Intellectual Property and liberty restriction

[bloomj31]

@Giant_Joe

So they are different claims?

The majority does not have a claim on ownership of me. If they want a claim of ownership on me or my property, they have to prove it to me that they are deserving or in the right.

Just because someone creates an idea doesn’t mean they can profit from it.

Just because someone didn’t create an idea doesn’t mean that they can’t profit from it.

1. No, I’m saying they’re the same claim being made by opposing groups.

2. How can you claim to have ownership over them? Or that your opinions should be given political priority over theirs? Why are you so important?

3. True. That’s why patents and copyrights don’t last forever. But, if they can profit from the idea in a certain amount of time, they have rights to those profits. IP protects the profits of the inventors. It doesn’t protect them indefinitely though. If they can’t make an idea work, they let the patent or copyright expire and someone else takes on the project. They wouldn’t try if they knew that as soon as they came up with something that someone could just steal it from them. That’s why taxes discourage production; other people get to profit from the labor of another. IP prevents producers from being slaves just like private property rights are supposed to.

[bloomj31]

@liberty student

Indeed it does. You made an appeal to democracy and an appeal to “this is the context of the discussion, how it is”

I simply pointed out that in the 1940s, your argument would amount to, democracy puts Jews in ovens, so this is the context we have to look at it.

Your appeals were non-sensical.

It is a failure of any monopoly state, of which democracy is only one kind. Yes, it is a failure of democracy, but specifically, a failure of statism.

So is private property what?

No it doesn’t, because property can only have one owner at a time, as it is scarce. You and I can’t both claim 100% ownership over my car. But you and I can both claim 100% ownership over the idea of having fried eggs and bacon for breakfast, or rowing a boat without coming into conflict over control of the idea.

The rest of your rambling on point #2 is incoherent. Please make an argument, your use of sarcasm or irony isn’t well presented.

Why would that matter? The Mises Institute doesn’t speak for me. What they do isn’t indicative of the position of everyone in this forum, let alone everyone who is a member. Is this another failed attempt at arguing by assertion, and trying to use an authority as a proof?

FYI, LvMI has copyright only because the state forces it. Everything on Mises.org is Creative Commons and can be distributed freely. The fact that LvMI does not participate in intellectual monopoly, is why it is so successful in spreading ideas. Because society does not progress when ideas are restricted in ownership. That should be intuitive to anyone who spends more than 5 minutes considering how markets work, understand competition, monopoly and coercion.

1. So if I make an argument backing the majority, I must back all arguments made from majority? Nonsense.

2. Property can have many owners at the same time. What are you talking about? I can’t claim 100 percent ownership but I can claim partial ownership. And it would be in my interest if you had no claim to your car because then I could steal it without fear of penalty. In the same way, it would be in your interest to have me work hard to create an idea only to have you steal it and then make money off it.

3. What I’m saying is that your institution doesn’t even back up your claims. So could I copy all of Mises’ work and sell it and keep all the profits? I wouldn’t have to pay anything to the Mises Institute?

[Giant_Joe]

@bloomj31

2. How can you claim to have ownership over them? Or that your opinions should be given political priority over theirs? Why are you so important?

I don’t claim ownership over them. I claim ownership over myself. What is political priority?

Does IP grant a person the exclusive rights to profit from an idea for a period of time?

[bloomj31]

If taxes are an undue burden on the worker and the producer because the state gets to benefit from labor it never did, so would be the lack of IP protection for inventors and their ilk because someone else would get to benefit from the labor of their mind.

This isn’t to say that they can’t think of what’s been copyrighted. It’s to say that they’re not allowed to distribute it for commercial intent without the consent of the owner. In much the same way that taxes involve illegitimate redistribution of the money people have earned with their human capital.

It’s the same logic applied to two different things. Completely consistent.

[bloomj31]

@Giant_Joe

I don’t claim ownership over them. I claim ownership over myself. What is political priority?

You do claim ownership over them because you’re saying your claim is more important than theirs. Political priority means that they consider one group before they consider another.

[Giant_Joe]

@bloomj31

You do claim ownership over them because you’re saying your claim is more important than theirs. Political priority means that they consider one group before they consider another.

Claim over what? Myself? Yes, I do consider my claim over myself to have “political priority” over other people’s claim over me. If 100 people want me dead, do they automatically reserve the right to kill me because of democracy or “political priority”?

[liberty_student]

@bloomj31

1. So if I make an argument backing the majority, I must back all arguments made from majority? Nonsense.

No, when you make an appeal to majoritarianism, then don’t back away from majoritarian decisions. Otherwise, you’re being disingenuous and contradictory. Lesson learned. Don’t appeal to democracy unless you are willing to accept all democratic outcomes like genocide against the Jews.

@bloomj31

2. Property can have many owners at the same time.

Name one.

@bloomj31

I can’t claim 100 percent ownership but I can claim partial ownership.

Then you do not have full control of the property.

@bloomj31

And it would be in my interest if you had no claim to your car because then I could steal it without fear of penalty.

non sequitur

@bloomj31

In the same way, it would be in your interest to have me work hard to create an idea only to have you steal it and then make money off it.

