Clayton -
“All of this brings us to what intellectual property law is really about - a reality that is simply obscured by analogies to other types of property. Intellectual property law is not about your right to control your copy of your idea - this is a right that we have just pointed out, does not need a great deal of protection. What intellectual property law is really about is about your right to control my copy of your idea.”
The real question is how the idea got from A to B’s head. If A had an idea, it is his. He’s the sole owner of that idea. It is intellectual property, as it must be praxeologically, since he alone controls it and thus must be the sole owner. B has no idea at this point. A has total rights over the idea.
A transfers the idea to B conditionally, on the understanding that B may not pass on the idea nor resell it. If B passes the idea on to C, then you guys are basically saying A has no recourse against C. You’re saying even B can just use the idea no matter what.
But the root problem here is that ideas are not like physical objects, as Kinsella say. If A gives an object to B and B gives it to C, then we would say that C has is holding A’s object, and if C tried to sell it, the sale would be illegitimate and C would owe A restitution.
However, ideas are passed duplicatively. But does that mean that ownership automatically passes with it, and full rights to that idea? I don’t think so. A invented the idea and has the highest right over it. He passes it to B provisionally. B cheats and passes it to C. Does C now have a right to ignore A and profit on the idea? No, he shouldn’t. He doesn’t have the right to sell that idea which was passed to him illegitimately.
But since C has an idea in his head and ideas cannot be taken away like objects can be taken away, the only thing left for a court to do is to have C make restitution to A and bar C from selling the idea. It’s not a gov-granted monopoly, it’s simply a property right and protection thereof.
Kinsella is guilty of treating ideas as if they didn’t first originate in one person’s mind.
“This is not a right ordinarily or automatically granted to the owners of other types of property. If I produce a cup of coffee, I have the right to choose whether or not to sell it to you or drink it myself. But my property right is not an automatic right both to sell you the cup of coffee and to tell you how to drink it.”
Sure, however it’s not unusual to sell something and reserve the right of resale. You can, as in Rothbard’s example, buy something that cannot be resold. Nor could it be copied and sold copies of.
And the better analogy would not be ‘tell you how to drink it’ but rather ‘tell you not to resell it’. The person holding full rights can pass a thing to you and reserve some of those rights. This is just as true of an object as it is of an idea.
"It is important to distinguish between property rights and contractual agreements. You could sell me the delicious cup of coffee you just made, and have me sign a contract agreeing not to drink the coffee after 4 pm. But if I were to violate this agreement it would not be theft.
True, but again, he’s using the wrong analogy. It would be theft if you agreed not to sell that coffee and did so anyway, since you wouldn’t have the legitimate right to sell that coffee. It’s not a right you purchased with that coffee. Whether you want to buy a coffe that has its usage rights encumbered is up to you–you’d undoubtedly pay less for encumbered coffee, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s encumbered.
“As a matter of law, you could not send the police after me. You could sue me for breach of contract - and the courts might or might not decide the contract was valid. But there would be no question of theft or violation of property rights.”
Again, if the question was one of resale, it would be a question of property rights violations. Since, in my example, the seller retained the right of resale, which is explicitly breached by reselling the coffee.
“I’m only saying they shouldn’t be able to build on wetlands on their own property.”
Do you see how that is excluding them from using their own property? Once they know what the idea is, it is within their mind as well as yours. That you came up with it first does not somehow give you the right to exclude them from using this idea (that they now possess as well as you) in order to use their own property. If I hear a poem, it is within my mind. If someone prevents me from writing it down or from reciting it, they are excluding me from using my property or even my own body.
You might produce an original pattern of words, but if you share that pattern, it no longer resides within only your mind. If you claim ownership over that poem, you are excluding people from using their body in a certain way, such as from reciting that poem. As far as plagiarism goes, copying does not equal fraud. If I copy a poem you wrote and tell other people that I wrote it, that’s fraud. But copying is absolutely not theft. I have taken nothing from you.
Well I’m glad to see you are at least against slander and libel laws.
Um…yes? Just because you came up with the idea doesn’t change the fact that you are still excluding others from using their own property in that regard. As Clayton pointed out, if I patent a wooden chair, I am saying that you may use your wood however you want…except you may not use it to create the wooden chair that I created. I am absolutely excluding you from using your own property.
Um…yes? Again, you are saying that I cannot hum that melody if someone pays me in exchange for humming it. That is exclusion.
