Joe buys a Metallica CD where the licence agreement (contract) says, basically, don’t seed it on Pirate Bay.
Joe goes on and seeds it on Pirate Bay.
Joe breached contract. Thus, it’s perfectly OK for the copyright holder (the other party to the contract) to go after Joe.
Jack downloads it from Joe. Jack accepted NO licence agreement, signed NO contract. He just downloaded something form Joe.
Jack seeds it further.
RIAA goes after Jack too.
THIS IS what’s wrong. Not going after Joe, but going after Jack too. Jack has breached no contract.
THIS is the core idea behind your argument. And this I find theoretically acceptable.
However. Does it mean in an ideal free market there is no such crime as “accessory after the fact”? That I can buy a stolen car and commit no crime and free to use it and sell it further? In that case every criminal would quickly sell the loot to his buddy and thus all loot is instantly cleared and cannot be demanded back. Is this what you want?
If yes, then… that sounds strange.
If not, then Jack is responsible too, as a secondary party in a breach of contract, the same way as the buyer of a stolen car is responsible.
Well, the argument you espoused here is what Murray Rothbard’s argument originally was, and, as far as the contract theory goes, it’s correct.
But the reason that most austro-libertarians in the mold of Stephan Kinsella, et. al., today oppose IP rights is because of the realization that property rights come from scarcity (the fact that things are scarce). If a good is scarce, then the potential for interpersonal conflict arises. If your lawnmower was not scarce, and someone came along and took it while you were mowing your lawn, you would just instantaneously will another one into existence and no harm would be done. However, the fact that there are only a limited number of lawnmowers and that lawnmowers are not infinitely reproducible and that to take the lawnmower from its current possessor is to also deprive the current possessor of the use of the lawnmower, means that it is possible for interpersonal conflict to arise over these scarce goods, and therefore, an ethical system of property rights must be recognized and adhered to.
Knowledge, however is not scarce. Types of knowledge such as ideas, ideals, and patterns are infinitely reproducible. To copy an idea or pattern thought up by someone else does not deprive the original knowledge possessor of that knowledge. Thus, knowledge cannot be private property. You’re perfectly justified to try to keep certain knowledge secret if you want, but if anyone else happens to get ahold of it, no theft is involved. The original possessor of the knowledge still has that knowledge. Because knowledge is not scarce, knowledge cannot be private property.
In essence, what downloading a file from a file sharing program is, is basically: You using your own property (your computer) to look at various files that have been uploaded by other users into an online computer program, and then making your computer (your own property) reform some of its own little electrosignals to replicate the pattern your computer is seeing on another server. All that is being taken is the pattern–the abstract, non-scarce, infinitely reproducible, unstealable idea.
You are correct when you state that with IP, there is no scarcity. However, unlike property, that can be taken from someone, IP cannot be taken from someone. When you copy another persons idea, the other person still has the idea. They can still market it. They just will not make as much money on it.
They might make more money from it. The second party might find another use for the idea, refine the idea, more effectively market the idea, expand the market for the idea etc. It’s probably not a good idea to tie IP to free market profitability.
Sorry, I’m tired. What I meant: not arguments, but agreements. Should it be illegal to enter into contractual agreements about things that aren’t scarce?
Sorry, but regardless of what the CD says on the contract, shouldn’t the contract be void? For the same reason you can sell a candy bar that says not for re-sale?
I do not think the scarcity concept is valid, as it directly contradicts the (from what I’ve read) libertarian position on blackmail. Blackmail is the exchange of goods and/or services for “silence”. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but would not a libertarian defend the transaction and say the blackmailer committed fraud if he were to gossip? What is the difference between this and an exchange that specifies “I will give you this book for $10 and the condition that you may not copy it for 20 years”?
Everyone here should know that you cannot just pick ‘n’ choose rules just because they benefit yourself. That’s the government’s job. Our job is being consistant with the principles we are founded upon to show everyone what’s what about liberty.
Libertarianism is not so dogmatic. There is no one position I am aware of, except the NAP. Everything else is interpretation based off of the NAP.
It would be a breach of contract. Fraud is taking goods in trade, and not delivering on your half of the bargain, it is in essence, theft by deception.
There is none. Anyone proposing that voluntary contracts don’t apply is advocating fraud. An anti-IP stance isn’t based on disregarding contracts, it’s that those contracts are only possible under state power. In the free market, people would not be compelled to jockey for IP protection and thus, IP would consist of voluntary contracts, but I doubt they would be as all pervasive as they are today.
The problem is this notion that there are fixed positions and multiple principles. Work off the NAP as your root.
Joe can contract with the record company, but Jack has not.
Under the state, Jack is obligated to the same contract that Joe is. The IP protection of the Metallica song is not just what is written on the record cover (Metallica had records when I was younger) but the entire body of IP law. Jack is obligated to acknowledge the ownership of Metallica/Record Company, even though he has not agreed to purchase the product and may not even know what the product is.
In a free market, Joe is contracted with the record company and depending on that contract, Joe will be responsible for transmitting that music to Jack if so stipulated.
I have a headache, so this response might suck. You need to ask better and more precise questions. Your OP and the last post are very vague.
What is so special about the NAP? Could I not build an earth-destroying weapon in my home, proclaim “I promise not to use it”, and be still protected under this “oh-so-infallable” axiom? I get my libertarian ideals from the fact that people do not like and should not have to experience coercion from others, plain and simple.
You just made a point about principles, and this is the fundamental libertarian principle, which you are now rejecting. Seems a bit confused to me.
Sure. In fact, absolutely. But that’s a new discussion, please don’t jack this thread. I believe there is already one currently discussing the NAP.
Which is basically the NAP.
While I appreciate you have your own ideas (I am an autodidact myself), you’re casually tossing aside massive amounts of scholarship and research, without providing any exposition except your own subjective biases and the limitations of your (growing) knowledge.
I agree that it is natural for people to dislike coercion. However, I have pointed out an extremely disturbing possible consequence of abiding by just the NAP, and that concern is still unaddressed as of the time I started typing this.