A book in the garbage still has a contract and a commercial claim attached to it. And everyone must respect it, else they establish a legal precedent to not respect any claims.
What part of “uninterested 3rd party” are you not getting? There is a LOT of legal history to this phrase.
In a nongovernment spontaneous legal order, it is true that IP would be nothing like it is not; but it would be similar.
I beg to differ.
Please read my post earlier above and then Leoni’s essay.
Link? I stopped because of all the errors. My time here on Earth is scarce.
Edit: too late post; but, e =mc2 is already common knowledge. If it wasn’t it would be logically subject to contract laws unless someone else discovered it entirely by themselves.
I didn’t realize that there was something rational to this false dichotomy between “public knowledge” and “private knowledge” (oh, and “information” and whatever that is all about)
By what I said, I meant of course "an important formula like ‘e=mc2’ which you were trying to sell and wasn’t in this pseudo-category of things.
edit: so you stopped valuing your important formula because another person had it? I guess he acted on the information better than you, or before you and all you want to do is get more than what your “act of creation”, spreading the information to one person, is really worth.
And what errors, actually, did you find? Proofs please.
Also, uninterested third party has legal history. But thats legal history in our government order.
Who cares? In the same essay, Leoni dismantles the legal idea of the importance of obligation.
The third party can read the book in the garbage, but not copy it. Else someone is liable to someone else. And ripping the cover page on which is the contract written on it does not “destroy” the contract.
So you are saying that people should be allowed to ‘own’ classes of goods, arrangements of matter, patterns, or whatever you want to call it? To see why I am saying that you are implying that, read my previous post.
You did it again. Completely glazed over the fact that I still own the book, did not sell “the book” in all of it’s glorious property rights to that person. I still own the book, regardless of whether or not I have possession of it.
Somebody stole my TV and threw it in the garbage. I had some number written on the inside of the screen or a label saying this is property of Sammy D. If I find that TV, I get to take it from anybody who possesses it, without compensation. It is my TV. They were a third party and yet, I still get to take it from them. If they broke my T.V., they are responsible for that.
“house” refers to a specific house in this case: A = W…Y, which W to Y are its atrributes.
I proposed a contract made after the house is referred to, allowing me to use “house” to mean “this house”.
This is separate from all houses A, which is not referenced by W…Y, but perhaps only W…V.
Then a contract as a class is merely, AB = AC, where W…YB = W…YC, C being the conditions.
Its just the Boole-Jevons conditional. C is the class to which A now belongs insofar as it also B.
Edit: Liability.
If third party took from second party, if second party was willing, they are liable to first party. If second party was unwilling, then third party liable. In garbage can example. Book copied by third party is liability of third party.
If no one is liable (i.e. a page by unknown source appears), then copiers merely cease to copy and perhaps pay nothing.
And what errors, actually, did you find? Proofs please.
What sort of proof do you want? I think I’ve done my best for how many terms you’ve concocted but left undefined. What would entertain me now is to grant, arguendo, that IP law is compatible with libertarian grundnorms. Please detail your criteria I requested on the first page:
Our actual task though is determining what is legitimate. What you need to do is prove that your stance is compatible with other libertarian grundnorms, or state that you profess whatever other flavour of authoritarianism and we’ll call it a day. Here’s what I want you to show: a clear criteria for the determination of when a copy-“right” expires; why Sam’s Book of Poems is valid for copyright but another infinitely repeatable, non-scarce concept or pattern, like that of the letter ‘A’, is not; and again, how this is all compatible with libertarianism.
So, if the second party gives the book to the third party to copy, the second party it liable.
So, if the third party stole it from the second party, third party is liable.
So, if neither the second party gave it to the third nor the third party steal it from the second, the third party is liable.
I am guessing that you meant to establish the first two, which appear pretty uncontroversial, and then show that the third follows from the second. But, from my restatements, it is plain that it does not follow at all.