Well that’s not true. Ideas can be sold without disclosing them. People make pitches all the time without disclosing the entire idea, and that’s in today’s IP world. If it’s an inventor without a solid reputation, then it may possibly be harder for him to pitch his idea to investors, but that doesn’t mean he can’t do it. Inventors with great reputations may not disclose anything at all if investors are willing to take the risk. And that does happen even in today’s IP world.
Anyway, if the idea is complex enough (and many ideas are), it’s not exactly easy to reproduce it. Also, if some investor does pull that low move, don’t you think word would get out? Do you think that the inventor who got screwed is going to keep his mouth shout about what happened? That investor might even get blacklisted. No one will pitch to him ever again, as it wouldn’t be worth the risk.
I can’t eat your idea. We both have it. It’s not like I erase it from your mind.
Did not knowing about the idea in the first place mean I was excluding them from using their own property? Not at all. After I disclose the idea to them, they have therefore lost nothing, since without that disclosure they would have been exactly the same, without that idea. And after the disclosure they’re exactly the same as before, since the idea is mine. They could not use my idea before disclosure, they cannot profit from it after disclosure.
So, they and their property rights have not been harmed or invaded at all. Instead, profiting on my idea would be an invasion of my rights over the idea.
That doesn’t mean they produced it. And unlike non-physical items, ideas cannot be taken away from them by a court. But their use can be injuncted.
For their own use, they can use it all they want. Should they be able to profit on my idea tho? Coming up with it first satisfies the criteria of first use which is how something becomes homesteaded in the first place. So, first use is relevant here.
First use in property, as in land, does give you the right to exclude others from that land. New land.
How is new and unusued land not exactly the same as a new and unused idea?
And again, no one’s denying you fair use. Only you shouldn’t have the right to profit. Because you heard the poem as a performance, which is not a title transfer to you. You don’t own the poem just by hearing it. You are not its creator.
That may be so, but previously their body was prevented from being used in a certain way by not knowing of the idea’s existence. Ideas must be treated differently from items because of the nature of ideas. Besides which, preventing profiting from an idea is not the same as preventing you from enjoying the idea by knowing about it. Recite it all you want, but do you have the right to profit from that which you didn’t produce?
I agree. But copying and selling that work as your own would be plaigiarism, and that’s what I was referring to.
I am against those laws, yes.
But my idea precedes their product. Any product produced from that idea is, ostensibly, my product. How then is it their product? Only if they bought it from me. Or at least, they shouldn’t be able to reproduce my product for sale, for profit, as if they owned the idea.
But again, you aren’t harmed by that prevention, since you had no idea prior to my creation of the idea that such an arrangement was possible. How then could it be a rights violation to claim ownership over an arrangement which you never produced?
Besides which, again, it’s not free use anyone’s worrying about it, it’s reproduction for sale. He owns a chair, he hears about my idea, he changes his chair to it, no one cares. It when he tries to resell my idea that I have a problem.
Does that in any way affect your challenge of such a rights violation?
But that presumes that a song cannot be owned, that it cannot be property.
I invented something, and am soon to talk to patent attorneys. So I think I may know more about how this process works.
In practice, not only does the idea get disclosed regularly and completely, you don’t even bother with NDAs. But according to you, an NDA wouldn’t even help. Beyond that, the inventor would have to do all the production himself to prevent workers from learning how it works. Etc., etc.
Again, ideas and items have differing natures. This isn’t too surprising.
Just because ideas are duplicative by nature doesn’t mean one cannot be property.
If an idea is discovered, it has a first user, and by the homesteading doctrine should be entirely owned and controlled by that person in perpetuity.
One is reminded of the socialist libertarians who claim it’s illegitimate to exclude them from your own land.
Here you’re saying I can’t exclude you from a poem I created. It’s a lot like saying I’m controlling your body by saying you can’t go on my land.
Is this legitimate? I’m really not sure. If I can own a poem, seems I should at least be able to exclude you from reselling it.
There is something to a private contract stating that “if I sell you a copy of my song, you must agree not to sell it or any other copies to anyone else.” So if a sells a song to B under these terms, sure, A has something similar to a copyright on the song over B. But it is only similar to a copyright. In this private agreement, at this point in time, only B is subject to the contract and its terms; under the model of IP today, all persons are assumed to have agreed to the terms of the copyright. This is the libertarian’s biggest argument against IP. It isn’t voluntary. It is only possible as state-granted monopoly.
