From Mises blog. Archived comments below, plus those from Tucker’s article.
Authors: Don’t Make the Buddy Holly Mistake
In Authors: Beware of Copyright [archived comments below], Jeff Tucker warns authors to be careful with their publication agreements not to alienate their books and other works. A good illustration of this peril is found in the case of Buddy Holly and his recording contract with Decca. As reported in Buddy Holly’s secretly recorded contract negotiation with Decca,
In 1956, Buddy Holly traveled to Nashville to record several songs. One of the songs he recorded was “That’ll Be The Day”, but the producer assigned to his sessions (Owen Bradley) hated rock n’ roll, and did a terrible job on the song. After that, Buddy traveled to New Mexico and re-recorded “That’ll Be The Day” (the version that became the monster hit) at a different studio with his own (superior) arrangement, but according to his contract with Decca, he couldn’t release it, because Decca owned all rights to his music. He decided to call Decca, to try reason with them, and he secretly taped his conversation. They refused to give him the rights to his own song, but he went ahead and violated his contract. Here is the conversation he secretly taped.
Listening to Holly pleading with the masters he has alienated his rights to is heartbreaking. Decca had dropped him, apparently, but had the rights to sit on his recordings for 5 years. Although they had no intention of releasing the songs, they also would not give Holly permission to do so–the cigar-chomping executive kept saying “well, we got a lot of money tied up in them, Buddy!” But Holly offered to reimburse those costs; no dice.
Authors: do not let this happen to you. When you publish a book, consider publishing it yourself on Amazon/Kindle (or, soon, iBooks/iPad) or LuLu. Or persuade the publisher to let you post an online version for free. At least make sure the publisher will offer a kindle and ebook version. Negotiate, at the very least, the right to post the work online for free after, say, 3 or 4 years, when sales have petered out.
***
Archived comments: https://web.archive.org/web/20100323103900/http://blog.mises.org/11574/authors-dont-make-the-buddy-holly-mistake/comment-page-2/#comments and https://web.archive.org/web/20110531170134/http://blog.mises.org/11574/authors-dont-make-the-buddy-holly-mistake/:
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Subscribe to comments on this post via RSS
{ 128 comments… read them below or add one }
Guard January 31, 2010 at 3:07 am
The newbs, amateurs and lurkers are laughing.
Mark Hubbard January 31, 2010 at 3:47 am
Answer my question, newson. Your prevarication is showing your thieving sanction for what it is. Theft.
newson January 31, 2010 at 4:41 am
yes, i have borrowed books, and shared them. i stand guilty of rand-crime.
newson January 31, 2010 at 4:44 am
hubbard’s never once taped a tv or radio programme. bill clinton never inhaled either.
Richard Allan January 31, 2010 at 8:15 am
Unless I’m mistaken, the argument is that Buddy shouldn’t have had to obey the contract because it contradicted his ownership of his own body. By saying “I promise not to do ABC with my body for the next 6 years” he was effectively selling himself into slavery. If the recording company wanted to impose conditionality on his use of their equipment, they should have made him sign a contract saying “In the event that I record a copy of this song elsewhere, I promise to pay $X to the recording company.” Where “X” might be “the amount I earn in royalties from that recording”, mightn’t it?
But if that’s the case, doesn’t it mean that I can sell myself into slavery by saying “I promise to pay all my wages to Y in perpetuity”? I guess you could stop working in that instance… but what about “I promise to pay Y $30,000 per year in perpetuity?” If you violate that contract, you have to pay back whatever you received in return. If you haven’t got it, you have to work to pay off the debt… which might take you forever. Ah well.
Artisan January 31, 2010 at 8:20 am
I like the new softer Mise’s approach: it’s a deeper level of understanding IP. Less polemical.
I’d like to call it “sticky contracts” theory.
Go figure why so many authors sign those bad copyright conditions? If there was a free market, then it’s obvious that some (big) publisher would offer at some point: We both get the best deal if publisher is paying only 3 pc royalties instead of 6 pc while he allow them authors say, to publish within two years, the same book on their own.
Why have I never heard of it?
Misesian January 31, 2010 at 8:28 am
I’m usually with the Mises crowd on most issues. This is one where we will have to agree to disagree. For me…Buddy, simply signed a “crap” contract. As much as I love Holly…he screwed himself. Let’s ignore the fact that he’s Holly. If I go to a record company as a “nobody” and they spend time and energy as I’m allowed to lay down tracks. Use my ideas and turn them into physical/tangible and reproducible good and then sign a contract whereby they have the right to own some of the royalties for five years or can do with it as they please…then so be it.
A bad contract, is no defense when it is being breached…I think emotions are running high here because of the person WE ALL feel bad for.
JAlanKatz January 31, 2010 at 8:45 am
I do not find the comments regarding contract persuasive. The question is not my ability to write a contract – physically I have the ability to write a contract for anything. The question at stake is what to do in cases of failure. In other words, just what does a contract commit me to? If we contract to exchange 3 apples for 2 oranges, and you give me 3 apples, and the date for orange-payment comes and I have no oranges, what happens? Certainly I am not compelled to go out and get some oranges and give them to you – a contract cannot demand a literal performance bond. I must give you back your apples, plus some penalty. Presumably, our contract included such a provision, or the name of an arbitrater who will set the penalty amount. If not, we’ll have to agree on an arbitrater now.
Similarly, we should not think here that such a contract literally compels Buddy Holly to not make use of his own body by pressing certain strings in certain ways on a guitar.
Stephan Kinsella January 31, 2010 at 9:15 am
JAlanKatz:
“The question is not my ability to write a contract – physically I have the ability to write a contract for anything. The question at stake is what to do in cases of failure. In other words, just what does a contract commit me to?”
Exactly. This is the right question.
