Well that’s just it. If IP occurred naturally, we wouldn’t need these massive state structure to coerce people to participate in such.
I see IP as state sponsored extortion.
I certainly agree, and everybody should be able to agree upon the fact that it is state sponsored, whereas the issue of extortion would have to depend on how educated a person was. However, the fact that it should be agreeable to all that IP is state sponsored makes me wonder why some people see otherwise.
Trust me when I say, Max Liberty, as both an artist and musician who has taken part in each field on a professional level, that I can certainly sympathize with institution of IP rights on a certain level, and who could not?. However, the fact remains that it does not sit well within a stateless environment. Profit will still be found without IP rights, however. If this was not the case, a free society would have to struggle to survive… many sorts of people would revolt against it, if this was not the case, I’d imagine. Thankfully, logic leads me to believe that it is.
The issue is can two people have a contract where in exchange for receivng IP one party agrees to restirict their use of that IP. I say yes, you say no.
If I have written a piece of music and no one else has this music then it is perfectly plausible that I might sell you the rights to play this music and in addition impose restrictions on you about how you may use that music. For example, I might say that you can only play this music on a piano. That doesn’t violate your rights. You have the free choice to either sign the contract and be bound by the contract or not. Please explain why this is prohibited?
Your arguement only applies if I try and enforce this contract on people who are listening to the music and who have no such arrangement with me.
The person who signed the contract is obligated to only play the music on the piano. Again, how are his rights being violated?
Here is where we differ. I believe contracts are fundamental to a society. Not only do I have the right to decide who I give my music too but I can contract with them and impose restrictions on the use of that information. That contract is no different than any other contract. I can sell you a hammer with the contractual restriction that you only pound nails with it. The hammer is still your property but has agreed upon restrictions for its use. I can sell you a piece of land with building restrictions.
If I sell you a pencil and we contractually agree that you will only use the pencil to write on white paper then that is the agreement you have made and the use of the pencil is restricted to that. I have not forced you to buy the pencil, your rights have not been violated.
The concept of IP has nothing to do with the state. When people create typical IP types of things they usually think that is has some value and will take measures to maximize and protect that investment. The methods they use to do that will vary and have varying degrees of effectiveness. Again, the OP’s point is that simply because the government is doing that function now does not mean that without government it will not happen. You have presented no arguement why I should be prohibited from having contracts restricting the use of IP.
In which case you should do your homework and understand that property rights have their source in a single fact: scarcity. Ideas are not scarce, me thinking one thing has no effect on your ability to think the very same idea at the very same time.
Your idea comes down to the misconception that the words on the piece of paper are the same thing as the words themself, once again you’d be wrong in thinking this. You may well be able to make a contract claiming that I am able to purchase your product only if I refrain from putting the music on the internet. But that would be nonsensical since you don’t own the musical notes merely the CD which you are selling me.
We don’t differ. That is a straw man.
Not surprisingly, you are missing the point. 1. A contract that is not enforceable, is meaningless. 2. People will not buy a product if the contract is too restrictive. If I sell you a TV and you agree to buy it, and only watch it on Tuesday evenings between 7:34 and 8:15 CST, are you going to pay as much for it as one you can watch anytime? Of course not. Oh, you can write contracts until you are blue in the face, that doesn’t make it profitable. It is a competitive disadvantage.
Also, your contract model does not cover how you will deal with someone who copies your idea by seeing it? How will you know where they saw it? How will you prove, that the person they saw it with, allowed it to be seen with mal-intent? How will you prove that the person making the copy absolutely saw it?
How will you enforce your contract with Bob who bought your software, when Tran in Vietnam has produced a software product that has the same functionality and method? You have no contract with Tran.
This is why IP is not property. It can’t be owned by two people at once. You need a consistent model for what is and is not property.
I’ll ask you again, what is your definition of property? What is your argument for IP being property?
This is more or less what I was intending to point out with my posts, Maxliberty. Furthermore, in a retail situation where I purchase your music, from, say, Wal-Mart, and therefore enter into a supposed “binding” contract upon purchase, how do you intend to prosecute me when I copy your music? If I found your music on the Internet, would I be breaking a contract I never entered into? IP contracts simply cannot be reinforced. There are too many ins and outs to refer to IP as tangible property.
