If intellectual property was done away with completely...

Your continuing to conflate copying, reproducing, and manufacturing with murder. I don’t know how this makes sense to you in your head but its making you look quiet silly here.

More producers and more produce means higher quality, higher volume, cheaper cost, and greater selection. This benefits all. The point of economics is to economize resources to the masses. The more we can economize to consumers the better. Your lack of understanding of economics is misplaced here. You’d be doing yourself a service in reading up on the basics of the Austrian school of thought before posting such obsured things. This is why KoB is poking fun at you.

I know that you were using Bill Gates as an example, but if you just meant a generic very very wealthy person, and if you were trying to promote the idea of killing a very rich man who earned his wealth without any coercion, and then giving his wealth to poor people, that would do the opposite of generating wealth for society. Because a rich man (almost) by definition in a free society is someone who is skilled and efficient in providing valued service for others.

All ideas that can be written down are numbers. You may not like it, but this is a fact of the universe. I dont want to bore anyone with formal encoding, but a quick and fast solution would be to write the text in a text editor (or just scan the paper) and save it to disk. The digital representation of the file is a pattern of 1 and 0, or a (really big) binary number.

In other words, all books ever written, and all books that ever will be written, already exist as numbers. I do not see how one can create numbers or own numbers.

Once you drop the mythical world view of “creating” ideas, you may realise all the pitfalls of IP.

Another problem is that people keep mixing voluntary IP arrangements (contracts) with violence-enforced monopoly. These are two entirely different things. Equivocation is bad for a debate, please stop.

If you state monopoly for ideas because of the common good, why not state monopoly for food and clothes, they are surely alot more important for the common good? After all, people will not produce food if everyone else can come along and produce food as well, they need special privileges to protect their creation or they will not do it.

If you are not demanding state monopoly but are perfectly fine with voluntary contracts, why the hostility? Noone knows how the free market will work out (problem of central planning…). We can only speculate what contracts people will sign and how those might be enforced.

My take on the issue of hacking:

Hacking a server is trespassing if the server is set up properly. Do we want people who do not set up their servers properly?

Hacking a stolen notebook can only happen if you steal the notebook first.

Hacking a bought DVD (to remove copy protection, for example) can be a violation of contract.

Hacking a DVD you downloaded or got from a friend is perfectly fine. If you argue otherwise, please prove how someone can restrict the mathematical algorithms you apply to your own property on your own land without ever promising anyone via contract not to do it.

EULAs can hardly be contracts (unless its online activation or the like) because you need a meeting of the minds. Hard to do when one party doesnt even know the name of the other party that is supposed to enter into a contract when he finds the DVD on a park bench. The only way to get a third party to accept an EULA is by claiming that the physical medium always remains your property, and you only rent it out. The same way you cannot just take any car you find, because it is probably the property of someone else and he doesnt allow his property to be used, you cannot take a DVD you find, because it probably belongs to someone else physically, and he does not allow you to read it out. But once someone broke the contract and separated the information from the physical medium, there is no way you could claim any contract relationship with whoever the information ends up with. Even if you uphold EULAs, they can simply be stripped out.

The other way to uphold IP-like laws in AnCap is to claim that everyone who receives information from a contract breaker, thief or trespasser is a accomplice in the crime. This could work with non-disclosure agreements involving chief engineers who betray secret formulas, but it is highly unlikely to work with 12 year old girls who play music at their birthday parties. The moment the information is available “cleanly” without the contract limitation is the moment you lost control over it. This is pure speculation, but i doubt anyone would want to register with RIAA and allow them to rummage your stuff every time a song you paid money for ends up on the internet.

Note that this so far only deals with copying or 100% accurate replication of the information. Once we get into the realms of “inspired by” or “improved upon”, everything breaks down completely. On a practical scale, IP and patents are completely ridiculous. Just look up Heron of Alexandria to get a first impression.

I agree it is trespassing. However compensation or restitution is normally based on damages or harm caused. From your perspective copying data by definition does not cause any harm so it is pretty hard to make a case for damages when by your own definition there are none. So if there is no effective punishment and we know that information can be very valuable (contrary to your position) we can expect rampant trespassing for the purposes of gaining information, this includes banking data, credit cards, all this information theft will basically be legal under your reasoning.

Human nature should matter to you if your trying to seriously promote your vision of society. My point is that you are promoting something contradictory to human nature, which is if I have something in my possession it belongs to me barring any agreements on limits of use. So when someone takes information from you without your permission it will be human nature to believe you have been robbed. This is why your legalization of information theft fails the human nature test. People will not stop thinking that ideas/information they have do not belong to them simply because you say so.

