“Trademark versus Copyright and Patent, or: Is All IP Evil?“, Mises Economics Blog (Feb. 11, 2009)
Archived comments below.
Update:
- Trademark and Goats-on-the-Roof Bans (Sep. 17, 2010)
Trademark versus Copyright and Patent, or: Is All IP Evil?
I think we can all now agree that copyright and patent are evil and should be abolished (hey, if they can say we are all Keynesians now…).
But what about other forms of IP, such as trademark? One problem is that IP is not really property at all, and is just an umbrella term linking distinct, mostly artificial, positive rights created by the legislature out of thin air–”legally recognized rights arising from some type of intellectual creativity, or that are otherwise related to ideas.” (Against Intellectual Property, p. 9.)
Thus patent gives a monopoly to a way of using, or configuration of, practical, useful devices (inventions); while copyright gives a monopoly to certain uses of original creative patterns of information (works of authorship like novels or paintings). While trademark protects a set of rights clustered around one’s reputation (but then, so do defamation laws); and trade secret is more like a type of contractual right to keep people from revealing secret information.
Bad Connections
From what I’ve seen, it is clear to most activist-opponents of IP that copyright and patent are terrible. But it is not so clear what is wrong with other types of IP, such as trade secret and trademark. What about these, and other rights, such as various other trademark-related rights (rights against “trademark dilution,” certain forms of cybersquatting, and various “unfair competition” claims); mask work protection available for semiconductor integrated circuit (IC) designs, boat hull designs, and (proposed) rights in databases, or collections of information? (See Against Intellectual Property, p. 13, summarizing various types of IP.)
The “intellectual” part of IP improperly lumps together conceptually distinct types of laws; and “propery” improperly begs the question. So these must be treated in turn. Mask work, boat hull, and database rights are very similar to copyright at least in what is problematic about them; so they, too, like patent and copyright, are obviously unjust.
As for trade secret–I deal with this in a short section (pp. 56-57) of Against Intellectual Property, as the bulk of the article deals with copyright and patent, and trade secret law is not nearly as problematic.
Trademark
So we come to trademark. I deal with this on pp. 58-59 of Against Intellectual Property, and also in some detail in Reply to Van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer (esp. pp. 59-63). In my view, the new-fangled extensions of trademark law–rights against “trademark dilution” and cybersquatting, etc.–are obviously invalid. Further, federal trademark law is problematic since it is not authorized in the Constitution (copyright and patent are, but not trademark; trademark relies on the Interstate Commerce Clause, and thus the federal trademark law only covers trademark connected to interstate commerce, and does not preempt state law, so that state trademark law still governs many intra-state situations).
But even if federal trademark law were abolished, as well as modern extensions such as rights against trademark dilution, even common law trademark is problematic, for three primary reasons. First, it is enforced by the state, which gets everything wrong. Second (see First), the test of “consumer confusion” is usually applied ridiculously, treating consumers like indiscriminating idiots. Third, and worst of all, the right at issue is the right of the defrauded consumer, not the competitor. Trademark law ought to be reformed by abolishing the right of trademark “owners” to sue “infringers” (except perhaps as proxy for customers, when consent can be presumed or proved), and treating this as a case of the customer’s right to sue a vendor who defrauds him as to the nature of the good purchased. Some might argue that this is only a minor change, but it is not: such a change would make it clear that “knockoffs” are usually not a violation of anyone’s rights: the buyer of a $10 “Rolex” is almost never defrauded–he knows what he’s getting. Yet by giving an enforceable trademark right to the user of a mark, he can sue knockoff companies even though their customers are not defrauded and in fact are perfectly happy to buy the knockoff products.
By the way, examples of trademark abuse are legion. It’s not only copyright and patent that give rise to outrageous examples of injustice. See, e.g., Chip Wood, A Bully-Boy Beer Brewer; Justin Levine, 9th Circuit Appeals Court Says Its Ok To Criticize Trademarks After All, Against Monopoly (09/26/2007); Kinsella, Trademarks and Free Speech, Mises Blog (Aug. 8, 2007); Kinsella, Beemer must be next… (BMW, Trademarks, and the letter “M”), Mises Blog (Mar. 20, 2007); Kinsella, Hypocritical Apple (Trademark), Mises Blog (Jan. 11, 2007); ECJ: “Parmesian” Infringes PDO for “Parmigiano Reggiano”, I/P Updates (Feb. 27, 2008); Engadget Mobile Threatened For Using T-Mobile’s Trademarked Magenta, Techdirt (Mar. 31, 2008). [See also Court Orders Dean Guitars to Stop Production of Various Models After Losing Legal Battle Against Gibson.]
Now IP proponents often assume trademark law is unproblematic, and then try to lump types of IP together, so that they stand or fall together. For example it could be argued that if you are for reputation, then you must be for trademark; and if you are for trademark, you must be for “intellectual property”; and thus, you cannot be opposed to IP in principle, so you cannot oppose copyright and patent. (See, e.g., the comments here, making this argument.)
Now one fallacy of this argument is that it relies on the positive law conceptual grouping of different areas of artificial, legislated law to make its point. But there is no reason one has to favor the validity of copyright or patent law, even if one supported trademark law, say. Each has different defects and a different nature.
The other fallacy is the view at work here that there is no such thing as reputation, or even identity, absent trademark law. But this is incorrect. Of course people and firms can have reputations even if trademark law is nonexistent. All that is required is that people be able to identify other people and firms, and communicate. Pro-trademark arguments often implicitly assume that this is not possible, absent state-enforced trademark law, which is ridiculous. For example, how can there be fraud (as in my theory), if the vendor is free to call himself whatever he wants? What if Joe Schmoe sets up a knockoff McDonald’s restaurant? Well, it is McDonald’s–that’s what it calls itself, and the “real” McDonald’s can’t stop it without trademark rights–so why is it fraud? Well, because the consumer is (per assumption) deceived as to the nature of the goods he is buying. As I argued in Reply to Van Dun (pp. 62-63),
“this response would be easy to overcome. It need only be possible for the customer to adequately identify what the condition is. Language is not infinitely malleable, and communication is (undeniably) possible. If pressed, the customer could specify that the purchase is conditioned on the current store he is in being owned by the same [McDonald’s] company first started at such and such date and address, and so on. There is no reason it would be impossible to identify a given vendor without traditional trademark law, just as it is not impossible to identify fellow humans, despite the fact that we do not usually have trademarks on our names (in fact often have identical names, e.g. John Smith).
The other thing to realize is that consumers are not stupid. They can spot a knockoff easily. And the trademark frauds are usually going to be marginal low-life types, who could never compete with a legitimate business anyway–the kind of company that makes knockoff Rolexes, which doesn’t fool its customers.
Consider. You have a successful burger joint, let’s call it “Tommy’s.” Now, suppose they have no trademark, and other Tommy’s pop up. So if you want the original Tommy’s, where do you go? You go to the original Tommy’s. Which just calls itself The Original Tommy’s. (A similar phenomenon is in Twitter, where some well-known people and celebrities’ names are taken, like dvorak–so John Dvorak just goes by “THErealDVORAK“. End of problem. No anti-Twittersquatting law needed.)
If some other Tommy’s tries to deceive customers into thinking it’s owned by the same guy that owns the original Tommy’s, then they are eventually going to get sued. Or have only marginal customers as people figure out this new place is run by seedy liars.
The truth is that any legitimate businessman wants to use a unique name. Just like people manage to distinguish their identities, even when they have the same names.
Archived comments:
Comments (129)
more archived comments:
{ 133 comments }
I am not misrepresenting Kinsella. This is the core argument of his position. He claims ideas can not be property because they are non scarce, and property rights are man made rule in order to resolve conflicts among them.l
“BTW, ideas cannot be property because they aren’t physical”
Why is that?
Let’s say I wrote a poem and it is only in my head. Can I do whatever is implied by the concept `owning` with that poem?
ktibuk, you equivocate on the word “non-scarce”, since you include “the act of copying” among “scarce things.” Acts aren’t things. So it is a misrepresentation (intentional or not).
And in your poetry example, that question doesn’t make sense to me. Can you spell out “doing whatever is implied by the concept ‘owning’ with that poem” in more concrete terms?
So IP Socialist, ktibuk, it is a thought crime to memorize a poem? Anything that enters my conscience is wholly mine and is not a copy of the original.
Ideas are non scarce.
Why?
Because they can be copied infinitely.
This means before any copying takes place they are in fact scarce.
Since ideas are man made and not nature given free goods, and since they are scarce before any copying takes place this means they can be, they should be property of the individual that homesteads, produces them.
If they are property before they become non scarce thanks to copying, any copying without the consent of the owner is aggression against property.
That is why saying ideas are non scarce thus they can not be property, is a logical fallacy.
By “owning” I am talking about all the rights associated by and comes with the concept of ownership. If there is such concept called ownership, it implies a certain set of rights regarding a property.
What is it that you can not do with an idea (a poem for example) that is in your head, that you can not do with any other tangible good that you own, regarding the rights that come with ownership?
Why do you need a distinction of tangible and intangible when it comes to the concept of ownership?
Yes Marcelo,
Just like the bread you stole and ate. It is now in your stomach and it is yours.
Great argument.
“Why do you need a distinction of tangible and intangible when it comes to the concept of ownership?”
lol
A free market supporter could never argue against copyright, since the owner of a work of authorship has a right not to sell their works at the price of its rent. Owners can simply sell limited use of their property (works of authorship) — and they can legally protect their property against unauthorized use (trespass) by people who never entered any contract with them….
I covered it all here:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/009414.asp
and here:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/009365.asp
We’ll discuss trademarks next time…
Stephan,
Thanks for your response. I see your point about the terms of agreement. I agree that IP is illegitimate under libertarian (natural) law, but I just always assumed trademarks were an extension of contracts against fraud. I don’t think copyrights and patents were mentioned on the Articles of Confederation were they?
But as far as the justification against IP that “ideas are not scarce” goes, I’m not so sure about that. I mean, ideas come from the thoughts of a human mind, and the human mind is a ‘scarce’ thing. Thoughts are ‘scarce’ because humans are not immortal and thus cannot think forever. It takes time to hold an idea in ones mind (anyone person can hold only one thought at a time, and time is scarce so ideas cannot be unlimited in a mind per se).
Wouldn’t a better justification against IP be the fact that ideas have no “physical” properties (kind of like energy. No one owns energy, but the oil and electric companies own the means to deliver energy, big difference) and thus cannot actually be traded, bartered, restituted (you stole my idea without me asking! I demand that you erase my patented ideas from your memory, and compensate me double the ideas!), acquisitioned (Ideas aren’t laying around to be “picked up” in your mind) or really be “owned” in any meaningful sense (I own that line of thought, but where did I keep it?)? Isn’t it like trying to own someone else’s free will?
I know this makes it sound like IP is a form of thought crime, and thus a form of censorship (in a way, it actually is) but what I’m trying to get at is that, instead of arguing that “ideas are not scarce”, IMO it’s better to argue that as far as ideas go, there is nothing to really “own” in a physical sense, and thus cannot be subject to property rights.
Isn’t that a good idea?
Ktibuk,
Ideas are non scarce. Why? Because they can be copied infinitely.This means before any copying takes place they are in fact scarce.
Second statement is a non sequitur – Ideas are not non-scarce because they can be copied, they are non-scarce because anybody can think or figure out them.
Example: There were TWO scientists that came to the same conclusion as to how species evolve: Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell. It would not be possible for Russell to have the same idea as Darwin if in fact ideas are scarce BEFORE copyright or before ideas are known – either Darwin possessed the idea of Natural Selection or he did not. It is clear he did NOT, for it is logical to conclude that Alfred Russell had the exact same idea at the same time, before any of the two men communicated with each other. Ergo, Ideas are NON scarce even if not known publicly.
Rebel,
I mean, ideas come from the thoughts of a human mind, and the human mind is a ‘scarce’ thing.
This is a Fallacy of Composition. Just because ideas sprung from scarce human minds, it does not follow ideas are equally scarce. It is like saying that since Birgit Nilsson is dead, then the role of Brunhilde must be equally dead (which is wrong since any good singer can play that part).
@ktibuk:
“Why?
Because they can be copied infinitely.
This means before any copying takes place they are in fact scarce.”
While an idea is in your head, it is part of your body (and thus your property) until it’s ‘copied’ via publishing to some other tangible property – a book, hard drive, etc.. In order for acceptance, critique,= or enjoyment of your idea, it needs to be ‘copied’ to some one else’s property – their hard drive, their notebook, their brain. The moment someone else (legitimately or illegitimately) receives your idea, it’s no longer scarce, by definition.
Regarding the scarcity/copying argument, the idea is “scarce” only so long as it’s kept within the originator’s mind. Once he shows it to anyone else, a copy has been made in that other person’s mind, and if a thought can be owned in any sense, the “copy” now belongs to that other person. Presumably, that second person did not psychically rip the thought from the unwilling mind of the originator, and assuming he didn’t physically torture him to make him divulge it either, he could only have gained it through voluntary gift or purchase. If one has a property right in the contents of one’s mind, I can’t see how the originator of the idea can prevent the second person from using the legitimately acquired “copy” as he sees fit without blatantly violating his rights.
And quite aside from the scarcity argument, there’s the fact that preventing someone from using an idea involves curtailing his rights to the use of his tangible property.
ktibuke, Francisco Torres (as usual) nails the problem with your argument.
Non scarce things can indeed be copied indefinitely, but that is not what makes the thing non scarce. My car can go up to about 140 miles an hour, but being able to go up to about 140 miles an hour is not what makes something a car.
Hence, it’s clear that you haven’t shown that ideas are non scarce before copying. Hence, your main objection against Kinsella’s argument doesn’t follow.
Sasha Redata, your version of copyright is fine as far as agreed, contracted parties are concerned. However, it is neither the current prevailing view of copyright, nor can it rope in innocent third parties. . .and so it fails on two accounts.
IP Socialist, ktibuk, if someone can copy my bread then who am I to deny them use of their property?
waywardfarer:
“And quite aside from the scarcity argument, there’s the fact that preventing someone from using an idea involves curtailing his rights to the use of his tangible property.”
That’s the whole idea, you may be sure. It should tell anyone who’s paying attention who the real IP socialists are. It isn’t libertarians who impose restrictions on the use of other people’s property, and it isn’t libertarians who corrupt the language in order to sway people to their point of view. The argument for IP is just another clever argument why your physical goods should be another’s to control. It’s no different at all from the drug warriors’ insistence, at gunpoint, that you don’t grow certain plants.
