Well, a bunch of ad hominems on you and yours, too, and fie on you I say! Fie!
Haha. Yeah, ok. Byebye.
I have a question. Which of these is illegitimate?
-
Someone copied the author’s novel and sold it, and that’s why the author doesn’t make any money
-
Someone copied the author’s novel and sold it, but that’s not why the author doesn’t make any money
-
Someone copied and sold the first three sentences of the author’s novel, and that’s why the author doesn’t make any money
nskinsella wrote the following post at Sat, Oct 23 2010 11:26 AM:
David, “I’m still not finding any explanation yet as to why or how Rothbard is mistaken.”
See the Contract vs. Reserved Rights section of my Against IP. I go into it in detail. http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/#againstip
Thanks Mr. Kinsella. I read your explanation before but needed the refresher. The “Famer Jed” analogy on page 40 - 41 is brilliant. It clearly debunks the concept that reserved rights can be applied to knowledge or information.
In light of this I should modify my four point summary from above as follows:
- With or without any explicit copyright expression in the voluntary exchange, there can be no limit or restriction on what the buyer can later do with the information he has acquired and his own property. There can be no implied or explicit copyright over information.
- If such an explicit expression of copyright is clearly identified and included in the voluntary exchange, it becomes only a moral obligation of the buyer to honor those terms. The buyer has voluntarily agreed to a restriction of use, but if he later abandons the book, donates or resells it, this obligation or restriction is not transferred.
- When a third party acquires the book/music/mousetrap, they are never bound by any limitation or reserved rights that may obligate the original buyer. Whether they are aware of any prior restriction or not, they may proceed to reproduce without any moral offense.
- If this book was acquired illegitimately (theft, larceny, fraud, etc) and after notification they do not return the original book, they are aggressing against the rightful owner. If after notification, they return the original book, they may maintain any copies produced with their own property and may continue to produce and sell them, without any offense to the original author or to the rightful owner.
Basically under a free-market, we would have only an “honor-system” that would apply only to explicit copyrights and only to the original party of the voluntary exchange who agreed to the restrictions - correct?
Put it into more modern and current terms:
Under such a system a movie studio could offer a video entertainment subscription on the free market with a subscriber agreement that includes a commitment by the subscriber not to copy or redistribute the entertainment content (just as they do today). (Is this still true?) If the subscriber breaks the agreement and redistributes the movies via BitTorrent or some other means, those third parties who receive or acquire the content via that p2p channel have no liability to the studio and may copy or redistribute freely. (True?)
Since the studio may use some technological means to uniquely identify the source of such a breech (e.g forensic watermarks) they may take action against this subscriber for contract violation. Assuming the studio can uniquely identify every copy and every copy-of-a-copy that originated with this subscriber’s breech, how much do they owe? Without an indemnity clause or limit of liability in the contract, to what extent would this subscriber be liable to the studio? Can the original subscriber become liable for the additional copies spread by the non-offending third parties?
I don’t mean to be a pest, I’m just trying to understand the complexities. Thanks for your patience with me.
dunno if it’s a beer or what, but your post made my day 
so now being materialist is a bad thing? Wow… Though I still am not sure what kind of materialism you are talking about. It sounds very much like when creationists accuse “evilutionists” of being MATERIALISTS. It’s poor tactic, really. Materialism is a state of nature, though I wouldn’t advocate that it is absolute.. that would be probably scientism. Just easily observable and testable.
David:
In light of this I should modify my four point summary from above as follows:
- With or without any explicit copyright expression in the voluntary exchange, there can be no limit or restriction on what the buyer can later do with the information he has acquired and his own property. There can be no implied or explicit copyright over information.
I think information cannot be owned. Ever. Only scarce objects. If you transfer possession of an object to someone, it can be a sale, or it can be some kind of lease, where I retain ownership and thus grant only limited use rights to the possessor. I think this would be impractical or infeasible for sales of books or CDs. They would just sell the things.
If you want to restrict the buyer/lessee’s use of information associated with the object bought or leased, then that is simply a separate contract. But since I accept the Evers-Rothbard title-transfer theory of contract (and related inalienability ideas and the concomitant inability of contracts to create enforceable obligations), then the seller/lessor can only get the buyer/lessee to agree to pay money damages to the seller/lessor in the event that he does certain things with the information he gains. But again, I don’t see typical buyers of a $5 book agreeing to large liability for future actions. So this would be impractical too, IMO.
Note that if you publish a copy of a book or leak information, that is NOT a use of the book itself. It is use of information gleaned from the book, but the book may no longer even exist. It cannot be said to be trespass since it’s not a misuse of the book. At most it coudl be a breach of contract. Not trespass.
