On page 33 of Against Intellectual Property, Kinsella writes:
“Ideas are not naturally scarce. However, by recognizing a right in an ideal object, one creates scarcity where none existed before.”
You interpreted this to mean that scarcity is created in ideas, where no scarcity in ideas existed before.
My question is how do you interpret the notion of scarcity of ideas in this instance? Or, how do you think scarcity of ideas might be interpreted in this context?
A situation is created where there are less ideas than before ?
A situation is created wherein one person’s having an idea excludes another person’s having the same idea?
Something else?
How do you interpret this, and how do you think it is meant as it is written?
I asked: “Tangible objects that can be reproduced without damaging the original tangible objects are not rivalrous?”
You answered: “Yes, to this extent they aren’t perceived to be rivalrous. In creating a copy of something using a non-invasive procedure*, one is necessarily using material that does not exist within the original thing.”
Considering this example:
Person B has a bicycle. Person A reproduces the same bicycle without damaging B’s bicycle.
Is this a fair illustration of the principle that objects that can be reproduced without damaging the original are not rivalrous?
nirgrahamUK wrote the following post at Fri, Sep 3 2010 12:40 AM:
yet the owner does maintain the use of it whilst he remains the owner and does not abandon it.
in other words, you own something, if you have not abandoned it then… it is in your use.
because it is rival object, the use of it by another should it contradict the owners use, is just as rivalrous as that sounds. if the use of it by another does not contradict the owners use, then the owner consents, and there is no problem.
Intellectual property can also be or not be abandoned. I fail to see how this creates an exception.
nirgrahamUK wrote the following post at Fri, Sep 3 2010 1:16 AM:
its never rival whether any number of people find it useful or not.
But rivalry has nothing to do with abandonment. I do not abandon my house by going on vacation, but I am no longer a rival for it. What gives me the right to exclude anyone?
the house is rival, you can not go on holiday and use your house for ‘sitting untouched and waiting for me in pristine conditions without guests’ services, and simultaneously some guy using it for ‘throw a party services’
but of course the idea of houses is non-rival, so we can all ‘access’ the concept of ‘house’ without detriment to the other.
nirgrahamUK wrote the following post at Fri, Sep 3 2010 1:25 AM:
the house is rival, you can not go on holiday and use your house for ‘sitting untouched and waiting for me in pristine conditions without guests’ services, and simultaneously some guy using it for ‘throw a party services’
but of course the idea of houses is non-rival, so we can all ‘access’ the concept of ‘house’ without detriment to the other.
The idea of movies is non-rival as well, but specific movies can still be owned otherwise the movie producer does not get to enjoy excluding guests from his movie.
That makes as much sense as that ‘joy’ is rival since one persons ‘joy’ might be that someone else be denied ‘joy’.
Its not enough for you to utilise things to render them ‘rival’, those things must be rival in a sense that marries the physical with the teleological.
Now a Cinema room wherein a movie is screened, or DVD disc on which a movie is encoded, are rival and an owner/producer has rights to exclude others.
but a ‘movie’ abstracted away from a physical substrate, is non-rival. A movie in a physical substrate, is a trait of a physical medium. You can exclude people from the medium, but not from non-rival ‘traits’ of mediums.
nirgrahamUK wrote the following post at Fri, Sep 3 2010 1:46 AM:
That makes as much sense as that ‘joy’ is rival since one persons ‘joy’ might be that someone else be denied ‘joy’.
Its not enough for you to utilise things to render them ‘rival’, those things must be rival in a sense that marries the physical with the teleological.
And you are the judge of what is or isn’t teleological?
I’m the judge of true rivalrousness by considering what both teleology, and physical constraints entail when they come together in the case of something,
and Im the judge of false rivalrousness (more simply, things that are not rival) by considering where physical constraints do not align with teleological issues in the case of other somethings
Could you please explain what this “elementalist fallacy” is? I Googled the term and nothing came up, so I figure it’s a special term of yours. I can properly address it once you explain it to me.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to evade your question. Apparently I was confused as to which context you were presenting it in.
With that said, my answer is the same as that posted by nirgrahamUK. My use of my house while I’m on vacation is for it to sit undisturbed until I get back. You throwing a party there is hence a rivalrous use of it.
I thought I answered this question already, but let me try again.
My interpretation of that passage is that the intended notion of “scarcity of ideas” (by those who hold it) is a situation where one person’s use of an idea excludes another person’s use thereof. Only when the first person gives permission to the other person to use the idea can the latter then use it.
