The Moral Basis for Intellectual Property

[nskinsella]

Onar: “Let me add that I think it is way too easy to obtain patents on something, especially in the united states. Remember the one-click-buy Amazon patent? A disgrace. It’s no wonder that it doesn’t take long for others to reinvent something when the bar is set this low for patentability. Generally this is a sign of sickness, that something is wrong with the implementation of patents. I’ve addressed this issue earlier in this thread at length, where I describe a parallel alternative to patents, namely academic property rights. In most cases I think that people will prefer such an IP over patents. Patents then should be reserved for true inventions where an author really is ahead of his time, and not just 3 months.”

Typical of IP advocates. You oppose efforst to abolish the patent system, but then when we point to obvious outrages you crawfish and say, “but I’m not in favor of THAT.” You are not in favor of every obvious injustice we point out–and there are so many as to make the whole thing suspect to any normal person–yet you don’t want to abolish it. Typical. You say the bar is “too low” for patentability. Oh, glad you are a central planner and know the “optimal” “bar”. What should it be, O Great Onar? This is all terrible: you are just advocating some incoherent mishmash of statist grants of monopoly privilege to try to “optimize” whatever the current stated goals of the regime happen to be. This has nothing to do with libertarianism, whatever it is. IT’s just some kluge of kleptocratic utilitarian unprincipled incoherent dishonest mercantalism or something. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

[communeofone]

–“Actually intellectual property does exist, that is you own your thoughts, your mental capacity, etc…”

ftr, my “intellectual property is theft” comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

since the IP advocates have taken to calling anti-IP libertarians “communists”, i figured i’d indulge a bit.

yeah, yeah, i know: stick to your day job.

moving along…

i really don’t know about the above quote. what does it even mean to say that your thoughts and mental capacity are your property? you certainly own your body and, of course, your brain, but i don’t think it makes sense–or, rather, i don’t think it’s necessary–to say that your thoughts are also property. saying so seems analogous to saying that you have property rights in the sounds generated by your stereo.

[JohnDoe]

Onar Åm wrote the following post at 10-20-2010 5:22 PM:

“Now, there is an analogy between renting and paying royalties for IP. BUT as we have discussed previously information doesn’t exist independently of the mind. The only way for a novel or a song to be instantiated is through the mental labor of another human being. So once a piece of intellectual property is released to the public people immediately start mixing their mental labor with it. Once it is in their head they’re stuck with it, they can’t escape it. Now, if IP is to last generation after generation, people would in effect become serfs. They would be eternal renters, and that obligation to rent would be passed on to their children. To avoid this, IP must expire after approximately a generation. This is especially true for patents since they have huge effect on everyone. Copyrights may last longer than patents because it takes longer for most books and songs to diffuse throughout society. You can live your whole life without ever having heard of Atlas Shrugged, but you’ll definitely have heard of electricity and cell phones.”

Onar,

Presumably under COPYRIGHT the piece of intellectual property is NOT released to the public, but rather sold to an individual on the condition that he/she does not permit any copy to be made of the work. I also note that he/she has paid (normally) an upfront sum for HIS copy of the work. Upon his death this copy would then presumably be inherited (or tossed in the garbage).

I can’t see how they could possibly "diffuse throughout society" provided the COPYRIGHT protection is complied with according to the letter of the law. (It could do so illegaly very fast, but that’s hardly an argument for limiting the time of COPYRIGHT.). The only way it could legally "diffuse throughout society" would be if everyone bought a copy (and let the copy pass on in inheritance). Would a situation where 6 billion copies be sold of “Atlas Shrugged” justify cancelling the author’s ownership?

You correctly point out that PATENTS are a much more damaging creature, and they certainly end up affecting everyone. As you also point out they are mostly sold on a licence basis to other producers, often an a unit produced basis. So when we go out to buy a cellphone or switch on the TV we’re benefiting from a huge number of inventions. Now those patented inventions packed into the cellphone naturally have the licence fees baked into the price, that is, it’s much more expensive than it would have been in the absence of PATENTS. (That’s the point of PATENTS.)

