I need to revise that. It is an idea (don’t know why I said it wasn’t; that’s not what I meant to say at all). But it is, nevertheless, a hypothetical possibility.
yes, and I agree with that. That’s why I quoted your brilliant post, partly because I lack skills at expressing my own thoughts.
Autolykos wrote the following post at Tue, Oct 19 2010 3:12 AM:
I saw your critique and I chose to ignore it. You either brought up points that others have brought up and I have answered previously in the thread, or your comments weren’t really very relevant, such as the nitpicking about liens.
-
The law states that your idea is your property and should be protected
-
I can’t use my piece of paper to write down the idea (but I can use it for “any” other purpose)
-
You implicitly claim ownership over my piece of paper
-
The law states that I can’t rob you at gun point
-
I can’t use my gun to rob you (or hold it in this direction, at this place, at this time) (but I can use it for “any” other purpose)
-
You implicitly claim ownership over my gun
Why isn’t the second example valid? Because you would violate a person’s rights when using your gun like that? Well, that happens in the first example as well (by definition; see 1) and 1))
Therefore, I would say that these arguments aren’t relevant. After all, we’re discussing 1)
Wow this is a hot topic. Excuse me for coming in late. I commend Onar Åm for joining this forum to promote his position. This is interesting as a newcomer to libertarian thought as I have been trying to sort out the question of IP rights in my mind. I have years of indoctrination to overcome, so it takes some time. I am the holder of many US Patents, have published many scholarly articles in scientific journals and have had many of my photographs published in books and magazines. So you might say I have some predisposed bias toward IP rights. As I have read through Rothbard, Kinsella, Block and others on this topic I have tried to imagine the impact on my own “products of my mind”.
As I have read through this long forum thread I have not been able to find a solid defense of a state-granted monopoly over these products of my mind. (Oh there are plenty claims and name-calling, but very little reason or logic.) On the other hand there are very many sound logical arguments against the concept of these IP-rights.
If there were no such state-granted monopoly over my work, what might change?
- I would still invent, as long as I remain employed (at will) by a firm that rewards me for that work, which remains scarce.
- I would still publish, as what drives me to publish is the ability to spread my ideas, not to keep them bottled up.
- I would still photograph, as my work distinguishes my skill and expertise in the craft, which remains in demand because of scarcity.
In all, I don’t see any direct impact on my work or my motivations to continue to produce “products of my mind” should the entire system of Intellectual Property Law be dismantled overnight. Thanks to those who have helped me sort this out. Stephen Kinsella your book on this topic is a great work, thanks for making the PDF version and the audoibook version available for FREE here on Mises.org!
the law states that you can’t initiate force against me. You can use your gun wherever you want 
After having been ridiculed on this forum for stating that anti-IP libertarians are materialists who deny the existence of information in relation to the individual, someone comes along with a perfect example. Thanks. I was sort of waiting for this.
Now, let me rephrase the exact same argument, but only substituting the information violation with physical violations.
“What harm is there to someone who wants to go to see a movie and someone waves a gun at them and tells them that they can’t see that movie?”
None. The only that he is deprived of is a potential, future movie experience. But one cannot own potential, future movie experiences as it does not exist. It is a hypothetical possibility, but one cannot own it until and unless it becomes present and real.
In this case every materialist libertarian will recognize that this is a violation because a physical violation was involved. Someone waving a gun at you is a threat of physical violence and hence coercion. Then it is completely irrelevant that the future movie experience is only potential. Someone actually made an action which prevented you from going to the movies, and THAT’s the violation.
But a materialist will not be able to see or understand that copying and distributing information is a violation of the mind, because it only involves an unlimited and therefore non-existent resource, namely information. The materialist denies that there exists anything to be violated.
I see that all the IP communists decided to ignore the problem of exclusivity in real property. There’s no problem at all, move along folks, nothing to see, continue to embrace communism so that you can pirate movies with a clear conscience.
Ok, scratch that and add “throw the gun in your face” instead The law against force (against copying) would give me some restrictions on the usage of my gun (my piece of paper), right?
I would argue that this is true for any creative work. By creating excellence you create a brand name. People seek such brand names for guarantee of enjoyment.
IP laws today are largely unenforceable. We live in IP anarchy as far as we are not corporations (IP is enforced there). You can download anything over internet for free today. Why there are people that pay when they can get things for free? Why records of income from movie sales are still moving even higher today? Because of unenforceable IP laws?
IP laws today are largely unenforceable. We live in IP anarchy as far as we are not corporations (IP is enforced there). You can download anything over internet for free today. Why there are people that pay when they can get things for free? Why records of income from movie sales are still moving even higher today? Because of unenforceable IP laws?
Piracy is strictly limited in scale by IP laws. For the same reasons, high seas piracy happens but it does not stop international shipping. If piracy were to become legal, all shipping would stop immediately.
I’d like to throw in some (meta?)physics here and say that everything in our relevant sphere of reality is materialistic. Ideas are also just spasms in the brain. Information are physical patterns be it in energy or matter - both physical.
The difference is that you want to own spasms and patterns that otherwise are, in lockean theory, created by others. That is the theoretical conflict, and you’re not going to resolve it by simply stepping on it, or calling us “materialists”. You’re a materialist too, kind sir. Please develop a full theory of “spasm and pattern ownership” before ditching conventional property theories, ty.
I don’t understand how you came up with “unlimited therefore non-existent”. Is it because in reality there are no unlimited things therefore anything I call unlimited is automatically synonymous with non-existent?
"What harm is there to the author of a book if you copy the book (and there was no contract signed stating you would not copy it)? "
None (forget about the potential, future profit).
“What harm is there to the supplier of apples if I saturate the market with apples?”
None (forget about the potential, future profit).
“What harm is there to someone who wants to go to see a movie and someone waves a gun at them and tells them that they can’t see that movie?”
It would be OK for the owner to do this if you tried to break in. On a serious note, when you substitute copying with physical force, we all agree that it’s wrong. But this is only because we move from physical property to ideas. After all, we’re discussing whether ideas are property, so the result of this example shouldn’t surprise you. Ref. “Precisely! So it’s not an argument to say that IP is a violation of property right, because we are discussing what those property rights ARE.”
Explain fashion business. IP piracy is legal there.
If piracy were to become legal, all shipping would stop immediately.
Regardless of terminology, please substantiate these claims.
There is simply no way that shipping would stop. A new market would spring up for PDA’s, but somehow I think the state would want to ‘offer’ its protection services for a fee.
And by offer I mean that ‘you’re going to have our services whether you want them or not’.
Fantastic post David. Welcome.
I don’t think you know very much about what goes on with the internet if you really believe this.
Thanks to tor and freenet (completely anonymous p2p networks) you can get everything for free without any consequence from a state. If people really only wanted free stuff then there is nothing stopping them now. Yet they still pay! Why is that?