I am saying, if I have a band, and desire to write music to make my livelihood, I could not promote my band in clubs or bars until I secured a distribution/touring contract. My band would be required to play in a sound proof booth when writing music so noone can take the song from us before we secure the contract.
Likewise I could not play the music for the record company, or they could just hire a professional to play it and make all the money. So how do I secure a contract to tour with a company that as soon as I play my song the first time can just take it?
On and on, how do I make my living as a song-writer when my contribution is worthless? I would have to charge exorbinant amounts up front, as I have no right to charge royalties. So who wants to pay $5million up front for a song they don’t know people will listen to?
Is property not a subjective manifestation of value? Whatever is valued is property… you can break this down into rival or non property, but I still don,t see how anything valued is not property.
“im not sure what you are asking me. are you saying that you would like to own some rival good that will allow you the service of hearing a song?”
I’m fairly certain he is asking how to create a valid construction of property that is a song–i.e. not how to construct a CD. In any case, I don’t think you’ll be able to help in that regard.
I think one aspect of IP that is difficult to grasp is that to have “IP” requires a dividing line of necessary complexity. If create a fancy shirt design is that IP? What about the woven pattern? the genetic strain of cotton? All of the resultant goods may be made of scarce goods but the concepts themselves (shirt design, weave pattern, genetic code) do not a scarce good make. What is the specific point at which something has sufficient complexity to gain the title of “IP”?
I think most IP proponents consider a song of such complexity that it becomes IP but if I were to shorten the song by 5% is it still IP? 50%? What about a single pair of notes?
I am saying, if I have a band, and desire to write music to make my livelihood, I could not promote my band in clubs or bars until I secured a >>distribution/touring contract. My band would be required to play in a sound proof booth when writing music so noone can take the song from us before >>we secure the contract.
so what? this is just you expressing how if you try a venture you as an entrepreneur don’t see how you would succeed. I care not. The fact that you feel that the realities of life mean that you cannot afford to attempt to live and act in-spite of the realities you recognise (and the degree to which you lament this) is no more different than lamenting that you cannot fly unaided. or that you don’t have what it takes to be a good pilot (for whatever reason it is that makes you think that).
Likewise I could not play the music for the record company, or they could just hire a professional to play it and make all the money.
fallacy, since if the reason you can’t play in public is that you wont make money because otherpeople would make the money instead of you, then the same argument would apply to their decision to play in public. a fallacy.
how do I make my living as a song-writer when my contribution is worthless?
do you doubt the historical evidence relating to the existance of minstrels? its too bad that people think you are worthless. you should do things that inspire people to voluntarily extend money to you. try to do it without claiming absurd property rights over the real rival goods of other human beings who have ears and minds with which they can interpret and recall musical patterns.
Is property not a subjective manifestation of value?
i dont want to agree or disagree with this. its too woolly and vague.
Whatever is valued is property
are you using value formally as it is understood in praxeologogy, or perhaps as a phsychological phenomenon ?
fallacy, since if the reason you can’t play in public is that you wont make money because otherpeople would make the money instead of you, then the same argument would apply to their decision to play in public. a fallacy.
It is not a fallacy as their is a key difference; i am a song-writer, they are just musicians.
o you doubt the historical evidence relating to the existance of the charitable? its too bad that people think you are worthless. you should do things that inspire people to voluntarily extend money to you. try to do it without claiming absurd property rights
I feel like you are arguing that property rights are a concrete thing that exist without people demanding them… and that a things rival status plays any role in this equation.
I am using property as the term used to describe things that are owned.
so you are incapable of performing your music in public since you are not a musician…
I feel like you are arguing that property rights are a concrete thing that exist without people demanding them… and that a things rival status plays any >>role in this equation.
property as an institution that the common law emerges to respect, is a natural consequence of the fact that physical goods are rival. property as a praxeological category is necessary under a regime where the actors in question are physical and wish to incorporate scarce and rival property into their plans. You could read some Hoppe for the praxeological case, and for the case for the ‘emergence of private property as an institution that is concerned with rival goods’ Carl Menger
No doubt an excellent theory for the need for property rights. But my intrinsic rights to anything end with your willingness to use lethal force. We can wax philosophic about it all day, but there are people in the world who will take your things even your non-rival ones, as their own.
I feel it would be best to end the discussion here, as I do not forsee me coming to your conclusion without believing rights are natural, and that is, to me, a fallacy borne out by human experience. It would be akin to me saying “you must believe what I believe becuase you have no rights to your own thoughts.”
Any further reading I could find on the issue would be much appreciated.
take your things even your non-rival ones, as their own.
impossible, their consumption of the non-rival goods is not rivalrous with my consumption of them, ergo if I ever ‘had’ them, i still have them regardless of what they do (what you call taking; its the taking that leaves things as they are; some taking indeed!)
Im glad you put ocean floor there. I was going to bring up that the ocean is forever flowing, I cannot claim the water lest I put a bubble letting no water in or out. But you said the floor. So, how can you park your boat on the bottom of hte ocean, it is a submarine now?
I’m not disagreeing; I’m simply curious about what reasoning he wanted to build upon that position that he would ask such a nebulous question in the first place. i.e. undoubtedly it was intended as some sort of trap but I’m interested as to how since I’ve never heard the ocean being used as some sort of parallel to “IP”
I was going to ask you how ocean water, forever flowing (land doesnt move within one man’s lifetime.. often) can be a rival good like solid land. We can claim two adjacent plots of water, yet my water will in a few hours/minutes be your water.
I guess if you are claiming the ocean floor that is another story.
But the question still stands, can you claim the water?