-historic man. <br />
One who denies the existence of intellectual matter would be an intellectual immaterialist. I address this as Mises did:<br />
<a href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/the-mises-test-of-external-reality/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/the-mises-test-of-external-reality/</a><br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-maluka even depth-3" id="li-comment-189">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-189">
<img alt="Avatar of maluka" class="avatar user-1976-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1976/556821aedecafd02cda633c1db17f51f-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/maluka/" rel="external nofollow">maluka</a> June 5, 2014, 1:16 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=189#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I read that article. You did not establish the existence of intellectual property in it. <br />
You just said that information exists, can be usable and can be stored in a physical form. (in which it can of cause be owned).<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-maluka odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-190">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-190">
<img alt="Avatar of maluka" class="avatar user-1976-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1976/556821aedecafd02cda633c1db17f51f-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/maluka/" rel="external nofollow">maluka</a> June 5, 2014, 1:26 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=190#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
By the way, you pulled a strawman, again.<br />
Not believing and denying are to different things.<br />
Furthermore there are historical examples of regions with and without
IP. Germany did not have IP until 1837 (country wide), while great
Britain had since 1710. The is a book (German), which gives comparisons
of income, productivity (measured in different books to be released) and
prices of the books.<br />
Incomes (for authors) were higher (on average), way more books were published and they were much cheaper, in Germany. <br />
No proof for or against the existence of IP, but just as evidence to
the contrary of you claim, that no one would produce because of lack of
incentive.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-maluka even depth-4" id="li-comment-191">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-191">
<img alt="Avatar of maluka" class="avatar user-1976-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1976/556821aedecafd02cda633c1db17f51f-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/maluka/" rel="external nofollow">maluka</a> June 5, 2014, 1:40 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=191#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
By the way, you pulled a strawman, again.<br />
Not believing and denying are two different things.<br />
Furthermore there are historical examples of regions with and without
IP rights. Germany did not have IP rights until 1837 (country wide),
while great Britain had since 1710. The is a book (German), which gives
comparisons of income, productivity (measured in different books to be
released) and prices of the books.<br />
Incomes (for authors) were higher (on average), way more books were published and they were much cheaper, in Germany. <br />
No proof for or against the existence of IP, but just as evidence to
the contrary of you claim, that no one would produce because of lack of
incentive.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-dannychadwick odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-179">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-179">
<img alt="Avatar of Danny Chadwick" class="avatar user-1513-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1513/a6d727817a4f5415fd610fdd1d4456e2-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/dannychadwick/" rel="external nofollow">Danny Chadwick</a> June 4, 2014, 11:21 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=179#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Can’t you see that by the mere act of posting these words online
that you’ve lost all control of them? They’ve been reproduced thousands
of times by now on hundreds of different computers. You cannot possibly
expect to regain control of these words. Even if you were to delete the
article a cached copy of them would still exist on at least my two
computers. I’ve gone to the trouble to copy and paste them into a
document on my computer – just so that I can have them forever.<br />
These words are now mine! I own them! They’ll always exist in my
digital archive! You can’t have them back! Your work will live on
through the centuries because you posted them online. You cannot
reasonably expect to have any control whatever over how they’re
disseminated now. That is because they are not a thing that can be
contained or corralled or neatly accounted for, no matter what you do.<br />
This is the fundamental difference between your ideas, even your
finished prose, and physical thing. If I had taken your lawnmower out of
your garage, you could come get it back and I wouldn’t have it anymore.
Such is not the case with these words. They belong to the ages.<br />
Make sure you select them well.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-181">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-181">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 4, 2014, 11:41 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=181#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Danny, 10′s of millions of people, including me, are right now,
today, in the real world, successfully tracking and being compensated
for the usage of billions of intellectual objects. <br />
Don’t tell me it can’t be done. I do it.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-dannychadwick odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-183">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-183">
<img alt="Avatar of Danny Chadwick" class="avatar user-1513-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1513/a6d727817a4f5415fd610fdd1d4456e2-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/dannychadwick/" rel="external nofollow">Danny Chadwick</a> June 5, 2014, 12:03 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=183#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
So, do you own the file on my computer? Do those bits that now
reside on my external hard dive now your property? Can you come to my
house and demand that I relinquish the file to you? <br />
The file has already automatically synced to my iCloud. Who knows how
many servers its on now. Can you reclaim those files too? Where does
your IP begin and my private property end?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-4" id="li-comment-184">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-184">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 5, 2014, 12:17 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=184#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
My intellectual property does not touch your physical property. <br />
Visualizing boundaries around intellectual objects has heretofore
been difficult, thus necessitating the doctrine of Intellectual Space. I
invite you to study my thesis, for one of its prime contributions is
making easier the kinds of problems you pose. <br />
As with any sort of property, a non-owner may use my IP as I allow.
If this were an actual example of IP I wished to enforce, say e.g. my
song, your download would be licensed with terms of use that specify how
you may / may not use it.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-gaplauche odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-203">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-203">
<img alt="Avatar of Geoffrey Allan Plauché" class="avatar user-1278-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/2c150f081d9d1180d88512f7fdbbfc72?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/gaplauche/" rel="external nofollow">Geoffrey Allan Plauché</a> June 5, 2014, 4:49 am
</div>
I’m not sure you understand how computers and the Internet work. A
copy of your post is on my computer right now simply by virtue of my
visiting your Liberty.me blog. Your “intellectual property” is
“touching” my physical property, meaning you are claiming that your
“intellectual property” has legal priority over my rights in my physical
property which existed prior to your writing this post. You’re claiming
that simply because I visited your blog, you can dictate how I use my
property.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-205">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-205">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 5, 2014, 5:21 am
</div>
Geoffry – I understand how computers and the internet work. I’m
not sure you’ve read my thesis. My intellectual object cannot touch your
physical object, because intellectual objects exist in intellectual
space, whereas physical objects exist in physical space. <br />
This presumes that by “touch” you mean physically touch. Is that what you meant?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-199">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-199">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> June 5, 2014, 4:12 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=199#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I’ve made almost a million dollars selling books in the last 14 or
so years. More than most commercial authors. So what? That doesn’t mean
copyright is justified. You have no grounds to stop someone from
copying information that you dump into the public domain.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-4" id="li-comment-201">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-201">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 5, 2014, 4:24 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=201#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
The philosophical basis for copyright is that the producer use is scarce and rivalrous. <br />
I’ve made more than a million dollars licensing music to film and
television. The “so what’ about your book selling and my music selling
is that you and I do what Danny Chadwick above said is impossible – i.e.
track and receive compensation for intellectual goods.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-202">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-202">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> June 5, 2014, 4:26 am
</div>
“I’ve made more than a million dollars licensing music to film and television. ”<br />
haha. yeah, right.Anyway, irrelevant.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-204">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-204">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 5, 2014, 4:52 am
</div>
Kinsella, I’m happy to show you my BMI statements, if you’re
interested. You’re the one who found it necessary to begin boasting
about IP success. The only reason it is relevant here is that it shows
that it is quite possible to track usage of intangible goods. That guy
Chadwick said it’s impossible.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-dannychadwick odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-206">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-206">
<img alt="Avatar of Danny Chadwick" class="avatar user-1513-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1513/a6d727817a4f5415fd610fdd1d4456e2-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/dannychadwick/" rel="external nofollow">Danny Chadwick</a> June 5, 2014, 6:02 am
</div>
While I’m flattered that you keep citing me, I think you
fundamentally misunderstand what I said. I never said that it was
impossible to make money by publishing content online. In fact, that’s
how I make my living. But I’m under no illusion that the words that I
generate are somehow belong to me simply because I wrote them. I
continue to get paid because the words I write have value and someone is
willing to pay me to continue to write them. And I do, and I keep
getting paid.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-kinsella even depth-5" id="li-comment-207">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-207">
<img alt="Avatar of Stephan Kinsella" class="avatar user-292-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/53bdbfa44a882d1b829e9bd8ddf0af4b?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/kinsella/" rel="external nofollow">Stephan Kinsella</a> June 5, 2014, 6:54 am
</div>
“Kinsella, I’m happy to show you my BMI statements, if you’re
interested. You’re the one who found it necessary to begin boasting
about IP success.”<br />
It’s not a boast if it’s true–and I brought it up because you and
your kind often say things like the only reason people oppose copyrgiht
is they have nothing of value worth selling, blah blah blah. Well, I’ve
literally made millions selling intellectual product and being a patent
lawyer. So… now what do they say? Nothing. They shut up and change the
subject, like cockroaches when the kitchen lights come on.<br />
and no, I don’t believe your claims. Feel free to “prove” them with
“BMI” statements, though this makes you sound like the guy in the bar
who claims he makes $10k a month with Amway and just “happens” to have a
paystub in his wallet to prove it–you know, like most normal people do!<br />
And even if you could prove your claims–so what? This does not show IP is justified, son.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-dannychadwick odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-209">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-209">
<img alt="Avatar of Danny Chadwick" class="avatar user-1513-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1513/a6d727817a4f5415fd610fdd1d4456e2-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/dannychadwick/" rel="external nofollow">Danny Chadwick</a> June 5, 2014, 2:10 pm
</div>
Man, everyone in this thread is a millionaire except me.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-210">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-210">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 5, 2014, 2:35 pm
</div>
Danny, you said:<br />
“Can’t you see that by the mere act of posting these words online that you’ve lost all control of them?”<br />
And then you said:<br />
“I never said that it was impossible to make money by publishing content online. In fact, that’s how I make my living.”<br />
Danny, if you had lost all control of your content, you could not
monetize it. The fact that you monetize proves that you are successfully
exerting control.<br />
Has anyone ever made even $1 selling atmospheric air?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-dannychadwick odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-211">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-211">
<img alt="Avatar of Danny Chadwick" class="avatar user-1513-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1513/a6d727817a4f5415fd610fdd1d4456e2-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/dannychadwick/" rel="external nofollow">Danny Chadwick</a> June 5, 2014, 3:40 pm
</div>
Um, no. Again you have fundamentally misunderstood my statement.
When I publish words online I have no control over how they’re used
thereafter. My company puts them on its website and we sell ads and
affiliate deals against them. But that doesn’t mean we have control over
what computers they land on and if someone feels like copying them,
there is no way we can stop them. And once they’re copied, there is no
way for us to retrieve them. The internet is a gigantic copying machine.
<br />
I do little shot films on the side, I upload them to YouTube and then
they’re gone. I can still serve ads on them (I don’t but that’s a
different subject) but anyone can download them from YouTube with a
simple application or even a browser extension. I cannot stop that. I’m
certain my films have been downloaded by others, there’s nothing I can
do about that. Even if I knew who they were, I could not go to their
house and demand my intellectual property back.<br />
The truth of the matter is that nothing and no one can stop “piracy.”
I spend a great deal of time with software whose primary purpose is to
break down the barriers that IP puts up. Piracy is rampant and easy to
accomplish. And yet Hollywood and the Music companies and everyone else
that supposedly depends on as a keystone of their business model still
make billions of dollars annually. They employ millions of people even
though there’s a great deal of “intrusion” of their “intellectual
property.”<br />
In a world without IP, I imagine that these companies would still
make a great deal of money. Just as they do now. IP is a gigantic hustle
that keeps lawyers in rolling in dough that could otherwise be spent on
creating more movies and music that people will pay for, because they
value them. And people will “pirate” those goods, because that’s what
pirates do.<br />
But I ramble on. I hope this clears up my point. Sorry about the confusion.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-212">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-212">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 5, 2014, 5:00 pm
</div>
Danny, you’re simply showing that your controls are imperfect. <br />
Despite all our fences, door locks and security alarms, we will never
eliminate trespass, theft and murder. Does this mean that property
owners have no control over physical objects? No, it means they have
imperfect control. Just because we cannot eliminate all property
violations, despite our best efforts, does it follow that we abandon the
notion of property rights?<br />
It is NOT impossible for you to control your intellectual objects.
