About time you started posting again.
I really didn’t mean to start another full-blown IP vs. no-IP debate, but I suppose the results are informative. Bloomj31, I think a point that is often overlooked by IP-advocates is that no one should have a “right” to a market-share. You can make something and offer it for sale, but you can’t claim ownership of consumers’ buying preferences. In a sense, this is all IP is really doing – assuring a market share for the person who gets a copyright or patent.
Kinsella mentioned this in passing in his interview on the Peter Mac Show, and it made me think deeper about the legitimacy of IP rights. It’s a point worth considering (and he does articulate it more clearly than I do, so it might be worth checking out).
(Also, I think coming into this debate it’s a good idea to have an understanding of the main types of IP law (copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret), and their differences and inconsistencies – even in abstract form. Again, this was something that has made me question IP rights.)
In the marketplace, information isn’t free. People buy and sell it. Your theory that all information would be free if there was no government is obviously false. Some people have information and others do not. Your idea that people only buy the means of communication is absurd. If I am only buying the means of communication then what is communicated should not be important and yet people think exactly the opposite of your theory. It is the information that people do not have and want, not the means of communication. As further evidenced by the fact that there are wide price variations for the same means of communication, that is contrary to your theory. We would expect all information communicated by cd which is basically a commodity to be the same price under your theory…its not…not even close. What is being communicated matters. It’s incredible that this simple concept escapes you.
Are the electrical impulses in my mind that form ideas…do they belong to me? If you agree to share information with me with certain restrictions on how I use that information why would you and your Austrian thought police who claim to want freedom be opposed to that?
The last conversation we had is where you stated you agreed with Kinsella. I can see why you would back away from that given the obvious inconsistencies.
Sure you are. You want to force people to share there ideas and prevent them from protecting them with contracts. Under your regime you would have all contracts that protect information be invalid since information can not be owned.
The market has already voluntarily decided that information is property and you want to reverse this.You and the Austrian cult would like to impose your view of property and your view of information on everyone else.You want to abolish all contracts relating to information because you do not think of it as property. So you are not willing to let the market decide.
Why not adopt a truly free viewpoint of information…let people do with it as they will and respect the contracts they make between each other. It is really that simple.
If I buy only the means of communication, I am able to to get information that I want.
I buy a dentist’s services, not because I value the services, but because I value my teeth.
I use the dentist’s services to reach an end that I value. I use the means of communication to reach an end that I value.
This is going to be a long post in order to properly eviscerate your position, I might have to break it up into a couple of responses.
You have misidentified what they are paying for.
I believe that is a strawman, can you source my saying this? If not, will you admit it is a lie?
I would argue everyone has information, that it is impossible to interact with reality without it.
Well, without a means of transmission, there would be no way to complete the exchange. They might value it all sorts of different ways. But as we know from the marginal revolution, value is subjective, and so trying to determine an objective point of value (as you continue to do) cannot yield a true answer.
Argumentum ad populism at the end. That’s a logical fallacy. Also, your argument amounts to, if I am getting from A to B, it doesn’t matter if I walk or take an airplane. I’m sure you can see the error there.
Now you are trying to make objective claims about value again. Value is subjective. Sometimes I have the information of an ebook from Mises.org, and I want to buy it to have on my shelf. The information is the same, the vector is the differentiating factor. Regardless, you’re still making an objective value error in your arguments.
If you were following along, that makes my point. Value is subjective.
This fails the test of economic reasoning. You’re asserting that subjective value theory is wrong, without offering a proof. Do you reject subjective value theory?
On the contrary, I have never argued otherwise. However, what is communicated, may not be the sole determinant of value. I might not pay you the same amount for the coca cola formula skywritten, that I would if given to me in a digital form.
In summation, every product and service is differentiated. And all value is subjective. These are fundamental facts. Any premise you construct, has to avoid conflict with them, or you will have to completely disprove the theories behind them. Thus far, it’s mostly been strawmen and arguing by assertion.
You are in possession of the manifestation of your ideas, in your mind, which could be constituted of electrical impulses.
First, speaking of the Austrian school in an Ad Hom manner is a violation of the forum rules. You’re welcome to criticize Austrian ideas, but the Ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy, and thus poor argumentation, is not welcome here. I tolerate a greater amount of your ad hom because I can be the bigger man, but the moment when you extend it to others, you’re offside.
Second, where did anyone claim they were opposed to that? Source please. Failure to provide a source will indicate this is a lie.
Stephan and I agree on some things, disagree on others. You still have not proven that my position on Intellectual Monopoly is synonymous with his. If you can prove it, do so. Otherwise, this may be another instance of lying, which is poor form in debate.
Don’t assert Max, prove.
You’ve made two claims here. Can you source or prove them, or are you just asserting again?
Here is the thing, when you assert something you know you can’t prove, that’s called lying.
I am part of the market, and I did not decide this. Thus the market, did not decide it. You confuse the market with a zero sum game. You can have people who want to pretend that intellectual property is real, and you can have people who operate understanding that such ideas are intellectual monopoly. Thus the market accommodates win-win outcomes. So please, on top of the flawed objective value statements, don’t start asserting the market is something it is not.
As far as my wanting to “reverse this”, I would like you to source that please. If not, I’ll assume it is another lie by unproven assertion.
Who is in the Austrian cult? Name names and provide sources for their position please. A failure to do so, will not only signal lying by assertion, but is also a failure to make a good faith argument via the forum rules, and a dishonest attack on the character and ideas of the Austrians, which is also a violation of the forum rules. I’m not kidding about this one, so please take your time, and back up your statement very precisely.
I believe that is what I did here.
I’m waiting for you to back up your attack on the Austrian school.
The underlying argument here is circular. The authors are said to have interests needing protection because there is IP law, so therefore we should have IP law.
If we didn’t have IP laws, the professions of filmmaker, video game maker, author, etc. may be quite different, but who’s to say that these professions should be the way they are now? Maybe these professions are the way they are because of IP law.
The only relevant question in that context is whether IP law encourages such creative efforts. That is something we can debate.
Indeed. It like arguing we need government in order to provide jobs to politicians.
I think in so far as anyone accepts that the use of aggression is immoral, there is no debate. The means (monopoly) cannot justify the ends (creativity) even if proven to do so. That would open up arguments like, “it is ok to kill 100,000 Iraqi children, if it causes regime change”. This sort of one sided value calculation is fundamentally statist (seen sans unseen), and probably wouldn’t arise in debate between sincere and thoughtful libertarians.
Although it may be unlikely, I could see some kind of IP law theoretically being upheld by private courts.
As to whether IP law encourages creative works, I meant we can debate that with Jacob since he is a minarchist (isn’t swayed by the argument that aggression is immoral).
I would actually concede that it probably does encourage such creative efforts. But at what cost to other creative efforts? If I have to spend $15 on a CD, instead of $1, that means that there are $14 that could be spent on some other product or service or leisure, that I now cannot purchase. It goes back to the ideas of protectionism.
I don’t believe that IP law really encourages creativity, what it does is lower the risk of making something that fails at the box office. Do you take the copyright law to bed and read it as a source of creativity? IP law also raises two other troubling issues. First, it eliminates the concept of sale. That is when you buy a product you acquire a property right to use that product as you see fit. Second, those who promote IP law seem to believe that they have a right to trespass on your property rights and/or to deprive you of the ability to use your property. Just because someone wants to protect the value of something they produced does not entitle them to abuse others. After all they made the product for others to use.