Onar Åm wrote: “You’re likely to be “principled,” sticking firmly with some arbitrarily stated principle such as “the non-aggression principle” as an irreducible primary and then proceeding from there to create a rationalist system of thought that crashes with reality.”
You can’t agree on much when your fundamental principles, on which your reasoning is based, are so different.
However, regarding the non-aggression principle, Kinsella notes: “In other words, to identify an act of aggression is implicitly to assign a corresponding property right to the victim. (This is, incidentally, one reason why it is better to refer to the nonaggression principle instead of the nonaggression axiom — because property rights are more basic than freedom from aggression.)”
So, if anything, it is the definition of property that would be arbitrary, and this is where the disagreements stem from, isn’t it?
But regarding the Hoppe quote, while humorous, it doesn’t have much to do with IP law in the USA.
Contary to his example, you can’t copyright, patent or get legal protection for an idea or thought such as he suggested. Copyrights are for original works in a fixed medium that fit a specific criteria–not just any idea or thought. Patents also have strict criteria, and you cannot patent any idea.
The IP communists believe that Rothbardian opposition to patents translates to full communism in all information. Hoppe’s argument is clearly just another elucidation of Rothbard’s anti-patent argument, and he does not in any way mention copyright. In fact, by defining property as applying only to scarce goods, he once again draws the line between ideas and information. While information is scarce and can be owned, ideas are not scarce and cannot be.
Reminder: jumping to conclusion from opposition to patents to full communism is fallacy 1 of the intellectual communists. Their entire philosophy rests on denying the materiality of information (fallacy 2), as Onar Am pointed out in his original blog post.
What is the nature of the material interference with your property in a book when i read it over your shoulder and write into mine?
The information in the book may be instantiated in a material book, it surely remains so! and undisturbed! when I write out a copy of the contents onto my own material. So again I ask you, what is the tort?
Do you agree with the Hoppe that you interpreted to us as favourable to your position, that I am free to ponder, and to use the ideas that I glean from reading your book? Whatever ‘goes bad’ when the use I put the idea is to encode a pattern into my own material ? Surely this is unobjectionable when viewed from the perspective of the Hoppean position that you have agreed to.
I hope you can do better than to think of a name to call me for asking a straightforward question.
…Their entire philosophy rests on denying the materiality of information (fallacy 2)…
Your stated fallacy two has the caveat that the information must be unique i.e. “when the information is unique and will never re-occur in the lifetime of the universe” and have stated this is the standard for IP. However, you have provided no means for determining uniqueness and I would claim there is no way to do so. In the realm of software this is somewhat possible (bits) but I would claim this is still insufficient; unique literally and irrevocably means singular as in no approximation is considered to fall within the definition of the original–if I were to “forge” a piece of art there is a literal impossibility that it would be identical to the original. IP proponents constantly attempt to draw a line that is further away from the original (similarity) but still no one has answered how far it logically must be drawn or why. Furthermore, the “uniqueness” stipulation becomes even more dicey when you start breaking down the information in component parts e.g. I would argue that the invention of specific characters in language are “unique” by most IP standards, however they are entirely “pirated” to form many more forms of IP. I know this is a specious argument but it hints at the flaw I see in most claims for IP–at what level of complexity does something become “unique”? How do we know? If it’s subjective then who is the subject?
Onar has attempted to address the last of those questions appealing to “common knowledge” and such but I think this is again insufficient–if it’s known by literally everyone in a geographical region (i.e. common knowledge) but is unknown to those in another–does it only selectively apply?
I really want to “believe” in IP because I generate creative work as well, but I have yet to see an argument that is convincing. The closest I found was z’s but even that relied on an arbitrary similarity–i.e. even if you can mathmatically calculate similarity, the limit for infringement is set subjectively.
So here’s the conclusion: If you want to set subjective limits to similarity then allow subjective penalties and don’t complain when you [intentionally or unintentionally] infringe and the penalty is more severe than you’d hope.