Never ceases to amaze me that so many Austrian cult members make no effort to actually observe what people are doing right now and compare this to their pet theories. There are lots of unregulated or loosely regulated markets for information that demonstrate your theories are just flat contradictory to observed human behavior in the marketplace. We don’t have to wait to test your theory, there is lots of evidence right now of what happens in unprotected information markets and it is not what you are predicting.

information theft is a misnomer as has already been explained umpteen times.

And if all that occurs is copying the source code to the latest video game (which can take years and millions of dollars to develop) and releasing it for free then there are no damages under your reasoning because nothing of value has been lost and nothing has been stolen because you don’t believe the video game developer owns the data in the first place.

Your position leads to conclusions that we as human nature will not accept. People will rightly think the video game developer has been robbed.

So your argument boils down to human nature?

i am human and i would accept it. consider your position refuted.

Hey, have you copyrighted your cute & non-standard idiom ?

seems to me that humans feel perfectly fine with “stealing” music and movies on the internet.

The answer to my question clearly is the latter. Please do start thinking before you post, because I can guarantee you that a lot of other people have noticed that you do not think before you post.

Then he gains rights over my property, e.g. pens and paper. Sorry, but that doesn’t work in reality.

Lovely strawman. Why don’t you try it in proper context, or would that be expecting too much honesty from you?

That’s actually quite common. Restrictive covenants are bundled with lots in housing subdivisions in order to add value to the neighborhood, for example.

Anyway your pen and paper is useless unless you also access the media to copy the information, and it is this access that is forbidden.

Not in the way it’s meant, no.

WTF? Buying a book or CD or whatever is forbidden? What planet are you from?

Ponder this…

As human agents – through technological and intellectual progress – increasingly allocate more of their time and capital toward both production and consumption of intangible (intellectual) creations (vs tangible, Lockean “mixing your labor” type objects), the economy itself will be increasingly driven more by exchanges of intangibles (as opposed to tangibles) – as we see it increasingly do so even today! Not far into the future, the anti-IP stance is at the risk of turning Anarcho-Capitalism into Archaic-Capitalism or Communism (communal ownership of property). The anti-IP stance would, by default, converge into the Communist stance in a world in which patterns, algorithms, and intellectual creations are both massively produced and consumed, and comprise the largest part of the global economy. Can you afford to take the risk of such a ridiculous, yet very logical conclusion?

To have some idea as to where this process could lead us consider this extreme (yet not so far fetched) example: Imagine that humanity has acquired the ability to manipulate matter at a sub-nano, atomic level. By simply harvesting (abundant) matter (atoms) from the environment, ANY (tangible) object could be created by machines following the algorithm (pattern) for the object’s creation. In this world, tangible (“mixing your labor”) objects won’t be scarce as anyone can have any object they want as long as they had the pattern (algorithm) for its creation. It would be the PATTERN (information) that has value and not the object itself. In this world, the anti-IP AnCaps (or then called ArCaps, for Archaic Capitalists) would actually be the Communists as they would be the only ones supporting communal ownership of property i.e. anything scarce that matters, which in THAT world would be INFORMATION.

In that world, the “proper” AnCaps would be the pro-IP ones, and there will emerge some “natural” law, objective ethics, and NAP that would restrict agent’s behavior against theft and aggression of property, except those will all be pointed at intellectual, intangible property (information, patterns, algorithms, etc) as they would be the only ones that are produced, consumed, scarce, thus valuable.

Z.

Non sequitur. If I buy a book, I own it. I can copy it if I want. Nothing’s been stolen. The community doesn’t own it. Please think before you post.

Thats not true. Scientists, philosophers, and the like thought as you did 10 years ago, 100 years ago, and likely 1000 years ago, ect… Every new society thinks they are the height of intellectual thought, and they are. But that does not mean they invested more time writing and thinking then previous generations. We work no more and no less in information than was done 100 or 1000 years ago. All that maybe different is our understanding of the sciences and how they are applied.

If you advocate a position contrary to human nature it will fail. We have lots of evidence that shows people in unregulated markets view information as property. If the people naturally view information as property how will you force them to change their natural tendency? The reason I support the NAP is not philosophical but based on observation that the NAP is the natural desired human state. If the NAP is contrary to our natural instincts there is no hope of ever moving towards its full implementation. The same reason outlawing drug use fails will be the same reason trying to force people to consider information as owned by everyone will fail…it is contrary to our human instinct. Economic study or any other field that observes human behavior should focus on what humans actually do rather than what you want them to do. The real world has already rejected and demonstrated your prediction is incorrect.