You can encrypt them. You can watermark them. You can register them. You
can track and observe their usage. <br />
You can make contracts with others for their sale and delivery, as
you acknowledge. It is strictly impossible for anyone to deliver
anything without first controlling it. <br />
If you wish to disagree with me, Danny, please cite for me a single
example, in all human history, where anyone successfully transacted a
sale for anything without first bringing it under control.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-dannychadwick odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-213">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-213">
<img alt="Avatar of Danny Chadwick" class="avatar user-1513-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1513/a6d727817a4f5415fd610fdd1d4456e2-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/dannychadwick/" rel="external nofollow">Danny Chadwick</a> June 5, 2014, 6:40 pm
</div>
I’m done splitting hairs with you, actually. Thanks for your thoughts, you’ve given me a lot to think about.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-5" id="li-comment-216">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-216">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 6, 2014, 1:05 am
</div>
“It is NOT impossible for you to control your intellectual
objects. You can encrypt them. You can watermark them. You can register
them. You can track and observe their usage. ”<br />
Alexander, maybe it would help if you would clarify your ideas about
the ideal system. I frequently find myself tempted to interpret you as
supporting the existing system, which, for instance, prohibits research
on methods for defeating crypto, allows fairly arbitrary search and
seizure of my PC, and monitoring of my communications. I hope my
instinct is wrong?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-maluka odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-217">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-217">
<img alt="Avatar of maluka" class="avatar user-1976-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1976/556821aedecafd02cda633c1db17f51f-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/maluka/" rel="external nofollow">maluka</a> June 6, 2014, 1:18 am
</div>
You have written a whole article and tried to “prove” the concept
of “rivalrous” . You even defined it into the word “intellectual
property”. <br />
But you did not show it. <br />
You are using words, which I assume you yourself invented (“intellectual space”) to justify the concept. <br />
Yet you give no reason, why the concept is justified.<br />
You have written a whole article, in which you still believe to haven shown that the arguments against IP a flawed.<br />
But you only showed that the same argument could not be applied to property, thus establishing that IP and PP are not the same.<br />
So what again is the philosophical basis? It is not logic or reason,
at least not, if you are an example of a “good” IP advocate.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-226">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-226">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 6, 2014, 12:26 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=226#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Martin, yes “Intellectual Space” is an original thesis, and
includes original terminology. While I do acknowledge prior work by
other pro-IP libertarians such as Spooner, Rand and Rothbard, it’s
unreasonable to criticize my theory based on the perceived shortcomings
of others.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-konberner odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-351">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-351">
<img alt="Avatar of Kon Berner" class="avatar user-2398-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/2398/fab0264f3e1da1e657ed28f6d6b45682-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/konberner/" rel="external nofollow">Kon Berner</a> June 15, 2014, 11:46 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=351#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I just read through the article and comments. I’m still undecided
on this complicated and interesting issues, but at the moment, I’d give
more debate points to Alexander than any of his opponents. He has made
many points that were left unaddressed or were glossed over.<br />
Thank you, Alexander, for your excellent thinking in this area: I’ll follow up on read more of *your* work <img alt=":)" class="wp-smiley" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" /> <br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-2" id="li-comment-385">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-385">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 27, 2014, 8:39 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/06/04/jeffrey-tucker-youtube-enforces-copyright/?replytocom=385#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“He has made many points that were left unaddressed or were glossed over.”<br />
For instance?<br />
I don’t think he made a serious effort to respond to my question
about the different treatment of songs and other ideas, such as
mathematics, scientific principles, etc. (Note that elsewhere he admits
that patents are invalid.) He ignored my question about how he can
either justify the existing limits on research, chilling creativity,
intrusive surveillance, search and seizure, and draconisn enforcement
upon nonconsenting third parties supported by subsidies or implement his
ideas without these mechanisms.<br />
I did not pay a lot of attention to this article, because it is based
on the same ideas Alexander used in other articles, adds nothing new,
and I think he’s already been answered. What he says about Tucker or
Youtube amounts to nothing if his basic theory fails. I think the best
case he can make is something like “Wait and see which the market
chooses, DROs that enforce copyright or DROs that don’t.” My bet is on
the one that doesn’t hassle their customers about how they download
media and how many copies they make.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-32444332332145612442014-09-20T08:08:00.001-07:002014-09-20T08:10:08.765-07:00No State, No IP. You be the Judge!I’m trying to learn whether copying, plagiarism, and false attribution
are morally wrong. Or, is “copyright” simply a creation of the state,
criminalizing what would otherwise be acceptable behavior? I’ve created a
stylized fable here that raises legal issues. Even if you don’t wish to
fully work through the multiple-choice problems I present, please
comment on whether you feel these behaviors are, or are not, morally
permissible in a free society.<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 150px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 150px;">
* * *<br />
</div>
Suppose we live in a voluntary, stateless society. Dispute Resolution
Agencies (DROs) exist to enforce tort law and contracts. For the
purpose of this exercise, let’s assume DROs exercise the authority to
impose fines and otherwise punish tort violators.<br />
<br />
All forms of intellectual property (IP), including copyright, have
been abolished. Kinsella’s “Against Intellectual Property” may be cited
in legal proceedings as law.<br />
<br />
<b>Gary Goodwriter</b> writes an awesome novel, and allows
customers to download it as an e-book for a price. The terms of sale
clearly state that the customer agrees not to make copies, and that
disputes will be handled by DRO.<br />
<br />
<b>Carla Copyist</b> purchases a download of the e-book
from Gary. Despite the sales agreement, she makes copies of the novel.
Carla’s copies still credit Gary Goodwriter as author, and are identical
to the original, except Carla’s copies no longer contain any language
prohibiting copying. She posts copies anonymously, here and there.<br />
<br />
<b>Danny Distributor</b> obtains a free copy of the novel
from somewhere on the internet, but he honestly doesn’t remember where.
Danny posts the novel on his own site, and is able to sell some copies
for a price.<br />
<br />
<b>Peter Plagiarist</b> purchases and downloads a copy from
Danny. Peter makes copies, substituting his own name as author, falsely
taking full credit for writing the novel. Peter is able to sell some
copies for a price.<br />
<br />
<b>Allie Attributor</b> writes a brand new novel of her
own. The cover of Allie’s book states in bold print, “written by Gary
Goodwriter”. Because Gary enjoys something of a reputation as a fine
author, Allie is able to sell some copies for a price.<br />
<br />
<b>Fawning Fan</b> buys a copy of the first novel from Peter Plagiarist, and a copy of the second novel from Allie Attributor.<br />
<br />
Civil disputes arise. You are the judge at the DRO (Dispute Resolution Organization). How do you decide:<br />
<br />
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><b>1. Goodwriter v. Copyist</b></span><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
[A] Goodwriter wins because he had a contract with Copyist which disallowed copying.<br />
[B] Copyist wins because one can only contract with that which is property. Since IP is abolished, the contract is void.</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><b>2. Assuming Goodwriter prevails against Copyist, what are his damages?</b></span><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
[A] Whatever amount was specified and agreed to in the contract.<br />
[B] A reasonable amount per copy that Copyist made.<br />
[C] A reasonable amount per copy that Copyist made, plus all subsequent copiers.<br />
[D] No damage award is possible, regardless of contract terms, because IP is abolished.</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><b> 3. Goodwriter v. Distributor</b></span><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
[A] Goodwriter wins, because Distributor should have known about Goodwriter’s no-copy policy.<br />
[B] Distributor wins, because Distributor did not know about Goodwriter’s no-copy policy.<br />
[C] Distributor wins, irrespective of Goodwriter’s no-copy policy, because IP is abolished.</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<b><span style="text-decoration: underline;">4. Goodwriter v. Plagiarist</span></b><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
[A] Goodwriter wins, because Plagiarist defrauded Goodwriter.<br />
[B] Goodwrtier wins, because Plagiarist sullied Goodwriter’s good name.<br />
[C] Plagiarist wins, because Goodwriter cannot show damage to property, because IP is abolished.</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<b><span style="text-decoration: underline;">5. Fan v. Plagiarist</span></b><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
[A] Fan wins, because Plagiarist defrauded Fan by pretending to have written the novel.<br />
[B] Plagiarist wins, because Fan cannot show damage to property, because IP is abolished.</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><b>6. Goodwriter v. Attributor</b></span><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
[A] Goodwriter wins, because Attributor defrauded Goodwriter.<br />
[B] Goodwriter wins, because Attributor sullied Goodwriter’s good name.<br />
[C] Atributor wins, because Goodwriter cannot show damage to property, because IP is abolished.</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<b><span style="text-decoration: underline;">7. Fan v. Attributor</span></b><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
[A] Fan wins, because Attributor defrauded Fan, by pretending that Goodwriter wrote the novel.<br />
[B] Attributor wins, because Fan cannot show damage to property, because IP is abolished.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
-----------<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2>
77 Comments</h2>
<ol class="commentlist">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-88">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-88">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> May 29, 2014, 6:23 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=88#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
What do you suppose the difference in price between DRO contract that promises to enforce IP contracts and one that does not?<br />
My scenario: DRO says “read your contract” and refuses all these
cases. Good writer starts an Internet beef with various of these
persons, generating publicity for his book. Serious fans buy it although
they could get it free. (Might as well rename him Cory Doctorow.) He
holds a kickstarter campaign for the sequel, makes a bushel of money.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-91">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-91">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 29, 2014, 2:32 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=91#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Like any type of insurance, one that provides less coverage is less expensive, other things equal. <br />
DRO refuses ALL these cases? Including Goodwriter v. Copyist (who appear to have a contract)?<br />
Goodwriter starts an Internet beef? On what basis? Is copying wrong?
If so, why? Is plagiarism wrong? If so, why? Is false attribution wrong?
If so, why?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-3" id="li-comment-97">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-97">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> May 29, 2014, 9:59 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=97#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“DRO refuses ALL these cases?”<br />
My DRO does. They don’t have time for expensive nonsense.<br />
“Goodwriter starts an Internet beef? On what basis?”<br />
Since when does anyone need a basis? Anything that makes a good story or
attracts attention can be the basis for an internet beef. Maybe just
state the facts: “She promised not to but she did!” “He’s selling my
stuff!” “He selling my stuff with his name on it!” “She’s selling crap
pretending I wrote it!” You claim that all these belong in a courtroom,
internet beefs can be much more trivial than anything that fits that
description. <br />
“Is copying wrong? If so, why?”<br />
No. I’m not sure I’m ready to claim it is right, either. But enforcing a
law or contract regarding copying either just doesn’t work or requires
an unconscionable amount of snooping, chilling, hoop jumping, etc.<br />
“Is plagiarism wrong? If so, why? Is false attribution wrong? If so, why?”<br />
Both are instances of lying. DRO seems like overkill to me. To clarify, I
am pretty confident that if this ever becomes a problem, other, more
reasonable and low-cost solutions will be found. I doubt anyone will be
able to make a living selling fake Steven King novels or passing off
Steven King novels as their own. Embarrassment seems to be the
enforcement mechanism that discourages plagiarism.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-jackfeka odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-89">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-89">
<img alt="Avatar of Jack Feka" class="avatar user-1180-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1180/369ef8d7f58bdc9f40ec521177cbebae-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/jackfeka/" rel="external nofollow">Jack Feka</a> May 29, 2014, 6:43 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=89#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
There are several things that need to be fleshed out in your
imaginary world before anyone could begin to logically respond to your
queries.<br />
First, on what grounds would DRO’s operate? Since there is no state
they would not likely be operating without someone paying for the
service. How would the various parties come to confront each other and
be held accountable for the decisions reached? After all, what
difference would it make to a person whose position was decided against
if they didn’t care in the first place and maybe didn’t even respond to a
notice that a claim had been filed with the DRO.<br />
Another issue I would raise is your statement that all forms of
intellectual property had been abolished. If you mean that books,
songs, music, etc no longer exist then the scenario you’ve painted is
complete non-sense. On the other hand, if you meant to say that legal
restrictions on the copying and reproduction of intellectual property no
longer exist, you have an entirely different situation.<br />
This distinction seems to be blurred in your earlier article about IP
also. It is not the existence of these things that are in question,
but the existence or absence of legal state-mandated and enforced
controls over their dissemination.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-92">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-92">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 29, 2014, 3:03 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=92#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Jack, <br />
DROs would be insurance companies. Customers pay premiums in exchange
for protection and dispute resolution services. Contract enforcement is
easily understood, as contracting parties agree up front to be bound by
the decisions of a DRO. <br />
Tort law applies to situations where a person violates the person or
property of another, and no contract exists between them. Any society,
statist or stateless, must confront this problem. For the purpose of
this exercise, let’s assume DROs exercise the authority to impose fines
and otherwise punish violators.<br />
“Property” is a legal construct. I can’t imagine a world without
songs, stories, movies, computer games, etc. This exercise is imagining a
world as Stephan Kinsella imagines it – with intellectual creations,
but with no property rights regarding those creations.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mattphillips odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-93">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-93">
<img alt="Avatar of Matt Phillips" class="avatar user-139-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/139/e7a33b5c6a8bd78516330af579a3b8cd-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mattphillips/" rel="external nofollow">Matt Phillips</a> May 29, 2014, 7:18 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=93#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I’ve corresponded each sub-number with a letter for purposes of
addressing your outline above. The number-number outline is fine for the
format above, but would become confusing for my purposes below.<br />
These are my opinions on the scenarios presented in your well-organized thought experiment:<br />
1. b. There are plenty of contracts that are not based on property.