Benjamin Burkley:
I just had this thought. If I created a B. McDonalds, that looked exactly the same at a R. McDonalds
with the arches and everything. Then I messed up really bad, had terrible food, poisioned someone, and my restaraunt failed. Would that not be causing violence to the name or R. McDonalds,
No, you can’t commit violence against “names”.
even though it is not the same restaraunt. People would see it as the same because there would be no external difference. Meaning, R. McDonalds business may be damaged, through no fault of their own, due to someone using the same type of store.
There is no right to “not be damaged” in this way. R. McD’s may be “damaged” by Burger King opening a competing chain too. So what? You have a right to the physical integrity of your property, not to its value.
I am having difficulty trying to understand this Stephen. I have thought of Benjamin’s scenario before regarding IP and have tried to create an argument against Mcdonalds claim that the 2nd Mcdonalds is doing harm and violating property rights.
I understand that violence can not be perpretrated on a “name” but behind the spectrum of the “name” is also reputation(quality and service standards). Would this not cause customers to negatively view the initial Mcdonalds?This could potentially cause decreased profits for the 1st Mcdonalds by the 2nd Mcdonalds actions.
I don’t understand why you use Burger King as an example because this is cleary distinguishable to the consumer when deciding where to purchase their fast food.
I have not read your book yet but look forward to it. Thanks for creating some recent discussion on this subject.
“Mises was wrong. However, his views on this matter were so close to anarchy to be almost indistinguishable. See Rothbard.”
Can we then put a stop to the charade and rename the institute as Rothbard Institute, and the blog as Rothbard Anarchist Blog?
Why all the sniping about opinions that don’t conform exactly to those of Mises? It’s called the Ludwig von Mises Institute because it’s dedicated to thought in the tradition of the Austrian school, of which Mises was the most prominent thinker. That doesn’t mean it has to dogmatically adhere to his works only. For that matter, it hardly adheres unswervingly to Rothbard’s, either. I seem to recall from “Against Intellectual Property” that Kinsella himself differs with some of Rothbard’s theories on the subject.
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/121556
check this bad boy out. Text-to-Speech a violation of the copyright of held by the creators of books…? lol.
“Why all the sniping about opinions that don’t conform exactly to those of Mises? It’s called the Ludwig von Mises Institute because it’s dedicated to thought in the tradition of the Austrian school, of which Mises was the most prominent thinker. That doesn’t mean it has to dogmatically adhere to his works only. For that matter, it hardly adheres unswervingly to Rothbard’s, either. I seem to recall from “Against Intellectual Property” that Kinsella himself differs with some of Rothbard’s theories on the subject.”
People are free to adopt Rothbard’s anarchist bent, but there isn’t anything Austrian or classical liberal about this.
A broad spectrum of opinions can still exist, even if we are to retain the main thrust of “minimal government and individual freedom”.
To pronounce all other views as wrong, as Kinsella did – e.g. just because others decide to work within a minarchist framework, instead of an “all state stuff is evil by default” anarchist framework – is terrible.
We are not here to worship von Mises but to honor the Austrian school, of which Mises was the greatest 20th century contributor. Did Mises follow Menger and Bohm-Bawerk word for word like a Confucian scholar preserving the imperial bureaucracy? Not at all. Mises kept what he believed to be true, discarded fallacies, and discovered better theory- without ever leaving the Austrian umbrella.
Of course it is ok to say that government is a bad idea. Much supportive theory for anarcho-capitalism may be found in Mises’s insights- especially on calculation.
Trying to improve upon and expand Austrian theory does Mises a great honor and in no way diminishes his epic achievements.
i agree – but to subscribe to anarcho-capitalism is only an opinion, it is not embedded in austrian economics per se. likewise with anti-IP sentiments – which is a debatable point altogether.
like it or not though, the state is here to stay. if people choose to be organized as such by their own volition – well, not much can be done about it.
@Torres,
“Second statement is a non sequitur – Ideas are not non-scarce because they can be copied, they are non-scarce because anybody can think or figure out them.”
Ideas are not non scarce because anybody can independently come up with it. All the scarcity issue is dependent on the ability to copy easily and cheaply.
Anyways, I don’t have a problem with independent discovery. I only claim that “copying without the owners consent is aggression”. If there is an independent discovery, which is possible but doesn’t make ideas non scarce free goods, then that issue is outside the sphere of this discussion or any ethics discussion.
Is copying without the consent of the owner aggression or not?
If not why not?
@Greego
“While an idea is in your head, it is part of your body (and thus your property) until it’s ‘copied’ via publishing to some other tangible property – a book, hard drive, etc.. In order for acceptance, critique,= or enjoyment of your idea, it needs to be ‘copied’ to some one else’s property – their hard drive, their notebook, their brain. The moment someone else (legitimately or illegitimately) receives your idea, it’s no longer scarce, by definition.”
Yes but this can happen one of two ways. Just like homesteaded property can change hands one of two ways.
Either this happens legitimately, by the consent of the owner, or illegitimately, without the consent of the owner.
We are not talking about the mechanics of trade or sharing, but legitimacy of it. This is an ethics discussion.
“And quite aside from the scarcity argument, there’s the fact that preventing someone from using an idea involves curtailing his rights to the use of his tangible property.”
If you didn’t receive the property legitimately you can be stopped from using it, by force if necessary.
In order to claim you have right to whatever you want with a property first you need to show that you received it legitimately. There are only two legitimate ways to own a property. One is homesteading, producing it. The other is getting it from someone else with that persons consent.
And bear in mind you are not using just the tangible property that comes with IP. IP is ultimately embedded in that tangible property. Otherwise we wouldn’t have an issue.
“Presumably, that second person did not psychically rip the thought from the unwilling mind of the originator, and assuming he didn’t physically torture him to make him divulge it either, he could only have gained it through voluntary gift or purchase.”
Do you really know what voluntary is?
A writer wants to associate with another individuals and sells his IP on certain conditions. He or she wants nothing to do with you. You somehow get a copy of it, without the consent of the owner and you assume that it is a gift?
Only if the loot of the robbers are gifts to them given by the victims.
You know why abolishing private property rights is IP socialism other than the obvious reason?
Because it forces association between individuals. Just as socialism suppose to do.
Metallica wants nothing to do with person A. He doesn’t want to associate with him. But once person A downloads, copies Metallica’s songs he is getting into association despite the wishes of Metallica. Metallica can not say “No leave me alone” according to the IP socialists. He is a slave to the others. Because supposedly others have a “right to copy” Metallica’s songs (which is not a right but an entitlement because someone else bears the cost of producing the original that is being copied) which means others have right to associate with Metallica without their consent.
It is sad that despite all that has been said, a lot of people still do not understand what IP actually is. They assume that it means any sort of right related to intangible goods, and the converse, that lack of IP means lack of any such rights.
IP deals with very specific rights, not just any rights. There are two main things you need to be aware of:
– IP consists of several completely unrelated things (i.e. it is an umbrella term just as Stephan Kinsella writes)
– IP only deals with rights that apply to people that are not a party to contract (i.e. third parties). They have no relevant effect on the ability to make contracts and prosecute violators thereof. They do not create this ability, other laws do.
This means that even without IP, “stealing” intangible property is still illegal, it just has a different meaning. Without IP, it refers to a breach of contract, with IP it also means unauthorised competition. Before we can argue whether this is a good or a bad thing, we first need to understand what we’re talking about.
Please people, before you make arguments, make yourselves knowledgeable about IP.
@ktibuk
> A writer wants to associate with another individuals and
> sells his IP on certain conditions. He or she wants
> nothing to do with you. You somehow get a copy of it,
> without the consent of the owner and you assume that it
> is a gift?
Let’s say I insult the writer in question without his consent, call him a liar, thief, plagiator, whatever. He doesn’t want anything to do with that. Was my assumption that while his reputation and honour are indeed his, he doesn’t have a monopoly on them, incorrect?
Peter,
“It is sad that despite all that has been said, a lot of people still do not understand what IP actually is.”
I am afraid you are the one who doesn’t understand the issue. And you keep making the same mistake over over again.
When you say IP you mean, legislation that is made by the US congress.
“- IP consists of several completely unrelated things (i.e. it is an umbrella term just as Stephan Kinsella writes)”
No. IP means intellectual property. It is one thing. There may be different legislation that relates to different uses and different types protection of IP (some legitimate some illegitimate) but the issue is one.
“- IP only deals with rights that apply to people that are not a party to contract (i.e. third parties). They have no relevant effect on the ability to make contracts and prosecute violators thereof. They do not create this ability, other laws do.”
IP rights have nothing to do with contracts, second party or third party. Contracts may be used to increase the protection of IP and that is it.
IP is property and the only thing that matters when it comes to property is “if there is an aggression against property or not”. It is property that gives meaning to the concept of aggression, or initiation of violence. If there is no concept of property there can not be a concept of aggression.
Again, if your problem is with legislation that you think relates to IP then put it that way because I am sure everyone has problems with the legislation.
But the important aspect is the ethical aspect that causes people to have problems.
Peter,
“Let’s say I insult the writer in question without his consent, call him a liar, thief, plagiator, whatever. He doesn’t want anything to do with that. Was my assumption that while his reputation and honour are indeed his, he doesn’t have a monopoly on them, incorrect?”
That is not what I am saying.
Reputation is “other peoples evaluation of one person”. Without others there wouldn’t be a reputation. So you can not own you reputation.
But an IP is something different. Without others there would still be IP. And you can own it because its existence is solely dependent on you.
Robinson Crusoe can not have a reputation on his island. But if he wrote a poem he can own it.
@ktibuk
> IP means intellectual property. It is one thing.
After all these weeks, you have not succeeded in defining what you think IP is. Until you do that, no meaningful discussion is possible.
It appears to me that you have your very own definition of IP, which is not shared by anyone else. That’s not the main problem though, rather the lack of the definition is. Sans the definition, I am unable to make a meaningful representation of your arguments, therefore cannot respond to them.
@ktibuk
“You seem not to understand the issue. Please read the dialogue again and try to understand the issue.â€
Your entire argument can be summed up in this quote:
“before ‘the act of copying’ the IP is indeed scarce, thus can be property.â€
You are completely misunderstanding the function of scarcity in the determination of property rights. If a resource is subject to an INTRINSIC use-limit, demand beyond that limit will NECESSARILY be unmet. It is due to the inherent NATURE of the resource that exclusion becomes UNAVOIDABLE. Property rights arise when use DEPENDS on exclusion. Scarcity is NOT a necessity; it is a REALITY, and it is about time you learned the difference.
Peter,
“After all these weeks, you have not succeeded in defining what you think IP is. Until you do that, no meaningful discussion is possible.”
I have Peter, but you seem to be stuck at a place and can not comprehend what I am saying.
Again, ideas are abstract reflections of reality around us that we gather with our senses. IP is man made, homesteaded abstract ideas.
When you pick a nature given good, say apple and homestead it, pick it off the tree, change its natural state to fulfill your need it becomes yours.
When you pick a nature given abstraction say the concept of apple and many other concepts and make it into a story about a girl and her witch of a jealous step mother you create something, that is not nature given.
This is homesteading as much as homesteading the physical apple by picking off the tree.
Similarly, sounds are nature given resources that we gather with our ears. But when one individual makes a pattern out of them, compose music, again, which is not nature given, that person homesteaded a nature given resource.
One of the main problems of people who are having trouble with the concept of IP, is they don’t have a concept of homesteading property. Or they don’t really think about it.
If you think about homesteading, how something nature given becomes someones property, one would realize that the core issue is the individual who homesteads. Without that individual there is nothing and concepts of scarcity has no meaning.
@Drake
“You are completely misunderstanding the function of scarcity in the determination of property rights. If a resource is subject to an INTRINSIC use-limit, demand beyond that limit will NECESSARILY be unmet. It is due to the inherent NATURE of the resource that exclusion becomes UNAVOIDABLE. Property rights arise when use DEPENDS on exclusion. Scarcity is NOT a necessity; it is a REALITY, and it is about time you learned the difference.”
I am not misunderstanding anything, but you are making some assumptions that beg lots of questions.
Why would scarcity has to be function?
Why do you think “intrinsic use limit” (I assume this means natural scarcity as opposed to man made scarcity) has anything to do with property rights?
Or why do you assume possibility of conflict on a resource as the only defining aspect of property?
What does “owning” imply?
Can Robinson Crusoe, own anything since there is no other human being thus possibility of conflict between them?
You seem to be stuck on the wrong assumption that property rights are man made rights to resolve conflict.
Which is both wrong, and also state centric.
The original homesteader homesteads and makes something his property and he doesn’t think of any possible future conflicts. He just does it, and this is why property rights arise naturally. Without the need of a state or a planner.
And if some other person comes and aggress against his property he has a right to use violence against him because he homesteaded the natural resource and made it his.
Assuming property rights are about conflict resolution implies that many people gather together and some authority divide some loot among them by central planning.
The basic property right is self ownership. And every other right stems from that one right.
Also no conflict resolution meeting or possibility has shaped the right of self ownership. This right is a necessity of reality. Every individual necessarily is in ultimate control of his actions. Even if he is under threat and wouldn’t act certain way if he wasn’t. He is still making a conscious choice. And even if total mind and body control is possible in the future it would be aggression against the individual because he has already homesteaded his self.
Also about scarcity.
You seem to think that “the possibility of non scarcity in the future” is enough to make something non property.
Do you think it is impossible to make tangible goods non scarce in the future?
If not why have tangible property now?
> Again, ideas are abstract reflections of reality around us
> that we gather with our senses. IP is man made,
> homesteaded abstract ideas.
This is not a definition. This is just some mumbo jumbo. A definition is supposed to increase, not decrease, specificity.
Peter,
If you sincerely and honestly wanted to communicate you would ask specific questions about my use of terms.
Since you do not show any effort to understand I have to question your intellectual honesty and courage.
I am done with you.
ktibuk: “I don’t have a problem with independent discovery. I only claim that “copying without the owners consent is aggression”.”
Are you even aware that patent law has nothing to do with copying? (See my post Copypats.) Are you saying now that you oppose patent law?
@ktibuk
“I am not misunderstanding anything, but you are making some assumptions that beg lots of questions.â€
Excellent, I’m all ears…
“Why would scarcity has to be function?â€
Sorry, I don’t understand the question. Perhaps you could restate it.
“Why do you think ‘intrinsic use limit’ (I assume this means natural scarcity as opposed to man made scarcity) has anything to do with property rights?â€
When the use of a resource is subject to a natural limit, use by latecomers INFRINGES upon use by first-comers. If you favor the first-comer’s right to uninfringed use, you must NECESARILLY favor the exclusion of latecomers.
HOWEVER, when the use of a resource is NOT subject to a natural limit, additional use by latecomers does NOT infringe upon use by first-comers. Therefore, exclusion is NOT necessary. It is NOT required due to the nature of reality, but is in fact a CHOICE. I see no ethical justification for this choice, however. The justification for exclusion is that it is NECESSITATED by use.