- If such an explicit expression of copyright is clearly identified and included in the voluntary exchange, it becomes only a moral obligation of the buyer to honor those terms. The buyer has voluntarily agreed to a restriction of use, but if he later abandons the book, donates or resells it, this obligation or restriction is not transferred.
Well, I agree that the restriction can never be transferred. If the book is actually owned by the buyer, then the next buyer now owns it. Suppose however that you only are the lessee of the book; then I would say if you try to sell it to a third party, the third party does not get good title. But htat means he doesn’t own that copy. If the original seller (and owner) finds the second guy, he can ask for it back. but he can’t demand the information not be used since there was no contract between them.
And if you as lessee OR buyer have a contractual obligation not to sell the book or reveal information to third prties, then if you do this, you owe money damages to the seller, but the people you gave the information to do not.
- When a third party acquires the book/music/mousetrap, they are never bound by any limitation or reserved rights that may obligate the original buyer. Whether they are aware of any prior restriction or not, they may proceed to reproduce without any moral offense.
Yes, with one caveat: if the physical object is stil owned by the original produer, then it is trespass to knowingly possess, use, or retain the book if you are aware of this; and you must return it when you do learn someone else owns it; it;s just like a case of stolen property. But the inforation is not property.
- If this book was acquired illegitimately (theft, larceny, fraud, etc) and after notification they do not return the original book, they are aggressing against the rightful owner. If after notification, they return the original book, they may maintain any copies produced with th89eir own property and may continue to produce and sell them, without any offense to the original author or to the rightful owner.
I agree with this. this is because they didn’t agree to anything.
Basically under a free-market, we would have only an “honor-system” that would apply only to explicit copyrights and only to the original party of the voluntary exchange who agreed to the restrictions - correct?
not sure what you mean by honor system.
Put it into more modern and current terms:
Under such a system a movie studio could offer a video entertainment subscription on the free market with a subscriber agreement that includes a commitment by the subscriber not to copy or redistribute the entertainment content (just as they do today). (Is this still true?) If the subscriber breaks the agreement and redistributes the movies via BitTorrent or some other means, those third parties who receive or acquire the content via that p2p channel have no liability to the studio and may copy or redistribute freely. (True?)
right. the customer may be liable, but I doubt peoplue would agree to crazy liability just for some minor priced service.Not worth it.
Since the studio may use some technological means to uniquely identify the source of such a breech (e.g forensic watermarks) they may take action against this subscriber for contract violation. Assuming the studio can uniquely identify every copy and every copy-of-a-copy that originated with this subscriber’s breech, how much do they owe? Without an indemnity clause or limit of liability in the contract, to what extent would this subscriber be liable to the studio? Can the original subscriber become liable for the additional copies spread by the non-offending third parties?
the damage woudl be breach of contract, and if htere is a cotnract it woudl specify damages. If not, then whaever the court decides.
s
Onar,
Suppose that a person makes a perfectly good copy of paper money. He becomes rich by simply printing a lot of money! What are the damages to the other money owners? Not a single copy of their money is missing. So what if this debases the value of the money? Tough luck. That’s what’s called competition! Supply and demand!
(Now it’s time for that common sense “waaaaait a minute…” to kick in)
You can argue that it’s fraud, but why? The printer of money has signed no contract obliging him not to copy money.
There is actually nothing wrong with making copies of money. It doesn’t violate rights. If you use one of these fake notes to pay some seller S for something, then if you don’t disclose that it’s fake, then you are committing fraud on S. If you do disclose it, then S is not defrauded. He would be moron to take the fake note, but if he agrees to take it, no problem.
That is the argument I don’t like.
I own the thoughts in my brain. You interchanged the word secrecy earlier for IP in my contract post and I think secrecy is a good word. I absolutely own my IP until it leaves my brain and then it becomes a claim once it enters other brains. Since I am in control of my lips, thoughts leaving my brain are voluntary acts.
I believe I correctly argue anything that extends beyond the body is a claim in society. I reject land or other scarce resources can be owned based on a dislike of reusing the word “own”. Land and scarce resources are also claims. People say they own title but title is evidence of a voluntary act to support a claim. Under the NAP arbitration subjectively favors voluntary acts.
You can set me up all day long but self ownership is self evident. I will continue to reject the word “own” because it does not clearly convey concepts. Self ownership is absolute. Self ownership can never be taken away only impaired. Property ownership is not absolute, again it is a claim and I don’t like using one word, like own, that can have two different meanings to define big concepts. It’s muddies the sales pitch.
Thanks for your detailed reply.
nskinsella wrote the following post at Sat, Oct 23 2010 3:13 PM:
not sure what you mean by honor system
Yes, it was a poor choice of words.
right. the customer may be liable, but I doubt peoplue would agree to crazy liability just for some minor priced service.Not worth it.