There are conduct contracts, performance contracts, etc. Someone can
very easily be sued for violating a contract. Is there any anti-IP
argument against EULA’s?<br />
2. This is a great question, and I don’t know what penalties would be
charged against a violater of a EULA if the cost of breach of contract
was not spelled out in the contract itself. That’s why my guess is that
both parties would very clearly and carefully spell out the penalties in
their contracts before signing. If the penalties were obscene, no one
would buy the product for fear of accidental breach. If the penalties
are extremely slight, people may still feel comfortable making the
agreement and purchasing the book, and the added incentive not to share
with their friends may just work.<br />
3.d. “None of the above.” Plagiarist “wins” because he never signed a
contract with Goodwriter. Copyist would have to settle up on the damages
based on her contract with Goodwriter.<br />
4.c. in a sense, if Plagiarist obtained his copy with a EULA directly
from Goodwriter. Otherwise, Copyist may still be on the hook for
violating her contract, and Plagiarist is just a liar.<br />
5. Both win (in a non-legal sense, since I don’t think that a legal
decision would or could be made). Goodwriter may even benefit in the
long run. Plagiarist gets some money and recognition (as ill-gotten as
it may be), Fan gets to read a book that he/she enjoys. Some people will
discover either by research or word of mouth that it was actually a
Goodwriter original, and will buy a copy from Goodwriter, along with
some of his other works. Fans who discover that Plagiarist is a fraud
will most likely not purchase from plagiarist, but instead will now look
for the original author of his material. If nothing else, he has a
taste that they can appreciate.<br />
6. Both may win (again, in a non-legal sense, and for the same reason).
Goodwriter, if a principled artist, would stand up and deny any works
falsely attributed to himself, regardless of how good they are, and how
much money he could stand to gain from them. However, if he’s as morally
corrupt as our friend, the plagiarist, he would stand to benefit from
Attributor’s work if it’s any good.<br />
In either case, the author gets press for being a great author, or a
target of “fraud” (and I use that term extremely loosely). The
Attributors may make a few bucks trying to be him for a short time. If
they’re good, they probably come out as the actual author and write
under their own identity.<br />
7. See my answer to #5. It would be a variation of that.<br />
If, down the line, you can prove in your works that there is indeed
an “Intellectual Space” for which there is a normative case for
protection of law, then there will have to be a sustainable way to
protect it without a government. In the case that both conditions are
met, I would have to revise my opinions above. I don’t see how that
could possibly happen, but I suppose the limits of the world are not
measured by what fits inside my cranium.<br />
So I’ll continue to watch the debate with great interest and an open mind.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-94">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-94">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 29, 2014, 7:38 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=94#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Matt, thanks for the thoughtful comments, much appreciated. I
re-numbered / re-lettered, so your comments now match the multi-choice.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mattphillips odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-95">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-95">
<img alt="Avatar of Matt Phillips" class="avatar user-139-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/139/e7a33b5c6a8bd78516330af579a3b8cd-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mattphillips/" rel="external nofollow">Matt Phillips</a> May 29, 2014, 7:50 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=95#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Thanks for that. You didn’t have to change your article! <br />
Also, a minor correction for my response to question #4: “if Plagiarist” should be “unless Plagiarist.”<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-krisztianpinter even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-96">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-96">
<img alt="Avatar of Krisztián Pintér" class="avatar user-1477-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1477/db9ab3423b08e79086307d55034f8c3b-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/krisztianpinter/" rel="external nofollow">Krisztián Pintér</a> May 29, 2014, 9:57 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=96#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
here is my analysis, purely opinion, i’m not claiming definite knowledge in these.<br />
1. and 2. a contract is a conditional transfer of ownership. if their
contract says “if you copy, you have to pay X dollars” then, by
copying, the condition is satisfied and the ownership of X dollars
transfered to goodwriter. if the contract does not contain such a
clause, it is consequenceless, thus void.<br />
3. distributor wins in all circumstances, as he does not have a contract, and caused no damage to anybody’s property.<br />
4. and 6. plagiarist/attributor and goodwriter are in no relation
whatsoever, plagiarist/attributor wins. the reason is lack of contract
or physical damage to property.<br />
5. and 7. fan (buyer) wins. the purchase contract contained the
author, which was not fulfilled. the condition for the transfer of the
ownership of the price was not met, the buyer is still the legal owner
of the money.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-98">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-98">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 29, 2014, 11:20 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=98#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Krisztián, Thank you for your input. In 1 and 2, you define
contract as “a conditional transfer of ownership”. That sounds like the
“title-transfer” theory of contract, and I support that. So does
Kinsella. So did Rothbard. <br />
However, in 5 and 7, you say Fan wins, because “the purchase contract
contained the author”. Who actually wrote the book is a purely
intangible concept. The physical structure of the book is the same,
regardless of who really wrote it. <br />
Without IP, how could “the author” be the subject matter of a contract?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-krisztianpinter even depth-3" id="li-comment-238">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-238">
<img alt="Avatar of Krisztián Pintér" class="avatar user-1477-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1477/db9ab3423b08e79086307d55034f8c3b-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/krisztianpinter/" rel="external nofollow">Krisztián Pintér</a> June 7, 2014, 5:16 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=238#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
ownership applies only to physical, but a condition of a contract
can refer to anything. a service is most usually intangible. in our
case, the contract explicitly contains the clause that i pay the author,
perhaps because i want him/her to write more, or i want to encourage
writing in general. i did not get what i bought, contract violated.<br />
consider an even more extreme case: i buy a significantly overpriced
post card hand drawn by a handicapped child to support him. turns out it
is a lie, and there is no child involved. would you say that the
contract is fulfilled?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-239">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-239">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 7, 2014, 6:48 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=239#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
One may only contract with that which is property. Your example
about “handicapped child” is one of false attribution. Absent a property
right in intangible goods, I don’t think you can show damages. No
damages means no fraud.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-christopherlewis even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-123">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-123">
<img alt="Avatar of Christopher Lewis" class="avatar user-189-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/189/a0ea0d6ecea7068f868a01a8d3726c15-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/christopherlewis/" rel="external nofollow">Christopher Lewis</a> May 31, 2014, 1:47 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=123#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
As a preface, I cannot condemn any of the above mentioned actions
as “morally wrong” because morals are, to me at least, nothing more than
a set of personal values. I do feel that plagiarism and false
attribution are forms of fraud, however as they do not deprive anyone of
their liberty or product, they cannot, or should not be punishable in
any court except for that of public opinion. And we all know that public
opinion is quite possibly the most severe court of them all. So my
answers to the questions are as follows:<br />
1.) B. Copyist purchased a set of papers from Goodwriter which
contained Goodwriter’s ideas on them. Goodwriter parted with the paper
and his ideas for a price. He can no longer claim any rights over the
paper, and no contract giving Goodwriter control over Copyist’s justly
owned property can be given any force. Justice should not allow it.<br />
2.) D. Because of my above opinion.<br />
3.) C. Because of 1 above.<br />
4.) A. & C. Goodwriter certainly was defrauded, however I cannot see
any just and reasonable DRO/court awarding any sort of recompense, as
the fraud did not involve any loss of property for Goodwriter.<br />
5.) A. Fan was a victim of fraud. She technically could state that had
she not been defrauded, she would have never purchased the book from
Plagiarist and rather purchased it from Goodwriter, or Copyist, or even
Distributor, due to a preference of owning a copy attributed to the true
author. The only just and reasonable reward would be the price she paid
Plagiarist for the book.<br />
6.) C. Attributor did not defraud Goodwriter, she defrauded everyone who
purchased her book, who all now have a rightful claim against her for
the same reason that Fan has a case against Plagiarist. As far as
Goodwriter is concerned, I find it unreasonable for anyone to expect
that their given name, or their reputation for that matter, is a form of
property. That notion seems silly to me.<br />
7.) A. Like her case against Plagiarist, Fan only has a right to the money which she parted with under false pretenses.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-124">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-124">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 31, 2014, 1:55 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=124#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Christopher, thanks for your comments. Would it change any of your
views if I told you that “fraud” is a legal term, the name of a
particular tort (or crime if you like)? Common law holds that fraud
requires 3 elements – deception, reliance on the deception, and harm to
property.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-christopherlewis even depth-3" id="li-comment-125">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-125">
<img alt="Avatar of Christopher Lewis" class="avatar user-189-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/189/a0ea0d6ecea7068f868a01a8d3726c15-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/christopherlewis/" rel="external nofollow">Christopher Lewis</a> May 31, 2014, 2:50 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=125#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Quite honestly, it wouldn’t. Although fraud has been given strict
parameters for its use in our legal system, I don’t believe that we
should preclude it from use in our hypothetical world (substitute victim
for property in the last element). I actually think it would be quite
useful to allow some, if not most, of our legal terms to transcend this
current, crumby system into our more just, evolved one.<br />
With that being said, I believe that the harm to property element is a
requirement for recompense, and that relieving someone of their property
through false pretenses satisfies that requirement.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-126">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-126">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 31, 2014, 2:59 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=126#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Yes, of course there will be tort law in a free society. And I think the definition of fraud should survive intact. <br />
Since fraud must involve damage to property, I don’t understand how
copying, plagiarism or false attribution could be considered fraud,
unless there is IP. <br />
However, I’m willing to keep listening. Thanks again for your input Christopher.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-christopherlewis even depth-5" id="li-comment-128">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-128">
<img alt="Avatar of Christopher Lewis" class="avatar user-189-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/189/a0ea0d6ecea7068f868a01a8d3726c15-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/christopherlewis/" rel="external nofollow">Christopher Lewis</a> May 31, 2014, 3:30 am
</div>
I think that is where we differ, in the idea that fraud MUST
involve damage to property. I wanted to see if there is any precedent
to aid in my idea that it doesn’t require such damage and came across
the California Civil Jury Instructions regarding Intentional
Misrepresentation (<a href="http://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1900/1900.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1900/1900.html</a>). According to that document, for a plaintiff to prove their case they must meet 7 conditions one of which being:<br />
“6. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and”<br />
The language of that requirement specifically states that the person
must be harmed, as opposed to their property. And rightfully so. By
having the element be harm to victim, you now allow a hearing for both
damages as stated in my answers to the questions of your fable as well
as damages to the property of that victim, as harm to his property
effectually causes him harm.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-132">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-132">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 31, 2014, 7:49 am
</div>
I’m sorry Christopher, but “harm” in the jury instruction means
“harm to person or property”. Under libertarian theory of
self-ownership, a person’s body is property. That’s all I meant. <br />
All torts, including fraud, must show “damages”, meaning harm to
person or property. If there are no damages, there is no case. No harm,
no foul, as they say in sports. <br />
All legal rights are property rights. All legal wrongs are property wrongs. That’s my view anyway. What say you?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-christopherlewis even depth-5" id="li-comment-133">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-133">
<img alt="Avatar of Christopher Lewis" class="avatar user-189-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/189/a0ea0d6ecea7068f868a01a8d3726c15-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/christopherlewis/" rel="external nofollow">Christopher Lewis</a> May 31, 2014, 6:24 pm
</div>
I understand what you are saying, and I think we are in near
perfect agreement. As long as harm, in the fraud sense, can be
understood to mean damage to person or property, then I am satisfied. <img alt=":)" class="wp-smiley" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" /> <br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-134">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-134">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 31, 2014, 6:43 pm
</div>
Well, yeah, except . . .<br />
If there’s no property right to intangible things, then there can’t
be damage to property here. And if there’s no damage to property, then
there’s no fraud.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-christopherlewis even depth-5" id="li-comment-135">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-135">
<img alt="Avatar of Christopher Lewis" class="avatar user-189-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/189/a0ea0d6ecea7068f868a01a8d3726c15-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/christopherlewis/" rel="external nofollow">Christopher Lewis</a> May 31, 2014, 6:48 pm
</div>
Understood. For clarification though, as regards the cases of Fan
v. Plagiarist and Fan v. Attributor where Fan in parted with property
under false pretenses, can that not be considered fraud?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-136">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-136">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 31, 2014, 9:13 pm
</div>
Plagiarist offers to sell a book in exchange for money. Fan offers
to pay money in exchange for book. Fan gets the book. Plagiarist gets
the money. Where are the damages?<br />
Yes, Plagiarist implies that he wrote the book, which is false. But
so what? Fan bought a book that she thought was written by Plagiarist.
What difference does it make to Fan who actually wrote it? It’s the same
book either way.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-3" id="li-comment-278">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-278">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 12, 2014, 7:31 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=278#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
What does “reliance on the deception” mean?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-285">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-285">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 12, 2014, 8:11 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=285#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“reliance on the deception” means that it influenced a decision.
In any tort or crime, the plaintiff must show a chain of causation from
what the defendant did, to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. <br />
This is 500 year old common law, by the way, not me.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-240">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-240">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 7, 2014, 6:58 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=240#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Christopher, if you believe morals are only a personal choice, you
can’t be a libertarian. Libertarians believe that it is always wrong to
initiate force. “Wrong” is a moral judgment. Your position is referred
to as “moral relativism”.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-christopherlewis odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-249">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-249">
<img alt="Avatar of Christopher Lewis" class="avatar user-189-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/189/a0ea0d6ecea7068f868a01a8d3726c15-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/christopherlewis/" rel="external nofollow">Christopher Lewis</a> June 9, 2014, 4:39 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=249#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I’m not exactly sure how you could possibly make such a
declaration. If that’s not an example of the No True Scotsman, then I
don’t know what is. Being against the initiation of force isn’t
necessarily a moral position, it is an ethical one based on the proper
treatment of other human beings. You can be morally opposed to a lot of
things, however proper ethics would require you to not act against them
or to aggress against another’s right to pursue them. We witness daily
the moral opposition to homosexual marriage, moral opposition to drug
use, moral opposition to the rights of labor (ie working below the
minimum wage, working beyond 40 hours without requiring overtime pay,
working while under the minimum age required by law), etc. Those
specific morals are not universal, and one does not have the right to
declare that those moral positions are “wrong”. Morals are only matters
of individual opinion and principle (can someone who is amoral not
behave ethically?). How can you declare that I am not libertarian due to
my belief in descriptive moral relativism? I do not make normative
moral arguments and therefore do not find myself in contradiction to
libertarian principles. Am I violating the NAP by having such a belief? I
fear that you are making a “thick” judgment and entering into the
thick/thin debate by doing so. And by going too thick, one moves from
libertarian to authoritarian.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-4" id="li-comment-250">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-250">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 9, 2014, 5:43 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=250#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
No true Scotsman can hail from Germany, by definition. No true libertarian can oppose NAP, by definition. <br />
In my view, law is based entirely on ethics, and ethics is based
entirely on morality. If your dementia framework separates ethics from
morality, fine. Forget “morals” and substitute “ethics” . <br />
Is plagiarism unethical? Why or why not?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-christopherlewis odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-251">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-251">
<img alt="Avatar of Christopher Lewis" class="avatar user-189-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/189/a0ea0d6ecea7068f868a01a8d3726c15-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/christopherlewis/" rel="external nofollow">Christopher Lewis</a> June 9, 2014, 6:01 pm
</div>
I do believe, as I wrote, that plagiarism and false attribution
are unethical, as they both involve a measure of deception. I find that
libel and slander are unethical too, however, like plagiarism and false
attribution, I cannot see how punitive punishments can or should be
meted out for such things.<br />
Also, after reconsidering my prior position (regarding Fan’s right to
remuneration for purchasing the fraudulent writings), I am now compelled
to agree with you (that she has no such legal claim), albeit it for
slightly different reasons (one of personal responsibility, as she
agreed to the purchase, and should have been aware of all facts before
consenting to it).<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-252">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-252">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 9, 2014, 8:14 pm
</div>
Christopher, I apologize for “dementia” above. Was supposed to be
“semantic”, auto-spell intervened. Your “semantic framework” separates
ethics from morality. <br />
Ok, so plagiarism is unethical, but not illegal. And it is not
possible to punish plagiarists. That is your position, I believe. <br />
Consider the case of a guy who breaks into your house while you are
away on vacation. He makes full use of your house, but then leaves. Is
this unethical? Is it illegal? How would a libertarian legal system
handle trespass?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-christopherlewis odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-266">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-266">
<img alt="Avatar of Christopher Lewis" class="avatar user-189-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/189/a0ea0d6ecea7068f868a01a8d3726c15-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/christopherlewis/" rel="external nofollow">Christopher Lewis</a> June 12, 2014, 4:53 am
</div>
Yes, plagiarism is unethical because it involves fraud. Deceiving a
person or people into thinking you are the originator is unethical,
however considering that ideas cannot be considered either scarce nor
unique, they should not be considered legal property. And if an idea is
not legal property, it cannot be subject to any property rights which
require justice.<br />
I fail to see what trespass has anything to do with this. Using
someone’s property without their permission is an entirely different
matter. Your mental exercise didn’t involve legal property, it involved
ideas, which are only considered property because governments
historically have enjoyed picking favorites.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-267">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-267">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 12, 2014, 5:07 am
</div>
Christopher, you’re right. Plagiarism is fraud. This proves intellectual property is valid.<br />
Fraud, by definition, requires a showing of damages. That is, damage to PROPERTY. <br />
Simply being dishonest is not fraud. People tell lies all the time.