Don’t tell your secrets to anyone
Because ideas are vulnerable
As soon as you say your idea out loud
Then it can go and live on its own
And you will miss it oh so much
And you will wait for it’s return
And you will wish it were your own
But ideas that left never come back home
IP advocates want to have their cake and eat it too. Libertarians are cool with if you have an idea, no one can force you to give it up. But once you put it out for EVERYONE TO SEE, you can’t attack people for using it any more than I could attack people for walking on my lawn after I had declared it public space.
Wouldn’t a Pro-IP instance involve the responsibility of consequences of the use of a patent or instructions in a book? If my new Volvo car blows up, I surely will blame that on Volvo manufacturer and demand retribution. If not, why shouldn’t that apply to information/ideas in the same way?
You have obviously argued with moralists. These people take a principled moral stand, that each owns the fruit of his own labor and that includes his mental labor. That’s their starting point (which is a correct one), but most of these people don’t have the specialist knowledge required to know what IP law should look like, and it is really no wonder: you have to be an EXPERT to be able to know that. Very few people are that qualified. It’s no shame. A lot of knowledge is required.
Now, I’m not an expert in law (although I know more about the philosophy of law than most. I am currently writing a book on the rule of law, which contain a significant number of juridical novelties) but I am an expert in philosophy, and that is a requirement. Therefore you will find that I know a lot more about how I want IP law to be like than most. I don’t have the full-fledged answers because I am not an expert in law as well, but you’re not talking to your average principled pro-IP moralist here.
You are opposed to abolishing the IP system; yet you admit you don’t know what a proper IP system should look like. Rich. Typical.
“‘But this is the exception, and you cannot abolish normal morality for the exception because that would truly be an unjustice. So long as injustice is unavoidable, occasional exceptional injustice is preferable to normalized systemic injustice.’”
“NOt sure what you are jabbering about.”
See, that’s because you’re not an expert in philosophy, and in ethics in particular, which is very, very bad when you want to have a strong opinion about property rights.
No. It’s because you are incoherent and all over the map.
Ok, sorry. Then you are a rationalist instead it appears. These are the two typical libertarian stances and it’s often hard to see the difference in a heated debate because both are pretty wacko. There are THREE primary approaches to principles and these are:
You could argue I’m a rationalist of sorts – New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory – but I don’t need to be either one to be a libertarian. To be a libertarian I only need to value and adopt libertarian principles and grundnorms. It doesn’t matter why I do. Maybe I just prefer civilization.
The way you loathsomely speak about taking reality and consequences into account as “arbitrary” and the fact that you confuse me with a utilitarian places you in the rationalist camp. You’re likely to be “principled,” sticking firmly with some arbitrarily stated principle such as “the non-aggression principle” as an irreducible primary and then proceeding from there to create a rationalist system of thought that crashes with reality.
What is loathsome is your championing unjust state monopoly grants as if it’s principled or compatible with property rights and liberty. Terrible.
If you’re going to keep calling each other NAZI’s and Communists, I thought I would bring in some real communist views on I came across;
First of all capitalism is against progress. In order to research something, there has to be some material incentive for the capitalist. He must make profit out of that. Capitalists can do this in 2 ways: sell the invention or use it themselves.
About the former, in order to sell the invention, they must force others not to use their invention, unless they pay them a certain amount of money. This is accomplished using state granted monopoly on the invention using patents. What this means is that without a state imposing patents, there won’t be any inventions at all, since you can’t profit from selling them. However, restricting access to the invention means restricting progress. For instance someone else could improve the design; however that’s illegal. You can’t do that, because it’s protected by patents.
The capitalist could also use the invention himself. Again that’s against progress. Without making it available to everyone else, this means many companies will research the same thing over and over again. Trade secrets are against progress. However, making the invention available to everyone is also against progress. The capitalist who spent the funds on the invention will be selected against by the market. He spent a lot of money on the invention, while those who didn’t still have complete access to the results. That means smaller prices for those who don’t invent. Being innovative means going bankrupt in this case.
