IP -- partial ownership of object/rent of information?

[John_James]

@FlyingAxe

1. Why do you think it’s a bad analogy?

Because it doesn’t parallel what you’re comparing it to, almost at all.

For one thing, you’re saying the author created the information in the book, and is selling the book provided the information created within it is not “spread” outside of the book. But to make a congruent comparison you would have to be saying the previous owner of the house owns the fire. But he didn’t create the fire. And how in the hell can someone claim “ownership” of a fire? It’s a chemical process. Even the patent system doesn’t try to allege someone can own a specific instance of a chemical reaction. At least they say the process itself is “owned” (which of course is only slightly less absurd). And not only that, the person working the fireplace “created” the fire…how can the owner of the fireplace retain ownership of what someone else creates as a result of simply using the fireplace?

So are you suggesting that the homeowner owns the patent on fire? Because he retained ownership of a fireplace? Or are you saying that the book the author wrote can somehow create new information, and the author of the book therefore owns any of the new things the book brings into existence?

You said it yourself: “I am not saying that the author lays a claim on the ideas that come to exist in one’s head as a result of reading the book. One could not lay ownership claims in this case, I agree. I am saying that the author never sells the information contained in the book with the book.”

I could go on and on. It’s just a terrible analogy. It’s like:

“Driving your car to the super market is like baking a cake for a black man.”

In his monograph, Kinsella gives a different example. He gives an example of contractual obligation. I am giving an example of the original owner of information never giving up that ownership. He still owns the information (obviously, there are arguments against the possibility of him owning information; in here I am not addressing them)

Then there’s no point in what you’re saying. The entire argument against the legitimacy of “intellectual property” is that it isn’t property and cannot be owned. It’s like I told you before. You cannot attempt to argue a premise by assuming the premise is true and then just coming up with theoretical examples of it.

2. What I am trying to say is that from libertarian perspective, what should drive us to assign rights is their scarcity of use. But why should that be the case? After all, if a billionaire is not using his summer house in the mountains at the moment, that is not an excuse for a burglar to come in and use it for a while as his home (providing he hasn’t broken anything, etc.). One could say that what should drive us to assign rights is scarcity of claim. Only one party at a time can claim something to be his, and therefore, we should find a way to figure out whether it is his or someone else, based, for instance, on homesteading primacy.

Your question regresses back to roots addressed in Hoppes “argumentation ethics”. I myself have an ultimate fundamental question regarding that, but it seems to be a regression even further back than yours. The answer to yours may be found in examination of the theory. See these resources.

@FlyingAxe

Based on the scarcity of use approach, why shouldn’t B use A’s second toy as long as A doesn’t need to use it (assuming there is no fear that B will break the toy)?

And why should one assume there is no fear of a child breaking a toy? Because that neeever happens, right? The fact of the matter is there is risk involved of this “forced sharing”, and since you acknowledge the reality of scarcity, you must acknowledge the real cost involved in replacement of a scarce object.

…Which, if taken to its realistic extreme, is infinite…because there is no such thing as a real “identical replacement” of anything. What you’re suggesting is that someone who keeps her grandmother’s pearls that your grandfather gave her after returning from World War I should be perfectly able to wear them, or do whatever they want “so long as they don’t break them.”

a) There’s no guarantee they won’t break/ruin them.

b) Even if something is not “broken”, for most things there is a reality of aging and diminishing that is accelerated with use. Sometimes this is called “wear and tear”. How is the owner of the property compensated for this loss?

c) Suppose something does happen to the property. What if this random user doesn’t have the means to replace it? So you’re saying you only have a right to use someone else’s property (just because they’re not using it) only if you can afford to buy your own?

d) This would also imply a recognition that you’re suggestion is that if something does happen to the property, it’s perfectly fine so long as it’s “replaced”. As in, it doesn’t matter that this random stranger lost your grandmother’s pearls, so long as he buys you some new ones.

e) What you’re ultimately saying is that anyone has a right to anything so long as it’s not in use at the moment. I think if you take 30 seconds to think about the implications of this, you’ll be able to come up with plenty more points as to why it’s a ridiculous notion.

If my goal as a parent/babysitter in the situation is to minimize conflict (ignoring the goal of teaching the benefits of sharing, etc.), I should let B use the toy, and only when A decides he wants the toy to play with, he can take it from B.

You should “let” B use the toy (something you don’t own, and therefore have no place to say what should be done with it), and only when A “decides” he wants to play with it, he can take it back.

I see. So…

1. What gives you the authority to dictate command over someone else’s property?

2. Suppose there’s a “C” and he gets to this property at exactly the same time B does. Who gets to use the property then? However this is decided, I’m sure you’ll be the final arbiter, whether B and C ask you to help settle their conflict or not, right?

3. I’m assuming this role of “babysitter” would be filled by some high ranking official in the grander scheme of things? Perhaps like a governor of some sort? Maybe someone who has command over a force so that he might be able to overpower those who do not abide by his rulings of “letting” the Bs use the As’ property until the As decide they want to use it? Because we all know the public at large certainly needs a babysitter.

This approach precludes the burglar from using a rich person’s summer house without the person’s permission (and if the rich person found the burglar, he can prosecute him for trespass alone, even if the burglar didn’t break or steal anything and paid for any food he ate and electricity he used). But this approach also precludes someone from using information on which someone put his first claim.

Again, this is not an accurate comparison. NONE of the things I mentioned in the first list above apply to ideas or patterns. NONE.