Only when lies are used to deprive another of property does lying become
fraud. <br />
No property = no fraud.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-christopherlewis odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-268">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-268">
<img alt="Avatar of Christopher Lewis" class="avatar user-189-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/189/a0ea0d6ecea7068f868a01a8d3726c15-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/christopherlewis/" rel="external nofollow">Christopher Lewis</a> June 12, 2014, 5:21 am
</div>
Fraud within YOUR semantic framework. It is my error in continuing to use the term after our earlier discussion on it.<br />
You’re saying that because I used the word fraud I’m acknowledging IP as
actual property, which I’m obviously not. Remove the word “fraud” and
replace it with “act of deceit.” Plagiarism is unethical because it
involves deceit, but it cannot be considered punishable because no
property was actually harmed.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-christopherlewis even depth-5" id="li-comment-269">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-269">
<img alt="Avatar of Christopher Lewis" class="avatar user-189-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/189/a0ea0d6ecea7068f868a01a8d3726c15-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/christopherlewis/" rel="external nofollow">Christopher Lewis</a> June 12, 2014, 5:26 am
</div>
Here’s a question for you: do you consider ideas to be scarce or unique? If so, how?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-270">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-270">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 12, 2014, 5:48 am
</div>
Christopher, no, I’m sorry, deceit is not automatically unethical.
If I lie to the robber at my front door when he asks for the location
of my jewelry, I am not being unethical. Lying is only unethical when it
is used to deprive another of property, or in breach of contract. <br />
And I am not using “my” definition of fraud. The definition of fraud is from the common law.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-christopherlewis even depth-5" id="li-comment-271">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-271">
<img alt="Avatar of Christopher Lewis" class="avatar user-189-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/189/a0ea0d6ecea7068f868a01a8d3726c15-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/christopherlewis/" rel="external nofollow">Christopher Lewis</a> June 12, 2014, 2:27 pm
</div>
I fail to see where I wrote that all forms of deceit are fraud…
Are we not writing in the context of your above exercise??? How can the
instance where a person sells a knock-off object to someone, under the
guise that it is not a knock-off, be considered to be anything other
than fraud??? “Lying is only unethical when it is used to deprive
another of property[.]” That is exactly my point.<br />
Furthermore, you keep arguing that, in my view, the transaction cannot
be considered a case of fraud because I deny that IP is legal property.
That does not make any sense. The case complies with the 3 elements:<br />
1. deception – Plagiarist and False Attributor deceived Fan.<br />
2. reliance on the deception – Fan wholly believed what they purported to be true.<br />
3. harm to property – Fan was deprived of her property, her money.<br />
If that does not satisfy the criteria for fraud, then I don’t know
what to tell you. The case for Fan isn’t about Plagiarist plagiarizing
or False Attributor falsely attributing, it’s about the two of them
using deception to make a profit. Your only hypothetical argument
against that is:<br />
“Fan bought a book that she thought was written by Plagiarist. What
difference does it make to Fan who actually wrote it? It’s the same book
either way.”<br />
Is it really the same book? Originality does matter to some people.
So why do you get to decide what Fan should and shouldn’t accept? Why do
you get to decide which of her values matter? Perhaps Fan values
honesty and originality, do you get to tell her that those values don’t
matter?<br />
Let’s be honest though, you are not truly arguing from that standpoint.
You were using a hypothetical argument to try to induce me to answer in a
manner which would help work into your thesis that “the current anti-IP
position held by many libertarians is misguided[.]” I understand that,
as a music writer/producer, you have a compelling interest in
maintaining the monopoly over ideas, so let’s just move to that
discussion rather than trying to bait me into typing something that will
help you out.<br />
Do you consider ideas to be either scarce or unique? That would be central to furthering the discussion.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-272">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-272">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 12, 2014, 4:17 pm
</div>
Christopher, I answered your question already, I will again. You ask:<br />
“How can the instance where a person sells a knock-off object to
someone, under the guise that it is not a knock-off, be considered to be
anything other than fraud??? ”<br />
To repeat, fraud requires damage to property. Period. All legal wrongs require damage to property. Period. <br />
Is this clear? Please let this thought resonate within you for as long as necessary until you fully internalize it. <br />
All . . legal . . . wrongs …. require . . . a showing .. . of..<br />
DAMAGES. <br />
OK? Are we clear?<br />
No damages = no fraud. <br />
If you do not acknowledge that fraud requires a showing of damages, then you are incapable of maintaining this conversation. <br />
Fraud requires damage to property. <br />
Plagiarism, false attribution, etc do NOT cause any damage to
physical things. The only way to show damages in these cases is by
finding a property right to intangible goods.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-5" id="li-comment-279">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-279">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 12, 2014, 7:43 pm
</div>
On the plagiarism/misattribution/fraud discussion: If I contract
with someone to provide a particular good or service, but actually I
provide a different good or service, that’s breach of contract, right?
Can we think of plagiarism or misattribution as breach of contract, if
IP is not considered to be property? In this case, the “IP” is a
service, and by misidentifying the author, the contract is not
fulfilled. Is there a contract, though?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-281">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-281">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 12, 2014, 8:01 pm
</div>
“fraud requires damage to property.”<br />
So if I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, is that fraud or not? What property is damaged, besides the money I got from you?<br />
If I sell you a magic spell to cure cancer, and it doesn’t work, isn’t that fraud? What is the property that is damaged?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-christopherlewis even depth-3" id="li-comment-273">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-273">
<img alt="Avatar of Christopher Lewis" class="avatar user-189-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/189/a0ea0d6ecea7068f868a01a8d3726c15-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/christopherlewis/" rel="external nofollow">Christopher Lewis</a> June 12, 2014, 5:34 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=273#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Mr. Baker, this is now bordering on absurd. <br />
I’m going to pretend that you weren’t just trying to insult me. Your
arrogance regarding your opinion on this is quite astounding, and your
demeaning attitude toward those with which you disagree is both highly
unproductive and not very becoming of one attempting to have a
reasonable discussion. If you cannot help yourself but to continue in
such a distasteful manner, then I’m done, and will consider you to have
conceded the point. If you can help yourself and stop the condescension,
we can continue. <br />
But if we do, forget fraud, because it is not central to the point,
it is only an ancillary device which you have used to bolster your
pro-IP opinion, and you clearly won’t acknowledge the reality of how
fraud is being applied especially since 2008.<br />
Furthermore, no, you have not answered my question, which I clearly
stated twice. If you refuse to answer it a third time I will consider
you unwilling. <br />
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IP IS EITHER SCARCE OR UNIQUE, AND IF SO WHY???<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-274">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-274">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 12, 2014, 6:51 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=274#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Please read “why intangible goods are scarece and rivalrous”<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-christopherlewis even depth-5" id="li-comment-275">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-275">
<img alt="Avatar of Christopher Lewis" class="avatar user-189-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/189/a0ea0d6ecea7068f868a01a8d3726c15-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/christopherlewis/" rel="external nofollow">Christopher Lewis</a> June 12, 2014, 7:00 pm
</div>
I will make myself acquainted with the essay and respond after. Thank you.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-137">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-137">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 2, 2014, 3:21 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=137#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Jeffrey Tucker wrote to me:<br />
“Plagiarism would be regulated as any other thing in a free society.
It would be banned by some institutions and disregarded by others. This
is how most things work, governed by taste, manners, and institutional
rules. Plagiarism is not even illegal now! the private sector can manage
this stuff just fine. “<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-245">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-245">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 8, 2014, 10:18 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=245#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Alexander, I have not got a good grip on what you think the ideal
system would look like. If you could arrange things as you liked, what
would it look like? How would you detect that someone has trespassed on
your intellectual space, what sort of process would you go through to
gain restitution, and what sort of damages would you wish to receive?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-247">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-247">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 8, 2014, 10:31 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=247#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Intellectual space cannot be owned. Certain intellectual objects can be owned. <br />
I favor a voluntary society, with private firms competing to provide
enforcement of contract and tort law. Trespass of intellectual property
is AKA “copyright infringement”, and would be proven with evidence, as
with any tort case involving any sort of property. “Restitution” is a
type of damage award given to disgorge tortfeasors of unjust
enrichement, and is applicable to copyright infringement, as well as
various torts involving physical property.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-3" id="li-comment-253">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-253">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 9, 2014, 9:49 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=253#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
What sort of monitoring would you do to try to detect violations?
What sort of evidence would you expect to be seized? Would you just
prosecute people who are trying to profit off your stuff, or go for the
teenage collector?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-254">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-254">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 9, 2014, 10:39 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=254#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
And DRM?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-4" id="li-comment-255">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-255">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 9, 2014, 11:07 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=255#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
All of your questions apply equally to physical property. Usage of
intangible objects can be tracked, as can the use of tangible objects.
Rules of evidence evolve at common law. Violators may be prosecuted, and
let the punishment fit the crime. <br />
I would no more try to destroy a teenage music collector than I would
a teenage trespasser on my land, or a teenager who steals a loaf of
bread. These violations are not pre-meditated murder, but they are not
right either. Let the punishment fit the crime.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-256">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-256">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 10, 2014, 10:45 pm
</div>
“All of your questions apply equally to physical property.”<br />
Sounds like an evasion. If we were to treat songs like physical
property, I don’t think many violations would be detected. You need
snooping and restrictive DRM, no?<br />
“Let the punishment fit the crime.”<br />
That would be a positive change.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-257">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-257">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 10, 2014, 10:54 pm
</div>
Good grief. I get a statement every quarter in which thousands of
performances of TV music are tracked worldwide. Radio is the same way.
Internet, we count downloads. Really, Dave, honest. Cross my heart.
It’s being done, and it works. <br />
IP protection and tracking is not perfect, but neither is physical
property perfectly protected. It’s the same. The only difference between
intangible property and physical property is that one is intangible and
the other is physical.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-260">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-260">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 11, 2014, 12:58 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=260#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“I get a statement every quarter in which thousands of
performances of TV music are tracked worldwide. Radio is the same way.