“The basic property right is self ownership.â€
Your body is subject to natural usage limitations: you can’t be in two places at once; you can’t dance the salsa and the Jitter Bug at the same time. You were the first to use your body, and your continued use DEPENDS on the exclusion of others.
“You seem to think that ‘the possibility of non scarcity in the future’ is enough to make something non property.
Do you think it is impossible to make tangible goods non scarce in the future?
If not why have tangible property now?â€
You are confusing an individual good with a class of goods. A single car can only be driven in ONE direction at any one time. The natural limits on its use will NEVER change, regardless of how many other cars are produced in the future.
“Are you even aware that patent law has nothing to do with copying? (See my post Copypats.) Are you saying now that you oppose patent law?”
I have always been saying that. And you know it.
Drake,
Why are you nitpicking from my questions and only answer the ones you want?
You keep making assertions and assumptions without putting forth an argument.
“When the use of a resource is subject to a natural limit, use by latecomers INFRINGES upon use by first-comers. If you favor the first-comer’s right to uninfringed use, you must NECESARILLY favor the exclusion of latecomers.”
Why does this has to be a natural limit? What if I limit the use of the property for the others? I wrote a novel and no matter how easy to copy and reproduce it naturally, since I own it I can put a limit to the reproduction to it. You are claiming that I can not because potentially the thing can be copied endlessly. Cant you really see how absurd that is?
Drake,
“You are confusing an individual good with a class of goods. A single car can only be driven in ONE direction at any one time. The natural limits on its use will NEVER change, regardless of how many other cars are produced in the future.”
Why the distinction between and individual good and class of goods?
If cars are so abundant, why would there be any “conflict”, which seems to be the basis of your theory?
Isn’t air a free, non scarce good? Are all the air molecules that people breathe, without getting into conflict, identical?
I have two major issues with the argumentation in Kinsella’s book (“Against Intellectual Property”):
2. Scarcity as the basis for property: IMO all resources are scarce, thus scarcity can’t be the reason for the need of concept of property.
That is, here are only scarce owned resources. When whatever physical resource is homesteaded (originally “scarce” or not), there is a non-zero cost (e.g. effort) for its replacement. This seems to also apply to non-physical resources, such as private space.
This non-consideration of effort or transaction costs makes most of the examples in the book moot.
2. Contrary to Kinsella’s argument, copyright nor patent prevent anyone using their property as they see fit. It is the act of sale or allowing others to benefit from the products produced using the copyrighted work or the patent that is prohibited by the appropriate laws. You may use any patent for your private use as much as you see fit.
As an patent attorney Kinsella needs to know this, but still uses silly examples and clauses hiding this fact.
Should the ownership of resources include the right to use them to extract value out of information created by others?
Kinsella answers this himself (in a comment above): “So what? You have a right to the physical integrity of your property, not to its value.”
@ktibuk
“Why does this has to be a natural limit?”
1. When the use of a resource is NOT subject to a natural limit, additional use by latecomers does NOT infringe upon use by first-comers.
2. Therefore, exclusion is NOT required due to the nature of reality, but is in fact a CHOICE.
3. I see no ethical justification for this choice, however. Exclusion is only justified when NECESSITATED by use. In other words, exclusion is a DERIVATIVE of the right to use, not a right unto itself.
Above the first “2.” should be “1.” 
@ Drake
“1. When the use of a resource is NOT subject to a natural limit, additional use by latecomers does NOT infringe upon use by first-comers.”
Again why the natural limit? What if the additional use by latecomers do infringe upon the wishes, consent of the first owner. Why consent of the individual is not important, but natural limit is?
“2. Therefore, exclusion is NOT required due to the nature of reality, but is in fact a CHOICE.”
What requirement? Who decides on this requirement? The only requirement in ethics is that no one aggresses against others and their property.
And of course exclusion is a CHOICE. “CHOICE” is what defines property rights.
“3. I see no ethical justification for this choice, however. Exclusion is only justified when NECESSITATED by use. In other words, exclusion is a DERIVATIVE of the right to use, not a right unto itself.”
This choice comes with property rights either you see justification or not. Property rights means choice over the use of property.
As you can see you have nothing to do with the individual and his choices when it comes to your property theory. Can you understand why I call this position IP Socialism?
@ktibuk
“Again why the natural limit?â€
Exclusion is only justified when NECESSITATED by use. Exclusion is only NECESSITATED by use when there is a NATURAL LIMIT on use.
“What if the additional use by latecomers do infringe upon the wishes, consent of the first owner. Why consent of the individual is not important, but natural limit is?â€
I am defining exclusion as a DERIVATIVE of the right to use, not a right unto itself. The reason I do this is because I see no inherent natural law NEED for exclusion. I only see a need for USE.
“What requirement? Who decides on this requirement?â€
In order for me to wear my hat, you are REQUIRED not to. This is not determined by me. It is determined by the nature of my hat. Only one person can wear it at a time!
“And of course exclusion is a CHOICE.â€
Whether or not exclusion is a choice depends on what is being used.
“Property rights means choice over the use of property.â€
You are attempting to bundle the RIGHT TO USE resources together with the RIGHT TO EXCLUDE others from using resources. I am claiming that the RIGHT TO EXCLUDE can only be justified as a DERIVITIVE of the RIGHT TO USE. I do not think the RIGHT TO EXCLUDE can be justified on its own (without reference to USE), but I welcome you to try.
“And of course exclusion is a CHOICE.â€
Whether or not exclusion is a choice depends on what is being used. We cannot BOTH wear your hat at the same time: it is physically impossible.
After you have committed to wearing your hat, my exclusion from wearing it is NO LONGER a separate consideration and is not subject to your discretion, but follows AUTOMATICALLY from your original choice to wear it.
In other words, my exclusion is REQUIRED for and RESULTS from your use, and there is nothing either of us can do about it. Clearly, this is NOT the case with intellectual creations.
Daniel C said:
“Sasha Redata, your version of copyright is fine as far as agreed, contracted parties are concerned. However, it is neither the current prevailing view of copyright, nor can it rope in innocent third parties. . .and so it fails on two accounts.”
That’s incorrect. Third parties do not have a right to use other person’s property without his permission (trespass)… and my definition of copyright is the only definition of copyright. Read it all here:
February 13, 2009 at 1:28 pm
-
Sasha,
We’ve been over this before, and your scheme cannot rope in innocent third parties that did not agree to the contract. To see something is not to agress.
Furthermore, you’ve agreed before that your version of copyright is in essence ‘renting’ the thing in question from whomever created it. But current copyright law does not prevent a transfer of ownership; it is a conditional transfer of ownership—the ownership is still transfered. Yet, if I actually own the book on my bookshelf, then someone else who *sees* it commits no trespass against the original producer. Etc.
February 13, 2009 at 2:18 pm
-
@Drake
You keep repeating the same things and I am afraid we are running around in circles.
Please answer all the questions I asked before.
For example, I will repeat some of them you havent answered.
“Or why do you assume possibility of conflict on a resource as the only defining aspect of property?
What does “owning” imply?
Can Robinson Crusoe, own anything since there is no other human being thus possibility of conflict between them?”
-
ktibuk, did I miss it, or did you not respond to my post?
February 13, 2009 at 2:45 pm
-
Ktibuk,
Anyways, I don’t have a problem with independent discovery. I only claim that “copying without the owners consent is aggression”.Sir, these statements are contradictory – if you accept independent discovery, then it follows that ideas cannot be owned. So how can you argue in favor of limiting the copying of ideas to the consent of the “owner”? Either ideas have owners, or they do not. I contend they do not, especially since ideas can be independently discovered or reasoned into existence.
If there is an independent discovery, which is possible but doesn’t make ideas non scarce free goods […]
Ktibuk, the problem is that if there IS independent discovery, then ideas cannot be limited (that is, scarce). If they were, there would be a physical impossibility for two or more minds to produce the same idea. Ergo, ideas cannot be GOODS, or more to the point, cannot be scarce goods. Certainly, an inventor can sell his invention or a musician his composition to another person if they agree to it, but what the seller is selling is not the idea itself, but the physical manifestation of the idea (the invention) or the sheet of music. It is those things that are valued and not the ideas themselves.
Is copying without the consent of the owner aggression or not?
It is not unless the copier stole the original or first physical manifestation of the originator’s idea (i.e. drawings, writings, et cetera) that were not yet public.
If not why not?
Because ideas cannot be owned, as I have shown. If person A & B can hold the same idea in their minds, then there is no way for person A to put a fence around the idea or place it in storage, in the same way it would not be possible for B. Ergo, neither A or B can allege they have ownership of the idea.
-
Daniel’ I don’t know what post you are referring to. You said you agreed with Torres and I responded to him, which would cover your arguments.
-
Torres
“Sir, these statements are contradictory – if you accept independent discovery, then it follows that ideas cannot be owned.”
No it doesnt follow at all. It only follows that every party that homesteads an idea, independently discovers something, owns them. Why do you assume ownership requires exclusivity?
Ownership requires only homesteading, or receiving some good legitimately that was originally homesteaded.
“Ktibuk, the problem is that if there IS independent discovery, then ideas cannot be limited (that is, scarce).”
No. The thing that makes ideas non scarce is not independent discovery. It is the act of copying. How many original thinkers do you think that can come up with some original idea? It may not be only one but it certainly is not everyone, which would make ideas non scarce.
“Certainly, an inventor can sell his invention or a musician his composition to another person if they agree to it, but what the seller is selling is not the idea itself, but the physical manifestation of the idea (the invention) or the sheet of music.”
Who says? He is in fact selling some ideas on certain conditions. He may also sell all the rights, by giving up his rights and transferring them to the other party. The IP that is being sold might be embedded in some tangible property but that doesn’t change the fact that IP exists and the tangible property is only a vessel. Just like sound waves are vessels of transferring ideas.
`It is not unless the copier stole the original or first physical manifestation of the originator’s idea (i.e. drawings, writings, et cetera) that were not yet public.`
What do you mean bu “public”. Nothing is made public unless the owner wants it to be. If an IP is leaked without the consent of the owner,.this does not mean it is made public. You just assume it is, because copying is technically easy and sometimes it is hard to prove any copying took place.
“Because ideas cannot be owned, as I have shown. If person A & B can hold the same idea in their minds, then there is no way for person A to put a fence around the idea or place it in storage, in the same way it would not be possible for B. Ergo, neither A or B can allege they have ownership of the idea.”
They can both have, and own the idea if they have in fact homesteaded their own ideas. There is no aggression there. But if someone copies someone elses idea without their consent then there is aggression.
If I wrote a novel, for you to copy it without my consent is aggression. It doesn’t matter if you have chance of coming up with the novel all by yourself. If you can, go do it. But possibility of your independent discovery can not negate my right on the thing I created.
February 13, 2009 at 10:31 pm
-
@ktibuk
“You keep repeating the same things and I am afraid we are running around in circles.
Please answer all the questions I asked before.â€
I have answered MANY of your questions. TOO many, in fact. And I have answered some of them OVER and OVER again. If you keep asking the same questions, you will keep getting the same answers. It’s time for you RESPOND to the answers I have given.
“do you assume possibility of conflict on a resource as the only defining aspect of property?”
No. USE is the foundation of property.
“What does ‘owning’ imply?”
Ownership is the social recognition of USE.
“Can Robinson Crusoe, own anything since there is no other human being thus possibility of conflict between them?”
Ownership has no meaning outside a social context. Rights do not exist in nature – only laws.
-
@Drake,
Two man are stranded in the sea. They see a life boat with a capacity of two, and one of the men swims and homesteads the boat first. They can both fit in the boat (there is no natural limit or natural conflict) but the one first at the boat doesnt let the other one in.
Does he have a right to this action?
Bill Gates has money that he can not possible spend all on himself. On the other hand there are other 100 or so people who are starving So there is no natural limit regarding fulfilling the needs of Bill Gates and the starving 100 Africans, no natural conflict other than the whims of Bill Gates. Does he have a right to say no, and keep his property?
You see, once you get rid of your contradictions the last station you are gonna visit is Socialismville.
Because you don’t have a libertarian homesteading, and property rights theory.
February 14, 2009 at 2:51 am
-
@ktibuk
I appreciate your substantive response. Thanks.
“Two man are stranded in the sea. They see a life boat with a capacity of two, and one of the men swims and homesteads the boat first. They can both fit in the boat (there is no natural limit or natural conflict) but the one first at the boat doesnt let the other one in.
Does he have a right to this action?”
IF the first-comer has a right to the FULL use of the boat (as I suspect we agree), and IF the presence of a latecomer on the boat will LIMIT the first-comer’s use of the boat (as I suspect we also agree), THEN the first-comer has a DERIVATIVE right to exclude the latecomer from entering the boat and infringing upon his use of it.
“Bill Gates has money that he can not possible spend all on himself. On the other hand there are other 100 or so people who are starving So there is no natural limit regarding fulfilling the needs of Bill Gates and the starving 100 Africans, no natural conflict other than the whims of Bill Gates. Does he have a right to say no, and keep his property?”
If Bill Gates has the sole right to the use of his money, he has a DERIVATIVE right to exclude others from its use.
February 14, 2009 at 2:54 am
-
David C,
Look at any definition of copyright and you will see that copyright only applies to tangible forms of authorship and never to ideas or concepts.
To quote US copyright office:
“Only the actual expression of the author can be protected by copyright. The ideas, plans, methods, or systems described or embodied in a work are not protected by copyright. Thus, there is no way to secure copyright protection for the idea or principle behind a blank form or similar work or for any of the methods or systems involved in it.”And why would such protection exist even in a free unhampered market. I already answered it:
– Authors have an unalienable right to sell only limited use of their works, thus limiting many things you can do with their works (including replications)
– Authors can sue for damages if a third party (a non-customer) ever picks their work and uses it in a way that causes economic injury to them.Best regards!
February 14, 2009 at 2:55 am
-
I misspoke. I would rewrite the last sentence as:
If Bill Gates has the right to use his money, he has a derivative right to exclude others from using his money, because their use of it would necessarily limit his.
-
@Drake
“and IF the presence of a latecomer on the boat will LIMIT the first-comer’s use of the boat (as I suspect we also agree),”
This is the point. The late comer doesnt limit the owners use. The boat has a capacity of two people, hell lets say it has a capacity of 10 people.
This is where your (not only yours Kinsellas as well) property theory goes socialistic.
You base your property rights to possibility of conflict and conflict resolution, and conflict that arises only from need. Not the consent of the owner.
In libertarian property law, the consent of the owner is the only requirement. There are no other requirements, necessities, nothing.
In you property theory need is the requirement.. Logical conclusion of your theory is, everyone according to his need, everyone according to his ability
February 14, 2009 at 3:33 am
-
@ktibuk
“The late comer doesnt limit the owners use. The boat has a capacity of two people, hell lets say it has a capacity of 10 people.”