Of course, the state knows very well about this. That’s why you can’t for instance patent a physical or mathematical theorem. The market doesn’t work very well with research. How can you create a competitive theory alternative to quantum mechanics. You can’t (what is someone patented the wheel? as long as the patent was enforced, progress would be very much at the mercy of the patent holder). If you could patent such theories, you’d have a state granted monopoly, like every other patents. It would mean physics and mathematics research would be brought to a halt. Capitalists make a lot of money out of using such theories, but don’t make money out of researching them. That’s why large and expensive physical projects, such as the LHC are not private, but state funded. An even more striking example is ITER. Its goal is to research nuclear fusion. If they succeed in making an economic fusion reactor, capitalists will make billions. However, ITER is again state funded. Inventions and discoveries are for the common good of all, but capitalism has no notion of common good.
In the end, there are 2 situations in capitalism: have state granted monopolies on inventions using patents and restrict further development or don’t have state intervention and bring the entire research to a halt. In either case, capitalism is inherently against innovation.
This argument is disingenuous in no small part because it’s not really industry that invents or improves things at all.
“Thanks for posting that Stephen. I have watched that lecture series with Hoppe and Hulsmann at least 5 times, and I forgot that was where he referenced Kinsella. I remembered the reference, but not the lecture.”
Wow, great find Stephen!! Yes it’s obvious he is anti-IP, and here it is explicit. Stranger is hereby PWNed.
I don’t understand why Monopoly Nazi’s see IP as a devisive issue.
In a free market, IP would likely voluntarily and contractually exist using non-compete clauses in larger scale manufacturing and distribution markets. IP benefits investors and big industry requires a lot of investment. I find it hard to envision manufacturing associations not forming, entering into IP non-compete agreements, and keeping private IP databases similar to credit reporting.
I also find it hard to believe there would not be more companies assisting inventors, musicians, artists, etc. Right now government stifles competition because IP costs are… wait for it… too DAMN HIGH. Using the Pat Buchanan argument in a video recently posted by Tom Woods on LewRockWell.com, I am not cutting IP. I am an IP liberator (which fits very well since I am liberating it from IP Monopoly Nazi’s :). IP would be much cheaper, prolific, and individual friendly eliminating state distorted IP costs.
Not only am I an IP liberator, I am a jobs creator. Look at all the new business opportunities that would exist liberating IP. Man I am starting to sound too good. I should completely sell my soul and run for political office.
Hoppe’s example with Aristotle is a copyright claim, not a patent claim.
It’s hard to take your arguments seriously when you don’t understand the differences between a patent and a copyright.
You’re confusing media with information again. Hoppe and Kinsella share the same position on IP (which is why he advises people at that lecture to read Kinsella’s paper).
I am still on the fence on this issue. I reread the Rothbard position and would like to better understand the objections. Let’s put aside the idea of patents for now, just help me focus on copyrights alone.
We can probably all agree that most printed books have more value than a bundle of paper and ink. I suppose some may argue about the where this added value comes from (labor theory or relative utility) but this is irrelevant to the discussion. It really comes down to this:
· IP-Monopolizers might say that the originator of an idea or thought expressed in the book is always entitled to ownership of this differential value, every time the thought is mixed with the paper and ink.
· IP-pirates might say the very reason I value this book above the sum of the paper and ink is because it contains the expression of this thought or idea – I should be free to copy that expression onto my own paper and ink.
· Rothbardian Libertarians would then counter by saying: "If you want to hang on to your idea, you should have two prices for your books; (price a) if you want only the book, without reproduction rights, which I will mark “copyright” or (price a^X) if you want the book with the all reproduction rights. This is a free market and you are free to choose which of these two variations you want to own, or none at all. If you chose to purchase at (price a), then please honor your contract.
As has been noted in this thread, some might argue that the purchaser’s agreement to honor the copyright has no bearing on third parties who “read over his shoulder”. But as Rothbard explains here, any third party who may have access to the assembly can never have greater ownership than what was obtained from the original sale. Said differently: If I give you my rental car, you don’t become the new owner. (If you read my library book over my shoulder, you don’t own it.)
Help me understand where Rothbard’s explanation breaks down?
One difference comes down to the fact that the car is actually property, and hence recoverable, whereas once the book sale contract has been breached, the exclusivity of the information transferred thereby cannot be recovered. The wronged party has a claim against the party who breached contract, but has no claim against later recipients of the information.