Now, what would happen if there was no time limitations to the patent, ie that it was perpetual. Well, presumably the cellphone would be even more expensive, however we’d still voluntarily decide to purchase the cellphone (or not). The only way PATENTS would legally become “diffused throughout society” would presumably be if everybody voluntarily bought a product that incorporates the PATENT in question. A perpetual PATENT would then, by increasing prices dramatically, presumably slow down the dreaded speed of “diffusion throughout society” which ends up making us serfs.

Hence the perpetual PATENT will undoubtedly save millions from the fate of becoming serfs, simply by putting lots of goods way outside what they would be able to afford. Although it doesn’t seem to me that anyone becomes serfs for by buying a $3,000 iPhone, nor by buying a $300 one instead of paying a mere $100 for it without ANY PATENTS, unless ofcourse you consider that one becomes a serf because one ends up paying a higher price for the product than you would without PATENTS.

If the argument for timelimitations is merely the higher price it would seem argue for the abolishment of the PATENT system altogether, not for imposing a timelimit. It is true that, in a sense, under the PATENT system you would become an eternal renter, but there is no shame renting another man’s property (if it truly is his legitimate property as I pointed out in the response to the false Serf Analogy). Time-limitations would then be more akin to a rent-control system, where the state always is trying to get the price of the rent “right”, however doesn’t rent-control by the State violate the owner’s property rights? (Now you got me into the stupid analogy game!)

I look forward to you pointing out where I misunderstood your position, as I undoubtedly must have since the development of your arguments either points to the abolishment of IP altogether or perpetual IP (to save us from serfdom)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

2. you’re thinking is so moronic that it is borderline ape manure.

Now, before you open your mouth and release a brain dump of your most recent idea think a little bit about which of these two possibilities are more likely, and act accordingly. If all the people involved in this debate made a habit out of doing this, we could have had a much, much shorter thread with much, much less noise and more relevant arguments.

Glad we got that out of the way and now have a proper label for IP: Borderline ape manure brain dump. I smell retreat which often occurs when one side of a debate introduces vibrant lables and gets completely outwitted by opponents using even more vibrant lables that are far more convincing to the average spectator.

The [see previous posts for a brilliant, colorful, vibrant use of labels] pro IP [insert label] argument is that human beings create ideas that merit some blessing to use force against other human beings. If that argument is true I would expect to see more patents from human beings that have received minimal influence from other human beings, like under the age of 3. But it isn’t true, not even Admiral Obvious [thanks fish :)] would agree because the only time human beings create anything is during reproduction. Among other things, human beings observe, react, communicate, or transform matter/energy.

Truth is evolution in thought not origination of thought.

The IP argument is that some privileged human beings should be able to cherry pick from the evolution in thought and pool of ideas contributed by millions of other human beings. The argument is, thanks human race for all of your ideas that have enabled my thinking to evolve up to this point but FU I want to get paid for my little contribution to the idea pool and I am willing to use force against you to insure I benefit.

I have read the one side of the debate bring up the concept of land ownership to make a property argument. I am not impressed with the application of the concept. Does anyone actually own land? No. You purchase title to borders established by human beings. Claims to voluntarily recognized borders are often preferable for any minority force versus claims to highly contested borders. Nothing is owned in a context of absolute control beyond the body, the word owner is often used in society but with regards to land, ownership is a border claim, the concept owner just means the individual who has the most recognized claim.

With regards to IP people already own their thoughts. The IP argument defies personal responsibility. The IP argument wants to impose the costs of enforcement on other people. It’s like the immigration argument in the United States. The Federal Political Subdivision has only been delegated power to create a uniform Rule of Naturalization not redefine terms to regulate immigration. A Rule differs from a Law in that the concept of a Rule does not involve police power. There is no United States border defined anywhere in the United States Code. A Federal Political Subdivision border does not exist. States have borders defined in State Constitutions and Federal Political Subdivision Territory is defined in Treaty. Treaties do not refer to any Federal Political Subdivision border but they have refered to the Border of Canada or Border of Mexico. Having set the foundation I will now make the analogy. The analogy is people in States along the Border of Mexico apparantly do not want visitors and tourists but refuse to take on the cost to trespass visitors or tourists at State borders. They want to live in those States but they want people in other States to pay for protectionist policies. This is the IP argument. I want to force everyone else to pay for the enforcement of my IP contracts because I deem the enforcement cost too expensive. I can’t afford to investigate or develop evidence for every potential breech of contract that involves sharing my works of IP.

