If they got that information without participating in the violation of somebody’s rights, you are correct. But part of the proof is the fact that a copy by scanning a book would have the exact same words all in the same order. That would count as evidence against them. They would literally have to prove that they have a photographic memory and could write down an entire book that they weren’t intending to copy at the time they read it, or prove that they had a copy of the book which was not owned by somebody, or prove that they got it from a broadcast over the radio or something.
If they got that information without participating in the violation of somebody’s rights, you are correct. But part of the proof is the fact that a copy by scanning a book would have the exact same words all in the same order. That would count as evidence against them. They would literally have to prove that they have a photographic memory and could write down an entire book that they weren’t intending to copy at the time they read it, or prove that they had a copy of the book which was not owned by somebody, or prove that they got it from a broadcast over the radio or something.
Um, no. The book-writer has no contract in any way with a 3rd party.
Did you not notice that I put “(less than X)” and “(less than F)” instead of nothing?
Even if I give you that, it doesn’t make any sense. Did the second firm only decide to start researching at the instant the first firm entered the new market, which the second firm couldn’t have been aware of if no research was being done? Chances are, the second firm would have to constantly be researching, along with the first firm, to find new profitable opportunities, or to find ways that competitors are gaining an edge.
It just might slow it down; that was my point.
What slows things down, the copyright law or the contracts?
Or what about “theatre” type showings? They could release the book in libraries which do not allow you to take the books with you before they release it to the public. That is how Princeton is allowing people to read one of the unpublished works of Salinger without letting any one get a hold of it to copy and distribute.
Salinger has passed, and an unpublished work really doesn’t have much to do with our discussion. We’re talking about a writer trying to publish a book and earn a profit without someone copying him.
We do not define monopoly like that in Austrian economics.
How convenient. I’d like to know what that definition is, because if substitute products can exist in a monopoly, then it isn’t much of a monopoly.
Regardless, your conclusion was invalid because you’re assuming that because I hold one belief, I must hold other beliefs as well. Package deal fallacy.
What? Are you telling me that it always costs the second publisher less money to print books than the first?
Really? How many times do I have to explain it? At this point I’ll have to believe you’re dodging the issue for lack of a response.
The first publisher pays the writers, editors, artists, and all other parties associated with creating the book. This is in addition to the costs of publishing the book. The second publisher doesn’t have to pay writers, editors, artists, or any other parties associated with creating the book. They only pay the costs of publishing because they just copy the book as is. How can the first publisher compete against such a cost advantage? I insist that you address this point, otherwise I have no reason to continue the debate. I’ve said it several times already, and you have not even tried to refute it.
Why are you making the distinction between “fixed” and “variable” costs? And why did you add “R” but keep “X”?
I made the distinction to show that oil companies have to bear all parts of the cost of their product, while copiers only had to one part of the costs. Copiers get an unfair advantage. I added R because it was a different variable than the variables I had originally defined. However, as I stated above, how can you say that the second firm pays less in research with certainty? How did they know when to start researching if they didn’t begin until the first firm entered the new market?
No, see again you don’t understand property rights. A contract is not necessary for me stop and punish you for throwing eggs at my house. It’s not necessary for me to stop and punish you from touching my book and bringing it to a scanner and pressing the scan button. It’s my book. Now if you don’t want to only buy the rights to read the book without the intention of copying it, then feel free not to. But if you do buy those rights, you don’t get to claim the other rights to the book that haven’t been given to you, and neither does anybody else. The right to read the book with the intention of copying it are still held by the original owner. If you do that, You have violated his rights. No contract necessary.
Where do property rights stem from, if you know so much Sam? Are you now arguing that an idea or concept is a scarce thing?
Sam, M1ThinkTank –
Good work. There are some old threads on this subject which we seem to be revisiting here about once a month. Check them out:
The “Avatar” of Capitalism - The "Avatar" of Capitalism
The fallacies of intellectual communism - The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation
Information as Property - Information as Property
Z.