Do I actually have to provide examples of how the latecomer limits the first-comer’s ability to use the boat? I bet you could come up with some on your own.
“In you property theory need is the requirement.. Logical conclusion of your theory is, everyone according to his need, everyone according to his ability”
Cute, but no. FIRST USE establishes the RIGHT TO USE.
February 14, 2009 at 8:50 am
-
@ktibuk
“In libertarian property law, the consent of the owner is the only requirement.”
I am assuming that what you mean by CONSENT is that the owner has a RIGHT TO EXCLUDE. As I have already stated, I do not view exclusion as a SEPARATE right, but a DERIVATIVE of the RIGHT TO USE.
Since you are arguing that the right to exclude can be independently justified (without reference to use), please do so on natural law grounds.
February 14, 2009 at 9:16 am
-
ktibuk: “If I wrote a novel, for you to copy it without my consent is aggression.”
Not necessarily. Depends on what you mean, and what ‘novel” means here–do you mean the pattern of words, or a physical thing you own that has the novel in it? IF you mean the latter, then you own this and people can only handle or use that item with your permission.
But this latter meaning doesn’t get you copyright since it only affects those you have a contract with. It cannot ensnare third parties.
To do this you need to be referring to the pattern when you say ‘novel”–but in this case, it’s question-begging to say you own it. Morever, it’s ridiculous and wrong to say that it’s aggression to copy it. If I have knowledge of the plot of Raiders of the Lost Ark, it is not aggression to “copy” this; if I am aware of a way to arrange my own property so as to make a bow and arrow, copying what the “inventor” of bow and arrow did is not “aggression.”
-
@Drake,
You are contradicting yourself. First you said the only requirement for ownership (including the right to exclude others from using it) is natural limits which is the basis of possible conflict. You said there is no place for “choice” of the owner, and that you found this unethical.
Then when it came to other examples (the boat example above) I gave, where there wasnt a natural limit, or a possibility of conflict other than the conflict resulting from the choice of the owner, you claimed the opposite position.
You need to think through your position and what it implies. The natural necessity argument coupled with “conflict resolution” argument is the basis for socialism not libertarian property theory.
In libertarian homesteading/property theory the individual who homesteads a nature given resource owns it and owning means having total control over the property including exclusion of others based on choice even pure whim. One may even destroy the property if he wishes to do so which means exclusion of every possible human, if he owns it.
You made a distinction between individual goods and a class of goods when it came to scarcity but you didn’t give a reason for it when I asked.
Why make the distinction. Isn’t possibility of conflict (other than conflict based on choice) at the core of this scarcity issue.
You claim an apple can only be eaten by one and this is the only reason apples can be property.
But what if one person owns billions of apples more than anyone can eat. What kind of conflict is possible, other than his choice. And if choice is not an ethical requirement for exclusion, what is the logical conclusion of this position?
-
“But this latter meaning doesn’t get you copyright since it only affects those you have a contract with. It cannot ensnare third parties.”
Who is talking about copyright? Ownership implies many rights including the right to let anyone copy or not but this right doesn’t define property. What defines property is the act of homesteading. Turning something nature given to something man made. You know the distinction right?
“To do this you need to be referring to the pattern when you say ‘novel”–but in this case, it’s question-begging to say you own it. Morever, it’s ridiculous and wrong to say that it’s aggression to copy it. If I have knowledge of the plot of Raiders of the Lost Ark, it is not aggression to “copy” this; if I am aware of a way to arrange my own property so as to make a bow and arrow, copying what the “inventor” of bow and arrow did is not “aggression.””
Lots of assertions, no argument.
Your only argument is “the argument from scarcity” which has been demolished many times including on the comments sections of this very post.
-
ktibuk:
“”But this latter meaning doesn’t get you copyright since it only affects those you have a contract with. It cannot ensnare third parties.”
“Who is talking about copyright?”
Hmm. Interesting. So…. now you are not in favor of copyright OR patent? Interesting pro-IP adversary you make.
“Ownership implies many rights including the right to let anyone copy or not but this right doesn’t define property. What defines property is the act of homesteading. Turning something nature given to something man made. You know the distinction right?”
Actually, no–the way you word this is vague and loosey-goosey. I would replace “something” with “unowned scarce resources” to make it clear. See?
“To do this you need to be referring to the pattern when you say ‘novel”–but in this case, it’s question-begging to say you own it. Morever, it’s ridiculous and wrong to say that it’s aggression to copy it. If I have knowledge of the plot of Raiders of the Lost Ark, it is not aggression to “copy” this; if I am aware of a way to arrange my own property so as to make a bow and arrow, copying what the “inventor” of bow and arrow did is not “aggression.””
“Lots of assertions, no argument.”
So…. you think it IS “aggression” for me to … use my own property in a certain way. Interesting.
-
“Hmm. Interesting. So…. now you are not in favor of copyright OR patent? Interesting pro-IP adversary you make.”
I will not let you trap the argument in legislation talk. I am talking about property rights, which is an ethics discussion and no matter how much you try current or past legislation does not represent property theory.
“Actually, no–the way you word this is vague and loosey-goosey. I would replace “something” with “unowned scarce resources” to make it clear. See?”
You have to give up the”scarcity” argument already. No matter how much you try to evade the issue this argument is demolished.
First “scarcity” is an economics term not an ethics term. It is about the value of a good.
Second as I already told Drake numerous times, this “conflict resolution because of scarcity” argument will eventually take you to full socialism if you follow the logical conclusions.
Why don’t you try to answer the boat questions?
Can someone homestead a boat with a capacity of 10, where there is no scarcity and no natural limit thus possibility of conflict arising from natural limits, and deny another the use of the boat and let him die?
If he can not what exactly do you mean by property rights, and who can own more wealth than he can consume?
Again, Ownership is about the consent, the choice of the owner and without it, the concept means nothing. Ownership is not about scarcity, conflict or natural limits of use.
“So…. you think it IS “aggression” for me to … use my own property in a certain way. Interesting.”
No. You can do whatever you want with your property. Just don’t copy mine. Because copying mine without my consent is aggression. What part of “leave me alone” don’t you understand? Why do you think you are entitled to associate with others property without their consent? Do you think people owe you? Or do you think you have a right to enslave them?
-
ktibuk:
“”Hmm. Interesting. So…. now you are not in favor of copyright OR patent? Interesting pro-IP adversary you make.”
“I will not let you trap the argument in legislation talk. I am talking about property rights, which is an ethics discussion and no matter how much you try current or past legislation does not represent property theory.”
So you are NOT in favor of IP law, though you are against those of us who are against IP law. I see.
“You can do whatever you want with your property. Just don’t copy mine. Because copying mine without my consent is aggression. What part of “leave me alone” don’t you understand? Why do you think you are entitled to associate with others property without their consent? Do you think people owe you? Or do you think you have a right to enslave them?”
So… if I make a fire on my property to cook my food, I am “enslaving” the first guy who did something similar with his property. i see.
-
“So you are NOT in favor of IP law, though you are against those of us who are against IP law. I see.”
I don’t know how many different ways I can say this but again.
IP means Intellectual Property, and consequently IP rights is a subset of property rights, which is an ethics issue.
Are you with me so far?
There have been, there is and there will be legislation all over the world regarding property. Some just, some unjust. These laws can only be evaluated from an ethical perspective. This doesn’t mean however, certain legislation represent a certain ethical position. And this doesn’t mean you can go backwards and first look at the legislation and keep the ethical discussion in legislative boundaries.
You are attacking IP legislation and from that you jump to the conclusion that IP can not be property, which is unwarranted and non sequitur. That is because you don’t have a coherent contradiction-free homesteading/property theory.
Homesteading is the foundation of private property theory. Without it there is nothing. Why don’t you go check all your writings about IP, including the essay, and search how many times the word homesteading appears. You may get a clue to where you are wrong.
“So… if I make a fire on my property to cook my food, I am “enslaving” the first guy who did something similar with his property. i see.”
Stop saying “I see” because you don’t see anything. You either can not comprehend what I am saying or knowingly being dishonest.
I repeteadly said over and over “doing something first” doesnt mean shit, and the only thing that matters is homesteading (making something property) and copying without consent (aggression against property) and you still have nerve to write about making fires and cooking.
Don’t you ever ask yourself why you are afraid to give meaningful examples like copying a digital version of the batman movie or copying microsoft windows?
February 15, 2009 at 11:21 am
-
@ktibuk
Thanks for the response. I should point out, if it’s not already obvious, that I am not taking the standard libertarian position here. Normally, libertarians assume that homesteading establishes a “bundle” of rights. For the time being, I am not taking that position. However, you are welcome to point out why I should. I may be swayed by some sort of natural law argument, but not by blanket assertions that people “should” be able to do such and such or that a bundle of rights is ethical because it’s the “standard” position.
“You are contradicting yourself. First you said the only requirement for ownership (including the right to exclude others from using it) is natural limits which is the basis of possible conflict. You said there is no place for ‘choice’ of the owner, and that you found this unethical.”
No. What I said was that FIRST USE establishes the right to use. That is not at all the same as saying that SCARCITY establishes the right to use.
Again, the requirement for ownership is FIRST USE. Exclusion comes into play in order to SECURE the right to use. Whether or not exclusion is REQUIRED to secure the right to use depends on the NATURE of the resource being used. The right to use a non-scarce resource MAY be homesteaded, but others may not be excluded from using it if their use does not interfere with the use – ACTUAL or POTENTIAL – of the homesteader.
“Then when it came to other examples (the boat example above) I gave, where there wasnt a natural limit, or a possibility of conflict other than the conflict resulting from the choice of the owner, you claimed the opposite position.”
Not true. I asked if you needed me to provide you with examples of how the latecomer’s presence on the boat would limit the first-comer’s use of the boat. With a little imagination you could have come up with a few examples on your own, but I suppose I’ll have to do your thinking for you…
Possible Uses of a Boat – And How the Arrival of a Latecomer Would Interfere with Them:
1. Laying down in the boat to sleep: the latecomer might be in the way.
2. Using part of the boat to store fish: the latecomer might take up the area needed to store the fish.
3. Rowing the boat to the nearest island: the latecomer would add weight to the boat, making rowing more difficult and slowing the boat down (let’s assume there is only one oar).
Clearly, the presence of the latecomer limits the first-comer’s ability to use the boat. This is due, in part, to the fact that the space on any boat is finite, regardless of its size.
“You need to think through your position and what it implies. The natural necessity argument coupled with ‘conflict resolution’ argument is the basis for socialism not libertarian property theory.”
I don’t know what you mean by the “natural necessity argument” or the “conflict resolution argument”. As I have said a number of times already, FIRST USE establishes the RIGHT TO USE.
“In libertarian homesteading/property theory the individual who homesteads a nature given resource owns it and owning means having total control over the property including exclusion of others based on choice even pure whim.”
Yes, that is the standard position. The fact that it is the standard position is not an argument in and of itself, though.
“One may even destroy the property if he wishes to do so which means exclusion of every possible human, if he owns it.”
The form of things may be changed, but there is no way to increase or decrease the total amount of matter and energy in the universe. In other words, what you are referring to as “destruction” I would categorize as USE (which obviously includes physical manipulation). For example, if you bulldoze your house, you have clearly changed its form but have not caused the original materials to cease to exist.
“You made a distinction between individual goods and a class of goods when it came to scarcity but you didn’t give a reason for it when I asked. Why make the distinction.”
First of all, it is impossible to homestead a CLASS of goods. You can’t homestead every instance of something in the past, present, and future. But let’s look at your original post:
“You seem to think that ‘the possibility of non scarcity in the future’ is enough to make something non property.”
No. First use establishes the right to use. Scarcity is irrelevant in that regard. Scarcity only determines whether exclusion is necessary to secure the right established by first use.
“Isn’t possibility of conflict (other than conflict based on choice) at the core of this scarcity issue.”
USE is the core of the issue. If more use is demanded than is available, who should get the rights to what is available? One answer is to say that use goes to the strongest (might equals right). Another answer is to say that an “anointed” leader should decide (despotism). Yet another answer is to say that usage rights should be determined by vote (tyranny of the majority). Libertarians have come to the conclusion that none of the above positions are satisfactory and instead favor the homesteading rule (first come, first serve). Two noteworthy results of a consistent application of the homesteading rule are a reduction of conflict and an increase in cooperation.
“You claim an apple can only be eaten by one and this is the only reason apples can be property.”
Not true. My being the original appropriator of an apple establishes my right to eat it. In that respect it is my property. But if you and the rest of the world can somehow ALSO eat it – WITHOUT diminishing my ability to do so – your eating it does not violate my rights in the apple.
“But what if one person owns billions of apples more than anyone can eat. What kind of conflict is possible, other than his choice.”
I am defining ownership as the RIGHT to use. ACTUAL use is not required, except when homesteading (i.e. mixing one’s labor with a nature-given factor). Even if the owner of a billion apples has no intention of eating any of them, his RIGHT to eat them is secured by the exclusion of others.
“And if choice is not an ethical requirement for exclusion, what is the logical conclusion of this position?”
The owner DOES have choice – the choice to use (or not use) his property as he sees fit. As I said before, I do not see exclusion as a right unto itself, and I’ve twice invited you to explain why it should be. Perhaps you would do me the honor this time?
February 15, 2009 at 12:10 pm
-
Mr. Kinsella,
In my opinion, a trademark consisting of a symbol purported to represent a company is to be considered as a seal or signature. To use it while not acting in the name of the said company would be tantamount to counterfeiting a signature.
Don’t you think we have a right not to have our seals and signatures counterfeited? It seems to me that the non-existence of such a right would spell the doom of any fiduciary media whatsoever.
Do you think this analogy of mine is legitimate, or fallacious? This question is honest: I just want to know your thoughts on this.Of course, there are trademarks which are not seals, but concepts designating a product or ideas, like “velcroâ€, “aspirinâ€, or even “The Politically Incorrect Guideâ€. These, I think, are not legitimately “monopolizableâ€.
-
Gregory Cantor:
“In my opinion, a trademark consisting of a symbol purported to represent a company is to be considered as a seal or signature. To use it while not acting in the name of the said company would be tantamount to counterfeiting a signature.”
Counterfeiting a signature is usually just a way of defrauding the person you pawn if off to–not the person whose signature you duplicate. In fact he is not usually harmed. If I write a fake check on A’s account and give it to you, then you will be unable to draw money from A’s account since he did not actualy sign it. So A is not harmed–you are. This is why I say that trademark victims are the defrauded customers.
Now it is true that in some cases you can use counterfeiting to steal. Suppose I pretned I am A and under this pretense I am able to convince A’s bank to give me A’s money. Well, this is just a way of stealing A’s money by trick.
