Intellectual Property and Normative Social Theory

Economics Political Theory
181

I already copyrighted binary ‘0’ and ‘1’ and all combinations thereof of any length.

Theoretically speaking, it would take an infinitely long time to do this, and beforehand those who do not seek valuable binary combinations by random chance would copyright those combinations that are valuable long before (infinitely long?) you could accidentally discover them.

edit: In fact, since the supply of copies to copyright is strictly scarce, it would be impossible for you to attempt to copyright all combinations of all possible information streams. You must make a choice between them. How will you proceed?

182

If we’re to follow Z and Strangers’ line of thinking, you have absolute contol over those patterns and can exclude everyone from ever using them in perpetuity, even those who arrive at binary without having ever met you or witnessed your system, or someone late to the copyright office.

@ Stranger, @ Z, if someone patents a process in America at the same time as someone patents the same process in Poland, who owns the idea? If there was only one patent, then there would be no conflict, but it seems to me that as many patent granting agencies as there are, are how many conflicts there can be. You guys up for some one world government to get these property rights issues sorted out? As a libertarian anarchist, I am for 6 billion patent granting agencies, but it seems to me your arguments would necessitate some World Idea Registrar to prevent conflicts caused by too much simultaneous individual ownership of non-rivalrous thoughts.

Also, IP is different country to country. Which country do you guys feel has the correct system and why?

183

Yes. It’s about exclusivity of nonrivalrous goods. I don’t know if an ancap-type society would protect IP or not. I’m for the free market for material goods and services, and why I’m against enforcing exclusivity (granted monopoly) of nonrivalrous goods.

If we accept IP, then someone owns what has been written. If we don’t accept IP, then “what was written” is not property. The person still owns the paper and pencil. If we don’t accept IP, the situation is simple. If we do accept it, it gets confusing.

Something is apparently owned, but what? Are other people not even allowed to think the idea that is owned by someone else? Why not allow them to profit from use of the idea? Why should it be that using an idea for profit is barred, but using an idea for any other reason isn’t? If someone takes an “owned” idea and makes it better, did that person violate the right of that owner of that idea?

The only semi-satisfactory reason I see for supporting IP is the argument of incentive. But then again, I’m interested in allowing the best material wealth in the world, and I believe that implies a system where physical property rights (rival goods) trump IP rights (nonrival goods).

184

They weren’t on your property. Go back and read the example here.

Ah, so you are excluded from their recording equipment, so how do you think you will prove or enforce your claim?

IP is not property. It is a relative new construct of the nation state. It is as artificial as fiat money.

185

Whatever laws remain, appear, or exist (written or not) in a free market will reflect the beliefs and subjective preferences of the human actors comprising it. Franky, it’s bordering on the delusional to think that the only laws that “exist on their own” (?) – and independently of such processes – are the ones that exactly match your beliefs. Talked to the Taliban much lately?

186

Yes, thank you. Furthermore, from what I’ve learned about human action (actors), the concept of ‘property (ownership) in X’ encourages production (creation) of X. If most actors subjectively value ‘more of X’, then I predict that the free market would support the concept of ‘property (ownership) in X’ to that end. We already know that the above works with physical property as capitalism handily trounces communism in the area of wealth/capital/productivity creation. In the case of IP, X=information, and I have every reason to believe that a capitalistic information property system would handily trounce a communistic one in the domain of information wealth creation.

It is dis-ingenious to suggest that boundary problems regarding a property concept X are a proof of its non-sustainability or illogicality. There are boundary problems abound in ANY concept of property. Just look at my list of questions: “Is X property?” couple of pages ago. Are atoms ownable? And if they aren’t how can matter/objects/land (which are comprised of non-ownable atoms) be ownable? Where is the boundary there? Three atoms? A molecule? An atomic structure of a certain size? Which part of “land” is property? The 2-D surface, or the matter (atoms, dirt) covering it? How deep underground, and how high into space?

How about we let the market (reflecting the subjective valuations of actors comprising it) decide?

Z.

187

Please see my previous post. I can make ANY property concept look ridiculous. The market is the best resolver of boundary problems.

188

I already responded to you on this in the “Information as Property” thread, I think. I already peed in a 360 degree circle around me thus homesteading the whole know universe into my ownership. Let’s get together and look for a court that would validate both of our claims.

189

Something is apparently owned, but what? Are other people not even allowed to think the idea that is owned by someone else?

IP is not about ideas. Please rewrite your argument into something intelligible.

190

Of course they were. It is only because you cling to the absurd notion of rivalry that you allow them the right to invade my property without consequences.