If A sells a song to B under an agreement of not copying or distributing, and B then makes a copy and sells it to C, only B has violated the contract. And B can only be held for the restitution on however many copies B distributed to C. If that’s just one, B owes A the price of the song again. There is nothing C owes A. C never agreed to the terms of the contract. It doesn’t even matter if C went on to make thousands of copies and to sell them (and cheaper than A sells them, to boot - the scoundrel!). Only B violated the contract because only B agreed to the terms of it. And if B only made and sold 1 copy, that is all that B owes A for.
Modern IP is monopoly, no matter how you guys try to spin it. It’s the idea that if you have an idea, you deserve ALL profit that idea ever generates. That is the problem, because it forces allow society to agree to your terms. Now, look, a minarchist society can exist that has modern IP laws, but it cannot be a 100% voluntary society because a state must exist to hold all citizens binding to IP laws. Minarchy isn’t the same as a truly free society.
It isn’t like that at all. If I am on your land, you cannot use that land until I move. Likewise, it is almost as if you don’t have that land I am stepping on at the moment because I am the one that is in possession (illegitimately) of that spot.
If I have a digital copy of your poem, you still have your poem in your possession. My having a copy of your idea does not displace your possession of the idea. Likewise, you can still use your poem when I have a digital copy of it. These situations are not the same.
Mike99
I won’t comment further on the deeds of Monsanto, as I feel like it is skewing off topic, and the on at hand is pretty vital. Nor will I delve deeper into what I think the soul, the universe, consciousness, music, etc. IS, and for the same reason.
Now, the difference between your tractor example and my corn example is the tractor and the music are not at all the same. One is tangible. Now, the plans for the tractor is much more similar. It is the idea of the tractor. With the idea of the tractor, one may make the actual tractor. With a copy of the music, one can “make the actual music.” Now, I’m only saying I don’t view the idea of the tractor as property. The piece of paper with the idea written down on it can be property, but the intangible IDEA cannot. The same goes with a copy of music. The CD can be property, the paper that the sheet music is printed on canbe property, but the intangible IDEA cannot. And just like the tractor made from the idea of the tractor, the performance of the music is yours, and you can exclude any and/or everyone from such a thing. Same goes if you just decide to play it on your stereo at home. No one has a right to hear the music you play. However, once they have their own copy of the idea, they can use it just like you can. The only thing they should not do is pass it off as their own written material. This needs not IP laws though. This can exist under existing fraud law. By taking your song and distributing it, telling people I wrote it, I have committed fraud. But you, the actual songwriter, have not be defrauded, my customers were. Now, they can, if they choose, return their CDs and I would have to give them their money back. They would be informed of the true artist. If they liked your music, they might go buy a copy from you. If they didn’t, they might not. The fact is, you got free publicity, you have nothing to complain about.
Your main complaint seems to be, as most that want to keep modern IP laws, the originator of an idea is entitled to all profits made off of or through the use of that idea. This is why IP is actually just a monopoly. One has no right to force all persons to agree to the terms of your IP contract by simply claiming copyright. Of course, you can demand that before you give anyone a copy, they must agree to your IP contract, and it can only apply to those that voluntarily acknowledged and agreed to this contract with you. This is because IDEAS can’t be considered to be property once published, as the exhibit almost no similarities whatsoever to what we normally refer to as property.
In the case of a contractual agreement, he has recourse… the issue is what sort of recourse he has. As Boldrin & Levine mention, A cannot “call the police”, in other words, direct use of force is not justified in the enforcement of this kind of contractual obligation. The anti-IP view is, then, party a claim regarding the economic viability of NDA-based contractual enforcement, particularly in the case of mass media. It just doesn’t make any sense.
Well, there are many aspects to this… it gets very complicated very quickly. Boldrin & Levine’s point is simply that this is not a right that is ordinarily reserved during an exchange. Hence, there is no presumption and - unlike the case of sitting to eat in a restaurant - an explicit agreement is required. And writing something on your product, such as, “by purchasing this item, purchaser hereby agrees blah blah blah” does not rise to the level of an actual agreement because it’s a transparent attempt to make the purchase into an implicit agreement by fiat.