February 16, 2009 at 2:43 am
-
Gregory Cantor,
You and Dr. Kinsella both correctly implied that trademark protection in itself is based on private property rights — it just has to apply to the real parties (victims) involved into an infringement.
What Dr. Kinsella is arguing against is the principle of “third party beneficiary.” In the law of contracts, is a person who may have the right to sue on a contract, despite not having originally been a party to the contract. This right arises where the third party is the intended beneficiary of the contract, as opposed to an incidental beneficiary.
This is basically the issue of proper scope of “privity” of free market contracts and not issue of “idea-ownership, pattern-ownership…” and all other nonsense.
Regards.
-
My question remains nonetheless unanswered:
As a matter of principle, does an individual have the right to prevent another party from using his seal or signature?
I am aware there is no “right to a reputationâ€, but I think here we have a confusion of concepts.
A seal or a signature is a fundamental instrument through which a person acts in the world. You may say:– Oh, but a signature (or seal) is not scarce; therefore it cannot be owned! It is an ideal object.
But if I write a letter to Mr. Kinsella threatening his life, he will consider this illegitimate (if he has not changed his mind since he wrote the paper “Causation and Aggressionâ€), but I can respond: “Oh, that’s just a bunch of letters assembled together! It doesn’t mean anything! Actually, my goal was to praise you!†What is wrong in this attitude?
Answer: I am implicitly saying that words do not objectively symbolize realities, and acting accordingly.My signature (my seal) symbolizes the fact that “Gregory has had a part in this”, like the name “Stephan Kinsella†symbolizes a concrete person, like “apple†symbolizes an objective reality. In using your signature (or seal) I am just doing the same as I would be doing if I coerced you into assenting to a venture of mine. The intent is the same; it’s just the means that differ. I am doing this because I deem your contribution to have economic value.
A signature (or seal) symbolizes a contribution of some person. A personal contribution IS a scarce thing, and its counterfeited display proves it is subjectively perceived by the counterfeiter as having value. For all practical purposes, a counterfeited signature (or seal) is a forced contribution. If I complain, I show therefore that such use is harming me.
The possibility of such an act inflating or deflating a reputation is irrelevant. The fact remains that your approach implies the negation of the objective meaning of certain symbols, and hence, makes as much sense as saying that “f*** you!†is just a mere bunch of letters (or a mere assemblage of sounds) devoid of any conventional meaning.
The right to prevent anyone from using my seal or signature is, hence, the right not to be robbed, through counterfeiting, of the economic value of a scarce thing: my personal contribution. It is NOT a right over an “ideal†thing, nor a “right to a reputationâ€, nor even a right against fraud.
-
Gregory, your arguments are a flip side of Dr. Kinsella’s pertaining to IP (both equally missing the point of what IP really represents). You ask:
“As a matter of principle, does an individual have the right to prevent another party from using his seal or signature?”It’s like asking whether a person has a “right” to prevent others from impersonating him, regardless of context (whether it’s a comical impersonation or one done by a con-artist designed to defraud someone and to create economic injury). It’s a rather silly question.
If you ask me whether you have right to prevent me from using signature identical to yours just to amuse people who know you – the answer is: NO! An individual does not have a “right” per se to coerce someone into not using his own hand in non-aggressive ways — including signing his name using the pattern identical to yours. Such coercion would represent an aggression against that person’s property (his own body and his own tools).
Nevertheless, if by signing his name in a pattern identical to yours this person intends to defraud people who intended to benefit you instead of this con-artist — then we can talk about real injury and liability arising from such action.
You are forgetting that the real issue with forgery is not “theft” of some symbols that “belong” to you. You cannot have an ownership right over a pattern, since your exclusive control over a pattern must assume aggression against another person’s property (how else you can control it). Instead, trademark and signature forgery is an issue of simple fraud and economic injuries that arise from such unlawful action.
Regards,
-
Sasha:
“What Dr. Kinsella is arguing against is the principle of “third party beneficiary.” In the law of contracts, is a person who may have the right to sue on a contract, despite not having originally been a party to the contract. This right arises where the third party is the intended beneficiary of the contract, as opposed to an incidental beneficiary.
“This is basically the issue of proper scope of “privity” of free market contracts and not issue of “idea-ownership, pattern-ownership…” and all other nonsense.”
I don’t think this is quite right. There is no way to argue that if A defrauds his customer C by pretending to be B, that B is some third party beneficiary of the agreement between A and C.
Gregory Cantor:“As a matter of principle, does an individual have the right to prevent another party from using his seal or signature?”
No, not as a general matter. It depends.
“But if I write a letter to Mr. Kinsella threatening his life, he will consider this illegitimate (if he has not changed his mind since he wrote the paper “Causation and Aggressionâ€), but I can respond: “Oh, that’s just a bunch of letters assembled together! It doesn’t mean anything! Actually, my goal was to praise you!†What is wrong in this attitude?”Because communication and language are possible.
“Answer: I am implicitly saying that words do not objectively symbolize realities, and acting accordingly.”
but you are wrong.
“My signature (my seal) symbolizes the fact that “Gregory has had a part in this”, like the name “Stephan Kinsella†symbolizes a concrete person, like “apple†symbolizes an objective reality. In using your signature (or seal) I am just doing the same as I would be doing if I coerced you into assenting to a venture of mine. The intent is the same; it’s just the means that differ. I am doing this because I deem your contribution to have economic value.”
In one case, you are lying. But lying is not necessarily a rights violation. Such a lie can be used to defraud your customer, of cousre.
In the other case, when you threaten someone, it’s not a lie, it’s a communication of intent to harm, and may be treated this way by the recipient. You are treating unalike things alike.
“The right to prevent anyone from using my seal or signature is, hence, the right not to be robbed, through counterfeiting, of the economic value of a scarce thing: my personal contribution. It is NOT a right over an “ideal†thing, nor a “right to a reputationâ€, nor even a right against fraud.”there are no rights to the value of things.
-
Mr. Radeta:
I am sorry but I assure you that you have not yet addressed my argument.
You go on to explain that signs and patterns are not ownable, which I have not denied.
Mr. Kinsella:
“Answer: I am implicitly saying that words do not objectively symbolize realities, and acting accordingly.”
but you are wrong.
Mr. Kinsella, my point was precisely that it is wrong to separate symbols from their conventional/accepted meaning, be they letters, words, sounds, seals, or signatures. It seems we agree on this particular issue.
“In the other case, when you threaten someone, it’s not a lie, it’s a communication of intent to harm, and may be treated this way by the recipient. You are treating unalike things alike.â€
Not at all, Sir. The recourse to lies, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to my argument. Because the example of the threatening letter was only meant to demonstrate that you can aggress someone through the use of symbols, and that what matters in these circumstances is what the symbol means, not the symbol itself. Why is this precision important? To show that my argument does not depend on defending that patterns, or symbols, are ownable (I know they aren’t!).
“there are no rights to the value of things.â€
With all due respect, I think this is an ad hoc assertion. Three examples:
1) If I am late in the payment of a debt to you, and there was no previous convention as to what sanction would apply for such default, are not you entitled to receive interest? What is this, if not a right to the value of things?
2) What’s wrong with inflation, if not (primarily) the fact that it robs people of the value of their money?
3) How could we justify the right to reparation for the destruction of a thing, if not by basing it on a right to the value of the said object? It cannot be based on the right of property over a thing that does not exist anymore. Rights “die†with their object.
June 26, 2009 at 6:00 pm
-
The “scarcity theory of property rights†is being advanced by a number of scholars at the Cato and Von Mises Institutes. Using this theory they suggest that there is no justification for intellectual property rights. The logical conclusion of their theory is intellectual labor is not deserving of pecuniary reward.
Are they correct that scarcity is the basis of property rights? See http://hallingblog.com/2009/06/22/scarcity-%e2%80%93-does-it-prove-intellectual-property-is-unjustified/
Is the conception of ideas and inventions subject to scarcity? See http://hallingblog.com/2009/06/25/scarcity-and-intellectual-property-empirical-evidence-for-inventions/
Is the distribution of ideas and invention (technology diffusion) subject to scarcity? See http://hallingblog.com/2009/06/25/scarcity-and-intellectual-property-empirical-evidence-of-adoptiondistribution-of-technology/
June 26, 2009 at 9:02 pm
-
“The other thing to realize is that consumers are not stupid. They can spot a knockoff easily. And the trademark frauds are usually going to be marginal low-life type…..”
this is probobly true for the most part.
i recently purchased a ‘brand’ name article of apparel from ‘ebay’ – because of the attributes that described it at the ‘brand names official website’.
the product i received , while i cannot confirm if its authentic, it suits my needs (material, fit, it didnt fade in the wash, etc.).
to me, if the apparel is a ‘knock-off’ i am not to concerned because i like the apparel.
if there are other reasons why a market participant would seek proper identification and sourcing of trademarked or branded items – then to the degree that that is important they would take greater steps to ensure authenticity and i suppose ‘consumer advocacy’ would play a greater role.“….not merely “dishonesty”, but deceiving the other side to a title-exchange so that the other party’s consent is vitiated, so that consummating the exchange is tantamount to use of property without consent–i.e. trespass.
But no, misleading the public with knockoff labeling is not fraud, because though it may be “dishonest,” it’s not a deception that is part of a trade that amounts to theft by trickery…..”i guess it amounts to “unanticipated title-exchange via trickery”
January 9, 2010 at 8:05 pm
-
Mr. Cantor:
“With all due respect, I think this is an ad hoc assertion. Three examples:
1) If I am late in the payment of a debt to you, and there was no previous convention as to what sanction would apply for such default, are not you entitled to receive interest? What is this, if not a right to the value of things?”
No, if there is nothing in the contract about what happens when your payment is late, then nothing happens. This is why you make the contract specify what happens in the event of default.
“2) What’s wrong with inflation, if not (primarily) the fact that it robs people of the value of their money?”
What’s wrong with inflation in the present American context is that people are forced to accept Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender. In a world where people are free to use any money they want, and the producer of a paper money doesn’t enter into a contract saying he won’t inflate, there would be nothing wrong with inflation.
“3) How could we justify the right to reparation for the destruction of a thing, if not by basing it on a right to the value of the said object? It cannot be based on the right of property over a thing that does not exist anymore. Rights “die†with their object.”
The right to reparation over the destruction of one’s property isn’t based on its value, it’s based on the fact that one’s property was aggressed against. What form the reparation takes, such as the amount, is irrelevant to the reason why one is owed reparations. It is only relevant to whether the reparation is sufficient.
-
What’s wrong with inflation in the present American context is that people are forced to accept Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender.”
do you like the frns yourself?have you benefited similar to “when prices are adjusted for inflation, Americans today spend ’40% less on clothes, 20% less on food, more than 50% less on appliances, about 25% less on owning and maintaining a car’than they did during the early 1970s.”
http://blog.mises.org/archives/010741.aspwould you have preferred to spend more on the above items?
“In a world where people are free to use any money they want, and the producer of a paper money doesn’t enter into a contract saying he won’t inflate, there would be nothing wrong with inflation.”
unless the inflation led to wrongs. has there been a historical free-money inflation that has led to what you would consider a ‘bad move’?
Published: February 12, 2009 12:40 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 1:10 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 1:26 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 1:26 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 1:28 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 1:28 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 1:32 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 1:42 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 1:43 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 2:10 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 2:21 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 2:31 AM
“It could be argued that those who mislead the public via labelling (such as me pretending to be StephanKinsella) are committing fraud, and that fraud is a form of coercion and thus already considered under libertarian law. I don’t agree with this, as a) fraud isn’t physical aggression or the threat of physical agression and thus doesn’t fall under the non-aggression axiom, and b) it’s too hard to prove the intent of those accused of fraud.”I think this comment perfectly displays the libertarian confusion about “fraud” which I discuss in detail here: Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach.Yes, fraud is a species of aggression, because it is in essence a means of theft-by-trick. See, you have to use fraud in a precise way–not merely “dishonesty”, but deceiving the other side to a title-exchange so that the other party’s consent is vitiated, so that consummating the exchange is tantamount to use of property without consent–i.e. trespass.
But no, misleading the public with knockoff labeling is not fraud, because though it may be “dishonest,” it’s not a deception that is part of a trade that amounts to theft by trickery. So yo usee here equivocation between the popular, smeared, vague use of “fraud” as “dishonesty” confuses the issue here.
“(This applies to fractional-reserve banking as well – I don’t believe it should be outlawed under fraud laws – under free banking the market would sort out the best money substitute producers. I don’t think there should be fraud laws at all.)”
I agree that FRB is not inherently fraudulent (but I do think it has to be fraudulent to get off the ground); but disagree that fraud should not be illegal.
Published: February 12, 2009 2:46 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 3:00 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 3:07 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 3:47 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 3:49 AM
Rich
Published: February 12, 2009 5:53 AM
Rich
Published: February 12, 2009 6:08 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 6:18 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 6:40 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 7:18 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 7:23 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 7:38 AM
— Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, 1978.”State and government are the social apparatus of violent coercion and repression. Such an apparatus, the police power, is indispensable in order to prevent anti-social individuals and bands from destroying social co-operation. Violent prevention and suppression of anti-social activities benefit the whole of society and each of its members.”
— Ludwig von Mises, Planned Chaos, 1970.
Just like Ron Paul and Gary North, Ludwig von Mises was a minarchist, not an anarchist, so anarchy is not the only organizational principle for human society available to those who advocate classic liberalism and Austrian economics.
Published: February 12, 2009 7:41 AM
ps: Stephan K does seem to have a sharp edge to his prose but it doesnt detract from the fact that he’s bang on the money.
Published: February 12, 2009 7:47 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 8:17 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 8:23 AM
Your sloppiness on this issue should embarass you both.
Published: February 12, 2009 8:27 AM
with the arches and everything. Then I messed up really bad, had terrible food, poisioned someone, and my restaraunt failed. Would that not be causing violence to the name or R. McDonalds, even though it is not the same restaraunt. People would see it as the same because there would be no external difference. Meaning, R. McDonalds business may be damaged, through no fault of their own, due to someone using the same type of store.Does this make sense to anyone???Please leave me feedback.
Published: February 12, 2009 8:35 AM
If so, would you mind sharing that with me in this thread? I have never seen such good reasons and would be happy to discuss them.
Published: February 12, 2009 9:06 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 9:26 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 9:31 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 9:33 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 9:37 AM
His only argument is the argument from scarcity. And with a simple dialogue I show his position is absurd.
And I still am waiting a response from IP Socialist that base their argument on the scarcity argument.
And I get nothing.
Published: February 12, 2009 9:41 AM
Use of either when you are not the originator is fraud.
Trademark protection is a negative rights protection.
Patent and Copyright are positive rights protection and unnecessary if Trademark is properly handled in the law.