Internet, we count downloads. ”<br />
I didn’t say it’s not possible, especially under the current system,
for you to spy on me. Just that you need snooping and DRM, unlike
physical property. The people who sold me my pants aren’t inspecting my
dresser drawers and they didn’t install a remote control zipper.<br />
“IP protection and tracking is not perfect, but neither is physical property perfectly protected. It’s the same. ”<br />
Not remotely. If someone steals my pants, I have to notice that they are
gone and, under the current system, I need a warrent and probable cause
to search people’s houses or persons. I don’t get to put people under
surveillance arbitrarily or forbid them to do certain kinds of computer
research. The primary means of securing physical property is just
possession. Securing IP requires an incipient police state.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-261">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-261">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 11, 2014, 1:09 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=261#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Dave Burns, <br />
Tracking usage does not require spying. I currently track my usage,
and I am not a spy. You have, by implication, just falsely accused me of
criminal conduct. That is dishonest and outrageous. Shame on you. <br />
I demand an immediate, public apology. <br />
Alexander Baker<br />
Write Hear Music (BMI)<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-264">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-264">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 12, 2014, 3:38 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=264#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Tracking legitimate usage does not require spying. Detecting
violations of copyright does. Are you going to ignore downloads of your
music using BitTorrent? Are you going to allow hackers to research and
share methods for defeating DRM? If so, I will happily apologize, but
then I will wonder what we were debating.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-265">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-265">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 12, 2014, 4:33 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=265#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Are you willing to ignore a thief who is stockpiling stolen goods in a warehouse he legitimately owns?<br />
Dave, there is absolutely no difference, conceptually, between
physical goods and intangible goods, except that one is physical and the
other intangible. If “spying” invalidates IP, then why doesn’t “spying”
invalidate PP?<br />
As to what is and is not allowed, precisely the same laws apply to IP
as to PP. Whatever question you have about the enforcement of IP law is
precisely the same as the corresponding question with PP, in all cases,
with zero exceptions.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-276">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-276">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 12, 2014, 7:04 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=276#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“Are you willing to ignore a thief who is stockpiling stolen goods in a warehouse he legitimately owns?”<br />
Obviously not. But you still need a warrant to search it. Also, if it
was a warehouse full of *copies* of someone else’s goods made with raw
materials owned by the warehouse tenant, yes I would ignore it. And so
would you. Apparently IP and PP are not identical after all?<br />
“If “spying” invalidates IP, then why doesn’t “spying” invalidate PP?”<br />
If PP required spying or monitoring thoughtcrime, this question would make sense. IP does, PP does not.<br />
“As to what is and is not allowed, precisely the same laws apply to IP as to PP.”<br />
Are you discussing your ideal world, or the one we inhabit? PP does not
require DMCA, persecution of Napster, pirate bay or Kim Dotcom, granny
lawsuits, etc.<br />
“Whatever question you have about the enforcement of IP law is
precisely the same as the corresponding question with PP, in all cases,
with zero exceptions.”<br />
Well then. DMCA or no DMCA? Locksmiths can exist or must go out of
business? NSA can hack my PC without a warrant or not? etc. Saying “it
is the same” doesn’t tell me what you think it is or what you think it
ought to be. If we use the same law for both, DMCA and other laws
specific to IP and DRM should be repealed, since their application to PP
would cause a disaster.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-280">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-280">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 12, 2014, 7:50 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=280#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
But you still need a warrant to search it. (Whether it is physical or intellectual). <br />
Also, if it was a warehouse full of *copies* of someone else’s goods
made with raw materials owned by the warehouse tenant, yes I would
ignore it. And so would you. (Not if they were manufactured using the
productive capacity owned by another, e.g. an assembly line or master
song file). <br />
Apparently IP and PP are not identical after all? (Yes, they are perfectly identical, in every case, without exception).<br />
I invite you to attempt to find a single example where physical
property and intellectual property operate differently. You will fail.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-287">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-287">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 12, 2014, 8:32 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=287#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Dave Burns June 12, 2014, 8:01 pm<br />
Baker : “fraud requires damage to property.”<br />
Burns: “So if I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, is that fraud or not? What property is damaged, besides the money I got from you?”<br />
Baker: “If you contract to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge, and fail to
deliver, I am damaged in the amount of 1 Bridge. That is damage to
property. I have 1 bridge less than I should. Alternatively, you can
measure my damages as the money which was my property before I
transferred it to you. Remember, only property can be the subject of
contract”.<br />
Burns “If I sell you a magic spell to cure cancer, and it doesn’t work, isn’t that fraud? What is the property that is damaged?”<br />
Baker: “There is no magic, therefore no property right in magic
spell. Contract is void for fraud (Deception – reliance – harm). Damages
are the amount of money (property) I paid you.”<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-2" id="li-comment-296">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-296">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 12, 2014, 11:02 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=296#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Baker: “There is no magic, therefore no property right in magic
spell. Contract is void for fraud (Deception – reliance – harm). Damages
are the amount of money (property) I paid you.”<br />
Burns: So as long as money is involved in the transaction, plagiarism
or misattribution can be fraud, even if there is no copyright. But this
seems to contradict what Baker wrote previously: “Christopher, you’re
right. Plagiarism is fraud. This proves intellectual property is valid.”<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-299">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-299">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 12, 2014, 11:36 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=299#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Plagiarism is only fraud if there is IP. You paid for a book, you
got a book. The only property right at stake is the authorship of the
book, an intangible good. I say the authorship is rightly the subject of
a contract, because it is property. If there is no IP, then it makes no
difference who really wrote the book. Thus, who wrote the book cannot
be the subject of a contract.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-4" id="li-comment-304">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-304">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 13, 2014, 1:52 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=304#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“You paid for a book, you got a book. The only property right at stake is the authorship of the book, an intangible good.”<br />
Can I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, and actually deliver to you the deed
to a plank across a creek in Texas? You paid for a bridge, you got a
bridge.<br />
“If there is no IP, then it makes no difference who really wrote the
book. Thus, who wrote the book cannot be the subject of a contract.”<br />
I need to see an argument supporting that conclusion. You claim that
ideas can’t be owned, but we know who invented calculus, no one ever
claimed to own it, yet the correct authorship and historical sequence
was considered interesting and important by many people. No one has
denied that books are goods or that they can be described, why can’t
they be the subject of a contract?<br />
What about work contracts, where is the property? If a janitorial
service signs a contract with me, what is the property they are selling
me? It is a service. Contract requires something to be exchanged, but
the money is enough.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-307">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-307">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 13, 2014, 2:13 am
</div>
A physical book can be the subject of a contract. The pattern of
words can be the subject of a separate contract. If there is no property
right in the pattern, it is impossible to contract for the pattern. <br />
Service contracts are an exchange of property titles, like all
contracts. When you work for another, you are renting your body, which
is your right, because you have a property right in your body. If there
was no property right in your body, you would have no basis to contract
for work. <br />
One may only contract with that which is property. Period. No exceptions. <br />
No property = No contract.<br />
No property = No fraud.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-292">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-292">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 12, 2014, 10:47 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=292#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“But you still need a warrant to search it. (Whether it is physical or intellectual).”<br />
So you favor a change to the current system, requiring search warrants.<br />
“(Not if they were manufactured using the productive capacity owned by another, e.g. an assembly line [...]”<br />
But this is an impossibility. Your assembly line analogy, actually to be
analogous, requires that someone can “use a factory” without being
physically present and without causing congestion or wear on the
machinery or using the electricity of the factory. Which cannot happen.
So in effect, you are saying you would ignore it, except in the case
where something impossible happened.<br />
“I invite you to attempt to find a single example where physical property and intellectual property operate differently. ”<br />
Seems to me they operate differently in every case. But that is not what
I need to show. If we view them as identical, IP is a degenerate case
of PP, where owning a copy gives you the capability to make more copies.
Particular copies can be owned if the physical media that contain them
can be owned (e.g. copies transmitted by radio are not owned). Ideas,
including the complex of ideas that forms the design of physical goods,
should not be owned. We could construct an effective system to enforce
“property rights” in ideas, but we should not because it would require
draconian and intrusive mechanisms for detecting or preventing
violations. This regime treats PP and IP and ideas the same, does not
require that I show any difference in their operation.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-294">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-294">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 12, 2014, 10:55 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=294#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I favor the voluntary society.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-295">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-295">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 12, 2014, 11:02 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=295#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Using intellectual goods DOES wear them out, they are no more immortal than physical goods.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-298">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-298">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 12, 2014, 11:28 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=298#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“Using intellectual goods DOES wear them out, they are no more immortal than physical goods.”<br />
I think Baker is being metaphysical again, but let it slide. My point
is, if you produce a song and sell it to me, the productive capacity I
have gained possession of is physically distinct from the productive
capacity you used to produce the song. I need not use the same physical
recording or components or anything other than the item you sold me and
other equipment or energy I can obtain from other sources, if we limit
our discussion to the real world and exclude intellectual space.
Nothing of yours in the real world is used, touched, worn out, or
consumed when I produce a copy of your song from the copy you sold me.
All of the trespasses and usage and wearing out that involves something
belonging to you occurs only in “intellectual space.”<br />
I can do the same thing with a physical object, buy one and copy it
using my own energy, materials, machinery, 3-d printer, etc. Since Baker
rejects patents, he contradicts himself. If we adopt his metaphysics,
and claim that IP is just like PP in all cases, we can assign
intellectual objects in intellectual space corresponding to the design
of physical objects. Why is it the case that the intellectual object
corresponding to a song can be owned, but the intellectual object
corresponding to a chair cannot?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-4" id="li-comment-300">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-300">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 12, 2014, 11:39 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=300#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
A patent is a description of how homesteading could be done.<br />
A copyright is actually homesteading.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-306">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-306">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 13, 2014, 2:00 am
</div>
So ideas and processes can’t be homesteaded, but songs and books
can? Or they can be homesteaded, but you can gain the information
required by a patent without actually homesteading the product or
process?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-4" id="li-comment-301">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-301">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 13, 2014, 12:23 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=301#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I agree completely. Use of IP does not interfere physically. We’ve
been through this. If you define terms that way, you can prove your
argument with a few short phrases, and nothing more need be said. <br />
Property must be rivalrous, rivalry must be physical, thus property must be physical. QED.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-308">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-308">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 13, 2014, 2:17 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=308#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
A patent describes a METHOD of building something.<br />
A copyright protects a thing that has ACTUALLY been built.<br />
See the difference?<br />
A can describe a method for songwriting. You can’t copyright the
method. If you apply the method and actually write a song, you may
copyright the song. <br />
See the difference?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even depth-2" id="li-comment-316">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-316">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 13, 2014, 7:17 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=316#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Thought experiment: suppose we have a sophisticated CAD program
and a 3-D printer, so that I could make a specification document that
would allow me to manufacture an item I invent just like playing an MP3.
The spec would be analogous to the song, right?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-320">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-320">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 13, 2014, 2:44 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=320#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
The spec is not like a song. The spec is like an instructional book about how to play a specific song. <br />
The method described by your spec would be subject to patent under
current law. Because a patent is merely a description of how
homesteading could occur, rather than an act of homesteading itself,
patent not valid property. <br />
The exact patten of words and symbols present in the spec is subject to copyright, like any book. <br />
Do you see the difference? There are concepts and ideas conveyed by
the spec (not copyrightable). There is an exact pattern of words and
symbols fixed in a document (copyrightable). <br />
I think part of the problem is that Kinsella and his supporters have
insisted on lumping copyright and patent together as “IP”. They are
completely different things. Let’s unbundle them, please. <br />
Great question! Thank you.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-326">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-326">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 13, 2014, 8:21 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=326#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“The spec is like an instructional book about how to play a specific song. ”<br />
Isn’t an MP3 like an instructional book about how to reproduce a
song? Isn’t sheet music like an instructional book on how to play a
song? If I copyright the MP3, wouldn’t an unauthorized songbook
containing sheet music for the same song be an infringement of
copyright? Many possible performances, recordings, formats, notations,
but only one song. The input to copyright may be a specific pattern, but
the process proceeds as if that pattern established ownership of a
braod set of possible patterns. The connection between these patterns is
some metaphysical Platonic ideal. It is an idea, or complex of ideas.
This is what the copyright owner actually owns. But the line between
this and owning ideas is purely arbitrary. I can express any idea as a
pattern of words or other notation. A songwriter can own a song, a
novelist can own characters and settings, but a mathematician can’t own
theorems or mathematical concepts. It’s just arbitrary. Why can’t
physical objects be copyrighted? Or maybe they can, even worse. Sears
could make me sign a EULA for my screwdriver. Yikes.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-331">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-331">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 13, 2014, 11:03 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=331#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Your confusion is exactly why I conceived of intellectual space. <br />
A song is copyrightable because the song is the good. A method is not
copyrightable because a method describes how to make a good, but is not
the good. It is certainly possible to copyright a specific pattern of
information describing a method. But that is not the same as
copyrighting the method. <br />
To repeat, all property requires arbitrary boundaries. If this does not invalidate physical property, it must not invalidate IP.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-334">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-334">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 14, 2014, 12:18 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=334#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
‘A method is not copyrightable because a method describes how to make a good, but is not the good.’<br />
What if I paraphrase that as, “an MP3 is not copyrightable because an
MP3 encodes how to reproduce a performance of a song, but is not the
song?” Can you see why it is not clearing up for me?<br />
‘To repeat, all property requires arbitrary boundaries. If this does
not invalidate physical property, it must not invalidate IP.’<br />
Physical boundaries are imprecise, historically contingent, but not
arbitrary. Was that what you meant? Does the concept of a boundary even
make sense in intellectual space? What is near, what is far? <br />
I just noticed that your profile page lists your replies at the wrong
time, presumably because of our timezone difference. Everything you do
happened at least 4 hours ago. Does my profile list my responses as
happening in the future? (chuckle)<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-338">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-338">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 14, 2014, 12:46 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=338#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
A boundary in intellectual space makes perfect sense. There are
100s of millions of copies of the song “Yesterday”. There are hundreds
of different versions by different artists. And yet, we have no
difficulty at all recognizing “Yesterday” when we hear it. <br />
Dave, this conversation has been very illuminating to me. You
obviously have a blind spot for the property rights of others. You just
don’t understand the cruel damage you inflict with your aggression. <br />
Please understand. We are talking about real damage, to real people.
You openly advocate intentional harm. You are, therefore, and
intellectual sociopath. I fear you.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-346">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-346">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 15, 2014, 4:42 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=346#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“A boundary in intellectual space makes perfect sense.”<br />
I wish you would explain it. Thinking of a song as a point in this space
doesn’t work well. I’m moving toward thinking of a song as a shape.