I. Ryan, my argument isn’t against profit seeking activity. In fact, my whole point is analogous to the more general case against socialism, without the correct institutional structure there simply aren’t the necessary incentives to drive entrepreneurs into pursuing profit and loss opportunities and all that entails. In other words, private property in ideas is a necessary prerequisite for a market in them to operate. Now, let me quickly state that I’m not necessarily saying what we have now is perfect or that we can rationally design a system of intellectual property to maximise their production, just that abolishing them will lead to economic stagnation and a severe underproduction of “ideas” and knowledge. There are already large social gains that can’t be captured by the originators of ideas, I can only see the abolition of IP as exacerbating this problem.
Again, why should any person employ their ideas to find opportunities to make profits if it is inevitable that other people will just follow along, ‘steal’ their ideas, and eradicate their huge profits without trying as hard? Why should any one want to be the first person to improve their efficiency if they can just wait for an other person to do that and then follow suit, without wasting all of their time and money doing research?
There are already advantages in being the first to innovate, but I think that IP might go a long way to solving exactly this problem.
Wow, congrats, Z has declared you the winner of this thread. None of you have been able to answer what I said was important. M1 strawmanned me and made a false claim about nirvana fallacy. That isn’t the central point of IP advocates committing a category error, it just shows that what these state apologists advocate isn’t compatible with freedom.
I can only see the abolition of IP as exacerbating this problem.
The bulk of human history contradicts this nonsense. Great works were created before IP laws.
Alright, well when a patented time machine is invented you can go back and live in the pre-IP world, I’m quite happy here in the world IP thanks. Besides, cool shit happened in the USSR too, doesn’t really mean that abolishing other forms of property is such a good idea.
I know. Ignorance is bliss.
“Where do property rights stem from, if you know so much Sam? Are you now arguing that an idea or concept is a scarce thing?”
Jesus Christ dude. Have you not read a single word I’ve written. Or are you purposely Ignoring the conclusion I’ve laid out every time. The right to stop you from copying isn’t based on the fact that I can stop you from writing in your book, in your house, with your pen. It is entirely based on the fact that You have to interact (read: touch, blow on, move the table the book is on in hopes that the next page flips over) So that you can copy the entire book. If you do any of those things while intending to copy it, YOU. HAVE. VIOLATED. RIGHTS. Why have you violated rights? Because I own the book, and have only given you the right to interact with the book while x condition is met. What is x condition you ask? That your mind is not currently in the state of intending to copy the book. That condition doesn’t have to be spelled out in a contract, All that has to have happened is I have said “I hereby give you the right to interact with this book under the condition that you do not intend to copy it”. Either that or you have stated “I hereby give you back the book on condition that anybody interacts with the book with the intent to copy it and I have not prevented it or destroyed it before it could be.” So what happens if somebody interacts with it who intends to copy it? It’s ownership is Immediately transfered back to the original owner, the person copying it is now violating the owners rights because he completely owns the book now, and the cost of violating his rights in this manner includes immediate destruction of that copy or failing that, ownership of the new copy goes to the originals owner.
You didn’t answer either question, and the first is more important.
YOU. HAVE. VIOLATED. RIGHTS. Why have you violated rights? Because I own the book, and have only given you the right to interact with the book while x condition is met.
Sam wrote a book.
He sold it to A, B, C … Y and all agreed to not copy the book.
Z (uninvolved 3rd party) copies the book when A … Y aren’t looking, or A … Y think IP is bunk and knows that you can never prove which of the thousands of people you sold the book to already somehow let Z copy it.
So, attempting to stop copying legitimately will fail in many cases. There is, it seems, certain cases where it might be economically beneficial to undertake necessary means to control information, but the conventional CD/books don’t work.
Then again, you could just admit that “what is right” doesn’t matter to you and keep toeing the line.
Property rights stem from first possession or homesteading. What do you think they stem from?