Ah, so you are excluded from their recording equipment, so how do you think you will prove or enforce your claim?

That is just a procedural detail for the justice system. Supposing the accused refuses to surrender the evidence, that is evidence of guilt.

191

LS, I’ll admit that I’m not sure that patents (as property) would survive in a free market. As for information (binary patterns), centralization is not necessary because the very same technology that allows for their creation and exchange (highly interconnected actors) will allow for efficient conflict resolution without the need for a central authority. It’s not by accident that the more valuable an information property is, the more difficult (less likely) it is to be created independently. When an exactly same 4GB pattern of Matlab software gets created by someone other than (and independently from) Mathworks, I’ll worry about it then. Likelihoods matter, because we regularly round them down to zero whenever they get so unimaginably small.

As I said, quantum physics allows for the possibility that I physically walk through you. The fact that no one has ever walked through anyone does not preclude it from ever happening in the future. But we obviously are not in any rush to resolve all physical property repercussions that could result from such an event. We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Z.

192

I don’t think that you know what “disingenuous” means. If I thought that you did, I would duck out of this argument right now.

Well, there is a difference between the “boundary problems” regarding physical property, and the “boundary problems” regarding “information property”. The boundary problems regarding physical property are ones just of degree. It might be fuzzy how deep underground we should make certain physical property rights, or how high into the sky. But the boundary problems regarding information property aren’t ones of degrees, but are ones of category. It is fuzzy whether we should let people “own” the information regarding where to sell oil, what industry to go into, and so on, if we let people “own” the information regarding what grooves to put on a CD, what marks to put on paper, and so on.

Yeah, of course.

193

While I don’t agree with you z, your specification appeals to me in its particularity. All too often in my occupation I read patents that are so broad as not to define a specific instantiation and it drives me nuts.

194

Then what is it about?

For what reason?

Yeah, they don’t ever talk about “owning” information apart from excluding people from selling it.

195

Hi Stephan

Thank you for your clarification.

A comment made by z1235 touches on something that may be of interest to you and to those following the discussion and debate. He writes (and I’ll modify):

“Whatever laws remain, appear, or exist (written or not) in a free market will reflect the beliefs and subjective preferences of the human actors comprising it. …to think that…laws “exist on their own” (?) – and independently of such processes…and are the ones that exactly match [our] beliefs…”

I think z1235 may be responding to the specific kind of a priorism you may be employing in your theory or reasoning.

Do you believe that your social thought and your approach utilizes the ideas of Reinach to any degree?

Secondarily, do you believe that the specific kind of a priorism that Reinach advocates or envisions is the exact same kind as the one that Mises (and perhaps Menger) advocate and envision? Or do you believe Reinachian a priorism is of a subtly different variety than Mises’s?

(I have my own thoughts on #2, but I wanted to know how you see it)

196

cporter:

“Yes, I am arguing that scarcity is an objective feature of physical nature.”

You are the first person I’ve seen who explicitly argues this. Do you know of any other explicit argument that comes out in favor of an objective concept of scarcity? To me, this is an important topic for an article, essay, paper, etc…

Example 1:

Person A: Brand X toasters are scarce.

Person B: No they’re not. I can reproduce a brand X toaster without damaging the original.

“Person B can reproduce an identical toaster without damaging the original design in any way.”

OK Your original passage didn’t mention design or the idea of design. Then, are there three entities in this conception:

(1) the toaster in front of B, (2) an identical toaster in front of B that B has made as a reproduction, and (3) the original design that B refers to in making the reproduction ?

Example 2:

Person A: I’ve reproduced a brand X toaster without using the original.

Person B: How do you know you reproduced the original without using the original as a reference ?

“The fact that you don’t know you reproduced it doesn’t matter. It could be pointed out to you later or you could discover it on your own later, but it in no way affects your original “recreation” of the toaster design.”

Here is your original passage:

“Something is either subject to reproduction without damaging the original (or even requiring the use of the original) or it isn’t,…”

Do you mean instead:

“Something is either subject to reproduction without damaging the original [design] (or even requiring the use of the original [design]) or it isn’t,…”

?

197

So you believe that people must incriminate themselves? Or that the absence of proof is a proof?

198

Not to me, I have a strong stomach.

I agree and I think Adam would as well, with his mention of a meta-system like panarchy. The point where you and I diverge, is that I don’t think the market will be able to create the artificial boundaries around ideas necessary to make patterns property short of a complete re-engineering of the human mind.

199

I may be too late in this thread, but what I have read so far, the main issue with IP in this thread is that those who are pro-IP assert, that and “idea” becomes a property only when it is named as such, for example, a song, a movie, a novel etc. That’s how I understand their definition at least.