Again I must admit: I wish there was a way for a song written by whomever to technically be the property of the author. Although, while I may wish it, this does not make it possible.
Why? Look at the most effective means of distribution, torrent sites, limewire etc. If it were the case that music could be “owned” by the producer these would all have to be dropped.
While poorly worded, I meant that statement to be taken from an emotional standpoint, as opposed to a logical standpoint. As a musician, my emotional knee-jerk reaction would be the former take on the situation. I would say that is the most immediate and natural reaction when one creates something, and I know this because I have created many things. This reaction may be largely rooted in the way our current society (the United States) functions, however. But logically, you are correct, which is why I stand to agree with you and others.
No you are missing the point. Your arguement is that any attempt to enforce IP restrictions is a violation of your rights. The arguement has nothing to do with how easy or difficult the enforcement of the contract is. When you sign a contract you are either bound by the contract or not. The fact you may be able to breech the contract without getting caught does not make it right nor does it make the original contract inherently a violation of your rights.
Some types of IP may be very difficult to enforce contracts and others where the use is much more industry limited may be much easier.
And I guess you have appointed yourself the czar of what the definition of too restrictive is. I say let the market decide. If any contract to restrict IP use will fail why should it be prohibited then?
Deal with the simple issue of two people making a contract. I say this can happen, other externalities are not relevant for the application of the principle.
I have not said anything about trying to enforce the contract on unrelated third parties. Again, you make the OP’s point that the anarchists too often view everything from the perspective of the current system. The governement enforces IP laws on everyone and you make the assumption that any enforcement of IP in a free society must therefore do the same.
This isn’t your arguement though, that it will be difficult to enforce. Your arguement is that my efforts through contracts or otherwise to impose restrictions on individuals is a violation of your rights. I haven’t said anything about unrelated third parties only that I can enter into contracts with people that restrict their use of the IP that I provide to them. Your arguement is that by doing this I am violating your rights. How?
I have never said that the contract restricts people not party to the contract. You and the others are perfectly making the OP’s point. Your view of IP restrictions is that they must be universally enforced and that no other possibility exists and that any attempt to restrict IP use is a violation of your rights.
The concept of ideas is not scarce but individual ideas can very much be a scarce commodity. Are you actually saying that an idea for example to convert water into gold with very little energy has no value because someone else might think of it too?
It’s the arrangement that adds value. If you could arrange the words or notes yourself you wouldn’t need to buy it from me. The contract merely acknowledges this reality.
Max you have still not answered the two questions fundamental to this discussion. And you’re back to erecting strawmen. It’s a complete waste of time, like the FRB thread, unless you are willing to debate in good faith.
Not it isn’t. You have erected another straw man.
Enforcing IP without a contract is a violation of rights. It is aggression because the only way to enforce those rights is through violence (against me or my property).
I accept contracts, I just don’t think they are enforceable in the manner you think they will be. If you sign a contract with me, agreeing I will grow wings and fly like a bird, I am going to disappoint you. You have been arguing that if two people agree to something and put it into a contract, that means it is feasible. That is not so.
Can a contract make non-property, property? I can’t even think of an example, except your assertions, but let’s try it in the inverse. Can I surrender my self ownership to a contract? Can you “own” me? Oh wait, here is one. Can we setup a contract that says that the sound of the wind through the trees is owned by you, so everytime I hear the wind blow, I have to compensate you? I mean, I know we can write the contract, but isn’t it based on the false premise that you own the sound of the wind?
Again, you can’t contract for property you don’t own. And you have consistently failed to answer two basic questions, instead doing what I said you would do. Make examples looking for an exception to prove your rule.
First, I am an entrepreneur. I make it my business to understand buying patterns. I make it my business to understand why people buy the things they buy. So while I am not the czar, I do believe I have more insight into what customers want, than say someone who has never engaged in commercial activity as a supplier.
Second, I’m not saying you should prohibit contracts. That is another strawman. I am saying that such contracts won’t work, because you are creating an unprofitable restriction. You can’t stop me by contract from creating a competitive product. Only with a blanket contract enforced by the state is this even possible now, albeit unsuccessfully.