You would have to get the idea first. Then you would have to beat me to market. Then you would have to understand the idea better than me. Then you would have to market and sell it better than me. Oh wait, I just described competition and progress through the market. Do you oppose those too?

@bloomj31

What I’m saying is that your institution doesn’t even back up your claims.

I never made an appeal to authority. You can’t use the Mises Institution against me in an argument. That’s a logical fallacy, called an appeal to authority. It means your argument is illogical.

@bloomj31

So could I copy all of Mises’ work and sell it and keep all the profits? I wouldn’t have to pay anything to the Mises Institute?

That is correct.

[bloomj31]

@liberty student

No, when you make an appeal to majoritarianism, then don’t back away from majoritarian decisions. Otherwise, you’re being disingenuous and contradictory. Lesson learned. Don’t appeal to democracy unless you are willing to accept all democratic outcomes.

Name one.

Then you do not have full control of the property.

non sequitur

You would have to get the idea first. Then you would have to beat me to market. Then you would have to understand the idea better than me. Then you would have to market and sell it better than me. Oh wait, I just described competition and progress through the market. Do you oppose those too?

I never made an appeal to authority. You can’t use the Mises Institution against me in an argument. That’s a logical fallacy, called an appeal to authority. It means your argument is illogical.

That is correct.

1. Just because I agree with one majoritarian decision does not mean I agree with all of them.

2. Corporations can be owned by more than one person. So can anything really. It just depends on the contract.

3. You said it would be better for the market to make ideas free. Well, so would making private property illegal, because then everyone could get stuff instead of just the privileged classes.

4. If I get the idea first and it took me a long time to come up with it and you steal it from me, then anything you make in the market is partially mine. However, if you come up with the idea first, it’s yours. No, I’m not against markets, I’m just against stealing people’s ideas.

5. No, you never did. But it seems like the Mises Institute understands the value of private property even if you do not.

[bloomj31]

Anyways, this is a pointless argument. We’re not going to agree on this.

[liberty_student]

@bloomj31

1. Just because I agree with one majoritarian decision does not mean I agree with all of them.

Then do not invoke democracy in debate again, ok? Democracy is majoritarianism, if you don’t support it absolutely, stop appealing to it please.

@bloomj31

2. Corporations can be owned by more than one person. So can anything really. It just depends on the contract.

That is not 100% control. You’re equivocating.

@bloomj31

3. You said it would be better for the market to make ideas free. Well, so would making private property illegal, because then everyone could get stuff instead of just the privileged classes.

That is a non-sequitur. If you make ideas free, then you reinforce private property. If you restrict ideas, you undermine private property. Have you read any of the scholarship (Kinsella, Tucker, Boldrine and Levine) on this? Kinsella is the most difficult to read but Tucker, Boldrine and Levine are very easy to understand.

Also, do you really believe that private property only supports a privileged class?

@bloomj31

If I get the idea first and it took me a long time to come up with it and you steal it from me, then anything you make in the market is partially mine.

This is incorrect. What I make in the market, is a manifestation of the idea, and a product of my labour. This is why the guy who invented the wheel doesn’t have a partial stake in every automobile. This is why Ford, GM and Chrysler all share from a common pool of ideas when constructing automobiles. If they could not, then there could be no competition.

@bloomj31

However, if you come up with the idea first, it’s yours. No, I’m not against markets, I’m just against stealing people’s ideas.

But ideas are not property, and your artificial enforcement of their monopoly, constitutes anti-market behaviour. How do you reconcile restricting the market, as being pro-market? Obviously, many of your positions have cognitive dissonance going on, but really, can’t you spot this contradiction, and have to check your own premises?

@bloomj31

5. No, you never did. But it seems like the Mises Institute understands the value of private property even if you do not.

Explain.

[bloomj31]

Alright, Liberty Student, you win.

[Angurse]

@bloomj31

But it seems like the Mises Institute understands the value of private property even if you do not.

Thats why they make all of their books freely available.

[Maxliberty]

@liberty student

That is a non-sequitur. If you make ideas free, then you reinforce private property. If you restrict ideas, you undermine private property. Have you read any of the scholarship (Kinsella, Tucker, Boldrine and Levine) on this? Kinsella is the most difficult to read but Tucker, Boldrine and Levine are very easy to understand.

Still at the feet of Kinsella I see LS. Your theories don’t mesh with the marketplace. Ideas are just information, can people own information? If everyone has all information once it has been released, why do people still buy information? Why are there huge private unregulated markets that buy and sell information? You and Kinsella are confused between the government providing a blanket protection of property and whether or not the market can provide protection of information. The market already protects information with contracts and is quite capable of protecting some information without any government assistance. Your attempt to force the market to share all information and have no penalty for stealing information (ie hackers) is no better than the government trying to impose on the marketplace.

Given a society free of government, information will still be bought and sold and still valued and protected.

Your tyrannical assertions don’t scare the marketplace.

[bloomj31]

That’s a good point. Would privately negotiated information contracts be enforced in the non-government anarcho-capitalist area or whatever you want to call it?