Different performances would be nearly identical shapes, intersecting
perhaps in many places and in close proximity elsewhere. A mashup or a
song containing a sample from another song would intersect the original
songs. So space can be continuous, but a song isn’t necessarily a single
connected shape, it can be a collection of shapes. But I still don’t
get the dimensions.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-347">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-347">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> June 15, 2014, 4:49 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=347#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Dave, yes, excellent. A song is like a shape (“bounded pattern”)
in intellectual space. It has boundaries because we can tell what is
inside the song, and what is outside the song.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-350">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-350">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 15, 2014, 5:30 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/29/no-state-no-ip-you-be-the-judge/?replytocom=350#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
It might be more precise to say we know what is part of the song
and not part of it, what is similar and what is dissimilar, rather than
what is inside or out. Things are too undefined for us to know that a
song could not be a large sphere, say, and songs relating to shapes deep
within the sphere would not be even particularly similar to the song
defined by the sphere.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ol>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-82843284840234929632014-09-18T11:19:00.003-07:002014-09-18T11:22:15.933-07:00Why Subjective Valuation Supports Intellectual Property"Value" is a purely subjective human emotion. One man's trash is
another man's treasure. This fact makes trade possible and mutually
beneficial. When two people voluntarily agree to trade, it means that
they value the things traded in reverse order. Both parties expect to
derive a benefit of the bargain.<br />
<br />
<b>A Poor Argument For IP</b><br />
<br />
Some
proponents of intellectual property have tried to support their
position by noting that IP infringements will tend to reduce the value
of their property. For example, if I created a song, and you made copies
of it without my permission, then my existing copies would be worth
less on the market. Hoppe and others have correctly noted that one
cannot have a property right in the value of a thing.<br />
Thus, the
fact that unauthorized copying might reduce someone's individual
valuation (or the market valuation) of the original is not a valid
argument in favor of IP.<br />
<br />
<b>Not an Argument Against IP Either</b><br />
<br />
But
the subjective nature of value is not an argument against IP either. To
see why, let's apply the same logic to physical property. Making
additional copies of a bicycle will increase the supply, thus reduce the
value of the previously existing bicycles. Does this mean that property
rights in bicycles are invalid? Of course not.<br />
<br />
<b>Value = Use</b><br />
<br />
To
get to the bottom of how subjective valuation correctly applies to
copyright, consider this: value is synonymous with (or very closely
related to) "use". When I use something, I am in that moment deriving
value from it. <i><b>My</b></i> value. My <b><i>subjective</i></b> value.<br />
Two
people can use the same one thing in two very different ways. For
example, a little toddler will use a pair of baby shoes to protect her
feet while learning to walk. After she's outgrown them, her mother will
use the shoes as a keepsake. Same shoes, different use.<br />
We can see
that "use" is just as subjective as value. Thus, one cannot presume to
know what "using" a thing even means to another.<br />
<br />
<b>What Does "Interfere" Mean?</b><br />
<br />
The
necessity for property rights applies to rivalrous things. Rivalrous
means that use by one interferes with use by another. Clearly, one
cannot presume to know what "use" even means to another person, for
"use" is every bit as subjective as "value". Until we understand what
the individual means by "use", we have no basis whatsoever to form an
opinion as to whether somebody else's use does or does not interfere.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
---------<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2>
28 Comments</h2>
<ol class="commentlist">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-maluka even thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-28">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-28">
<img alt="Avatar of maluka" class="avatar user-1976-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1976/556821aedecafd02cda633c1db17f51f-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/maluka/" rel="external nofollow">maluka</a> May 26, 2014, 4:32 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=28#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
You just substituted the word value for use and repeated the same
agument you yourself titled ” a poor argument” by replacing “value” for
“use” whicht you claim are (somewhat) synonyms anyway.<br />
How does coping a song from something else than the master record
interfere with the musician making copies from his master record? He can
still produce as much copies as he wants.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-35">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-35">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 26, 2014, 4:44 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=35#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
I explain rivalry of intangible goods in:<br />
<a href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/25/why-intangible-goods-are-scarce-and-rivalrous/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/25/why-intangible-goods-are-scarce-and-rivalrous/</a><br />
As homesteader of a song, I own 100% of the productive capacity. When
you begin making copies, I own less than 100%. I want to make 100%.
Thus I cannot make “all I want”. Thus you interfere.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-maluka even depth-2" id="li-comment-36">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-36">
<img alt="Avatar of maluka" class="avatar user-1976-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1976/556821aedecafd02cda633c1db17f51f-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/maluka/" rel="external nofollow">maluka</a> May 26, 2014, 4:50 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=36#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
That’s what I mean. That is a restatement of the “I am entitled to the full value”-argument, you yourself titled “poor”.<br />
You still own a hundred 100% of the productive capacities of your
master record and your copies. You can make as many copies as it
possible for you. No body takes the tiniest bit of your copies or your
master record away.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-skylerjcollins odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-47">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-47">
<img alt="Avatar of Skyler J. Collins" class="avatar user-1953-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/f8149b4f8c8f92df5a93f4d2738f014f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/skylerjcollins/" rel="external nofollow">Skyler J. Collins</a> May 26, 2014, 4:48 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=47#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
If your creation prevents me from using my already-owned scarce
resources however I choose, then you’re creation interferes with my
property rights. IP is unjustifiable. You don’t homestead nonscarce
information, you homestead (or trade for) scarce resources. See Tucker
and Kinsella: <a href="http://mises.org/daily/4630" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://mises.org/daily/4630</a><br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-3" id="li-comment-56">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-56">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 26, 2014, 5:22 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=56#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Using that exact same reasoning, we can “prove” that physical
property rights are invalid. If I homestead a piece of land, I can now
prevent you from walking where you used to walk, thus interfering with
your use of your own body. <br />
Intangible goods are scarce, and are rivalrous.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-skylerjcollins odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-99">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-99">
<img alt="Avatar of Skyler J. Collins" class="avatar user-1953-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/f8149b4f8c8f92df5a93f4d2738f014f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/skylerjcollins/" rel="external nofollow">Skyler J. Collins</a> May 30, 2014, 2:47 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=99#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
If I used to walk there, then it would seem that I (and whoever
else used it) was the resources first user, and hence it’s owner. See
Long on “public space”: <a href="http://c4ss.org/content/14724" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://c4ss.org/content/14724</a><br />
If two or more people can use an idea without interfering in the other’s use of the same idea, its nonscarce.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-103">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-103">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 30, 2014, 3:09 am
</div>
I don’t think walking on land qualifies as homesteading, but it’s
arguable. And that’s the point. What, exactly, qualifies as “using” a
resource? And where, exactly, are the boundaries? Property rights
assignments require arbitrary human judgments. And that’s OK. <br />
Yes, if two or more people can use an idea without interfering in the
other’s use of the same idea, then it is nonscarce (more precisely,
non-rivalrous). <br />
You have simply stated the definition. <br />
Give some thought to the problem of deciding what constitutes “use”. Use is synonymous with value, which is subjective.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-69">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-69">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> May 27, 2014, 1:19 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=69#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“Until we understand what the individual means by “use”, we have
no basis whatsoever to form an opinion as to whether somebody else’s use
does or does not interfere.”<br />
This is irrelevant unless the meaning for “use” you end up with
depends on other people not using it, even though they could do so
without access to any actual real physical property of yours. And that
would be begging the question.<br />
A rivalrous consumption good cannot be consumed by multiple persons
at the same time. A rivalrous production good cannot be used for
production by multiple producers at the same time. Torturing the
definitions and bringing in Austrian ideas about subjective value
doesn’t help.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-2" id="li-comment-70">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-70">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 27, 2014, 2:41 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=70#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
That’s why it’s important to distinguish between the consumer and
producer use of intellectual goods. If you have not done so already,
please review “Why Intangible Goods are Scarce and Rivalrous”. <br />
<a href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/25/why-intangible-goods-are-scarce-and-rivalrous/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/25/why-intangible-goods-are-scarce-and-rivalrous/</a><br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-daveburns odd alt depth-3" id="li-comment-231">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-231">
<img alt="Avatar of Dave Burns" class="avatar user-622-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/622/e7333370e75c89b44cd10b8e7c99daaa-bpfull.jpg" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/daveburns/" rel="external nofollow">Dave Burns</a> June 6, 2014, 9:00 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=231#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Not convinced.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-skylerjcollins even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-105">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-105">
<img alt="Avatar of Skyler J. Collins" class="avatar user-1953-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/f8149b4f8c8f92df5a93f4d2738f014f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/skylerjcollins/" rel="external nofollow">Skyler J. Collins</a> May 30, 2014, 3:25 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=105#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Alexander: “Use is synonymous with value, which is subjective.”<br />
Use: take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result; employ.<br />
Value: the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.<br />
They don’t sound synonymous. The use of something may be valued by
someone, but so may any other characteristic. Value is a subjective
determination of worth based on any number of characteristics, including
possible uses. To say that they are synonymous is simply wrong. And to
say that a diminishing of value in the minds of others diminishes its
use is wrong. It’s a non-sequitur. The value will go up or down from
zero to billions or more in the minds of each and every person, while
it’s use(s) will remain constant so long as it isn’t physically changed.<br />
Your use of an idea will be constant, while the value of that idea will change in the minds of everyone.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-2" id="li-comment-108">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-108">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 30, 2014, 3:51 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=108#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Um, notice how “usefulness” is in your definition of “value”? <br />
As I said in the article, use and value are closely related. The
take-away point is that usefulness is subjective. Therefore the
definition of “rivalrous” has a subjective element to it.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-skylerjcollins even depth-3" id="li-comment-114">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-114">
<img alt="Avatar of Skyler J. Collins" class="avatar user-1953-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/f8149b4f8c8f92df5a93f4d2738f014f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/skylerjcollins/" rel="external nofollow">Skyler J. Collins</a> May 30, 2014, 10:39 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=114#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“or” is in both definitions, but that doesn’t make it synonymous.
“Use” is a characteristic, like shape, color, texture, state, etc. etc.
How we value, or the worth we prescribe, to each characteristic is
subjectively determined. That doesn’t make the characteristics
synonymous with value. Characteristics, like use, resides objectively in
the thing, whereas value resides subjectively in everyone else’s minds.
Use is only interfered with if the thing is physically interfered with.
Which is exactly what patent and copyright do to everyone else’s real
property. They interfere, via the state, with the owner’s use of his
real property. Hence the re-distribution of property rights that IP
entails. Theft, in other words.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-116">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-116">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 30, 2014, 11:28 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=116#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“Use is only interfered with if the thing is physically interfered with.”<br />
You’re free to define “use” that way, but then all you’ve done is
smuggled your conclusion into your premise. With that definition,
Kinsella could have written a very short book:<br />
Property rights only apply to rivalrous things. Rivalrous means that
use by one interferes with use by another. Interference must be
physical. Therefore property rights only apply to physical things. QED. <br />
And that is the sum and substance of what Kinsella did, although he goes on for 60 pages.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-skylerjcollins even depth-5" id="li-comment-118">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-118">
<img alt="Avatar of Skyler J. Collins" class="avatar user-1953-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/f8149b4f8c8f92df5a93f4d2738f014f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/skylerjcollins/" rel="external nofollow">Skyler J. Collins</a> May 31, 2014, 12:56 am
</div>
That’s *the* definition of use. I’m not smuggling in anything.
You’ll have to pick a different word if you don’t like what it means.<br />
“Property rights only apply to rivalrous things.”<br />
Now you’re getting it.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-121">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-121">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 31, 2014, 1:26 am
</div>
Sigh. Here’s A definition of “use’, from google:<br />
take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result; employ.<br />
(note – deploy something)<br />
Here is a definition of “thing” from free dictionary:<br />
An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.<br />
Substituting and editing, I get:<br />
Use – deploy an idea as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mwic even depth-4" id="li-comment-394">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-394">
<img alt="Avatar of Matthew Crouch" class="avatar user-2961-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/2961/94049b9529d152de2c7d5dbb902a8361-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mwic/" rel="external nofollow">Matthew Crouch</a> July 10, 2014, 2:58 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=394#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
> “or” is in both definitions, but that doesn’t make it synonymous.<br />
Skyler, I just want you to know that I had a *robust* laugh right
here. I’m a 30-day free-trial l.me member right now, but you have
persuaded me to pay to stick around.<br />
Baker’s semantic flailings are sometimes painful to watch; you cheered me up.<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-skylerjcollins odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-395">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-395">
<img alt="Avatar of Skyler J. Collins" class="avatar user-1953-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/f8149b4f8c8f92df5a93f4d2738f014f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/skylerjcollins/" rel="external nofollow">Skyler J. Collins</a> July 10, 2014, 3:31 pm
</div>
Glad to hear it. <img alt=":)" class="wp-smiley" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" /> <br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-skylerjcollins even depth-3" id="li-comment-115">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-115">
<img alt="Avatar of Skyler J. Collins" class="avatar user-1953-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/f8149b4f8c8f92df5a93f4d2738f014f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/skylerjcollins/" rel="external nofollow">Skyler J. Collins</a> May 30, 2014, 10:40 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=115#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
And your equivocating “use” and “usefulness”. They aren’t
synonymous. The former is an objective characteristic, the later a
subjective determination, like value (quite similar, but not the same
thing, either.)<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor odd alt depth-4" id="li-comment-117">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-117">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 30, 2014, 11:34 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=117#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Skyler, do you agree or disagree that “to use” something is
subjective? Reconsider the example I gave in the article, about baby
shoes. Or make up your own example. Two reasonable people can have very
different views about what it means “to use” something, right?<br />
What does it mean “to use” my house? I can’t be every place in my
house at once. What if a trespasser comes in my house without
permission, but is very careful to avoid me, and only uses those parts
of the house that I am not using at the time?<br />