I don’t need to prove which copy it came from in order to own the copy. The strongest evidence that the book was used in order to copy it is the fact that every word in the copy is exactly the same. That’s all the evidence I need to convince a judge that my book was indeed used in order to copy it. Now that I have evidence you used my book to copy it, you need some evidence to counter. So either a)prove that you got your copy legit such as through a radio broadcast if that ever even happened, or b) prove that you can read a book without intending to copy it, and then latter write it all down word for word.
Property rights stem from first possession or homesteading. What do you think they stem from?
So, you apparently accept the libertarian grundnorms but have still evaded my second question.
After all, a property right is simply the exclusive right to control a scarce resource.[4]
–
Stephan Kinsella:
"What is it about tangible goods that makes them subjects for property rights? Why are tangible goods property?
A little reflection will show that it is these goods’ scarcity — the fact that there can be conflict over these goods by multiple human actors. The very possibility of conflict over a resource renders it scarce, giving rise to the need for ethical rules to govern its use. Thus, the fundamental social and ethical function of property rights is to prevent interpersonal conflict over scarce resources.
As Hoppe notes:
“[O]nly because scarcity exists is there even a problem of formulating moral laws; insofar as goods are superabundant (“free” goods), no conflict over the use of goods is possible and no action-coordination is needed. Hence, it follows that any ethic, correctly conceived, must be formulated as a theory of property, i.e., a theory of the assignment of rights of exclusive control over scarce means. Because only then does it become possible to avoid otherwise inescapable and unresolvable conflict.”
Others who recognize the importance of scarcity in defining what property is include Plant, Hume, Palmer, Rothbard, and Tucker. Nature, then, contains things that are economically scarce. My use of such a thing conflicts with (excludes) your use of it, and vice-versa. The function of property rights is to prevent interpersonal conflict over scarce resources, by allocating exclusive ownership of resources to specified individuals (owners). To perform this function, property rights must be both visible and just. Clearly, in order for individuals to avoid using property owned by others, property borders and property rights must be objective (intersubjectively ascertainable); they must be visible.
For this reason, property rights must be objective and unambiguous. In other words, “good fences make good neighbors … it is clear, given the origin, justification, and function of property rights, that they are applicable only to scarce resources.
–
"ideas are not scarce. If I invent a technique for harvesting cotton, your harvesting cotton in this way would not take away the technique from me. I still have my technique (as well as my cotton). Your use does not exclude my use; we could both use my technique to harvest cotton. There is no economic scarcity, and no possibility of conflict over the use of a scarce resource. Thus, there is no need for exclusivity.
Similarly, if you copy a book I have written, I still have the original (tangible) book, and I also still “have” the pattern of words that constitute the book. Thus, authored works are not scarce in the same sense that a piece of land or a car are scarce. If you take my car, I no longer have it. But if you “take” a book-pattern and use it to make your own physical book, I still have my own copy. The same holds true for inventions and, indeed, for any “pattern” or information one generates or has. As Thomas Jefferson — himself an inventor, as well as the first Patent Examiner in the U.S. — wrote, “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”
Since use of another’s idea does not deprive him of its use, no conflict over its use is possible; ideas, therefore, are not candidates for property rights.
–
Stephan Kinsella:
"Ideas are not naturally scarce. However, by recognizing a right in an ideal object, one creates scarcity where none existed before.
As Arnold Plant explains:
“It is a peculiarity of property rights in patents (and copyrights) that they do not arise out of the scarcity of the objects which become appropriated. They are not a consequence of scarcity. They are the deliberate creation of statute law, and, whereas in general the institution of private property makes for the preservation of scarce goods, tending . . . to lead us “to make the most of them,” property rights in patents and copyrights make possible the creation of a scarcity of the products appropriated which could not otherwise be maintained.”
Bouckaert also argues that natural scarcity is what gives rise to the need for property rules, and that IP laws create an artificial, unjustifiable scarcity.