In a free market, I can’t create a contract with you without your consent. And thus, you can reproduce anything that is available for your observation. Or you could just produce a same or similar good completely independently. I can’t enforce enforce a contract against someone who not only doesn’t consent, but doesn’t even know I exist, can I?
And thirdly, IP is not property. It’s impossible for you to control something you don’t own, even if you make a contract over it.
You’re attempting to shift the argument (as usual). There is no principle on your side of the argument. You haven’t elucidated one.
The issue is first, is IP property? Without that being resolved, contracts are superfluous. You cannot contract that which you do not control.
Right, because it’s not feasible. Although, if IP was property, you could enforce property ownership rights against anyone who violated them. See?
Strawman. Thus far you can’t answer basic questions about property as it pertains to the subject, and now you and the OP claim that you know what my perspective is? Either you’re sandbagging or you’re clueless. Because you have not refuted one of my positions yet. Also, you and the OP are working from the status quo. You both believe that some sort of property right is inherent, and can be contracted. That’s a state perspective. An anti-state perspective recognizes that IP is not, and cannot be, property by any accepted definition.
Property is defined by scarcity. Government creates artificial scarcity by law with regards to IP. Without that scarcity, you don’t have an enforcement claim in a free society.
I’m not going to waste too much more time on this. You still have not answered the fundamental questions in this discussion, and are probably just going to come back with more evasion and strawmen. I can find a limitless horde of people on the internet who will argue without objectivity, honesty or rationality. You’re not special in that regard.
If you post back to me, and expect to have any shot at this discussion, you need to answer whether or not IP is property, and if so, what standard for property does it meet. Failure to do so, means you cannot make the case for contract.
I think I should jump in this discussion here… because the argument here is based opon the agreement that IP is not property. While the current definition is too large, I would argue that IP IS property. I just finished Kinsella’s paper, and he dismisses Rand’s ideas by saying that it doesnt protect science and math equations. This is not a valid argument, as Rand never discussed these situations.
The people on this board want to protect individual rights, but you’re ignoring the rights of a creator. If I were to take all the works of Mises and publish them under my name, unedited, and call it my work, would it be just that I earn money off it? Or have I stolen from someone? If you create a work of music, and I copy it perfectly, shouldnt you be compensated? I know its an empty argument, but logic tells you that you should be compensated for what you create.
Further, logic leads me to believe that by supporting the destruction of all IP, you’re creating the means to destroy a free market. If there are no rights to IP, then one company could shut down a market. Let’s take electronics for example. If it were perfectly legal (as it would be with no IP) to copy exactly someone else’s work, then you could have a large company (such as there are in china) that exists by copying other people’s work and selling it for less. Imagine if the year the iPod came out some company in china released the same thing for half the price. Not just similar, but the exact same product. Apple wouldnt have sold a single unit, as they couldnt sell for that low a price due to R&D costs involved in creating the product. You can call this unrealistic, but these companies can reverse engineer and re-create products in under a month in many cases. An argument against all IP is saying that inventors dont have the right to the profit from their creations. I hate apple, but I believe that they earned profits from the iPod. People deserve the benefits of their mind’s creations. If you dont agree, i’ll be happy to plagarize from each of you and take credit for all the work.
I’ll respond to your post later, but I would recommend you watch this…
Oh no. That would be terrible. Such an amazing invention as the ipod would be pirated!! Wait. Isn’t the ipod just an overpriced mp3 player ?
Yes it is. It’s a perfectly designed and marketed mp3 player. The market has chosen it as the gold standard, so your personal views on how good a product is are pointless. You vote against it with your wallet, as is your right. But that doesnt make you copying it 100% with no compensation to apple just. It’s theft.
LS, your link is broken.
Meaning there’s absolutely nothing original about it - it’s just an mp3 player. Patenting the ipod is like patenting the wheel.
Claiming rights to the house you built is like claiming rights to everyone’s house. There’s nothing special about it. Its just a house, no different than any other. Yes, you put your effort into building (or at least paying for) it, but apple put their effort and money into designing the specifics of the ipod.
I see no tangible benefit for a lack of any IP rights other than people desiring to steal the work of others. I just dont see how taking away my rights to my work does anything than steal from me. My mind and its works are for sale, they are not for you or a government to strip away.