Yes, I think that’s exactly the one I meant, thanks.
Dynamix, that isn’t too far from the truth. I store nearly every useful link I come by in an organized bookmark folder. It makes it easier to bring them up in debates or when I need to use them for academic/personal research. Of course I also have awesome Google skillz.
I just finished reading Stephen Kinsella’s treatise on how copyright is absurd.
Does this mean that digital photographers who currently make a living selling their copyrighted work would be strongly inclined to find alternate employment in a libertarian society to subsist? The reasoning behind this leading question is that photographers have no “rights” over (digital) pictures because any number of them can be electronically copied.
I think this can be extended to encompass physical prints too. Assume a photographer has taken a picture of a unique celestial event and that they have in their possession the only picture (whether digital or film). The uniqueness (i.e. scarcity) of possessing this photo amounts to little except personal gratification, for as soon as the photographer completes his first transaction, the purchaser may either digitally reproduce or reprint the photo for free distribution so that it no longer becomes a scarce resource.
As such, would it be fair to conclude that there would be far fewer professional photographers in a libertarian society?
The uniqueness (i.e. scarcity) of possessing this photo amounts to little except personal gratification, for as soon as the photographer completes his first transaction, the purchaser may either digitally reproduce or reprint the photo for free distribution so that it no longer becomes a scarce resource.<<<<
you are probably making a good guess here. rather than sell one photo to myriad ‘publishers’ each at a low cost. the photographer would be best off selling to the highest bidder who will be first to publish his work.
a change in IP law may well mean the digital art market would change. but im sure its been changing since the internet made it easy to ‘illegally’ copy photos and publish them anyhow. (just like music/mp3)
Isn’t that more or less the way press photographers work? When a picture or film clip is “news” every news outlet shows it and claims “fair use”. The ones that bought it are really only buying the right to show it first.
You’re right that the industry is changing rapidly. The question about IP and copyright based on the assumption of a “scarce” resource intrigues me. There are stories where photographers (amateur and professional alike) have posted digital photos online at Flickr and have them show up in other places without their knowledge or consent.
Example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sweetjuniper/1398158017/
Since photos, recordings, music, or even software can’t be considered a scarce resource, then without some type of copyright, wouldn’t this make the industry suffer?
Academia works quite well in that once you publish, other authors must acknowledge you as a source if they decide to quote you in their own papers. This is not copyright as far as I understand, but simply peer pressure and peer reviews holding each other accountable.
I’m trying to figure out if all the people creating music, literature, and (digital) art for a living would most need to find other ways to earn a living because the main reason they are in business today is because of existence and government enforcement (or threat of) copyright laws. This seems contrary to Kinsella’s summary of the libertarian assumptions about copyright and patent law, or at the very least seems that it would stifle all but the most altruistic (or careless) artists.
Just to make something clear: the scarcity being referred to is that of ideas. Ideas are not scarce. However, the physical goods in which they are instantiated are. One may therefore retain the right to copy the item and only sell all its other uses, thus contractually binding whoever buys it not to copy it (and anyone who copies the good is in breach of this contract.) Various other measures might also arise to prevent copying. It is up to firms to spend money on securing their products.
I would almost wish the last 150 or so years of nonsense that passes for law could be forgotten.
But still today there is a large body of law defining what is a commons, easements, and other things which go with property rights (and the responsibilities which attach).
Too often people argue as if these don’t exist, or they would be so obvious we could recreate them ex nihilo in a weekend.
The fine balancing of rights which we almost dismiss by calling them “property rights” is not something to take so lightly. And if you aren’t talking the body of common law - which is government, who defines the rules? Does each individual choose what he considers his rights are? Does dropping “this property belongs to me” tags every 1/2 mile from a helicopter make it mine? If my “use” for property is as a nature preserve - specifically so I don’t “improve” it, can I retain ownership? There are many subtleties to something which appears on the surface obvious.
That is where to start with Intellectual Property. First, it is in the Constitution, so it can’t be something the founders thought trivial or obvious. Second, just as we have the Federal Reserve, IRS, EPA, and the rest, I wouldn’t look at anything today as being representative of what a correct body of IP law should be no more than I would judge orchestral music on the basis of Schoenberg.
For the 21st century, the correct answer might be to drop all notions of Intellectual property. I am VERY sympathetic to this view being in the opensource movement. But even there, the Gnu General Public License IS a copyright license and depends on IP so as not to have the commons stolen and privatized.
No one has noted that Patents were an answer to the mideval guild system whereby they would keep trade secrets to themselves, so they would generally keep their monopoly, but because information wasn’t interchanged, improvements were rare and often the small increments weren’t very profitable. The idea was to publish the invention so that after a limited time, everyone could use it, but they could start being inspired and making improvements immediately. The time spans of two decades are absurd in this era. However the alternative might be anti-tamper technologies so that when you remove a single screw from your TV, it destroys itself internally to protect the trade secrets from those who would attempt to reverse engineer it. Look at what we already have to put up with in Digital Restrictions Management on things like downloaded songs and Digital Video.