As he notes:
“Natural scarcity is that which follows from the relation¬ship between man and nature. Scarcity is natural when it is possible to conceive of it before any human, institutional, contractual arrangement. Artificial scarcity, on the other hand, is the outcome of such arrangements. Artificial scarcity can hardly serve as a justification for the legal framework that causes that scarcity. Such an argument would be completely circular. On the contrary, artificial scarcity itself needs a justification.”
Thus, Bouckaert maintains that “only naturally scarce entities over which physical control is possible are candidates for” protection by real property rights.
Only tangible, scarce resources are the possible object of interpersonal conflict, so it is only for them that property rules are applicable. Thus, patents and copyrights are unjustifiable monopolies granted by government legislation. It is not surprising that, as Palmer notes, “[m]onopoly privilege and censorship lie at the historical root of patent and copyright.” It is this monopoly privilege that creates an artificial scarcity where there was none before.
–
Stephan Kinsella:
"Let us recall that IP rights give to pattern-creators partial rights of control—ownership—over the tangible property of everyone else. The pattern-creator has partial ownership of others’ property, by virtue of his IP right, because he can prohibit them from performing certain actions with their own property.
IP rights change the status quo by redistributing property from individuals of one class (tangible-property owners) to individuals of another (authors and inventors). Prima facie, therefore, IP law trespasses against or “takes” the property of tangible property owners, by transferring partial ownership to authors and inventors. It is this invasion and redistribution of property that must be justified in order for IP rights to be valid.
because the only way to recognize ideal rights, in our real, scarce world, is to allocate rights in tangible goods. For me to have an effective patent right — a right in an idea or pattern, not in a scarce resource — means that I have some control over everyone else’s scarce resources.
For example, by inventing a new technique for digging a well, the inventor can prevent all others in the world from digging wells in this manner, even on their own property.
There is, in fact, no reason why merely innovating gives the innovator partial ownership of property that others already own. "
So, you are either a statist/IP-thug, living in la-la-land and honestly believe that scarcity exists in ideas, or must admit you are wrong.
Indeed.
I know; I was just presenting what I considered the implications of your argument, not a restatement of only what you presented explicitly.
My point is that I see no difference between that “incentive problem” and that of any other profit-seeking activity, which most people, including you, do not consider to be a problem. (I expand on my point more in my next post in which I respond to M1ThinkTank.)
As I said, it is impossible to demarcate property in ideas. For they are of your internal world, in which you have no competition; only things of the external world are able to be property. Now do not interpret what I am saying here as a general argument against ‘IP’. I know that many other people make similar assertions and just end there, like that is all that they had to say to fend off any arguments. What I am instead advocating, in saying that, is that we make sure that we understand that to avoid speaking nonsense and muddling the issue. From what I have seen, many of the dumb errors that people make regarding this issue, not to say that you are making any of them, stem from pretending that it is possible to “own” ideas. To avoid speaking nonsense, we always need to talk of setting property ‘rights’ in classes of goods, which is really what ‘IP’ is. For example, when you have a copyright for a book that you wrote, what you “own” is any matter arranged in that certain way, not a specific “idea”. Again, whether this is expedient or not is what we need to determine.
If you understand what I am saying here, it will be easy to understand what was wrong with Stranger calling the anti-‘IP’ people “intellectual communists”. What I am saying here is that it is not even possible to put ideas in a commune! The only way to do that is not somehow connect our internal worlds together through telepathy or something, which, clearly, we have yet to do!
If you do not mind, I would like to hear what you think would make more sense than our current system.
What I explained was true even before he died.
Because it is not published, they are not able to use copyright protections. They want people to be able to read it; but they do not want any one to copy it. So they came up with a solution.
It is not convenient; it is just a definition. I do not understand it well enough to give you a good definition; so I suggest that you just look it up.
The contracts.
Where did I do that?
What you separated into “X” and “R”, I put as one variable in my example, in which I described why I did that.
Try to be respectful.
Why should I try to refute what I already agreed was the truth several times?
