So basically the answer to what would happen without copyright is that software would no longer be offered as a consumer product. How is that good for consumers?
Yes, by punishing trespassers and forcing them to compensate their victims.
They why do they want to protect people who trespass on licensing agreements?
yup
Because if I voluntarily allow my friend onto my network and allow him to download software off my network he did not trespass into Microsoft’s network in any way shape or form. It would be the same if my friend came to my house and we built a hammer based off the one I bought at lowes or Home Depot.
Your conflating the IP argument. I’m not going to formally explain to you all of the details. Your already here on the Mises site, do some reading.
Microsoft allowed you into their network to provide you the software only under the condition that you not allow others into your network to download this software. You are violating your contract by allowing it, and if you disallow it but your network is accessed anyway, that is clear trespass.
In either case Microsoft has the right to compensation.
Via Ip laws, which is what is disputed here, their legitimacy. They can only be enforcefd via the state. Modern IP laws essentially function like this. I buy a couch and sign an agreement that only my butt will touch that couch. Than my wife sits on it, I have somehow violated their property, property which I paid for.
The systems works because the state gives it legitimacy. In the absence of the state such laws could never be upheld, nor monitored.
Which brings us back to square one. In the absence of IP software companies are free to have customers sign EULA but enforcing them is an entirely different matter. Even with the state enforcing them is extremely difficult. So what would you see?
As I have already stated the structure of production for software would change. And KOB’s comment about price dropping is also correct. Do you actually argue that protectionism is better than capitalism?
Valve says Pirates are underserved customers.
I just finished the second chapter of Against Intellectual Monopoly that goes over just that. The book can be read online in PDF format here.
Some excerpts from chapter 2 on software:
“Not only did patents play no role in software innovation, copyrights played only a limited role. While computer programs were often copyrighted, in the early years of the PC industry, copyright was seldom respected or enforced. Consumers would purchase programs and use them on a variety of computers in violation of license agreements. People bought and sold computer programs and created new ones by using bits and pieces, modules and ideas from existing programs. While copyright may have limited the widespread copying of software by other publishers, it was not enforced in the draconian way it is today.”
“If we examine the efforts of Microsoft to prevent “piracy” of their software, we find that they made little effort either legal or technical to protect their “intellectual property” in their early creative days. It is now, in the 21st century, that they invest their time and energy in the prevention of copying. However, if we compare releases of their operating systems or word processors over the last five or even ten years, it would be difficult to detect much “innovation.” What was Microsoft’s greatest innovation since 1994? No doubt, the web browser, the Internet Explorer. But who invented the web browser? Not Microsoft, but a small group of creative competitors from whom, later on, Microsoft took the idea and then acquired most of the basic code: The first popular version of a browser, NCSA Mosaic, appeared in March 1993, while it was only in August of 1995 that Microsoft released Internet Explorer 1.0.”
“In addition to Windows and the Macintosh, there are three other widely used operating environments: Solaris, Linux and FreeBSD. Solaris, Linux and FreeBSD are all open source, and so is a good chunk of the Macintosh code. In the server market, Google is scarcely exceptional – it is estimated that the Linux operating system has a 25% market share. Not only does Google use Linux – so does the widely used Tivo digital video recorder. Even in desktops, Linux is estimated to be passing the Macintosh in popularity.”
“Again, we turn to open source software and the Linux computer operating system. Because it is open source, Linux may be resold commercially, but only if the source code is made freely available, including any modifications made to the original program. For example, Red Hat is a company that sold a modified and customized Linux system with easy installation and many other useful features. Although the underlying Linux system is obtained by Red Hat for free, the customization and testing conducted by Red Hat is costly. Using prices quoted on the Internet on July 10, 2002, Red Hat charged $59.95 for a package containing its system. Because it is based on the underlying Linux system, Red Hat must also make available its code to competitors. As a result, anyone who wishes to can sell their own “Red Hat” system. And, in fact, there were at least two companies, Hcidesign and Linuxemporium, that did exactly this. For example, on July 10, 2002, Hcidesign offered for sale Red Hat Linux 7.2 for a price of $16.00, about 1/3rd of the price charged by Red Hat. Linuxemporium.co.uk offered a similar deal.”
Such a thing is arbitrary. If me setting up a store in a rural town suddenly makes it a prospering commercial region, it does not mean I should get a share or commision from everybody else running a business there who managed to benefit from me taking the high cost of setting up in a remote area, and thus making it cheaper for everyone else to do business there. I am still only entitled to rewards generated by my own business, and not that of externalities.