I disagree that there’s a difference between your analogy and his - in both cases, a right has been reserved and that right has been trespassed. For that reason, I’m happy to use your analogy, I just disagree that you’ve yet identified any difference here. It is theft in Rothbard’s much broader usage of that word - the key difference here is that contractual agreements are enforceable through civil penalties (money awards) and, hence, enforcement is much weaker than in the case of crimes where other forms of retribution (prison, etc.) are appropriate.
Now, perhaps a person could argue that in a counter-factual world of private law, IP would be taken much more seriously and would be enforceable through stronger forms of retribution. This is a separate discussion and an interesting one. I’m definitely on the side that IP would not exist in a private law society (actually, I think it would exist in enclaves, i.e. corporations, private clubs and organizations, etc. but would not exist outside of those contexts).
Precisely. Add to that the exponential costs of enforcing an intricate web of arbitrarily-complex, interlocking property rights and I think that you can make a praxeological case that the only reason IP exists at all is through the subsidy and enforcement of the State apparatus itself. We can even identify how IP meshes with the State’s own ends (censorship, propaganda, etc.) which explains why it’s so cooperative in enriching private-sector individuals through IP laws.
But you’re missing the point - police don’t read contracts and there’s a reason for that. If it’s something that’s not obvious from the immediately ascertainable facts, then it’s not reasonably actionable.
Clayton -
+100%
Right!
My thoughts precisely!
Correct! And I second everything else in that post as well. To which gotlucky replied:
This is the flawed reasoning that is just making my brain go “WHAT?” Of course nobody is asking to control what others think of you. But your reputation - how youre present yourself to them IS within your control. If someone actively, commercially represents you in a way that you have no control over, selling you as a product without your consent, that has nothing to do with you wanting to control the minds of other people. Seriously come on. You guys have been here too long in a closed room I think or something I don’t know…
If you really want to break things down to that kind of a level of simplicity I refer you back to my earlier point that nobody replied to. Simply that all reality exists only within the mind and the eye of the beholder. Even a tractor. You never actually touch it, if you want to be technical about it. Otherwise you’re being arbitrary then criticising other’s arbitrariness. Therefore it’s not about tangibility it’s about what is reasonable in society, or, if you don’t like to put it that way, it is about being consistent with regards to tangibility. What is tangible about the tractor and the piece of music: both can be defined, demonstrated, and recognised by non partisan third parties in society, say, the ultimate test, a jury. That’s enough for me. I’m not after universal absolutes or God to come down and say “this is and this is not” or that it needs to be accuratly verbatim to a millionth percentile. And I think my position is one recognised and accepted by teh majority of society. So what is this all about it’s about being able to agree on what objective reality is. Music, books, paintings, movies, etc, are objective reality for 99% of society. How can you argue against that when it’s all just decoded in your brain from a quantum field of probabilities anyway. Everything is ideas and perception. Yes you can say from that cognitive construct the tractor is objective. Yes it is, and we can all agree on it - so can you too with a musical recording.
I think it’s fair to say that nobody and I mean again referring back to common sense, nobody would agree that copyright should apply to non-commercial use. It’s just not common sense, and it’s one area where copyright has garnered such a bad reputation - sueing single mothers for millions of dollars for a few downloads - of course, almost nobody can disgaree with you that it’s an absolute absurdity and and abomination of stupidity and abuse. Lets say we are advocating for copyright specifically for commercial use. That is something 99% of people intrinsically understand - ask anyone on the street “Do you think it’s ok if you write a book, and I go and copy that and sell it but don’t pay you anything, even if I put your name on it, would you be happy with that”. You will get a consistent reponse, I don’t think anyone can argue that. And that is relevant unless of cousre this is purely theory - and even if it is I still say it’s relevant - there is something to be said for the common sense. Free marketeers of all people must acknowledge that.
What? So because people out there will take my effort and sell it without paying me for it my option is to go out of business? Am I not sacrificing my freedom for yours? My freedom to sell my work as my own for your freedom to sell my work for your own?
anenome said
+1
and
And a reputation can be damaged or ruined by someone acting commercially. Say you’re known for very high quality recordings. Someone makes a boot leg and passes it off as original, selling it, but the quality is bad. That person is damaging your reputation.