I think you’re right, it is probably not worth it. But I think people agree to very restrictive terms all the time. Here are a few clips from a typical click-through agreement for such on-line entertainment services. Some may argue the that the “click-through contract” is not legitimate, but here is the kind of stuff they contain (I removed the company’s name since similar language is used by many companies):
This license will enable you to view, preview, select, stream and access video, audio, graphics, photos, text, special features, software and/or messages (collectively “Content”) via the Service in accordance with the terms of this Agreement during the timeframe in which your account is active and for the duration of the access window for each individual Content item. Any copy of this Service, Content or any portion thereof will constitute a violation of copyright. Violation of this Agreement in any manner automatically terminates the license granted to you herein and obligates you to cease all use of the Service.
Unauthorized copying, editing, exhibition, broadcast or distribution of a copyrighted program can result in severe criminal and civil penalties under U.S. laws. In particular, criminal copyright infringement, including without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.
You may not copy, reproduce, distribute, transfer, sell, license, publish, enter into a database, display, perform publicly, modify, create derivative works, upload, edit, post, link to, frame, transmit, rent, lease, lend or sublicense or in any way exploit any part of this Service, or attempt to interfere with the operation of the Service in any way, except that you may access and display material and all other Content displayed on this Service for non-commercial, personal, entertainment use for a limited time only as strictly authorized herein.
…you may not distribute any part of this Service over any network, including a local area network, nor sell or offer it for sale. You may not assign, sublicense, pledge or transfer any of your rights or obligations under this Agreement to any person or entity without BigStudio’s prior written consent which may be withheld in BigStudio’s sole discretion (and any such purposed assignment, pledge or transfer without such prior written consent shall be void ab initio). In addition, these files may not be used to construct any kind of database. Any authorization to copy material granted by BigStudio in any part of this Service for any reason is restricted to viewing a single copy for non-commercial, personal, entertainment use only, and is subject to your keeping intact all copyright, trademark and other proprietary notices. Using any material on any other Service or networked computer environment is prohibited. Also prohibited are: decompiling, reverse engineering, disassembling, or otherwise reducing the code used in any software or digital rights management feature on this Service into a readable form in order to examine the construction of such software and/or to copy or create other products based (in whole or in part) on such software or any feature of the Service, or intercepting and/or recording network communications transmitted between the Service and BigStudio.
You are not permitted to link to this Service from any third-party site without the prior written permission of BigStudio. However, this Service may link you to other sites on the Internet including, without limitation, sites owned or controlled by our distributors. These sites may contain information or material that some people may find inappropriate or offensive. These other sites are not under the control of BigStudio, and you acknowledge that (whether or not such sites are affiliated in any way with BigStudio or its partners) BigStudio is not responsible for the accuracy, copyright compliance, legality, decency, or any other aspect of the Content of such sites. The inclusion of such a link does not imply endorsement of any site by BigStudio or any association with its operators.
You may not reproduce, sell, resell or otherwise exploit any resource, or access to any resource, contained on this Service.
You are prohibited from using any services or facilities provided in connection with this Service to compromise security or tamper with system resources and/or accounts. The use or distribution of tools designed for compromising security (e.g. password guessing programs, cracking tools or network probing tools) is strictly prohibited.
BigStudio along with its respective partners and affiliates reserve the right to investigate suspected violations of this Agreement, and may seek to gather information from the user who is suspected of violating the terms of this Agreement, and from any other user. We may suspend any users whose conduct is under investigation and may remove such material from its servers as it deems appropriate and without notice. If we believe, in our sole discretion, that a violation of these terms of this Agreement has occurred, it may warn users, suspend Usernames and Passwords, terminate Registered Accounts or take other corrective action deemed appropriate. We may provide personally identifiable information in response to legal process, for example, in response to a court order or a subpoena. We also may disclose such information in response to a law enforcement agency’s request. BY ACCEPTING THIS AGREEMENT YOU WAIVE AND HOLD HARMLESS BigStudio, ITS RESPECTIVE PARTNERS AND AFFILIATES FROM ANY CLAIMS RESULTING FROM ANY ACTION TAKEN BY BigStudio DURING OR AS A RESULT OF ITS INVESTIGATIONS AND/OR FROM ANY ACTIONS TAKEN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INVESTIGATIONS BY EITHER BigStudio OR LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES.
Certainly few people actually read these and they have no mechanism to negotiate, so they just take it as it comes.
To the extent terms like “US Law” and FBI etc, would be replaced with something more appropriate, could such a contract still be taken seriously under a libertarian free market? Would such businesses generally need a new business model?