I agree, but the above scenario is a bad analogy (if one at all). The author of a novel is still only entitled to the rewards generated by his novel, and not by the extra coffee sales brought with the increased foot traffic at the bookstores. You still cannot answer the question: If anyone could just copy, publish, and sell any author’s novel, what is the incentive for authors to be writing novels in the future?
I have a feeling that most anti-IP people find the unfairness of their stance conflicting (“Something” has been created. The market values it as it readily pays a non-zero price for it. Just because it can be easily reproduced and is not characterized by mutual exclusivity in usage, it doesn’t mean that its value is zero.) but find the chains of their antiquated Lockean (tangible property only!) dogma too strong to break out of. I predict that proponents of objective/absolute natural rights (“given once and there for all times”) will increasingly be running into paradoxes as advances in technology introduce new and unpredictable modes of human action and interaction.
Z.
The incentive of guaranteed monopoly is no longer there. People still buy albums even though music is free. People still buy books even though the content is free. Just because the structure of the legal system causes people to benefit from IP laws, doesn’t mean that IP laws are good. That is conferring legitimacy to legality. ie. It’s legal because it’s right, and it’s right because it’s legal. Should one author benefit from creating a story at the cost of other people benefiting to use that story to whatever ends they want? I don’t think any people have the moral authority to judge this.
There is no contradiction. The value of ideas is not zero. An idea can be created from (what seems like) nothing. One can only own material things. A building or a book cannot come from nothing. It is produced through processes of transformation. Only something that is owned can be stolen.
Intellectual property is not logically sound.
KRS-One comes out with an album. I buy a copy of the CD recordings of the music. He is the original creator of the music. Do I now own anything? Yes, something. Do I own a copy of the music? Yes. Do I own part of the authorship? No. Do I own the intellectual property? What is intellectual property? Authorship. So why does he get to tell me what I do with my CD? Because the legal system says so.
It’s debatable that IP laws could help to boost innovation and creativity. That may be true from a utilitarian standpoint. But following natural law, it doesn’t make sense. If we’re going to legitimize IP through the law, and allow the courts to perform utilitarian calculus to decide what’s best for society, why don’t we allow the state to do the same for all aspects of life?
That is meaningless. I may not draconianly enforce access to my garden if every once in a while a kid jumps over the fence to retrieve his ball. If this starts becoming a nuisance, then I will act on it.
The fact that I did not act for some violations doesn’t mean that my property right should not exist, but that I don’t see it as valuable to protect it at the moment.
If the property right was abolished, then there would be no limit to who can access my garden, and I would have much worse problems then the occasional kid jumping over the fence. I could not object to the entire neighborhood coming in and having a garden party.
That’s not the same idea. It would make more sense to say that you sold some vegetables to people, and from those vegetables they took the seeds and planted their own gardens which soon lead to not having a need for yours. If you wanted to claim property rights to that you’d claim that since it was your vegetables that had the seeds, and you didn’t intend for them to plant the seeds, you have ownership of their garden as well. With software you can manipulate, copy, and produce as many files as you want in no time, and you can do this without actually having the physical property once you have the software. They aren’t actually invading on your physical property to do so, it’s not like they come to your company or warehouse and are stealing thousands of cd’s to get the information. All they need is that information just once.
So what? They entered into an agreement with me not to do this in exchange for the access, or the vegetables. If I find out they broke the agreement, they owe me.
They still legitimately own the physical property, it’s now in their hands. You may have said contract over them with what they can’t do with it, but it’s still their property, and they obtained it legally. What they do with it shouldn’t be much of a concern as long as they don’t harm anyone with it. They may modify it, and then share or sell the modified version.
You may claim they violated your property, but it is now their property, and if they have ownership of it, they may do what they wish. (Can a band take back a cd that was purchased from them claiming the listener used it in unlawful ways?)
If they have an agreement that says that they can, they can.
How would you be compensated? What if they didn’t use the seeds from the vegetables, and just sold the seeds to someone else, and what specifically would the agreement be? If you had it as this:
You can only eat these vegetables and not use them in a harmful way, you may not use the seeds for personal use and/or sell them to a third party who may do the same. You may not sell these vegetables to a third party, or let them use them for their own personal use.
- How would you know they broke the contract?
- Which of the following would you know they broke?
- Would the third party be punished for taking part in this?
- What if the third party also sold or shared the product to another group?
- If they planted the seeds against the said contract of not planting the seeds, what crime has been committed, and would you claim ownership of the planted seeds?
- How would all of this be enforced?
I assume you mean the text with a checkbox that comes up when you install something. To a third-party that is just gibberish.
For starters a contract normally involve two or more parties. Signing something with out the counterpart even being aware of it does not constitute a contract.