For instance, let’s look at a book. If there was no copyright law, but Trademark law protects my signature, and/or my “mark”, then, When I publish my work, I grant the publisher limited use of my Trademark for my work.
If my work is good, and in demand, then it is possible for another publisher to publish the same work, sans trademark. For them to use the trademark is a fraud because they are not the originators of the content and I did not enter into a contract with them for limited use of my mark.
For the consumer, the absence of the mark is an indication that the work is not sourced from the originator, and therefore may be suspect of content or quality. This is for the consumer to decide. If the price is sufficiently low to justify the risk, then so be it. If the price is set high, then dishonesty is afoot and the consumer should beware.
Now let’s look at the “Rolex”. Rolex has a reputation for high quality. If I knock off “fake” Rolex watches, and sell them for cheap, Rolex is not damaged. They may actually welcome the competition since the consumer who buys it knows it’s not the real thing, and wishes it were. Someday, he might actually own the real thing. Or Rolex would be fully within their right to halt the use of their mark. In either case, it is not the consumer who is defrauded, it is Rolex. Now if the knock-offs are being sold at Rolex prices, the consumer is being defrauded.
Caveat Emptor
Published: February 12, 2009 9:47 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 9:52 AM
And it’s lazy to counter that with “Kinsella’s wrong assumptions and non sequitor conclusions.” I can’t counter that because I have *no idea what you are talking about* unless you lay these out in an argument. What wrong assumptions? And why are they wrong? What non sequiturs? And why are they non sequiturs?
(A dialogue cannot hope to show this unless it is well written. For example, the “IP socialist” in your dialogue grants several of the assumptions by the “libertarian” that I would not grant. I’ve got no reason to identify with that obviously naive character.)
The initial thrust of your critique wasn’t completely misguided. The burden of proof *was* on me (or any other apologist) to show where the assumptions in the blog post come from. Any critic deserves at least that in response to his objection. However, now that I’ve given us an argument to center our discussion on, that very same burden of proof is on YOU to provide something substantial in return. It is a two-way street.
Published: February 12, 2009 10:12 AM
After all, if Austrian economics is not called American economics it may be because somebody at some point didn’t think America had to be the finality of all things. Just a thought.
Published: February 12, 2009 10:25 AM
Re-posted for your convenience:
ktibuk said, “what makes IP non scarce is the ‘act of copying’ so we must assume before ‘the act of copying’ the IP is indeed scarce, thus can be property.”
LOL 🙂
It is NOT aggression to make something non-scarce. It IS aggression to deny a homesteader continued use of his property.
Published: February 12, 2009 10:33 AM
So what? If she only conditionally gives her consent to the title transfer of her money based on the condition that the seller is telling the truth, then the seller lies, he knows that the condition is not fulfilled and thus that he is receiving money she has not consented to give him title to.
I go into this in detail in my article on contract theory. Try to read up on things before you spout off in ignorance and reinvent the wheel like a newbie libertarian.
So? This is irrelevant.
so what. We do not justify laws based on what incentives they create. We are not utilitarians.
Sure, but in most cases the buyer knows they’re fake Nikes. And that this is why he’s getting them for a 90% discount of normal price.
Rebel Ally:
Depends on the terms of the agreement. IF he insisted that the car be “made in Japan” and bargained to make this a condition of the deal, and the dealer jsut lied, then yes. BUt it’s got nothing to do w/ the Toyota trademark. the TM just truthfully indicates the source of the product–that it comes from “toyota.” It does not mean it comes from Japan. But if the buyer makes the deal conditional on some relevant, materia fact–sure. OTOH, no dealer would agree to such as stupid, pain in the ass customer.
MyCallToArms:
Not that it’s relevant, but since you’re being ad hominem–you do realize I’m a patent attorney, right? Here’s a patent I’m an inventor on. Here are some others I wrote and prosecuted.
Chad Rushing:
We are not restricted to one topic. This is a silly comment.
Can you give an example of this happening in the real world?
And as I said, if this happens, the customers do have a fraud claim.
“involving” dishonesty as an “intended means for profit” of “some kind” is not necessarily fraudulent or illegal. You need to be more precise and coherent if you are going to formulate rules for when legal force may be applied.
Chad Rushing:
This is not a valid way to argue–to try to make the other side disprove a negative. We do not have to prove that anarchy is legitimate. Rather, any proponent of state violence being legitimate has the burden of proving this. Anarchy is just what you are left with when people are unable to do this.
See my What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist.
Mises was wrong. However, his views on this matter were so close to anarchy to be almost indistinguishable. See Rothbard:
***
alansmithee:
“but”? 🙂
Silas Barta:
Silas, there is property outside and preceding the state monopolization and takeover of it. But patent and copyright are creations of the state. It’s sort of like homesteading a farm, versus the Americans with Disabilities Act. See?
Benjamin Burkley:
No, you can’t commit violence against “names”.
There is no right to “not be damaged” in this way. R. McD’s may be “damaged” by Burger King opening a competing chain too. So what? You have a right to the physical integrity of your property, not to its value.
Frank:
Is this supposed to be a criticism?
Psst–we also don’t believe in nuking innocent people or in taxes. No offense, Randian statists.
Deefburger:
With that last sentence you have veered into vague metaphor.
this is incoherent.
Another too-loose use of “fraud”. See my links and explanation in the main post above. Educate yourself, please.
What? Again, read up on fraud. This is incoherent and confused. Rolex is not dealing with the customer or the knockoff company. It cannot possibly be “defrauded.” Another danger of the overuse of metaphor. SEe my “Appendix: On the dangers of metaphors in scientific discourse” in this post, Objectivist Law Prof Mossoff on Copyright; or, the Misuse of Labor, Value, and Creation Metaphors.
Published: February 12, 2009 11:40 AM
After all, if Austrian economics is not called American economics it may be because somebody at some point didn’t think America had to be the finality of all things. Just a thought.
Published: February 12, 2009 11:41 AM
Swell.
At least in the old days there was a modicum of mutual respect and tolerance between Austrians and libertarians of varying views. We were all in the same lifeboat, so to speak, banished by the mutinous socialists and liberal/progressives who had taken over our ship of state.
Now we are told by some with whom we sail that the very Liberal state we seek to return to is illegitimate and immoral — evil! — solely because it is itself a state. We are invited to agree or leave our tiny boat.
No need to push. I’ll gladly jump off on my own. You anarchist folks don’t have a clue where you’re headed anyway. You never did.
Published: February 12, 2009 11:46 AM
Libertarian: IP is homesteaded natural resources and copying it without the consent of the producer (owner) is an act of aggression, since aggression is not about physical integrity of matter but the consent of the owner.
IP Socialist: But IP can not be property because it is not scarce, so copying can not be “aggression against property”.
Libertarian: Well, what makes IP non scarce is the “act of copying” so we must assume before “the act of copying” the IP is indeed scarce, thus can be property. Thus “the act of copying without the consent of the owner” must be an of aggression.
IP Socialist: Erh, argh, ????!!!!!!……….. I gotta go.
Published: February 12, 2009 11:51 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 11:51 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 11:56 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 11:57 AM
Published: February 12, 2009 12:05 PM
Published: February 12, 2009 12:09 PM
Published: February 12, 2009 12:18 PM
Published: February 12, 2009 2:36 PM
Published: February 12, 2009 4:14 PM
Since ideas are man made and not nature given free goods, and since they are scarce before any copying takes place this means they can be, they should be property of the individual that homesteads, produces them.
If they are property before they become non scarce thanks to copying, any copying without the consent of the owner is aggression against property.
That is why saying ideas are non scarce thus they can not be property, is a logical fallacy.
By “owning” I am talking about all the rights associated by and comes with the concept of ownership. If there is such concept called ownership, it implies a certain set of rights regarding a property.
What is it that you can not do with an idea (a poem for example) that is in your head, that you can not do with any other tangible good that you own, regarding the rights that come with ownership?
Why do you need a distinction of tangible and intangible when it comes to the concept of ownership?
Published: February 12, 2009 4:18 PM
Published: February 12, 2009 4:21 PM
Published: February 12, 2009 4:22 PM
http://blog.mises.org/archives/009414.aspand here:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/009365.aspWe’ll discuss trademarks next time…
Published: February 12, 2009 4:33 PM
I know this makes it sound like IP is a form of thought crime, and thus a form of censorship (in a way, it actually is) but what I’m trying to get at is that, instead of arguing that “ideas are not scarce”, IMO it’s better to argue that as far as ideas go, there is nothing to really “own” in a physical sense, and thus cannot be subject to property rights.
Isn’t that a good idea?
Published: February 12, 2009 5:47 PM
Ideas are non scarce. Why? Because they can be copied infinitely.This means before any copying takes place they are in fact scarce.Second statement is a non sequitur – Ideas are not non-scarce because they can be copied, they are non-scarce because anybody can think or figure out them.Example: There were TWO scientists that came to the same conclusion as to how species evolve: Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell. It would not be possible for Russell to have the same idea as Darwin if in fact ideas are scarce BEFORE copyright or before ideas are known – either Darwin possessed the idea of Natural Selection or he did not. It is clear he did NOT, for it is logical to conclude that Alfred Russell had the exact same idea at the same time, before any of the two men communicated with each other. Ergo, Ideas are NON scarce even if not known publicly.
Published: February 12, 2009 6:04 PM
I mean, ideas come from the thoughts of a human mind, and the human mind is a ‘scarce’ thing.This is a Fallacy of Composition. Just because ideas sprung from scarce human minds, it does not follow ideas are equally scarce. It is like saying that since Birgit Nilsson is dead, then the role of Brunhilde must be equally dead (which is wrong since any good singer can play that part).
Published: February 12, 2009 6:11 PM
“Why?Because they can be copied infinitely.This means before any copying takes place they are in fact scarce.”While an idea is in your head, it is part of your body (and thus your property) until it’s ‘copied’ via publishing to some other tangible property – a book, hard drive, etc.. In order for acceptance, critique,= or enjoyment of your idea, it needs to be ‘copied’ to some one else’s property – their hard drive, their notebook, their brain. The moment someone else (legitimately or illegitimately) receives your idea, it’s no longer scarce, by definition.
Published: February 12, 2009 6:17 PM
Published: February 12, 2009 6:26 PM
Published: February 12, 2009 6:34 PM
Published: February 12, 2009 6:37 PM
Published: February 12, 2009 7:30 PM
“And quite aside from the scarcity argument, there’s the fact that preventing someone from using an idea involves curtailing his rights to the use of his tangible property.”That’s the whole idea, you may be sure. It should tell anyone who’s paying attention who the real IP socialists are. It isn’t libertarians who impose restrictions on the use of other people’s property, and it isn’t libertarians who corrupt the language in order to sway people to their point of view. The argument for IP is just another clever argument why your physical goods should be another’s to control. It’s no different at all from the drug warriors’ insistence, at gunpoint, that you don’t grow certain plants.
Published: February 12, 2009 7:33 PM
with the arches and everything. Then I messed up really bad, had terrible food, poisioned someone, and my restaraunt failed. Would that not be causing violence to the name or R. McDonalds,No, you can’t commit violence against “names”.even though it is not the same restaraunt. People would see it as the same because there would be no external difference. Meaning, R. McDonalds business may be damaged, through no fault of their own, due to someone using the same type of store.
There is no right to “not be damaged” in this way. R. McD’s may be “damaged” by Burger King opening a competing chain too. So what? You have a right to the physical integrity of your property, not to its value.
I am having difficulty trying to understand this Stephen. I have thought of Benjamin’s scenario before regarding IP and have tried to create an argument against Mcdonalds claim that the 2nd Mcdonalds is doing harm and violating property rights.
I understand that violence can not be perpretrated on a “name” but behind the spectrum of the “name” is also reputation(quality and service standards). Would this not cause customers to negatively view the initial Mcdonalds?This could potentially cause decreased profits for the 1st Mcdonalds by the 2nd Mcdonalds actions.
I don’t understand why you use Burger King as an example because this is cleary distinguishable to the consumer when deciding where to purchase their fast food.
I have not read your book yet but look forward to it. Thanks for creating some recent discussion on this subject.
Published: February 12, 2009 8:37 PM
Can we then put a stop to the charade and rename the institute as Rothbard Institute, and the blog as Rothbard Anarchist Blog?
Published: February 12, 2009 9:31 PM
Published: February 12, 2009 10:18 PM
Published: February 12, 2009 10:29 PM
Published: February 12, 2009 11:00 PM
Published: February 12, 2009 11:32 PM
Published: February 12, 2009 11:35 PM
Published: February 13, 2009 12:05 AM
Is copying without the consent of the owner aggression or not?
If not why not?
Published: February 13, 2009 2:18 AM
We are not talking about the mechanics of trade or sharing, but legitimacy of it. This is an ethics discussion.
Published: February 13, 2009 2:28 AM
Published: February 13, 2009 2:34 AM
You know why abolishing private property rights is IP socialism other than the obvious reason?
Because it forces association between individuals. Just as socialism suppose to do.
Metallica wants nothing to do with person A. He doesn’t want to associate with him. But once person A downloads, copies Metallica’s songs he is getting into association despite the wishes of Metallica. Metallica can not say “No leave me alone” according to the IP socialists. He is a slave to the others. Because supposedly others have a “right to copy” Metallica’s songs (which is not a right but an entitlement because someone else bears the cost of producing the original that is being copied) which means others have right to associate with Metallica without their consent.
Published: February 13, 2009 2:46 AM
– IP consists of several completely unrelated things (i.e. it is an umbrella term just as Stephan Kinsella writes)
– IP only deals with rights that apply to people that are not a party to contract (i.e. third parties). They have no relevant effect on the ability to make contracts and prosecute violators thereof. They do not create this ability, other laws do.This means that even without IP, “stealing” intangible property is still illegal, it just has a different meaning. Without IP, it refers to a breach of contract, with IP it also means unauthorised competition. Before we can argue whether this is a good or a bad thing, we first need to understand what we’re talking about.Please people, before you make arguments, make yourselves knowledgeable about IP.
Published: February 13, 2009 4:41 AM
> A writer wants to associate with another individuals and
> sells his IP on certain conditions. He or she wants
> nothing to do with you. You somehow get a copy of it,
> without the consent of the owner and you assume that it
> is a gift?
Let’s say I insult the writer in question without his consent, call him a liar, thief, plagiator, whatever. He doesn’t want anything to do with that. Was my assumption that while his reputation and honour are indeed his, he doesn’t have a monopoly on them, incorrect?
Published: February 13, 2009 5:19 AM
“- IP consists of several completely unrelated things (i.e. it is an umbrella term just as Stephan Kinsella writes)”
No. IP means intellectual property. It is one thing. There may be different legislation that relates to different uses and different types protection of IP (some legitimate some illegitimate) but the issue is one.