So to state the problem - and perhaps someone could do so better - Creativity is a scarce resource. Inventors, writers, composers, and other artists are likely to starve if there is no way of monitizing their creativity. Sometimes they had patrons in the aristocracy in earlier times. In the times leading up to now, they were granted temporary monopoly so could charge monopoly rents on “first sale” or licenses to use the idea. If those are removed, will creative people have enough incentive, perhaps in their leisure which has expanded in this era, or from things like lecture tours, or something else to be as creative. Mises noted in On Human Action that Geniuses are self-motivated. The problem is they also have to eat.
Will creativity be sufficiently rewarded without some IP structure? If not, is there a minimally obnoxious IP structure that would maximize arts and sciences that would be worth the legal effort and economic friction?
I only have two things to say to those that believe in IP. First of all, if you do believe in it, then you would have to agree that it should be just like regular property laws, and that it the right should be indefinite.
The second thing that I would like to say is that people at one time thought it was ok to own other people.
Some IP based industries need to suffer and possibly even disappear in my opinion. Record companies for example exists because of deficiencies in recording technology which made recording and distributing music very expensive. Those deficiencies no longer exist; but IP is being used to force consumers to continue paying what are now completely unecessary and unjustified prices.
Imagine if Thomas Edison had invented personal computers and the Internet at the same time he invented the phonograph. Would record companies ever have existed?
Medieval guilds maintained their monopolies through violence, not secrecy.
The idea that without patents progress will stop because companies will not reveal their secrets is just a bugaboo. Nothing spurs innovation like the sight of someone else making a profit and companies historically haven’t had much luck keeping secrets. And so what if a handful of companies did manage to keep a profitable secret to themselves. Is a vast government bureaucracy preferable?
He’s using the broken window fallacy.
If food was unlimited and free, farmers would cease to exist. But would that be “bad for the economy?” Obviously not.
No they can’t. That is not an enforceable contract.
Why not? The specific use was not sold.
Medieval guilds maintained their monopolies through violence, not secrecy.
And how are (real) property rights enforced if not through violence?
The guilds considered their trade monopolies to be their property and acted to protect them, and the legal system at that time apparently recognized that right. With patents, we have the same thing - violate it and eventually it will come to violence.
Legal standards can be individual (anarchy - I’ll do violence to anyone who violates what I personally consider to be my rights), collective (democracy, sort of what we have now - the state does violence according to whims), or objective (Natural law per Aquinas - many laws should be obvious to any rational person, so arguing against them is like arguing 2+2=5, and violence is only use to force the irrational to act if not actually be rational).
And to the earlier post where it was pointed out it was legal to own people earlier, today many libertarians (per Rothbard) would consider trespass a capital crime, at least in the case of unborn babies. I am not at all sure if they would allow me to place land-mines if I wished to keep people off the grass but didn’t like fences.
Or is there a right (property or otherwise) to one’s reputation? This is also information, and lies, or even truth can be damaging. Does he serve poison or unsanitary food at his restaurant?
Also, real property ownership is not perpetual - there are things like abandoned property, adverse posession, easements, etc. which I pointed out in my first post. It is hardly absolute. If I lose a chattel, it might be difficult to recover. The whole idea of bailment - if the shipper loses or damages something?
My point is that real (both realestate and chattel, moveable objects, things like mineral, water, or airspace rights) property law is complex. I would not assume IP law would be much less complex.
And generally to find the truth of a matter of natural law, you must ask questions, but they must be the right questions. It is easier to simply reject an idea than to see if there is any truth in it.
I agree. But, unless I misunderstood, your argument was that guilds maintained their monopolies by keeping trade secrets.
Real property is perpetually owned or at least ownable in all of those circumstances. And real property continues to be property even when it isn’t owned. IP ceases to be owned and ceases to even be property when the patent or copyright expires.
I have two points to make about this. First, just because artists complain about something does not mean it should disapear. Second, I would agree that out current copyright systemmis unjust. I am not arguing for keeping our current copyright system static and unchanging. I am simply arguing that IP itself is a valid concept.
This is not a new work. The “work” in this case is not physical. It is the same work.
The standard in determining theft in IP is one of substitution. Does a pornographic parody of Mickey Mouse substitute for a genuine Mickey Mouse cartoon? No. It will not serve the same market.
You can however paint a picture of their garden using your own paintbrush and canvas, frame it, hang it on your own wall and call it your property.
A ship sinks in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in an ill fated atempt to sail around the world duing the Middle Ages. It was filled with gold. All records of who owned the ship are lost. Who owns that ship now. IP expires because we have a once size fits all system unless you choose to publish under a GNU Free Documentation License.
Well the ship and gold both continue to be property and continue to be ownable, unlike IP which ceases to be property and ceases to be ownable when the IP right expires - which is the point I was responding to back in December when this thread was last active.
I’m sorry. I don’t know what you mean.