I haven’t even touched on capital. Capital has a distinct advantage in the market to produce, market, and distribute. Apparantely this advantage is not enough for IP to compete and force is also required.

[MaikU]

@communeofone

–So what is “intellectual property” anyway?

intellectual property is theft.

lol ok I get it.

[MaikU]

@Onar Åm

MaikU wrote the following post at Wed, Oct 20 2010 10:51 PM:

So what is “intellectual property” anyway? If I dream up about 3 and a half meters in diameter half blue half yellow sphere with a number 42 on it, can I declare this image my property and prevent anyone from “imagining”?

1. you’re so smart and brilliant that you’ve figured out something that not even the smartest of the smartest of your opponents have figured out.

2. you’re thinking is so moronic that it is borderline ape manure.

or 3) you open your wallet and give me my 1000 bucks because you have just imagined my idea unless you proved that your idea wasn’t copied from mine idea, ok?

[Stranger]

Why MUST studio-quality music still be produced?

Only a communist mind would ask such a question. Nothing MUST be produced. Things are produced because consumers demand them. IP communism interferes in the relationship between consumers and producers by denying ownership of the product to producers, and thus making consumption impossible.

[Stranger]

Regardless the burden of proof is on you to prove that your creation is an original and not a copy. It is simple to show.

Simple to show, impossible to prove. I guess we all need to have notaries following us around in case we have an idea.

Actually it is quite easy to prove. If you are the original creator, then some record of your production will remain, as well as witnesses to this. It’s as simple as asking if someone has an alibi.

If you claim to have produced an original recording of Jackass 3D, but Johnny Knoxville cannot recall ever taking part in it, then you are obviously not an original producer.

[pcrider]

Onar Åm wrote:

I have no idea how you’ve managed to do so, but after dozens of replies and mentions of my name you manage to spell it wrongly.

Please accept my apology, I meant no disrespect. I have corrected the mistake. Please understand I am an equal opportunity misspeller; I also misspelled Mr. Kinsella’s name in an earlier post too.

Your summary wasn’t half bad and I was thinking that you might actually have something of value to add to this debate.

I appreciate your responses and the effort and patience you have extended in this discussion. I am a newby on this forum and am simply trying to understand some complex issues. I am certainly not an expert in this area and have only started reading Mises, Rothbard, Block and the others in the past year. Two years ago I had never heard of any of them. They have provoked me to challenge some of my assumptions and reconsider some of my biases. As someone with a vested interest in copyrights and patents, it has been something of a struggle for me to sort out. With the help of this discussion I think I now have a better sense of the arguments for and against.

[Stranger]

Stranger your creating a false dichtomy between open-source and closed source software. You appear to be afraid to admit the truth about reality however.

Unfortunately for you capitalism has taken open-source software and really exploited it, and I imagine it will continue to do so. You and I have been through this before and you’ve always hit the same brick wall.

Linux is one of the most widely used development and server hosting platforms. The entire open-source industry exploded in growth during the recession. There are literally hundreds of thousands of articles, research, and information revolving around the open-source community.

Being in the server IT industry myself, I see Microsoft/Adobe and other closed source bloatware firms getting slapped around by these competitors. This angle you’ve taken as always has been an assertion, one that is entirely disconnected from the actual current condition of the software development market.

Unlike you I was in this business a decade ago, and the same things were being said about open source then. What has largely happened is that open source has kept its niche of the marketplace (catering to producers instead of consumers) and the status quo prevails.

[Stranger]

I am certainly not an expert in this area and have only started reading Mises, Rothbard, Block and the others in the past year. Two years ago I had never heard of any of them. They have provoked me to challenge some of my assumptions and reconsider some of my biases. As someone with a vested interest in copyrights and patents, it has been something of a struggle for me to sort out. With the help of this discussion I think I now have a better sense of the arguments for and against.