“- IP only deals with rights that apply to people that are not a party to contract (i.e. third parties). They have no relevant effect on the ability to make contracts and prosecute violators thereof. They do not create this ability, other laws do.”
IP rights have nothing to do with contracts, second party or third party. Contracts may be used to increase the protection of IP and that is it.
IP is property and the only thing that matters when it comes to property is “if there is an aggression against property or not”. It is property that gives meaning to the concept of aggression, or initiation of violence. If there is no concept of property there can not be a concept of aggression.
Again, if your problem is with legislation that you think relates to IP then put it that way because I am sure everyone has problems with the legislation.
But the important aspect is the ethical aspect that causes people to have problems.
Published: February 13, 2009 6:18 AM
But an IP is something different. Without others there would still be IP. And you can own it because its existence is solely dependent on you.
Robinson Crusoe can not have a reputation on his island. But if he wrote a poem he can own it.
Published: February 13, 2009 6:26 AM
> IP means intellectual property. It is one thing.
After all these weeks, you have not succeeded in defining what you think IP is. Until you do that, no meaningful discussion is possible.It appears to me that you have your very own definition of IP, which is not shared by anyone else. That’s not the main problem though, rather the lack of the definition is. Sans the definition, I am unable to make a meaningful representation of your arguments, therefore cannot respond to them.
Published: February 13, 2009 6:51 AM
You are completely misunderstanding the function of scarcity in the determination of property rights. If a resource is subject to an INTRINSIC use-limit, demand beyond that limit will NECESSARILY be unmet. It is due to the inherent NATURE of the resource that exclusion becomes UNAVOIDABLE. Property rights arise when use DEPENDS on exclusion. Scarcity is NOT a necessity; it is a REALITY, and it is about time you learned the difference.
Published: February 13, 2009 6:52 AM
When you pick a nature given good, say apple and homestead it, pick it off the tree, change its natural state to fulfill your need it becomes yours.
When you pick a nature given abstraction say the concept of apple and many other concepts and make it into a story about a girl and her witch of a jealous step mother you create something, that is not nature given.
This is homesteading as much as homesteading the physical apple by picking off the tree.
Similarly, sounds are nature given resources that we gather with our ears. But when one individual makes a pattern out of them, compose music, again, which is not nature given, that person homesteaded a nature given resource.
One of the main problems of people who are having trouble with the concept of IP, is they don’t have a concept of homesteading property. Or they don’t really think about it.
If you think about homesteading, how something nature given becomes someones property, one would realize that the core issue is the individual who homesteads. Without that individual there is nothing and concepts of scarcity has no meaning.
Published: February 13, 2009 7:09 AM
Why do you think “intrinsic use limit” (I assume this means natural scarcity as opposed to man made scarcity) has anything to do with property rights?
Or why do you assume possibility of conflict on a resource as the only defining aspect of property?
What does “owning” imply?
Can Robinson Crusoe, own anything since there is no other human being thus possibility of conflict between them?
You seem to be stuck on the wrong assumption that property rights are man made rights to resolve conflict.
Which is both wrong, and also state centric.
The original homesteader homesteads and makes something his property and he doesn’t think of any possible future conflicts. He just does it, and this is why property rights arise naturally. Without the need of a state or a planner.
And if some other person comes and aggress against his property he has a right to use violence against him because he homesteaded the natural resource and made it his.
Assuming property rights are about conflict resolution implies that many people gather together and some authority divide some loot among them by central planning.
The basic property right is self ownership. And every other right stems from that one right.
Also no conflict resolution meeting or possibility has shaped the right of self ownership. This right is a necessity of reality. Every individual necessarily is in ultimate control of his actions. Even if he is under threat and wouldn’t act certain way if he wasn’t. He is still making a conscious choice. And even if total mind and body control is possible in the future it would be aggression against the individual because he has already homesteaded his self.
Also about scarcity.
You seem to think that “the possibility of non scarcity in the future” is enough to make something non property.
Do you think it is impossible to make tangible goods non scarce in the future?
If not why have tangible property now?
Published: February 13, 2009 7:29 AM
> that we gather with our senses. IP is man made,
> homesteaded abstract ideas.
This is not a definition. This is just some mumbo jumbo. A definition is supposed to increase, not decrease, specificity.
Published: February 13, 2009 7:32 AM
Published: February 13, 2009 7:37 AM
Published: February 13, 2009 8:53 AM
Sorry, I don’t understand the question. Perhaps you could restate it.
“Why do you think ‘intrinsic use limit’ (I assume this means natural scarcity as opposed to man made scarcity) has anything to do with property rights?”
When the use of a resource is subject to a natural limit, use by latecomers INFRINGES upon use by first-comers. If you favor the first-comer’s right to uninfringed use, you must NECESARILLY favor the exclusion of latecomers.
HOWEVER, when the use of a resource is NOT subject to a natural limit, additional use by latecomers does NOT infringe upon use by first-comers. Therefore, exclusion is NOT necessary. It is NOT required due to the nature of reality, but is in fact a CHOICE. I see no ethical justification for this choice, however. The justification for exclusion is that it is NECESSITATED by use.
“The basic property right is self ownership.”
Your body is subject to natural usage limitations: you can’t be in two places at once; you can’t dance the salsa and the Jitter Bug at the same time. You were the first to use your body, and your continued use DEPENDS on the exclusion of others.
“You seem to think that ‘the possibility of non scarcity in the future’ is enough to make something non property.
Do you think it is impossible to make tangible goods non scarce in the future?
If not why have tangible property now?”
You are confusing an individual good with a class of goods. A single car can only be driven in ONE direction at any one time. The natural limits on its use will NEVER change, regardless of how many other cars are produced in the future.
Published: February 13, 2009 8:53 AM
Published: February 13, 2009 9:00 AM
Why does this has to be a natural limit? What if I limit the use of the property for the others? I wrote a novel and no matter how easy to copy and reproduce it naturally, since I own it I can put a limit to the reproduction to it. You are claiming that I can not because potentially the thing can be copied endlessly. Cant you really see how absurd that is?
Published: February 13, 2009 9:07 AM
Isn’t air a free, non scarce good? Are all the air molecules that people breathe, without getting into conflict, identical?
Published: February 13, 2009 9:12 AM
2. Contrary to Kinsella’s argument, copyright nor patent prevent anyone using their property as they see fit. It is the act of sale or allowing others to benefit from the products produced using the copyrighted work or the patent that is prohibited by the appropriate laws. You may use any patent for your private use as much as you see fit.
As an patent attorney Kinsella needs to know this, but still uses silly examples and clauses hiding this fact.
Should the ownership of resources include the right to use them to extract value out of information created by others?
Kinsella answers this himself (in a comment above): “So what? You have a right to the physical integrity of your property, not to its value.”
Published: February 13, 2009 9:43 AM
3. I see no ethical justification for this choice, however. Exclusion is only justified when NECESSITATED by use. In other words, exclusion is a DERIVATIVE of the right to use, not a right unto itself.
Published: February 13, 2009 9:48 AM
Published: February 13, 2009 9:49 AM
What requirement? Who decides on this requirement? The only requirement in ethics is that no one aggresses against others and their property.
And of course exclusion is a CHOICE. “CHOICE” is what defines property rights.
“3. I see no ethical justification for this choice, however. Exclusion is only justified when NECESSITATED by use. In other words, exclusion is a DERIVATIVE of the right to use, not a right unto itself.”
This choice comes with property rights either you see justification or not. Property rights means choice over the use of property.
As you can see you have nothing to do with the individual and his choices when it comes to your property theory. Can you understand why I call this position IP Socialism?
Published: February 13, 2009 10:47 AM
I am defining exclusion as a DERIVATIVE of the right to use, not a right unto itself. The reason I do this is because I see no inherent natural law NEED for exclusion. I only see a need for USE.
“What requirement? Who decides on this requirement?”
In order for me to wear my hat, you are REQUIRED not to. This is not determined by me. It is determined by the nature of my hat. Only one person can wear it at a time!
“And of course exclusion is a CHOICE.”
Whether or not exclusion is a choice depends on what is being used.
“Property rights means choice over the use of property.”
You are attempting to bundle the RIGHT TO USE resources together with the RIGHT TO EXCLUDE others from using resources. I am claiming that the RIGHT TO EXCLUDE can only be justified as a DERIVITIVE of the RIGHT TO USE. I do not think the RIGHT TO EXCLUDE can be justified on its own (without reference to USE), but I welcome you to try.
Published: February 13, 2009 11:20 AM
Published: February 13, 2009 11:42 AM
Published: February 13, 2009 12:15 PM
Published: February 13, 2009 1:28 PM
“Or why do you assume possibility of conflict on a resource as the only defining aspect of property?
What does “owning” imply?
Can Robinson Crusoe, own anything since there is no other human being thus possibility of conflict between them?”
Published: February 13, 2009 2:18 PM
Published: February 13, 2009 2:42 PM
Anyways, I don’t have a problem with independent discovery. I only claim that “copying without the owners consent is aggression”.Sir, these statements are contradictory – if you accept independent discovery, then it follows that ideas cannot be owned. So how can you argue in favor of limiting the copying of ideas to the consent of the “owner”? Either ideas have owners, or they do not. I contend they do not, especially since ideas can be independently discovered or reasoned into existence.If there is an independent discovery, which is possible but doesn’t make ideas non scarce free goods […]Ktibuk, the problem is that if there IS independent discovery, then ideas cannot be limited (that is, scarce). If they were, there would be a physical impossibility for two or more minds to produce the same idea. Ergo, ideas cannot be GOODS, or more to the point, cannot be scarce goods. Certainly, an inventor can sell his invention or a musician his composition to another person if they agree to it, but what the seller is selling is not the idea itself, but the physical manifestation of the idea (the invention) or the sheet of music. It is those things that are valued and not the ideas themselves.
Is copying without the consent of the owner aggression or not?
It is not unless the copier stole the original or first physical manifestation of the originator’s idea (i.e. drawings, writings, et cetera) that were not yet public.
If not why not?
Because ideas cannot be owned, as I have shown. If person A & B can hold the same idea in their minds, then there is no way for person A to put a fence around the idea or place it in storage, in the same way it would not be possible for B. Ergo, neither A or B can allege they have ownership of the idea.
Published: February 13, 2009 2:45 PM
Published: February 13, 2009 3:45 PM
“Ktibuk, the problem is that if there IS independent discovery, then ideas cannot be limited (that is, scarce).”
No. The thing that makes ideas non scarce is not independent discovery. It is the act of copying. How many original thinkers do you think that can come up with some original idea? It may not be only one but it certainly is not everyone, which would make ideas non scarce.
“Certainly, an inventor can sell his invention or a musician his composition to another person if they agree to it, but what the seller is selling is not the idea itself, but the physical manifestation of the idea (the invention) or the sheet of music.”
Who says? He is in fact selling some ideas on certain conditions. He may also sell all the rights, by giving up his rights and transferring them to the other party. The IP that is being sold might be embedded in some tangible property but that doesn’t change the fact that IP exists and the tangible property is only a vessel. Just like sound waves are vessels of transferring ideas.
`It is not unless the copier stole the original or first physical manifestation of the originator’s idea (i.e. drawings, writings, et cetera) that were not yet public.`
What do you mean bu “public”. Nothing is made public unless the owner wants it to be. If an IP is leaked without the consent of the owner,.this does not mean it is made public. You just assume it is, because copying is technically easy and sometimes it is hard to prove any copying took place.
“Because ideas cannot be owned, as I have shown. If person A & B can hold the same idea in their minds, then there is no way for person A to put a fence around the idea or place it in storage, in the same way it would not be possible for B. Ergo, neither A or B can allege they have ownership of the idea.”
They can both have, and own the idea if they have in fact homesteaded their own ideas. There is no aggression there. But if someone copies someone elses idea without their consent then there is aggression.
If I wrote a novel, for you to copy it without my consent is aggression. It doesn’t matter if you have chance of coming up with the novel all by yourself. If you can, go do it. But possibility of your independent discovery can not negate my right on the thing I created.
Published: February 13, 2009 4:01 PM
“do you assume possibility of conflict on a resource as the only defining aspect of property?”
No. USE is the foundation of property.
“What does ‘owning’ imply?”
Ownership is the social recognition of USE.
“Can Robinson Crusoe, own anything since there is no other human being thus possibility of conflict between them?”
Ownership has no meaning outside a social context. Rights do not exist in nature – only laws.
Published: February 13, 2009 10:31 PM
You see, once you get rid of your contradictions the last station you are gonna visit is Socialismville.
Because you don’t have a libertarian homesteading, and property rights theory.
Published: February 14, 2009 2:27 AM
IF the first-comer has a right to the FULL use of the boat (as I suspect we agree), and IF the presence of a latecomer on the boat will LIMIT the first-comer’s use of the boat (as I suspect we also agree), THEN the first-comer has a DERIVATIVE right to exclude the latecomer from entering the boat and infringing upon his use of it.
“Bill Gates has money that he can not possible spend all on himself. On the other hand there are other 100 or so people who are starving So there is no natural limit regarding fulfilling the needs of Bill Gates and the starving 100 Africans, no natural conflict other than the whims of Bill Gates. Does he have a right to say no, and keep his property?”
If Bill Gates has the sole right to the use of his money, he has a DERIVATIVE right to exclude others from its use.
Published: February 14, 2009 2:51 AM
“Only the actual expression of the author can be protected by copyright. The ideas, plans, methods, or systems described or embodied in a work are not protected by copyright. Thus, there is no way to secure copyright protection for the idea or principle behind a blank form or similar work or for any of the methods or systems involved in it.”And why would such protection exist even in a free unhampered market. I already answered it:
– Authors have an unalienable right to sell only limited use of their works, thus limiting many things you can do with their works (including replications)
– Authors can sue for damages if a third party (a non-customer) ever picks their work and uses it in a way that causes economic injury to them.
Best regards!
Published: February 14, 2009 2:54 AM
Published: February 14, 2009 2:55 AM
You base your property rights to possibility of conflict and conflict resolution, and conflict that arises only from need. Not the consent of the owner.
In libertarian property law, the consent of the owner is the only requirement. There are no other requirements, necessities, nothing.
In you property theory need is the requirement.. Logical conclusion of your theory is, everyone according to his need, everyone according to his ability
Published: February 14, 2009 3:09 AM
Cute, but no. FIRST USE establishes the RIGHT TO USE.
Published: February 14, 2009 3:33 AM
Published: February 14, 2009 8:50 AM
Published: February 14, 2009 9:16 AM
In libertarian homesteading/property theory the individual who homesteads a nature given resource owns it and owning means having total control over the property including exclusion of others based on choice even pure whim. One may even destroy the property if he wishes to do so which means exclusion of every possible human, if he owns it.