[Giant_Joe]

People pay for the communication or education of the ideas so that they can realize a copy of the idea in their minds. Whether the other party even has the idea or not doesn’t matter to the person buying the means of communicating the idea so long as they get the idea in their minds. (or if not in their minds, some representation of the idea recorded in some form of media)

[liberty_student]

@Angurse

Thats why they make all of their books freely available.

Which is what I would do, but somehow Jacob seems to think they are approaching this differently than I would.

[liberty_student]

@Maxliberty

Still at the feet of Kinsella I see LS.

You’ll have to do better than Ad Hominem Max.

@Maxliberty

Your theories don’t mesh with the marketplace.

You’ve yet to prove that assertion you have made many times.

@Maxliberty

Ideas are just information, can people own information?

They can own manifestations of information, they cannot own what does not exist in the material world.

@Maxliberty

If everyone has all information once it has been released, why do people still buy information?

People buy the idea manifest as labour. That is why LvMI gives books away for free in some formats, but people still pay for it in others. The format, differentiates the product.

@Maxliberty

Why are there huge private unregulated markets that buy and sell information?

They sell the exchange/manifestation of that information. Without a transmission vector, exchange cannot occur.

@Maxliberty

You and Kinsella are confused between the government providing a blanket protection of property and whether or not the market can provide protection of information.

As usual, you have strawmanned my position, and conflated it with Stephans. You’re providing nothing new to the discussion, not even knew rhetorical devices or logical fallacies.

As I have informed your friend BrainPolice in the past, if you assert my position, back it up with a source.

@Maxliberty

The market already protects information with contracts and is quite capable of protecting some information without any government assistance.

“The market” as you state it, doesn’t protect information, it undermines property rights by awarding monopoly privilege based on arbitrary legal codes.

@Maxliberty

Your attempt to force the market to share all information and have no penalty for stealing information (ie hackers) is no better than the government trying to impose on the marketplace.

I have attempted nothing. I am not forcing anyone to do anything. It doesn’t help your argument to make false claims.

@Maxliberty

Given a society free of government, information will still be bought and sold and still valued and protected.

It may, or it may not. The market can decide. Whatever the market arranges, as long as it is voluntary, I support it.

@Maxliberty

Your tyrannical assertions don’t scare the marketplace.

More Ad Hominem. The refuge of a scoundrel? [:)]

[liberty_student]

@bloomj31

That’s a good point. Would privately negotiated information contracts be enforced in the non-government anarcho-capitalist area or whatever you want to call it?

If the contract is voluntary, I don’t really care what it is. It’s none of my business.

How it is enforced is up to the two contracting parties. I would assume they would specify a legal code, arbitrators, penalties etc within.

The argument about intellectual monopoly isn’t that I can’t have YOUR ideas. It’s that I can’t freely exercise MY ideas. And who came up with it first, is absolutely silly. We all use wheels. None of us came up with them. We all use math, we all sing songs, we all prepare food, we all speak english, none of us created all of these things, and in nearly every case, the creator of these ideas, built on ideas which came before.

To limit imitation, is to limit competition.

[bloomj31]

@liberty student

If the contract is voluntary, I don’t really care what it is. It’s none of my business.

How it is enforced is up to the two contracting parties. I would assume they would specify a legal code, arbitrators, penalties etc within.

The argument about intellectual monopoly isn’t that I can’t have YOUR ideas. It’s that I can’t freely exercise MY ideas. And who came up with it first, is absolutely silly. We all use wheels. None of us came up with them. We all use math, we all sing songs, we all prepare food, we all speak english, none of us created all of these things, and in nearly every case, the creator of these ideas, built on ideas which came before.

To limit imitation, is to limit competition.

Someone came up with wheels. They just either didn’t have copyright laws back then or they didn’t know how to copyright it.

Now, if the contract is voluntary, can it be enforced on other people who haven’t signed the contract but might be able to download it on the internet? How do you prevent theft under your system?

What about movies, video games, books, licenses, likenesses, and so on and so on? Will the people who produce these things be helpless in protecting their interests?

[liberty_student]

@bloomj31

Someone came up with wheels. They just either didn’t have copyright laws back then or they didn’t know how to copyright it.

LOL. So wheels are stolen ideas. Based on the intellectual monopoly premise, every idea you have that you learned or observed must be stolen.

@bloomj31

Now, if the contract is voluntary, can it be enforced on other people who haven’t signed the contract

To ask is to answer.

@bloomj31

How do you prevent theft under your system?

What was stolen?

@bloomj31

What about movies, video games, books, licenses, likenesses, and so on and so on? Will the people who produce these things be helpless in protecting their interests?

Areyou going to read any of the scholarship on this topic, or do you really want me to rehash all of the arguments (available for free!!) because you are too lazy to investigate them for yourself?

I really do have better things to do with my time.

You can check the latest Boldrine and Levine article in the Christian Science Monitor. Then read all of Jeffrey Tucker’s IP articles. MP3s are available in the media section. Then I would read Boldrine and Levine’s book, then Kinsella’s book.