In other words, the Kinsellan notion of scarcity comes partly from use, particularly use that is perceived or understood to be rivalrous/mutually exclusive.
After Person A reproduces Person B’s bicycle, there are two bicycles. Both are rivalrous – for example, both people cannot simultaneously ride either bicycle (using the normal sense of “ride”). However, the “bicycle-pattern” that both bicycles embody is not rivalrous, for it can be used to create new bicycles without being “consumed” in the process.
The reason I put it this way is so as not to lead you to believe that I’m saying the bicycles themselves are somehow not rivalrous. But I hope I’ve answered your question.
And my use of my information pattern (the movie “Avatar”) is for people who paid me the asking price to watch it. You watching it without paying me anything is hence a rivalrous use of it.
I feel I was clear that I thought you were acting obtuse on purpose, presumably to make some point. This of course precludes you from actually being obtuse. The alternative is that I misunderstood the intent of your post, not that you are “not sensitive or observant; dull; stupid”.
I’m not sure because I really don’t know what you’re trying to get at. I am having a conversation in colloquial language on a message board, not writing a paper, book or article. That means I do lazy things like not specify physical toasters vs toaster designs - I call both “toasters” and leave it up to the context of the rest of the post and the inference of the reader to clarify. This also means it is possible to quote individual sentences from several similar posts that will, without their surrounding statements, seem to contradict one another but really don’t. It is also possible that there simply wasn’t enough clarity for a reader (other than me) to make the appropriate inferences and get confused. Since only you and I are talking about my posts I really have no idea.
Either way, we can certainly have a conversation where we are exceedingly explicit in every detail so that we end up with a result that is fit for publishing (or as close as we can get it, anyway), I just would like to know that ahead of time so I can actually write that way.
Is that what you are attempting to do? If not, please restate your two requested clarifications so I can better understand the source of confusion.
yes,but the problem is that you have a movie, and I have the same movie. How can it be? How can the one rival thing be in both places at the same time? Either my movie is somehow different than yours or it is non-rival and you can not claim that you own it anymore, than you claim you own words you were telling me and I can’t re-tell it to somebody else.
P.S. my watching of “your movie” doesn’t exclude you from watching the very same movie. That’s why you can not ask me for paying you if I want to watch something that is on my property.
MaikU wrote the following post at Fri, Sep 3 2010 5:16 PM:
yes,but the problem is that you have a movie, and I have the same movie. How can it be? How can the one rival thing be in both places at the same time? Either my movie is somehow different than yours or it is non-rival and you can not claim that you own it anymore, than you claim you own words you were telling me and I can’t re-tell it to somebody else.
You produced a copy of the movie using my original copy without getting my authorization, that is how it can be that you have the same movie as I do. This does not pose a problem regarding my ownership of the movie as an intellectual property, since it is impossible for you to acquire your copy without making use of my original copy at some point.
In fact, it is only a problem for rivalrytarian property, but they’ve never explained why. In classical production-driven property, it is irrelevant.
it is YOUR problem to keep YOUR movie (song, novels, even ideas, thoughts) as private as possible so that no one could be able to copy it. Unless you have written contract with me to not copy your movie, you can not do much (especially if I am third party).. And how do you know that I copied from original? Maybe I already copied someone else’s copy? In a digital world it is almost impossible to know.
MaikU wrote the following post at Sat, Sep 4 2010 6:59 PM:
it is YOUR problem to keep YOUR movie (song, novels, even ideas, thoughts) as private as possible so that no one could be able to copy it. Unless you have written contract with me to not copy your movie, you can not do much (especially if I am third party).. And how do you know that I copied from original? Maybe I already copied someone else’s copy? In a digital world it is almost impossible to know.
His copy also comes from my original copy, hence all copies are derived from my original copy. It is impossible for it to be any other way without the laws of physics being violated.
You have it completely backwards. We can know with 100% certainty in a digital world that your copy is derived from my copy with simple forensics, even without a watermark.
What if I keep my movie private by attacking and destroying all counterfeit copies? Clearly I have taken responsibility for defending my property, and not relied on evil state protectionism to defend my rights.
How can it be? How can the one rival thing be in both places at the same time? Either my movie is somehow different than yours or it is non-rival and you can not claim that you own it anymore, than you claim you own words you were telling me and I can’t re-tell it to somebody else.