Yes, please lets stop with the argument that we’re against fair use - it’s not applicable. No one is asking for a monopoly on music or books but there should be a monopoly on MY music or MY books. Put another way again, why should someone else be able to sell my music and not pay me for it. You will note that despite corporate efforts against fair use, it remains - why? Because common sense does not uphold that kind of nonsense. It can’t survive. Corporate patents and the like are only upheld somewhat because it’s a closed society - corporations v corporations. The general public generally does not become involved. If someone tries to patent the way you do your dishes, or for that matter how you plant your corn, for example, then see if that survives or not. It sure won’t. If I were to appeal to a jury about my music being bootlegged by someone though, I feel very confident I would be supported by that jury if I had to appeal to their sensibility to decide whether it was theft or not.
Yeah this is really Rands position isn’t it. So I have to say chalk me up to that one for now. I haven’t seen a single argument that is even remotely - I repeat even remotely persuasive so far, and I’m surprised at that.
The unique music or book or movie does exist, it is tangible, and it can be identified as such by society.
Maybe society needs to be about what is tangible. If you take away something that is as common sense to 99% of people as fraud, theft, assault, murder, coercion, what’s the difference of having that list no longer include assault, or theft… It’s only about what we can agree is reality.
It’s not reasonable to say “but then society can agree on anything as reality”. No they can’t. You can make a law that everyone’s property is everyone elses, and there will be proponents of that in society who will embrace it, but it would be asolutely antithetical to common sense and sooner or later would fail - it would strike at the heart of human beings and repel them. Perhaps I can’t articulate why, but for me copyright seems as sensible as those other laws, equally so. Again, if you asked 99% of people, they would agree. “If I take your tv is that theft?” “Yes” “If I take a book you wrote and copy it and sell it without paying you so I can make money off the work you did, is that theft?” “Yes”. Someone should go in the street and ask that and post it on youtube. 
I just want to strike down this other argument that keeps popping up about copyright “restricting the use of other’s property” That’s absurd. The question is, is copyright property or not. If it is, then of course their property is being restricted, like I earlier said, just the same as your hand is restricted from striking someone in aggression. The law is there to protect property. So it’s not an arbitrary restriction if copyright is property. If it’s not, well, then it is an arbitrary restriction. But I say copyright IS property. At least for now.
@Clayton. If someone steals a riff, or a lyric, people are going to find out who originally wrote it and become interested in that artist. In that case your arguments are correct. I don’t have anything against that kind of “ripping off” because as you rightly point out it is a commercial aid. Interesting to note people do nevertheless think it’s ripping off by the way. I’m talking about verbatim taking a CD, book, movie, and selling it. For example there are many “how it should have ended” type videos on youtube, taking movies and cutting them up, or over dubbing comical words over the original, etc, who doesn’t know that is not the original? Even though the footage is from Harry Potter or whatever. Of course it’s not the original. It makes people think about the original - they may go buy it or rent it. Interesting video. I actually thought all the originals were way better than the knock offs. Real soul versus copy. And i do like Zepplin, but interestingly, I don’t listen to them. I’ll go for the real soul roots if I want to feel something. And I may be only a minority, but the minority has a market, and that market deserves to exist. It cannot if you can take the cd directly and sell it. Or offer it for mass downloads etc. A copy to a friend doesn’t concern anyone. Fair use.
Perhaps it’s true, copyright has become abused - like many areas of the law. Expanded to arbitraily encompass things for which it was never meant, and that do not stand up to the scrutiny of common sense. A finished product - a recording of a live event, an actual live event, a CD, music file, book, movie, painting, etc. Maybe we need to properly define that. I’ll give you that. But to abolish it because it’s become abused? That’s what I call throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Bottom line, how does anyone feel when their work is profited off at their expense? They feel robbed.
What? There are libertarians who still believe in magical “property”? I mean, people who believe one can own a pattern? It takes major league nut to still believe this crap. Ideas and patterns can not be owned, it’s impossible and contradictory to every ownership theory one can possibly imagine.
Guys guys! Let’s be honest, and use terms properly. Stealing is taking something from someone and that someone doesn’t have it. Copying ideas, patterns is NOT stealing. Stop mudding the waters and making strawmen. THANKS and GOOD LUCK defending the undefendable.
@Clayton. “Steve Jobs was shameless about copying / but when it came to his own ideas he took another view”. He was shameless about “stealing” ideas from Xerox - Yes! he bought the technology from Xerox. As for the iphone v android thing, android did not license it. I see his point and that documentary is dishonest about it’s representation of that one issue which it rests much of it’s case on. But I’m not going to get into patents…
Normally, I’m pretty accomodating to the idea that the status quo carries a lot of weight and that, even if the right ideas are out there, it can just take time for things to turn around and that revolution is invariably worse than the alternatives.