Secondly you can not restrict my behaviour by simply handing me a piece of paper. I can do whatever I want with the paper you have given me including putting my signature on it and I can still do whatever I want with my physical property.
Contracts can only be enforced when you buy the product. Before you get the stuff you agree to what to do and not to do with it, not after.
As soon as one consumer breaks it no-one that get a hold of the copy will be bound by anything.
I don’t think this would be a problem for the software industry. Open-source is thriving and there are still lots of ways to make money even without IP.
Support for instance. A lot of people don’t know how to use computers and actually have to call Microsoft to do stuff like re-installing Windows or Office. Any reasonably sized corporation is also going to want a solid package of fast easy updates and support to come along with there software.
Any online content such as updates can be blocked for people that didn’t pay rather easily. Users that don’t pay would have to apply cracked updates constantly which would be pretty annoying. I don’t think any software developer with any sense would adopt an entirely fool proof system against obtaining updates on a copy that hasn’t been paid for though.
It would be an inconvinence for paying customers and the fact that home users can use illegal copies makes it so much more likely that companies will buy your product. Especially stuff like operating systems, they want something there employees are already familiar with from home and they want to pay for the support package. If every copy of Windows ever used had required full payment I assure you no one would know what Microsoft is today.
How is the EULA not a valid contract? The EULA does not restrict your “behavior”, but it restricts how the software is installed and how licenses are to be shared. The Os & 1s physically exist on your computer hard drive.
As soon as one consumer breaks it no-one that get a hold of the copy will be bound by anything.
Break the contract? They would still have to install the software and that means having to agree with the EULA.
It prevents me from writing a certain sequence of 1s and 0s on my hard drive. This is in principle no different then preventing me from typing As on a paper or breathing.
No it just means they have scroll through some gibberish letters and then click a checkbox.
When I get a copy I already have the sequence of bits. You can not restrict me from doing what I want with something I after I am in possession of it, you have to do it before I take possession of it. It is the same with physical property. If I buy a bike second-hand with no conditions and the day after the manufacturer sends me a note that sais I must sign it and agree to never paint the bike black. If I don’t sign the note I can’t use the bike.
This would just be completely absurd and have no possible legal or moral merit on what I can and can not do with the bike.
If I physically can not use the bike cause of some lock that was attached without going into the store and hand in the note it is a different matter. But this is no the case with simple EULA cause I have the EULA form in my possession as well and it isn’t property so I can click whatever I want to click without creating a legal bind.
There would have to be some kind of online activation for your argument to have any merit and that has probably already been cracked in the copy I get anyhow…
EDIT:
It also occurs to me we are probably getting side tracked here.
It makes no practical difference if the EULA is a contract or not.
If it is a contract the first contract breaker can simply remove the EULA in the copies he distributes, either way you need someone to break the initial contract for third-parties to even exist and this is about the practical impossibility of contract based protection. If it was perfect and no contract where ever broken it would work either with or without the EULA by itself being legally binding.
Would there be ANY albums and books created (for you to copy/buy) if anyone was allowed to copy the content, slap their name on it and sell it as if they created it? I never got the answer to this question. What is your opinion?
Why can’t one “xown” an intangible thing then – where “xown” is similar to Lockean “own” but not quite the same? You’re stuck knee deep in Lockean/Rothbardian property/ownership dogma. As technology moves humanity forward, why can’t free humans voluntarily come up with new concepts that would regulate human interaction for maximal benefit of all? The same way as NAP regulates your behavior against killing someone else, some other societal norm, rule, law can regulate your behavior not to copy and sell (as your own creation) something created by someone else that you currently “xown”. This has nothing to do with monopoly and/or the state.
It is, if you expand your mind/views a little.
The “legal system” will be incentivizing your behavior with or without a state/monopoly.
There’s no question that authors would be immensely negatively incentivized against creating anything if society allowed their creation to be copied and sold as someone else’s work. One would have to be incredibly disingenious not to come to this very logical conclusion. The “absoluteness” and “objectivity” of your “natural” law is the impediment that is preventing you from expanding your mind/views and consider innovative proposals for regulating human interactions. You remind me of Bible fundamentalists trying to contort the meanings of the Old Testament so they can apply 21st century concepts and reality. Your “natural” laws are not ends in and of themselves. They’re merely a PART of the means toward the common end of a peaceful and productive co-existence of self-interested human agents. In the same way that rational and free humans can come to agree that NOT killing each other is preferable to killing each other, they can also come to agree that intellectual work should be encouraged by protecting the creative results it produces. If it took introducing a new concept of ownership (e.g. xownership), then so be it, regardless of whether it was or wasn’t mentioned in the Lockean “Ten Commandments” of “natural” property and ownership.
Z.