Different paper. Have you read the link you provided at all? It says provided by the editor of that book from Il politico; it does not say it comes from that book.
Different paper. What I cited was 18 pages and new translation of a 1962 work. What do you have against buying books?
Ryan,
You are mistaken. The contract comes with the book, because it is a class. Only the book is an object. Third party is liable in the last instance, because the book was never provided to anyone without a contract (else it would be a free good, not an economic good). It will say so in the contract. But once the contract is done, that it.
All the third party with book it got from the garbage can do is read it. It cannot copy it. It is lucky. It got to read the book. But it does not own the information because such a claim already exists and is public (probably written in the book, for instance).
“The issue is whether our contract has anything to do with other people. The original thing that you responded to was supposed to show that only contracts like you are explaining work. But what follows from that is that it is not possible to use contracts to make ‘IP’ anything like it is right now. How would your contract have anything to do with a third party who happens to find a lost copy of your book on the street? Unless you are telling me that they are not even allowed to pick it up, read it, and get rid of it, your argument does not work. For, in picking it up, reading it, and getting rid of it, the third party does not necessarily handle it in a different way than in copying it. So it does not make sense to say that, whether you have a contract with them or not, you still partially own the book in any way that implies that third parties should be able to read it but not copy it.”
Here we go, now we get to the heart of the matter. My contract does nothing except give the rights to read the book to someone as long as they don’t have the intention of copying it. When someone abandons a copy of my book, they haven’t abandoned the entire rights to the book. I still retain my rights to the book even though it’s in the garbage. They have only abandoned their rights to the book, which is to read it without the intention to copy it. If someone picks it up, they are only homesteading the right to read the book without the intention of copying it. They can’t gain my rights to the book because I haven’t given them up yet (regardless of whether or not I have possession of it). So they would still be violating my rights if they read the book with the intention of copying it. Again, no contract is necessary because those rights are still retained by me. The reason that the person who bought the book from me couldn’t copy it wasn’t because he signed a contract saying he wouldn’t. It’s because he didn’t own the rights to handle the book in that way.
Let’s just say I sold full rights to the book over to him, but he signed a contract stating he wouldn’t copy it and sell it. He could still break that contract, copy it and sell it. The only consideration he would have to make is how much X was when he stated “I hereby transfer you X amount of money to you on condition that I copy this book and sell it”. See there he has given over property rights on a condition. If he fails to make that payment he has violated the other person’s rights to that money. But he now fully owns every copy of the book he made and can do what ever he wants with it because he owned the original book.
Now let’s go back to before I made the transaction. Instead of having him sign a contract, I sell him a partial conditional right to some property, and nobody else can gain more than that partial conditional right in that property from him. Even if he abandon it, I still own the rights to that property I had at the time I sold him those rights. If anybody picks it up, they have only homesteaded that partial conditional right. They are in the exact same condition as he was when he had the book.
But the handling of the book does not necessarily differ.
Sure.
That is mysticism. Nothing observable is in the book to make it so. Plus, even if I assume that it is not mysticism, I already showed that the handling of the book between reading it and in copying it do not necessarily differ. So you have to just accept that you are advocating that people should be able to ‘own’ arrangements of matter. You did not really address the main points of my post.
No, I was not implying that something being observable in the object making it property is the necessary and sufficient condition of it being property. I was just implying that, because no other people are around to relate to the book in any way, the only thing left is that something observable in the book has to make it property. But that is clearly absurd.
Different paper. Have you read the link you provided at all? It says provided by the editor of that book from Il politico; it does not say it comes from that book.
Different paper. What I cited was 18 pages and new translation of a 1962 work.
It says by Bruno Leoni and it is about obligations. I thought maybe it contained the substance you are unable to provide. A lot of what you are saying doesn’t make sense. Leoni is supposed to be pretty good, but I have plenty to read, and this thread is getting pretty bad.
What do you have against buying books?
You just told me about this book like an hour ago? Making idiotic comments like this doesn’t get me interested in what you have to say.