Also, there is the fact that a wronged party has no right to initiate force against people who benefit from the action that harms them but who were not parties to the action itself. Should the company that rented out the car be allowed to penalize me for driving your car? Or what if I gave my friends a ride, should they be penalized as well? I think not, and this is in opposition to Rothbard’s position, which states that the victim of theft may initiate force against the innocent reciipient of the property he lost. But that is an initiation of force, any way you look at it, and hence unjust. The victim’s claim is against the thief, and the thief alone. If possible (and if it is the victim’s desire), the thief should be made to purchase the stolen property back from its recipient, but if the third party does not want to part with it, then the victim must accept monetary compensation. Justice is never a positive-sum game, and there is no justification for the victim to compel anyone else to share the harm that is done to him except for the one who caused it.
Also, there is the fact that a wronged party has no right to initiate force against people who benefit from the action that harms them but who were not parties to the action itself. Should the company that rented out the car be allowed to penalize me for driving your car? Or what if I gave my friends a ride, should they be penalized as well? I think not, and this is in opposition to Rothbard’s position, which states that the victim of theft may initiate force against the innocent reciipient of the property he lost. But that is an initiation of force, any way you look at it, and hence unjust. The victim’s claim is against the thief, and the thief alone. If possible (and if it is the victim’s desire), the thief should be made to purchase the stolen property back from its recipient, but if the third party does not want to part with it, then the victim must accept monetary compensation. Justice is never a positive-sum game, and there is no justification for the victim to compel anyone else to share the harm that is done to him except for the one who caused it.
I’m going to have to disagree with you ano that one. Say, for example my car is stolen. The thief then sells it to you for $5,000. It’s still my car. The thief had no legitimate claim to sell it to you. He sold you nothing. We are both victims, me of car theft, and you of fraud. Why should the fact that the thief swindled you out of your money keep me from recovering my property? Your calim is against the thief, not me. If you prevent me from recovering my property, after being shown proof of ownership, why should I refrain from using force?
Let’s forget about a rental contract. What would prevent me from homesteading any car I wanted? Nothing. When something is not in your full control you don’t really own it. You simply have a claim to it. You would likely pursue a remedy in society arguing you have the best claim to the car and it should be returned to you using force. What is it that would establish your claim to be greater than mine? I am in possession of the car. First you would establish the car was previously in your possession. Next you would establish the title and receipt for the car is evidence of a voluntary exchange. Third you would claim there is no voluntary exchange between you and me. I have no rebuttal. According to the NAP, voluntary exchange is a greater claim than non-voluntary exchange.
How does this translate into consumer enforced IP? I don’t think it does unless someone can articulate a non-voluntary exchange. I don’t think it needs to. I personally think in a free market IP would be (to use someone elses description of Open Source) a producer good. IP is important to investors. IP is not important to consumers. The advantage of capital is marketing, mass production, and distribution. That is where I would expect to see IP non-compete contracts emerge in the free market.
Imagine no Cable monopolies. What type of network does a content producer want to be on? One that has some respect for copyright or one that does not? Clearly one that does. Telecommunications companies might form associations and enter into copyright contracts where all subscribers and competing providers are bound to terms of service that respects copyright. Cable companies can quickly react to infringements blocking rogue providers or subscribers from the network. What happens if the copyright policies are too restrictive? New competiting networks pop up.
Same concept would apply to manufacturing and distribution markets for patents. Companies would enter into non-compete agreements agreeing not to manufacture or distribute an infringing new product. There would be an arbitration process provided for in the contract.
My rebuttal is that IP is perfectly compatible with a free market and contracts. IP does not require coercion. If investor interests implement IP contractual controls that are too restrictive the market will demand more competition. If IP contractual controls are too loose less investors will invest. Isn’t that how a free market is supposed to work?
The following is copyright by Sieben Enterprises. If you read this, you are stealing my ideas without my permission. NO ONE HAS PERMISSION TO READ THE FOLLOWING:
The best way to pop a pimple is to take a shower first
IDEA STILL IN DEVELOPMENT - NO ONE CAN EVER USE TILL I’M DONE WITH IT.
I’ll bring a huge increase in innovation I promise.