Is he interfering? Why or why not?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-skylerjcollins even depth-5" id="li-comment-119">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-119">
<img alt="Avatar of Skyler J. Collins" class="avatar user-1953-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/f8149b4f8c8f92df5a93f4d2738f014f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/skylerjcollins/" rel="external nofollow">Skyler J. Collins</a> May 31, 2014, 12:59 am
</div>
No, possible uses is not subjective. They are demonstrably
objective. A thing can be used any number of ways. Each use (objective)
will be more or less useful (subjective) to each person, but the [way of
using] a thing is not subjective.<br />
I don’t know if he’s interfering with your use, probably not, but he is interfering with your right as owner to prescribe use.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-skylerjcollins odd alt depth-5" id="li-comment-120">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-120">
<img alt="Avatar of Skyler J. Collins" class="avatar user-1953-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/f8149b4f8c8f92df5a93f4d2738f014f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/skylerjcollins/" rel="external nofollow">Skyler J. Collins</a> May 31, 2014, 1:01 am
</div>
“I don’t know if he’s interfering with your use, probably not, but he is interfering with your right as owner to prescribe use.”<br />
I should add, “… of your rivalrous (scarce) resource.”<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-alexander bypostauthor even depth-5" id="li-comment-122">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-122">
<img alt="Avatar of Alexander Baker" class="avatar user-1985-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/1985/5906ba2096e88afa68b0feb90212e366-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/alexander/" rel="external nofollow">Alexander Baker</a> May 31, 2014, 1:33 am
</div>
If I walk across un-owned land, have I put it to use, sufficient
to appropriate the land as my own? If so, how much land, precisely?<br />
If I look at the beautiful painting on my wall, am I putting it to use?<br />
If I look at the beautiful mountain range out my window, am I putting it to use?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-skylerjcollins odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-130">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-130">
<img alt="Avatar of Skyler J. Collins" class="avatar user-1953-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/f8149b4f8c8f92df5a93f4d2738f014f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/skylerjcollins/" rel="external nofollow">Skyler J. Collins</a> May 31, 2014, 5:36 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=130#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Alexander: “Use – deploy an idea as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result”<br />
Yes, and your use of that idea (manifest in the real world through
your real property) in no way interferes with my use of the same idea
(manifest in reality through my real property). You use your real
property in Arrangement A, and I use my real property in Arrangement A,
and neither of us interferes with the others’ use.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-skylerjcollins even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-131">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-131">
<img alt="Avatar of Skyler J. Collins" class="avatar user-1953-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/f8149b4f8c8f92df5a93f4d2738f014f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/skylerjcollins/" rel="external nofollow">Skyler J. Collins</a> May 31, 2014, 5:38 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=131#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Alexander: “If I walk across un-owned land, have I put it to use,
sufficient to appropriate the land as my own? If so, how much land,
precisely?”<br />
Have you beaten a well-worn path? Then yes. The path area containing
the path is yours. See the Long article I already linked to.<br />
Alexander: “If I look at the beautiful painting on my wall, am I putting it to use?”<br />
Sure. But so what?<br />
Alexander: “If I look at the beautiful mountain range out my window, am I putting it to use?” <br />
Sure. But so what?<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-skylerjcollins odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="li-comment-148">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-148">
<img alt="Avatar of Skyler J. Collins" class="avatar user-1953-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://gravatar.com/avatar/f8149b4f8c8f92df5a93f4d2738f014f?d=identicon&s=86&r=G" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/skylerjcollins/" rel="external nofollow">Skyler J. Collins</a> June 4, 2014, 2:59 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=148#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
Alexander: “Use – deploy an idea as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result.”<br />
And how do we get from their to value? Or, more importantly, to the use of force to prevent the use of an idea by others?<br />
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children">
<li class="comment byuser comment-author-mwic even depth-2" id="li-comment-396">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-396">
<img alt="Avatar of Matthew Crouch" class="avatar user-2961-avatar avatar-60 photo" height="60" src="http://d268xzw51cyeyg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/2961/94049b9529d152de2c7d5dbb902a8361-bpfull.png" width="60" />
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://liberty.me/members/mwic/" rel="external nofollow">Matthew Crouch</a> July 10, 2014, 4:01 pm <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=396#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
“And how do we get from their to value? Or, more importantly, to the use of force to prevent the use of an idea by others?”<br />
It’s admittedly kind of hard to follow, but it works if you stand
really far away and squint your eyes so that everything is blurry:<br />
There is a sense in which “use” is subjective. Like “value” — you
agree that value is subjective, right? Great! There’s consumer use and
producer use (sometimes these overlap but keep squinting); these don’t
interfere with each other. There’s also “productive capacity” .. when I
say “there” I mean it’s in “intellectual space” so “there” doesn’t
really mean that it is somewhere. Still with me? Great!<br />
Now because of the subjective stuff (see above) you can’t say
definitely that someone’s [producer] use doesn’t interfere with someone
else’s, ’cause you can’t say what use is, really. Also don’t forget
rivalrous. “Using” something subjectively, for certain purposes, makes
those things rivalrous. ‘Cause of productive capacity and value. The
subjective-ness of “using” makes productive capacity rivalrous, ’cause
of value. It’s a lot like a bicycle factory. Just picture a bicycle
factory in your squinty mind’s eye, and we’re good.<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="trackback odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="li-comment-248">
<div class="comment_container" id="comment-248">
<div class="comment-text">
<div class="meta">
<a class="url" href="http://www.meuble-salle-de-bain-pas-cher.fr/" rel="external nofollow">destockage salle de bain</a> June 9, 2014, 8:09 am <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/26/why-subjective-valuation-supports-intellectual-property/?replytocom=248#respond">Reply</a>
</div>
<strong>destockage salle de bain</strong><br />
Hi,That nice post Tks<br />
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ol>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-36030411402975791552014-08-27T13:36:00.003-07:002014-08-27T16:49:39.766-07:00Songs Are Like Factories (a deeper look)<h3>
Introduction</h3>
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Stephen Davis argues that the analogy is flawed:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.)."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Thus, your argument fails. </blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
-Stephen Davis </blockquote>
<br />
Davis is simply applying a different standard to physical vs. intangible objects. I will re-state Davis' argument, applying a consistent standard. <br />
<br />
<h3>
Argument for Physical Property</h3>
<br />
Suppose I build a factory, and inside I build 100 identical machines. I own the building, I own all 100 machines.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
I cock my weapon, while explaining the fallacy in your position:<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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: <br />
<br />
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 <i>possible</i> use, and that includes owning 100% of all the widgets you made. <br />
<br />
You begin to tremble. You say you should own the widgets you made, because you used your own labor.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
You inform me that you <b>"<i>gave the widgets away to your friends"</i></b>. You also told your friends that they should come here, <b>"<i>plug</i> <i>some more machines in</i>"</b>, and <b><i>"make more widgets</i>"</b> to give away to their friends. And if that pesky factory owner shows up, just use the above arguments.<br />
<br />
In fact, tell him that this is now the <b>PEOPLE"S FACTORY!</b> 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. <br />
<br />
This is where I begin to lose my patience. My finger finds its way to the trigger, final aim is taken.<br />
<br />
"Get the hell off my property, and don't come back", I say.<br />
<br />
"You're trying to impose a negative servitude on me", you say.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Conclusion to Physical Property</h3>
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.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Introduction to Intellectual Property </h3>
<br />
The allegory above takes place in physical space. Now let us repeat the exercise in intellectual space.<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
Argument for Intellectual Property</h3>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
I cock my weapon, while explaining the fallacy in your position:<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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: <br />
<br />
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 <i>possible</i> use, and that includes owning 100% of all the song-copies you made. <br />
<br />
You begin to tremble. You say you should own the song-copies you made, because you used your own labor.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
You inform me that you <b>"<i>gave the </i></b><b><i>song-copies away to your friends"</i></b>. You also told your friends that they should come here, <b>"<i>plug</i> <i>some more machines in</i>"</b>, and <b><i>"make more </i></b><b><i>song-copies</i>"</b> to give away to their friends. And if that pesky factory owner shows up, just use the above arguments.<br />
<br />
In fact, tell him that this is now the <b>PEOPLE"S SONG!</b>
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. <br />
<br />
This is where I begin to lose my patience. My finger finds its way to the trigger, final aim is taken.<br />
<br />
"Get the hell off my property, and don't come back", I say.<br />
<br />
"You're trying to impose a negative servitude on me", you say.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Conclusion </h3>
<br />
Anti IP is Communism. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-64884611669253457252014-05-16T06:45:00.001-07:002014-05-16T06:45:54.844-07:00Intellectual Communism - Butler Shaffer on Intellectual PropertyButler Shaffer has given <a href="http://mises.org/document/7232/Libertarian-Critique-of-Intellectual-Property">"A Libertarian Critique of Intellectual Property". </a>
Sadly, Shaffer's book is not libertarian, and has nothing to do with
property. It ends up being another shallow propaganda rant for the
Intellectual Communists. <br />
<br />
After acknowledging,
correctly, that a libertarian society is founded on respect for property
rights, Shaffer sets out to prove that intellectual property (IP) is
illegitimate, and nothing more than a tool of the coercive state.
Seemingly wishing to analyze intangible goods on the same logical
grounds as physical goods, Shaffer asks the pertinent question up front:<br />
<blockquote>
How do [property] interests come into existence? (p.17)</blockquote>
But
Shaffer never actually addresses this question, certainly not from a
libertarian perspective. He never mentions the concept of
self-ownership, nor homesteading. He never discusses scarcity and
rivalry, the very rationale for property.<br />
<br />
Instead, he
cites the U.S. Constitution, § 8.8, relating to the rights of authors
and inventors, as if it gave birth IP in 1789. Having bypassed any
discussion of the philosophy of property, Shaffer hurls hyperbole:<br />
<blockquote>
This
constitutional authority [to govern copyright and patent] created, in a
legal monopolist of violence, the power to create in others monopoly
property interests that did not otherwise exist. (pp. 24-25) </blockquote>
This
is just a naked assertion. Shaffer does not attempt, let alone succeed,
at showing that property rights to intangible works cannot exist but
for the state. Instead, he simply assumes his desired conclusion,
stating:<br />
<blockquote>
The incompatibility of such an interest with libertarian principles should be apparent. (p.25)</blockquote>
In
a word Mr. Shaffer: No. No, the alleged incompatibility of IP with
libertarian principles is most certainly not apparent. Whether or not IP
is libertarian depends on our understanding of the rationale and ethics
of property in general. If intangible goods can meet the critera, then
IP is legitimate. If not, then not. <br />
<br />
Briefly, the
rationale for property is avoiding conflict over scarce rivalrous goods.
I have given my arguments for why and under what circumstances
intangible goods must be considered scarce and rivalrous. But at no
point does Shaffer even raise the issue. <br />
<br />
Briefly, the
correct ethics of property are self-ownership and the homestead
principle. I own my body, you own yours. The first person to discover
un-owned things and transform them into usefulness is the rightful
owner. Producer owns product. I have shown that intangible works are
acts of homesteading. Shaffer does not even raise these issues, but
instead offers: <br />
<blockquote>
The common law system got it right:
because the essence of ownership is found in the capacity to control
some resource in furtherance of one’s purposes, such a claim is lost
once a product has been released to the public. The situation is similar
to that of a person owning oxygen that is contained in a tank, but
loses a claim to any quantity that might be released—by a leaky
valve—into the air. (pp. 25-26)</blockquote>
Shaffer's analogy to
oxygen leaking from a tank into the atmosphere is ludicrous. Oxygen
dissolves into the air almost immediately, and becomes indistinguishable
from it. In stark contrast, an intellectual object like a song remains
perpetually distinct from its surroundings in intellectual space. There
are millions of copies of "Hey Jude" in existence, yet we still have no
difficulty ascertaining its boundaries. We can tell where it begins, and
where it ends. We understand what is "Hey Jude", and what is not "Hey
Jude". <br />
<br />
What philosophy holds that "the essence of
ownership is found in the capacity to control some resource in
furtherance of one's purposes" as Shaffer asserts? It certainly isn't
libertarianism, and it certainly isn't the Common Law. Under Shaffer's
theory, whoever is strong enough to take over a piece of land becomes
the rightful owner. <br />
<br />
The rightful owner is the
homesteader, or those who have contracted with the homesteader in
voluntary exchange. It's pretty basic libertarian stuff. Thus, it's
downright astonishing that other Mises scholars let Shaffer get away
with this shallow sophistry. David Gordon, who wrote the introduction,
is one of the sharpest philosophical minds in libertarian circles, yet
says nothing about Shaffer's unwillingness to adhere to even the
slightest modicum of academic rigor. What is going on here? I digress. <br />
<br />
Throughout his book, Shaffer repeatedly refers to IP as a "monopoly". This is the same <a href="http://homesteadip.blogspot.com/2013/03/boldrin-and-levines-inept-anti-ip.html">thinly-veiled scare-tactic employed by Boldrin & Levine</a>.
Any property right is a "monopoly", if you want to abuse the term.
Property, by definition, is the right to exclusive ("monopolistic")
control. Shaffer badly wants to convince us that IP must be a
state-granted "monopoly". But in the end, he doesn't even try. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The
notion that the anticipation of monopolistic rewards such as patents
and copyrights is essential to the creative process, is negated by much
of human history. I am unaware of any copyrights having been issued to
writers such as Aeschylus, Homer, Shakespeare, Dante, or Milton; or
composers such as Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Wagner, or Tchaikovsky; or
art- ists such as Van Gogh, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Rembrandt, or
Renoir. Were Leon- ardo’s or Gutenberg’s inventions, or the Egyptian
pyramids, or the Roman aque- ducts, rewarded by state-issued patents?
(p. 27)</blockquote>
Where is the evidence that ancient Egyptians
had decent respect for property rights in land? And yet, they built the
great pyramids, amazing physical structures that stand to this day.
Clearly, great works can be completed prior to a general acceptance of
property rights. Does it follow that property rights are therfore
invalid? It's an obvious non-sequitur.<br />
<br />
It's certainly
true that great inventions and works of art occurred before patent and
copyright. This is simply due to the fact that intellectual goods are a
much more recent development than physical goods. The great increase in
intellectual works in the late middle ages gave rise to the need for
property rights in them, the same way that building houses and farms
gave rise to the need for physical property rights long before that. <br />
<br />
Steadfastly
refusing to acknowledge even the possibility that IP could be based on
actual property theory, Shaffer restates the the utilitarian argument,
to then attempt to dismiss it: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But is
the premise upon which IP has long been defended—i.e., its importance in
making possible creations that benefit mankind—at all valid? (p. 28)</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[W]ho, amongst our earliest ancestors, were granted copyrights for [inventing the alphabet]? (p.33)</blockquote>
Who,
amongst our earliest ancestors, were granted land deed titles? None.
Does this invalidate physical property? No. Recall that, in the
beginning, Shaffer did suggest that he would apply a consistent standard
in comparing physical to intellectual property. He obviously chose not
to do so. <br />
<br />
Throughout the book, given the lack of any
mention of homesteading, or self-ownership, one gets the impression that
Shaffer's bent is not particularly libertarian. Then he completely
gives away the game, and his communistic mindset is revealed plainly: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What
anticipation of material rewards drove our prehistoric ancestors to
make their handprints on the walls of ancient caves in Spain and France?
Might they have had no other purpose than to reach their hands 40,000
years into the future to express to us that most fundamental spiritual
need for transcendence: “I was here”? (p. 36)</blockquote>
I can
think of no better expression of New Socialist Man than what Shaffer has
written above. Forget your "anticipation of material rewards". Forget
your property rights. It's all about your "fundamental need for
transcendence". Wow. Just, wow. <br />
<br />
Having ignored his own question for the entire book, Shaffer restates it at the end:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As
asked earlier, to the extent IP interests arise only by way of grants
from the state, how can such claims be defended on the basis of
libertarian principles grounded in individual liberty and respect for
private property? (p.42)</blockquote>
Claims to property rights
over intangible goods can indeed be defended on the basis of libertarian
principles grounded in individual liberty and respect for private
property. That is Intellectual Space. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-85794324145510105902014-05-13T20:37:00.001-07:002014-09-18T11:17:24.405-07:00Why Intangible Goods Are Scarce and Rivalrous<div class="article-text">
We have property rights to avoid conflict over scarce
goods. Nearly all things are scarce, or more precisely, “rivalrous”.