Theydon’t say ideas can be owned, but when those ideas are built into something.. well, material, haha. If I write a song into CD, that song (not only CD) becomes mine and then if I try to sell this CD, anybody who downloads it illegally is violating “my property rights”.

Am I right, pro-IP people?

200

Liberty Student:

“I agree and I think Adam would as well, with his mention of a meta-system like panarchy. The point where you and I diverge, is that I don’t think the market will be able to create the artificial boundaries around ideas necessary to make patterns property short of a complete re-engineering of the human mind.”

I would like to use IP as an example to illustrate.

In my conception of panarchy, the meta-system (the entire structure of the overall society) is only marginally the result of design or fore-thought. Keeping with the IP example, let’s say a group of people (A) were interested in extricating themselves from the current IP system. Conceivably, this group could have one of their members secure a patent or copyright and then have every member of the group violate the patent copyright in a way which triggers the legal system to have to take action. Every member of the group violates the IP of this individual to an extent such that the legal system must enforce the IP. The individual holding the patent or copyright could or would file an individual lawsuit against every violator of his patent or copyright. If the group were large enough, this might be 10,000 or more lawsuits. The system would be flooded with lawsuits.

If the response of the system is to outlaw this practice (where every member of a given group agrees to file a lawsuit), then every member of the group would file a new lawsuit charging every other member of the group with this new crime. And this could be repeated every time a new law was enacted… The same could be done with many other things such as minimum wage laws, etc.

If the response of the system is the decision not to enforce the IP of the person or group concerned—realizing that these activities are being undertaken by a specific group—then the legal system formally or informally recognizes this group as a separate legal entity to which separate laws apply (whether defacto or dejure). I.e., the system refuses to enforce IP among members of this group. Then, the first lines of legal separation are established, in principle.

If anything like this could happen, then the following circumstance would obtain (at least as I see it):

  1. The current IP system would still be in effect and enforced among all those who support it or agree with it. (group C)

  2. A second group of people (B), comprised of those who do not necessarily support or agree with IP, but were not part of group A who were able to obtain partial legal separation, would also still be subject to the current IP system. These are people who, while they do not necessarily agree with the current IP system, did not take part in the activities of group A, and so were not formally recognized as a distinct legal entity. These may also be people who are afraid of taking any actions for practical considerations, and so remain subject to the current system even though they don’t necessarily agree with it.

  3. There would then exist a group of people who obtained formal or informal legal separation to some degree. Group A.

In this conception then, group A does not abolish the system in question (the same applies to minimum wage law and other laws). What happens is that group A devises a method to begin attaining legal separation from group C (who continue to prefer, participate in, and administer the current system), while group B (those who neither favor the system nor take any actions toward separation) also remain subject to the laws of group C. Group B remains subject to group C, because for practical reasons, B decides against taking any actions toward legal separation, though they do not necessarily agree with the laws they are subject to.

Thus, a situation arises in which to some degree there are both IP and non IP groups (to whatever extent this can be attained by A), and IP laws exist and operate among B and C as a historical legacy coexisting with A’s emerging emancipation—not as an intentional theoretical design of group A. That is, group A does not “design” or “theorize” a “social system” in which IP operates alongside non IP. Instead, as A begins attaining legal separation, IP still operates among C who supports it, and B who chooses not to separate from it. In short, C is still doing what they were doing, to and amongst themselves, and, they are still doing what they were doing to B (at least for some period of time as society evolves). But as regards A, A is gaining separation from specific legal structures, according to their ability to do so.

The separate question as to whether new forms of market-based IP emerge need not be answered. The market can decide that in the future.

Thus, the meta-system I envision and call panarchy, is only partially created by design. There is a design created by group A to move toward legal emancipation, but this leaves group C in tact (albeit with diminishing legal jurisdiction), and it leaves group B subject to group C legally, depending on the choices, values, cost/benefits decisions of B. In other words, the primary change that occurs is in the legal relationship between A and C, but the legal relationship between C and C (intragroup) and C and B (intergroup) remains largely unchanged.

This is my normative social theory; what I think libertarians “should do” as opposed to my “praxeological theory”; my theory of the laws of human nature.

Panarchy—this specific vision of it—is how I envision approaching a social situation such as IP. I envision this “panarchic” approach being used for most if not all other social situations as well.

A discussion of panarchy takes us away from the OP, but I used the example of IP to try to illustrate a normative approach (something I believe we “should” or “ought” do given our belief in non-coercion) to the problem.