On this issue, however, I think the future has long since arrived in the form of the computer and digital media. And it will continue to be a merciless forcing function on intellectual property law. The media establishment as well as a large segment of the older public truly don’t get it. They think emails are like mail. But emails are not like mail, they’re like long text messages which themselves are like a tiny snippet of a voice phone call. Data is data. It’s all just a bunch of ones and zeros and anyone who touches a pattern can copy it, store it and/or transform it all at virtually no cost whatsoever.
An “e-book” is to a real book like an e-mail is to real mail. That is, there is no similarity at all. An e-book is more like e-mail than either one is like a book or mail. It’s all just ones and zeros. In a matter of 10 minutes, I could delete every other word from the entirety of Moby Dick and publish it to PDF. Really think about that for a minute. 100 years ago, how costly would it have been to do an editing, type-moving task like that? It would have cost an enormous sum of money. But I - a complete non-professional in the art of books - can do this task from the comfort of my desk in a matter of minutes.
In other words, the act of copying books and other media was once a fairly valuable line of production. Of course, it also consumed a lot of resources. Now, we have nearly costless copying. We no longer need to consume very many resources in order to copy things. This is wonderful news! But the media publishing establishment (professional copiers) have become the buggy-whip industry of yore. They want to be bailed out. They want legal protections. They want the government to come down like a ton of bricks on anyone caught “illegally copying”. Why? So they can continue to charge exorbitant prices for something that is today nearly costless to do… copying a book, copying a CD, copying a DVD or Blu-Ray etc.
I understand and fully sympathize with your concern that artists and content producers need a way to get paid. But I think you are just assuming that this means protecting the pre-digital-era business model of publishing/copying. In other words, you are giving to much credit to past copyright law in protecting copyrights and too little credit to the economics of copying in protecting copyrights. When it’s really costly to do something (like copying a book), that means it’s easier to keep people from doing it because they have to risk buying this really expensive capital equipment (printing press) which can be seized by the government if copyright laws are being violated. But now that copying can be done at almost no cost by anyone with an electrical outlet and a PC, this same approach will no longer work and to press on in this direction is to flirt with Orwellian tyranny.
Clayton -
Just to prove the point that it really is that easy, here is Half Moby Dick… (note: this had an unintentionally humorous effect on the title page… sigh).
Clayton -
+1 to everything Aneonme just wrote.
Exactly as Anenome said, and then also in my own words: if copyright isn’t property then it’s like saying “I enjoy looking at the hills and the gardens on your property, therefore I can take flowers, and plant my crops there. If you stop me, you are preventing me from using my property - my hands and equipment”. Or “that I saw it / heard it means I own it”. Or “I liked the look of her body, but the government is granting that woman a government enforced monopoly on her body”. That’s the purpose of government to protect property. We must only agree if copyright is property or not.
You take voluntarism too far - do you mean if I don’t consent to your laws in society, and don’t wish to voluntarily participate in your laws against rape, murder and theft, then I’m free to rape murder and theive? Of course not. If copyright is property, it’s not a government granted monopoly, it is a simple protection of property, same as any other.
I’m not against sampling, fair use, changing and remaking something. I don’t mind someone sampling my work. But the verbatim recording is mine. I imagine any author artist or film maker would feel the same. George Lucas took much from other arts and admits it proudly, but he did not steal. If you copy his movie and sell it that’s stealing. If you don’t want to agree to those terms, exclude yourself voluntarily from his movies lol.
But I can tell you to leave and if you refuse I can initiate force or call the police to do it.
But you’re saying reality is not determinable or objective - that everything is nothing, and nothing means anything. I’m with Rand on that too!
You can copy a blank DVD yourself yes it’s nearly costless. Try to go and create the content on that DVD and let me know how you find it. It is NOT costless, and it only comes to the stores at such a low price because of the mass production and large market. If you don’t like X DVD, you can buy from a competing product - another DVD with a different movie on it. Not happy? You are free to make your own. Heck, copy from a friend, no one will know, no one will care. Set up a fire sharing server and send it for free to millions or sell copies to make a profit on your reproduction costs = you are stealing.