Rivalrous means that the use of the thing by one person interferes with
the use by another. Super-abundant goods, like atmospheric air, are not
rivalrous. My breathing does not interfere with anyone else’s breathing.
So, there is simply no need to establish a property right.<br />
<br />
It is argued that intangible goods (songs, stories, movies, computer
games, software, etc.) are super-abundant, like a “magically reproducing
lawnmower” (see Kinsella). I will show that this assertion is based on
a failure to distinguish between producer goods and consumer goods.
Once the “use” of producer goods is understood, it becomes clear that
intangible goods are rivalrous, justifying intellectual property (IP).<br />
<br />
<b>A Song is a Like a Bicycle . . . <i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">and</span></i> a Bicycle Factory</b><br />
<br />
Bicycles are mass-produced in a bicycle factory. A song is
mass-produced by making digital copies on a computer. A bicycle factory
does not simply exist, nor does a master song file. Like any other
producer good, both factories and master song files must first be
created, only then can they be used for mass production.<br />
<br />
Making a bike factory or a new song is an act of creation by an
entrepreneur. The person who brings this productive capacity into
existence is its rightful owner, according the to the homestead
principle. The homesteader also owns whatever goods are produced in the
factory.<br />
Theoretically there is some finite limit on the quantity of goods
that could possibly be produced in the factory over a given period of
time. In operating the factory, the owner may attempt to reach that
upper limit, or not. Either way, ownership is not diluted. The
homesteader owns 100% of the output from their factory, regardless of
how much he or she chooses to utilize.<br />
<b><br />
Bicycles in Physical Space</b><br />
<br />
Suppose John is a bicycle maker. John discovers unowned land, and
builds a bicycle factory there. By doing so, John has homesteaded in
physical space, because he discovered and transformed unowned tangible
raw material into something useful. The factory exists at a unique
location in physical space, because other things are at a different
longitude and latitude. We can appreciate the boundary, because the
building is distinguishable from its surroundings. By titling the
factory and attaching his name, John has staked his claim.<br />
<br />
For simplicity, imagine John’s factory as a building with an assembly
line and a pile of raw aluminum tubing. With electricity to run the
machine, and John’s labor, he can make 48 bicycles in an 8-hour day.<br />
<br />
John owns all 48 bicycles produced each day. If he sells a bicycle to
Betty, then Betty owns that one bicycle. Betty is now free to ride her
new bicycle whenever she pleases. But in no way does Betty own any part
of the productive capacity in John’s factory. When it comes to bicycles,
the difference between the producer good (the factory) and the consumer
good (the bicycle) is obvious, because they are physically distinct.<br />
<br />
<b>Betty Makes Bicycle Copies</b><br />
<br />
Suppose Betty noticed that John was only operating his factory 8
hours per day. Late one night, Betty sneaks into the factory. Using her
own raw materials and her own labor, Betty runs the assembly line and
produces some new bicycles, which she carts away before John returns the
next morning.<br />
Has Betty stolen anything from John? Has Betty done anything wrong?
Betty may argue that she did nothing wrong. After all, John was using
his factory only during the daytime, so Betty’s use did not interfere
with John’s use. John is still free to use his factory just as before.<br />
<br />
I hope that the flaw in Betty’s argument is apparent. Betty may not
have stolen anything from John, but she trespassed. The reason
trespassing is wrong is that the owner of property is entitled to
exclude others from using it, even when not using it himself. The owner
is entitled to 100% of the use. Betty may assert that she did not
interfere with John’s use, but properly understood, she most certainly
did interfere. Before Betty’s trespass, John enjoyed 100% of his
factory’s productive capacity. Afterwards, it was something less than
100%.<br />
<br />
Note that expressing the factory’s total productive capacity as a
percentage is crucial. If we were to express the capacity as a quantity,
say “48 bicycles per day”, we would arrive at the mistaken conclusion
that Betty is allowed to use John’s factory at night.<br />
<br />
<b>Songs in Intellectual Space</b><br />
<br />
Now suppose John is a recording artist. John writes and records a new
song called “Think This Through”. In doing so, John has homesteaded in
intellectual space. He discovered and transformed unowned intangible raw
material into a useful new object. The song exists at a unique location
in intellectual space because it has a beginning, an end, and unique
contents within. We can appreciate the boundary because it is
distinguishable from other songs. By titling and attaching his name,
John has staked his claim.<br />
<br />
“Think This Through” exists as a digital file on John’s computer. The
master song file, the computer, and a stack of blank CDs are like a
factory assembly line. With electricity to run the machine, and John’s
labor, he can make 48 copies in an 8-hour day.<br />
<br />
John owns all 48 CDs produced each day. If he sells a CD to Betty,
then Betty owns that one CD. Betty is now free to play her CD whenever
she pleases. But in no way does Betty own any part of the productive
capacity in John’s factory. When it comes to music, the difference
between the producer good (the original song) and the consumer good (a
copy of the song) is not obvious, because the copy can also be used as
an original. But the difference is real, and crucially important:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
No matter how many bicycles come rolling off the assembly line, <i>there is still only one factory.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
No matter how many copies of the song are made, <i>there is still only one song.</i></blockquote>
<b>Betty Makes Song Copies</b><br />
<b> </b><i> </i><br />
Suppose Betty noticed that John was using only his own computer to
make copies of “Think This Through”. Betty buys 1 CD and extracts the
digital file from it. Using her own computer, her own raw materials and
her own labor, Betty burns new CDs. Has Betty stolen anything from
John? Has Betty done anything wrong?<br />
<br />
Betty may argue that she did nothing wrong. After all, John was
making CDs with his own computer, so Betty’s use did not interfere with
John’s use. John is still free to use his computer just as before.<br />
I hope that the flaw in Betty’s argument is apparent. Betty may not
have stolen anything from John, but she trespassed in intellectual
space. She could not have made the copies of “Think This Through”
without first venturing on to John’s intellectual property without
permission.<br />
<br />
The reason trespassing is wrong is that the owner of a property is
entitled to exclude others from using it, even when not using it
himself. The owner is entitled to 100% of the use. Betty may assert that
by making copies she did not interfere with John’s use. But properly
understood, she most certainly did interfere. <i>She interfered with the producer use, not the consumer use</i>.<br />
<br />
Before Betty’s trespass, John enjoyed 100% of his song’s productive capacity. Afterwards, it was something less than 100%.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
Copyright infringement is trespass, not theft. Recognizing the
distinction between producer use and consumer use of intellectual
objects is crucial to correct analysis. The music industry should
continue making the strong utilitarian argument, pointing out that
creators will not be compensated without copyright. However, the music
industry should also address the philosophical debate over intellectual
property by implementing the paradigm of Intellectual Space.<br />
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-79114645797016049812014-05-12T09:29:00.003-07:002014-05-12T10:01:17.670-07:00Title-Transfer Theory of Contracts (and other notes to Steve)A reader named Steve has stated what he believes are central claims of my thesis. He then asserts that he has shown them to be false. These occurred in the the comments section of my post titled <a href="http://homesteadip.blogspot.com/2014/05/3-questions-for-stephan-kinsella.html">"3 Questions . . ."</a><br />
<br />
Following are his statements, with my responses.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
1) Because people value so-called "IP," property rights are necessary in so-called "IP." </blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
Intangible goods are scarce and rivalrous</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
People value intangible goods, just as they value physical goods. Just as with physical goods, property rights to intangible goods are necessary because they are scarce and rivalrous.<br />
<br />
Briefly, an intellectual work, like a song, is like a factory. At first the song does not exist. Once homesteaded into existence, the producer of the song owns its productive capacity, just as one can build and own a factory. Making copies of a song is like making copies of a widget on the assembly line. The song owner is entitled to 100% of the productive capacity of the song, just as the factory owner is entitled to 100% of the productive capacity of the assembly line.<br />
<br />
A person will use their property in a way that brings value. Valuation is subjective. Thus, "use" is subjective. The producer's use of a song is to exploit it commercially, thus unauthorized copying interferes with the producer's use. Only by presuming that valuation is objective can one decide that copying does not interfere. <br />
<br />
Much of Intellectual Space is devoted to an explanation of this concept.
In particular, see <a href="http://homesteadip.blogspot.com/2014/03/grammy-foundation-essay-submission.html">"Grammy Essay"</a>, and <a href="http://homesteadip.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-alleged-case-against-intellectual.html">"The Alleged Case Against Intellectual Property". </a><br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
2) Contracts involving so-called "IP" are impossible without assigning property rights in so-called "IP."</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
No property, no contract </h3>
<h3>
</h3>
That is exactly correct, contracts involving IP are impossible without assigning property rights in IP. Please see <a href="http://mises.org/daily/2580">Rothbard</a> (and indeed <a href="http://direct.mises.org/document/1951/A-Libertarian-Theory-of-Contract-Title-Transfer-Binding-Promises-Inalienability">Kinsella</a>) on the title-transfer theory of contract. One may only contract with that which is one's own property. If there is no property right in a pattern of ideas, then one cannot buy, sell or license that pattern of ideas. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
3) People would only be ostracized if they violated someone's property right.</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
No property, no wrong</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
We do not ostracize randomly. We ostracize those who have done something <i>wrong. </i>If there is no property right violation in, say plagiarism, then it is not wrong. Thus, without IP, there is no basis to ostracize.<br />
<br />
<br />
All legal rights are property rights. Period. All legal wrongs are property violations. Period. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
4) People necessarily have property rights in the products of their labor.</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
Service contracts are title-transfers</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
A person rightly owns the product of his labor, assuming he did not violate the property rights of others in the process. Keeping this in mind helps clarify why a service contract is a contract for the exchange of property titles, just as with any contract.<br />
<br />
Suppose you hire me to paint your house. I am renting my physical body to you for some period of time, which I may do because I own my body. You agree to allow me in while I work, which you may do because you own the house. I agree to let you keep the layer of paint on your wall, which is the product of my labor.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b><br /></b></i>
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-80709904979383153782014-05-06T20:16:00.002-07:002014-05-06T22:45:22.821-07:003 Questions for Stephan Kinsella, Jeffrey Tucker, or Stefan Molyneux<h3>
Super Abundant IP? </h3>
Stephan Kinsella and the other Intellectual Communists claim that Intellectual Property (IP) is unnecessary because it is super-abundant, like a "magically reproducing lawnmower" in Kinsella's words.<br />
<br />
It is agreed that there is no justification for property rights in super-abundant goods. The best (maybe only) example of a super-abundant good is atmospheric air. Here on the surface of the earth, we find ourselves with more than enough air for every person to breathe. Notice that people never attempt to buy and sell air to breathe. Every person already has all the air they need, delivered right to their faces.<br />
<br />
Under water air is scarce. Notice that people do buy and sell air for breathing underwater, in the form of scuba tanks.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Question 1: </h4>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If IP is super abundant, why do people <b><i>act</i></b> as though it is scarce? In
particular, why do people contract for the delivery of IP (movies,
songs, software, video games)?</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
Contract Requires Property Rights </h3>
<br />
Kinsella contends that IP are creations of the coercive state, and would not exist in a libertarian world. It is agreed that property rights and voluntary contract are the basis for prosperous free society. It is a well-accepted principle of contract that one may only contract with that which is one's own property. I can offer to sell you my car, but I can't offer to sell you my neighbor's car, because I don't own it. <br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Question 2:</h4>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In a world without IP, how could we possibly contract for the intangible goods people want? </blockquote>
By contracting for the physical containers? That's absurd. Yes, I understand that intangible goods require physical containers to be useful, just as many physical goods require physical containers to be useful. But people do not contract for the delivery of containers. We don't care about containers. We care about content. If the pattern of ideas on a DVD is not rightful property, then there is simply no basis to contemplate buying, selling or licensing such a pattern.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Boycotting Plagiarists </h3>
Jeffrey Tucker and Stefan Molyneux have suggested boycott and ostracism as a response to plagiarism in a world without copyright. They believe that consumers will recognize that plagiarism is fraud, and refuse to deal with such a bad guy. They are correct that plagiarism is fraud, but <i><b>only because a property right is at stake. </b></i><br />
<br />
By definition, fraud is harming another person by inducing a reliance on a deception. I deceive you, you rely on the deception, and are harmed as a result. <br />
<br />
Suppose you write a book, and I plagiarize it, offering it up as my own work. I have deceived you, because we had an understanding that I would not copy your work. You relied on my deception, because you trusted me. Under copyright law, I have harmed you because I interfered with your intellectual property.<br />
<br />
But if there is no property right in the authorship, then who have I harmed? The true author? No, because I did not take or interfere with the author's property. Did I harm readers of the book? No, the content of the book is the same regardless. Are the readers harmed because they don't enjoy the benefit of the reputation of the true author? No, reputation is another form of intellectual property, and a rather tenuous one at that. <br />
<br />
<i><b>Absent copyright, plagiarism is not fraud. </b></i><br />
<br />
<h4>
Question 3: </h4>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Why would you ostracize a plagiarist, when the plagiarist has not violated anyone's property right?</blockquote>
Is the plagiarist wrong simply because plagiarism is dishonest? No. Lying is only wrong when done to deprive another person of property. Deceiving a robber about the location of your valuables is virtuous.<br />
<br />
Tucker and Molyneux are quite correct that the free market would punish plagiarists. This is simply an admission that people recognize the property rights violation that plagiarism is. <br />
<br />
<br />
Stephan Kinsella, Jeffrey Tucker, Stefan Molyneux, or any other Intellectual Communists are invited to answer.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com16