How is it even possible to not “give [me] that”?
I did not imply that no research was being done. “Less than” does not mean nothing.
It probably is easier to monitor where a producer sells their oil, what they price it at, and what their profits are than it is to figure out the first two things yourself and guess what your profits will be. In the same way, it probably also it easier to monitor what arrangement of marks a producer puts on the books that they sell than it is to figure that out yourself. I am not sayng anything controversial here. If it were just as difficult for the first producer to figure out what the do than the second, economic calculation would not be possible and the price system would not spread any knowledge.
It was an arbitrary separation, along with the one between X and R.
Because you did not try to respond to my example, I will post it again:
Producers, whether of oil or books, need to (a) choose what, where, how, and when to sell their products, which, for books, includes the author choosing what marks to put on the pages, the producer choosing which author to publish, the graphic designer choosing what to make the cover, et cetera, and, for oil, includes where to sell the oil, what to price it at, et cetera, and (b) produce it, which, for books, includes using printing presses, paper, and other materials, and, for oil, includes retrieving it, refining it, and other things. What they ultimately sell is always a finished, physical product of the external world, which, in these examples, happen to be books and oil. Now the first producer, in either case, has to decide all of the first category and has to perform all of the second category. But the second producer, although he has to perform all of the second category, does not have to do all of the second category; for they are able to just copy the practices of the first producer.
Now you may admit that it is not a different of category but it is a difference in degree; that is, you may tell me that you agree with what I am saying but that the cost of the things that the second producer is able to copy from the first is much higher in the case of books in comparison to that of oil. And, if you say that, we will be getting somewhere. For my point is just that the ‘utilitarian’ case for ‘IP’ applies to every single instance in which people are seeking profit; the only possible difference is what the difference is between the cost of the first category that the first producer has to pay and the cost of the first category that the second producer has to pay. It might be the case that, on one hand, deciding what marks to put on the page of a booking, deciding what cover to put, and other things costs a lot more than, on the other hand, deciding where to sell the oil, how to transport it, and the other things.
“So, you are either a statist/IP-thug, living in la-la-land and honestly believe that scarcity exists in ideas, or must admit you are wrong.”
First of all I don’t necessarily agree that property rights are ownership of scarce resources. I can own air for example. But I’m not arguing that I can own information, nor that it is a scarce resource. THAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS BY NOW. Paper is scarce. Binded pieces of paper are even more scarce. I can own those things.
But continue to strawman my arguments, argue against things I’ve never even implied, post quotes from Kinsella which don’t address any of my arguments etc.
I haven’t read the Kinsella paper, but it seems to me that, whether or not you subscribe to the utilitarian benefits of IP, it remains that it requires a coercive state to enforce it. It’s not simply an argument of “would we be better off with IP or without IP?” rather “would we be better off with IP and a coercive state to enforce or, or without both?” Absent the state, there would be no way to deal with the 3rd party copiers (other than societal ostracization or exclusionism, which doesn’t seem likely.)
As others have suggested, the burden would be on the creators themselves to determine how to best market their talents without being able to rely on the state to suppress their competition. In some cases, like industrial processes, this may involve restricting the sale of the idea to a small number of customers, who would possibly agree to be held liable if they allowed a 3rd party to subsequently appropriate the idea (as pointed out, this approach quickly becomes unfeasable with mass distribution.)
For writers and artists, the end of IP could mean a shift in importance away from old content (royalties, etc.) and towards future content. These creators would quickly realize that their most marketable asset is no longer their past catalogue, but rather their future creative potential. This might mean that, without IP, instead of consumers patronizing a creator by buying their book or CD once it comes out, they will instead pay the artist BEFORE the artist produces the content. Since the benefits of a good book or piece of music are so diffuse, a popular, say, musician might set up a website and pledge to release his next album once he has received contributions totaling x dollars.
So in essence, if there exists sufficient demand for the creative talent of an individual, he will have plenty of means to profit from this talent even without the protection of IP.