You should be happy to know that both Mises and Rothbard argued for copyrights in their core economic treatises. IP communism is really quite marginal and new. It will pass.

[liberty_student]

@Stranger

Only a communist mind would ask such a question.

I wonder when you flipped from trying to reason bad arguments to just out and out namecalling. It’s sorta funny, because in lieu of a real argument, you just call everyone who disagrees with you (or in some cases, that you strawman) a communist.

@Stranger

Things are produced because consumers demand them.

Say’s law much?

@Stranger

IP communism interferes in the relationship between consumers and producers by denying ownership of the product to producers, and thus making consumption impossible.

That’s not true. Open Office and Linux are produced and consumed.

[Stranger]

That’s not true. Open Office and Linux are produced and consumed.

Apples and bananas are also produced and consumed, yet some people would rather buy software.

[liberty_student]

@Stranger

Unlike you I was in this business a decade ago

Is that ^^^ actually part of your argument? Because I have been in this business much longer than you, if we’re appealing to time served.

@Stranger

the same things were being said about open source then.

That doesn’t invalidate anything.

@Stranger

What has largely happened is that open source has kept its niche of the marketplace (catering to producers instead of consumers) and the status quo prevails.

So now you have moved the IP goalposts to being a distinction between consumers and producers? Doesn’t this fly in the face of everything we know about exchange, that is everyone is both a consumer and a producer?

Also, doesn’t any exception invalidate your claim if you’re appealing to some objective state of reality and not some arbitrary fiat?

And can you prove that Linux is a producer good and not a consumer good? That is, by what metrics did you draw that conclusion?

[Stranger]

So now you have moved the IP goalposts to being a distinction between consumers and producers? Doesn’t this fly in the face of everything we know about exchange, that is that everyone is both a consumer and a producer?

I am not sure I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think you understand what a division of labor is. Additionally, I mentioned the distinction between consumer and producer goods in all my threads about IP.

And can you prove that Linux is a producer good and not a consumer good? That is, by what metrics did you draw that conclusion?

Do you know a Linux user who is not a trained IT professional?

[BiPolarMoment]

Somewhat of an aside, but there are a couple open source software items I prefer to the mainstream products. I understand the layman probably chooses based upon what is either advertised or has the largest user base (e.g. marketshare), but that’s not to say they are actually superior products. The particular example I was thinking of when I started writing this reply was Foxit which is a pdf reader that is incredibly more efficient at opening pdfs (with time as a metric), or at least it was a few years ago when I first discovered it.

[BiPolarMoment]

Do you know a Linux user who is not a trained IT professional?

While I appreciate this observation it is not unique to software–it’s simply a narrower consumer base. Do you know many people other than excavators/construction workers that use a Backhoe? Do those users develop the vehicles they use? The fact that there is perhaps not a more common open source OS for consumers is likely more indicative of market pressures (potentially enabled by IP laws)/compatibility issues than feasibility. This is simply my presumption though and I am not attempting to argue–just trying to provide additional opinions.

[MacFall]

Do you know a Linux user who is not a trained IT professional?

…Did you seriously just ask that?! Better button up, your ignorance is showing.

[Stranger]

While I appreciate this observation it is not unique to software–it’s simply a narrower consumer base. Do you know many people other than excavators/construction workers that use a Backhoe?

This is precisely my point. Open source consists of tools made by producers towards the end of delivering a completely different product to consumers. By the nature of information, it benefits from a network effect where multiple producers can cooperate with each other to improve their tools. However, there is never and has never been a design consideration for consumers in open-source software, because such a consideration requires R&D investment and entrepreneurial risk, thus consuming capital. Open-source cannot be capitalized. Such a thing would compete with the producers’ markets, to which end open-source is designed to serve.

In short, open-source cannot be more than an intermediate good in the division of labor economy.

[Stranger]

…Did you seriously just ask that?! Better button up, your ignorance is showing.

It would have been so simple for you to provide an answer, and yet you did not.