You made a distinction between individual goods and a class of goods when it came to scarcity but you didn’t give a reason for it when I asked.
Why make the distinction. Isn’t possibility of conflict (other than conflict based on choice) at the core of this scarcity issue.
You claim an apple can only be eaten by one and this is the only reason apples can be property.
But what if one person owns billions of apples more than anyone can eat. What kind of conflict is possible, other than his choice. And if choice is not an ethical requirement for exclusion, what is the logical conclusion of this position?
Published: February 15, 2009 5:02 AM
Your only argument is “the argument from scarcity” which has been demolished many times including on the comments sections of this very post.
Published: February 15, 2009 5:08 AM
“Ownership implies many rights including the right to let anyone copy or not but this right doesn’t define property. What defines property is the act of homesteading. Turning something nature given to something man made. You know the distinction right?”
Actually, no–the way you word this is vague and loosey-goosey. I would replace “something” with “unowned scarce resources” to make it clear. See?
“To do this you need to be referring to the pattern when you say ‘novel”–but in this case, it’s question-begging to say you own it. Morever, it’s ridiculous and wrong to say that it’s aggression to copy it. If I have knowledge of the plot of Raiders of the Lost Ark, it is not aggression to “copy” this; if I am aware of a way to arrange my own property so as to make a bow and arrow, copying what the “inventor” of bow and arrow did is not “aggression.””
“Lots of assertions, no argument.”
So…. you think it IS “aggression” for me to … use my own property in a certain way. Interesting.
Published: February 15, 2009 8:49 AM
First “scarcity” is an economics term not an ethics term. It is about the value of a good.
Second as I already told Drake numerous times, this “conflict resolution because of scarcity” argument will eventually take you to full socialism if you follow the logical conclusions.
Why don’t you try to answer the boat questions?
Can someone homestead a boat with a capacity of 10, where there is no scarcity and no natural limit thus possibility of conflict arising from natural limits, and deny another the use of the boat and let him die?
If he can not what exactly do you mean by property rights, and who can own more wealth than he can consume?
Again, Ownership is about the consent, the choice of the owner and without it, the concept means nothing. Ownership is not about scarcity, conflict or natural limits of use.
“So…. you think it IS “aggression” for me to … use my own property in a certain way. Interesting.”
No. You can do whatever you want with your property. Just don’t copy mine. Because copying mine without my consent is aggression. What part of “leave me alone” don’t you understand? Why do you think you are entitled to associate with others property without their consent? Do you think people owe you? Or do you think you have a right to enslave them?
Published: February 15, 2009 9:19 AM
“You can do whatever you want with your property. Just don’t copy mine. Because copying mine without my consent is aggression. What part of “leave me alone” don’t you understand? Why do you think you are entitled to associate with others property without their consent? Do you think people owe you? Or do you think you have a right to enslave them?”
So… if I make a fire on my property to cook my food, I am “enslaving” the first guy who did something similar with his property. i see.
Published: February 15, 2009 10:07 AM
There have been, there is and there will be legislation all over the world regarding property. Some just, some unjust. These laws can only be evaluated from an ethical perspective. This doesn’t mean however, certain legislation represent a certain ethical position. And this doesn’t mean you can go backwards and first look at the legislation and keep the ethical discussion in legislative boundaries.
You are attacking IP legislation and from that you jump to the conclusion that IP can not be property, which is unwarranted and non sequitur. That is because you don’t have a coherent contradiction-free homesteading/property theory.
Homesteading is the foundation of private property theory. Without it there is nothing. Why don’t you go check all your writings about IP, including the essay, and search how many times the word homesteading appears. You may get a clue to where you are wrong.
“So… if I make a fire on my property to cook my food, I am “enslaving” the first guy who did something similar with his property. i see.”
Stop saying “I see” because you don’t see anything. You either can not comprehend what I am saying or knowingly being dishonest.
I repeteadly said over and over “doing something first” doesnt mean shit, and the only thing that matters is homesteading (making something property) and copying without consent (aggression against property) and you still have nerve to write about making fires and cooking.
Don’t you ever ask yourself why you are afraid to give meaningful examples like copying a digital version of the batman movie or copying microsoft windows?
Published: February 15, 2009 10:47 AM
Again, the requirement for ownership is FIRST USE. Exclusion comes into play in order to SECURE the right to use. Whether or not exclusion is REQUIRED to secure the right to use depends on the NATURE of the resource being used. The right to use a non-scarce resource MAY be homesteaded, but others may not be excluded from using it if their use does not interfere with the use – ACTUAL or POTENTIAL – of the homesteader.
“Then when it came to other examples (the boat example above) I gave, where there wasnt a natural limit, or a possibility of conflict other than the conflict resulting from the choice of the owner, you claimed the opposite position.”
Not true. I asked if you needed me to provide you with examples of how the latecomer’s presence on the boat would limit the first-comer’s use of the boat. With a little imagination you could have come up with a few examples on your own, but I suppose I’ll have to do your thinking for you…
Possible Uses of a Boat – And How the Arrival of a Latecomer Would Interfere with Them:
1. Laying down in the boat to sleep: the latecomer might be in the way.
2. Using part of the boat to store fish: the latecomer might take up the area needed to store the fish.
3. Rowing the boat to the nearest island: the latecomer would add weight to the boat, making rowing more difficult and slowing the boat down (let’s assume there is only one oar).
Clearly, the presence of the latecomer limits the first-comer’s ability to use the boat. This is due, in part, to the fact that the space on any boat is finite, regardless of its size.
“You need to think through your position and what it implies. The natural necessity argument coupled with ‘conflict resolution’ argument is the basis for socialism not libertarian property theory.”
I don’t know what you mean by the “natural necessity argument” or the “conflict resolution argument”. As I have said a number of times already, FIRST USE establishes the RIGHT TO USE.
“In libertarian homesteading/property theory the individual who homesteads a nature given resource owns it and owning means having total control over the property including exclusion of others based on choice even pure whim.”
Yes, that is the standard position. The fact that it is the standard position is not an argument in and of itself, though.
“One may even destroy the property if he wishes to do so which means exclusion of every possible human, if he owns it.”
The form of things may be changed, but there is no way to increase or decrease the total amount of matter and energy in the universe. In other words, what you are referring to as “destruction” I would categorize as USE (which obviously includes physical manipulation). For example, if you bulldoze your house, you have clearly changed its form but have not caused the original materials to cease to exist.
“You made a distinction between individual goods and a class of goods when it came to scarcity but you didn’t give a reason for it when I asked. Why make the distinction.”
First of all, it is impossible to homestead a CLASS of goods. You can’t homestead every instance of something in the past, present, and future. But let’s look at your original post:
“You seem to think that ‘the possibility of non scarcity in the future’ is enough to make something non property.”
No. First use establishes the right to use. Scarcity is irrelevant in that regard. Scarcity only determines whether exclusion is necessary to secure the right established by first use.
“Isn’t possibility of conflict (other than conflict based on choice) at the core of this scarcity issue.”
USE is the core of the issue. If more use is demanded than is available, who should get the rights to what is available? One answer is to say that use goes to the strongest (might equals right). Another answer is to say that an “anointed” leader should decide (despotism). Yet another answer is to say that usage rights should be determined by vote (tyranny of the majority). Libertarians have come to the conclusion that none of the above positions are satisfactory and instead favor the homesteading rule (first come, first serve). Two noteworthy results of a consistent application of the homesteading rule are a reduction of conflict and an increase in cooperation.
“You claim an apple can only be eaten by one and this is the only reason apples can be property.”
Not true. My being the original appropriator of an apple establishes my right to eat it. In that respect it is my property. But if you and the rest of the world can somehow ALSO eat it – WITHOUT diminishing my ability to do so – your eating it does not violate my rights in the apple.
“But what if one person owns billions of apples more than anyone can eat. What kind of conflict is possible, other than his choice.”
I am defining ownership as the RIGHT to use. ACTUAL use is not required, except when homesteading (i.e. mixing one’s labor with a nature-given factor). Even if the owner of a billion apples has no intention of eating any of them, his RIGHT to eat them is secured by the exclusion of others.
“And if choice is not an ethical requirement for exclusion, what is the logical conclusion of this position?”
The owner DOES have choice – the choice to use (or not use) his property as he sees fit. As I said before, I do not see exclusion as a right unto itself, and I’ve twice invited you to explain why it should be. Perhaps you would do me the honor this time?
Published: February 15, 2009 11:21 AM
Don’t you think we have a right not to have our seals and signatures counterfeited? It seems to me that the non-existence of such a right would spell the doom of any fiduciary media whatsoever.
Do you think this analogy of mine is legitimate, or fallacious? This question is honest: I just want to know your thoughts on this.Of course, there are trademarks which are not seals, but concepts designating a product or ideas, like “velcro”, “aspirin”, or even “The Politically Incorrect Guide”. These, I think, are not legitimately “monopolizable”.
Published: February 15, 2009 12:10 PM
Published: February 15, 2009 12:41 PM
Regards.
Published: February 16, 2009 2:43 AM
A seal or a signature is a fundamental instrument through which a person acts in the world. You may say:- Oh, but a signature (or seal) is not scarce; therefore it cannot be owned! It is an ideal object.
But if I write a letter to Mr. Kinsella threatening his life, he will consider this illegitimate (if he has not changed his mind since he wrote the paper “Causation and Aggression”), but I can respond: “Oh, that’s just a bunch of letters assembled together! It doesn’t mean anything! Actually, my goal was to praise you!” What is wrong in this attitude?
Answer: I am implicitly saying that words do not objectively symbolize realities, and acting accordingly.
My signature (my seal) symbolizes the fact that “Gregory has had a part in this”, like the name “Stephan Kinsella” symbolizes a concrete person, like “apple” symbolizes an objective reality. In using your signature (or seal) I am just doing the same as I would be doing if I coerced you into assenting to a venture of mine. The intent is the same; it’s just the means that differ. I am doing this because I deem your contribution to have economic value.
A signature (or seal) symbolizes a contribution of some person. A personal contribution IS a scarce thing, and its counterfeited display proves it is subjectively perceived by the counterfeiter as having value. For all practical purposes, a counterfeited signature (or seal) is a forced contribution. If I complain, I show therefore that such use is harming me.
The possibility of such an act inflating or deflating a reputation is irrelevant. The fact remains that your approach implies the negation of the objective meaning of certain symbols, and hence, makes as much sense as saying that “f*** you!” is just a mere bunch of letters (or a mere assemblage of sounds) devoid of any conventional meaning.
The right to prevent anyone from using my seal or signature is, hence, the right not to be robbed, through counterfeiting, of the economic value of a scarce thing: my personal contribution. It is NOT a right over an “ideal” thing, nor a “right to a reputation”, nor even a right against fraud.
Published: February 16, 2009 6:29 AM
“As a matter of principle, does an individual have the right to prevent another party from using his seal or signature?”It’s like asking whether a person has a “right” to prevent others from impersonating him, regardless of context (whether it’s a comical impersonation or one done by a con-artist designed to defraud someone and to create economic injury). It’s a rather silly question.If you ask me whether you have right to prevent me from using signature identical to yours just to amuse people who know you – the answer is: NO! An individual does not have a “right” per se to coerce someone into not using his own hand in non-aggressive ways — including signing his name using the pattern identical to yours. Such coercion would represent an aggression against that person’s property (his own body and his own tools).Nevertheless, if by signing his name in a pattern identical to yours this person intends to defraud people who intended to benefit you instead of this con-artist — then we can talk about real injury and liability arising from such action.
You are forgetting that the real issue with forgery is not “theft” of some symbols that “belong” to you. You cannot have an ownership right over a pattern, since your exclusive control over a pattern must assume aggression against another person’s property (how else you can control it). Instead, trademark and signature forgery is an issue of simple fraud and economic injuries that arise from such unlawful action.
Regards,
Published: February 16, 2009 8:01 AM
Gregory Cantor:
“As a matter of principle, does an individual have the right to prevent another party from using his seal or signature?”
No, not as a general matter. It depends.
“But if I write a letter to Mr. Kinsella threatening his life, he will consider this illegitimate (if he has not changed his mind since he wrote the paper “Causation and Aggression”), but I can respond: “Oh, that’s just a bunch of letters assembled together! It doesn’t mean anything! Actually, my goal was to praise you!” What is wrong in this attitude?”
Because communication and language are possible.
“Answer: I am implicitly saying that words do not objectively symbolize realities, and acting accordingly.”
but you are wrong.
“My signature (my seal) symbolizes the fact that “Gregory has had a part in this”, like the name “Stephan Kinsella” symbolizes a concrete person, like “apple” symbolizes an objective reality. In using your signature (or seal) I am just doing the same as I would be doing if I coerced you into assenting to a venture of mine. The intent is the same; it’s just the means that differ. I am doing this because I deem your contribution to have economic value.”
In one case, you are lying. But lying is not necessarily a rights violation. Such a lie can be used to defraud your customer, of cousre.
In the other case, when you threaten someone, it’s not a lie, it’s a communication of intent to harm, and may be treated this way by the recipient. You are treating unalike things alike.
“The right to prevent anyone from using my seal or signature is, hence, the right not to be robbed, through counterfeiting, of the economic value of a scarce thing: my personal contribution. It is NOT a right over an “ideal” thing, nor a “right to a reputation”, nor even a right against fraud.”
there are no rights to the value of things.
Published: February 16, 2009 8:56 AM
“Answer: I am implicitly saying that words do not objectively symbolize realities, and acting accordingly.”
but you are wrong.
Mr. Kinsella, my point was precisely that it is wrong to separate symbols from their conventional/accepted meaning, be they letters, words, sounds, seals, or signatures. It seems we agree on this particular issue.
“In the other case, when you threaten someone, it’s not a lie, it’s a communication of intent to harm, and may be treated this way by the recipient. You are treating unalike things alike.”
Not at all, Sir. The recourse to lies, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to my argument. Because the example of the threatening letter was only meant to demonstrate that you can aggress someone through the use of symbols, and that what matters in these circumstances is what the symbol means, not the symbol itself. Why is this precision important? To show that my argument does not depend on defending that patterns, or symbols, are ownable (I know they aren’t!).
“there are no rights to the value of things.”
With all due respect, I think this is an ad hoc assertion. Three examples:
1) If I am late in the payment of a debt to you, and there was no previous convention as to what sanction would apply for such default, are not you entitled to receive interest? What is this, if not a right to the value of things?
2) What’s wrong with inflation, if not (primarily) the fact that it robs people of the value of their money?
3) How could we justify the right to reparation for the destruction of a thing, if not by basing it on a right to the value of the said object? It cannot be based on the right of property over a thing that does not exist anymore. Rights “die” with their object.
Published: February 16, 2009 2:50 PM