Under normal circumstances, you control the thoughts in your brain. You don’t necessarily own them. This is obvious.
So you can have a claim on my mind, but you own your own mind. How convenient.
That depends on the society.
So you reject the word own, but you say self ownership is absolute and self evident. And you adopt this position in order to create clarity.
I have no idea what your position is (and care less by the second). I don’t think anyone else reading this will either.
See, the issue with claims, as you call them, is that in order to be able to settle a claim, you need to be able to prove ownership. But you reject ownership in favor of claims (which doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever) and I am left wondering, how you settle and resolve claims in your claim based society, if multiple people make the same claim as once.
That is related to this bit where I was scooped by an unscrupulous thinker who did not recognize the sovereignty of my thoughts I had not yet shared.
Substitute the word property for claim to fit it into your model. How do you resolve the conflicts which will inevitably rise from a lack of scarcity and the multitude of claims it will breed?
Absolute control = ownership
Sigh… anyone can claim anything. It doesn’t mean it’s true or enforcable. That’s why it is a claim.
This is just as bad as your previous comment. Does this site advocate some non-libertarian society I am unaware of? Do you think I am referring to some other kind of society?
Are you even reading my posts before you reply?
Fine don’t respond. I don’t think you are reading my posts because my position hasn’t changed in the thread. I have primarily argued one line of thought. Contractual.
Had you read my posts this sentance would read:
Substitute the word claim for own with regards to property or anything that extends beyond the body into your model.
Despite the fact I don’t think you make much sense, I have been responding.
Why? No one is even debating contracts. It’s a given!
Since you want to “set me up”, in your opinion, am I not participating in the discussion in good faith? In your opinion, could I benefit from a little benevolent entrapment?
Court does not begin when one is standing before a judge. Court begins long before that.
For instance if I take your claim above, despite the fact you have asserted it as fact, it is a claim. While the thought was floating around your own gray matter it was an absolute fact, unrebutable, but now that the thought has voluntarily entered society of your own free will it is no longer a fact. It is a claim that can in fact be rebutted. So let me analyze the claim:
No further comment required.
In my short paragraph of dissertation above about rebuttals, I was not referring to your use of the word fact. When a claim enters society it is de facto true until it is rebutted (I wonder why media is so effective at controlling public opinion, how much media rebuttal has occurred before the internet?). Presently in the United States, courts are a monopoly on truth. In light of the comment I made above about court occurring long before people ever make it to a judge, try to grasp this statement coming from a Judge. “I see the facts are not in dispute.”
Simply to make a point about claims I am rebutting:
Obviously something not rebutted is one way a judge could state. “I see the facts are not in dispute.” What grounds would I base a rebuttal on? I imagine I could cite previous posts and ask if you understood this sentence or that sentence. I make some sense because your claim is I don’t make much sense. If you were to respond to a sentence by sentence rebuttal and acknowledged 50% of my sentences make sense would your claim still be considered true?
If you admitted 50% of my sentences made sense what would your rebuttal of pride be? I am unfairly measuring the claim by sentence and the claim should be measured by paragraph? By post? By concept?
Could I base a rebuttal simply on the English language and whether or not there are spelling or errors in grammar?
Hopefully you are getting a larger point I have made about using the NAP as the measure because how things are measured is important, including arbitration.
Having said all that let me rehash my line of thought as it applies to IP. When this was floating around your own gray matter:
It was intellectual property. Once it entered society, it is a claim that can be rebutted. If it voluntarily entered society there is no harm to base an IP claim on in society.
If it involuntarily entered society, how did it enter society? Was it a result of using force or breach of secrecy contract? Who caused the harm? The individual(s) using force, individual(s) breaching a contract, or other third parties in society? Obviously not the latter. Earlier someone used a stolen car example. Would monetary settlement be acceptable in lieu of return of the car? Of course it would and non-voluntary IP claims in society could receive monetary settlement since it is impossible to return the idea because no one owns anyone elses brain.
Am I making sense yet?
Nope.
Very convincing rebuttal.
Insofar as I can understand your position, it seems incoherent.
Onar wrote:
"Suppose that a person makes a perfectly good copy of paper money. He becomes rich by simply printing a lot of money! What are the damages to the other money owners? Not a single copy of their money is missing. So what if this debases the value of the money? Tough luck. That’s what’s called competition! Supply and demand!
(Now it’s time for that common sense “waaaaait a minute…” to kick in)
You can argue that it’s fraud, but why? The printer of money has signed no contract obliging him not to copy money."
It’s interesting to note that the Government strictly enforces copyright on paper money. Probably Onar would like them to be as strict in enforcing the rest of the copyright laws.
Now, I can’t think of no faster way to abolish fiat money than to eliminate the copyright on them.