I agree with you, there is a very real danger with governments using copyright as an excuse to shut down free speech and probably competitors of their buddies. But there are those who say “capitalism” has lead to excesses, therefore capitalism is to blame. Again, the baby with the bathwater. Must we throw out all that is good because some have capitalised on the imperfections of the philosophy and implimentation? Afterall isn’t that what government is? Something that was a good idea for a set purpose that has been abused and manipulated to serve opposing interests from it’s original intent? Does that now mean the only solution is no government at all? That’s what you are sahing in respect of copyright. No government at all. Well, that will lead to problems I believe. And neither all nor nothing is a good scenario.
No. Now, we don’t have to agree. You can push for your minarchist society all you want, and I’ll push for a society based on no coercion.
But the analogy about the hill and garden and flowers isn’t the same. If someone plants their own flowers on your hill, that’s like someone putting their own files on your disc. What you ask for with copyright of ideas is to say a neighbor may not look at your garden and decide he will plant a garden identical. You’re saying you own the idea of that particular garden, and if he plants his own garden on his own property, his has stolen your idea and you have been robbed. Your position is ridiculous. From all angles.
If you don’t consent to laws a society has against rape, your best course of action is to secede from it, and live with people that agree to your society with legal rape. If you choose to stay in the society that is anti-rape, yet to rape someone, you violated their law in an action you took voluntarily against a member of said society. If they catch you, they can “bring you to justice” in whatever form they do. You make the choice to break their laws, you may suffer the consequences. It’s just like copyright today. It’s illegal to break them. But all I am doing is saying why I don’t like that law. I’m not breaking that law. And if I do, and I get caught, I know what can happen. I don’t think you understand voluntarism really.
But a society that agrees with rape is consenting to rape, therefore it’s not rape. In a society that doesn’t condone rape however, the one who doesn’t consent can go and rape and then when he goes to court say, “I don’t consent to your laws, I was just using my property in the way I saw fit, since I have no social contract with you, your laws don’t apply to me as I don’t see invasion of another persons body as beyond my purview”. Where on this planet would a rapist go to participate in such a society anyway - there is nowhere left to create a society on your own groups terms. So it’s a hypothetical anyway.
I’m NOT saying if someone plants his own garden same as mine it’s theft. Again, we’re not talking about physical things, so the analogies don’t fit completely. But to try to entertain it, it’s like saying that they duplicated verbatim my painting from the gallery and put it on display for free outside.
Voluntarism is: You can buy the piece of copyright music or not. You can listen to it however you want when you’ve bought it. You can on sell your copy if you don’t want it anymore. You can put it in the trash. You can’t duplicate it, then sell it to make a profit, that is a condition of purchase. If you don’t like that, you are free not to purchase. What’s not voluntary about it. This seems to me to fit perfectly well with the “ignorance is no excuse” maxim. Copyright is very much a part of common sense, in it’s more basic form, not the myriad of idiotic tangents that are really serving to undermine it completely. Again, I came here to be convinced otherwise, as every other libertarian type argument and philosophy I’ve come across beforehand I found utterly convincing, and all but flawless in it’s logic, and I’m surprised that I’ve not seen a single convincing argument anywhere as yet on this issue.
You’re changing horses mid-stream here.
1912: Copying a book once authored - extremely costly
2012: Copying a book once authored (in digital form) - virtually costless
The same can be said for music, movies and all other forms of media that can be digitized. Computers have driven down the costs of all the other functions in media production: type-setting, editing, sequencing, etc. etc. The point I’m trying to make is that the copying itself has become many orders of magnitude less costly and this is the root cause of the social and political controversy. In 1960, the record labels didn’t have to worry about kids copying 1,000 different songs in an hour on a common appliance readily available in every home. Pressing a vinyl was something that pretty much only a factory could do. So, passing rent-seeking intellectual property laws only hurt consumers in a very indirect way.
Today, things have fundamentally changed. Only the most merciless police-state tactics will suffice to even begin to preserve the status quo, pre-digital-revolution business model. And that’s pretty much what the RIAA/MPAA have been lobbying for what with their SOPA/PIPA (not to mention the godawful laws they’ve already gotten passed with DMCA). They want to harness war-on-Terror legal rules for use in enforcing copyrights against Pirate-Bay-kiddies. Seriously? We’re going to start sending SWAT teams in to kick down gramma’s door because her grandson is copying terabytes of copyrighted-MP3s and pornos over the broadband down in her basement? And this is all to “preserve the incentive” for artists to produce art??
Clayton -