“If we contract to exchange 3 apples for 2 oranges, and you give me 3 apples, and the date for orange-payment comes and I have no oranges, what happens? Certainly I am not compelled to go out and get some oranges and give them to you – a contract cannot demand a literal performance bond. I must give you back your apples, plus some penalty.”
No. This cannot be right. THe title to the apples transfers completely on day 1, so that you may use them. It is NOT conditional. You have already used them up by the time you owe the oranges. The oranges may not exist and the apples may not exist (or you may no longer have title to the apples). You can’t have an obligation to “Return” the apples any more than you can to hand over non-existent oranges. There is no “theft” because there is nothing to steal. Thre is no fraud either. There is only a trigger of a subsidiary title transfer–a continuing obligation to pay monetary damage plus interest, say; or an obligation to transfer apples in the future when and if you get them, etc. I discuss all of this in detail in my contract and inalienability pieces available at stephankinsella.com. We really don’t need to reinvent the wheel here.
Stephan Kinsella January 31, 2010 at 9:17 am
Misesian, why do you say you disagree with us? We agree Holly signed a bad deal. That’s why we are exhorting authors not to do something similar. What exactly do you disagree with?
Stephan Kinsella January 31, 2010 at 9:32 am
The confusion above where some amateur insists that if you breach a contract it’s “fraud” is precisely why they hold confused notions about IP. To them fraud is basically some type of dishonesty or “cheating reality” that is somehow fuzzily connected with the idea of contract breach or rights violation…they don’t really know.
Let’s take a clear case. A loans $100 to B. B is to use this to build a fence,and is supposed to pay $110 to A in a year, on day 366. To build the fence, B has to buy materials. To buy materials, he has to spend the $100. To spend the $100, he has to have full title to it already. It cannot be conditional on some event 366 days in the future–if it was he could never use it, and why borrow the money in the first place? The loan is supposed to be a bridge between time periods.
So, on day 366 let’s say B is unable to repay. It’s a breach of contract, fine. But is it “fraud”? Of course not. How can “being penniless” be an act of fraud? Is it theft? Of what? It’s not theft of the original $100, which was given 100% to B, by A, for B to use, in excahnge for a future-title transfer of $110, with A knowing (because the future is uncertain) that B might not be able to HAVE the $110 on the due date. So there is and can be no theft by B, of the original $100. Theft implies no consent, but B had A’s consent to take and use the $100.
Is it theft of “the” $110? WHAT $110? B doesn’t have it. How can you steal something that does not exist?
So: no theft. No fraud. Just a contract breach.
As for fraud: Fraud is when you obtain money under false pretenses. It’s basically “theft by trick.” If A loaned B the $100 based on B’s representation that he was an employed pipe-fitter who lived in the area at 123 Mulberry lane (so that it appeared likely he could repay the loan), while in reality B had a different name, was unemployed, and was just passing thru, and intended to take the $100 and use it for gambling and not for a fence, and to never repay it–that is fraud. B would be taking possession and using A’s money when he knows it’s not with A’s consent, since A’s consent is conditional–conditioned on B’s truthful represetnations about his identity and purpose and intentions, etc. THAT is a case of fraud. Merely failing to fulfill a contract at a later time is not and has absolutely nothing to do with fraud.
Again: I direct newbs to http://blog.mises.org/archives/009367.asp and http://blog.mises.org/archives/005327.asp. Also see my Reply to Van Dun: Non-Aggression and Title Transfer, pp. 59-63.
Brian Macker January 31, 2010 at 10:47 am
David Bratton,
Copyrights are not government granted monopolies, they are government enforced rights.
If someone like Buddy Holly decides to sell those rights for money to an corporation, and was not swindled in the process then so be it.
You either believe in contract law or you don’t. All I see here is Buddy Holly making a bad business decision.
Brian Macker January 31, 2010 at 10:59 am
Stephan,
Certainly it isn’t fraud of theft for B not to repay the money due to circumstances outside his control. However, it becomes fraud if B claims he no longer owes A the money, and theft if he refuses to ever repay it even when circumstances change.
The contract is breached when a performance date is not met but depending on B’s further actions there can be other offenses committed.
Certainly A did not consent to forgive B’s loan 366 days in the future if the bank happens to be closed and B forgot to take out the cash. Which is certainly a reason that could cause non-performance on that date that is out of B’s control on that day.
Brian Macker January 31, 2010 at 11:15 am
“Similarly, we should not think here that such a contract literally compels Buddy Holly to not make use of his own body by pressing certain strings in certain ways on a guitar.”
Why not? It’s certainly not impossible for him to perform on the contract, and in fact it takes effort for him to violate it. Also he has not somehow sold himself into slavery because he is still able to perform any other song, or do any other job he wants to.
Stephan Kinsella January 31, 2010 at 11:44 am
Macker: “certainly it isn’t fraud of theft for B not to repay the money due to circumstances outside his control. However, it becomes fraud if B claims he no longer owes A the money, and theft if he refuses to ever repay it even when circumstances change.”
It’s fraud if you claim you no longer own money? Really?
Stranger January 31, 2010 at 11:52 am
And now we are seeing the full slippery slope of intellectual communism – in order to continue denying the validity of intellectual property, the communists must destroy money and contracts as well.
Mark Humphrey January 31, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Responding to Kinsella:
“Nonsense. We do not believe there are rights to free speech–there are property rights, and free speech flows from this as a consequence. Does that mean we oppose free speech. Don’t be ridiculous and simplistic–just one of them at a time, please.”
You’re attacking a straw man. Nothing I wrote implies the position you’ve attributed to me here. Of course free speech presupposes property ownership.
“Wrong. the state enforces murder law ; that dosn’t mean murder is legitimate. It’s the fact that IP is possibly *only* wiht a state that makes it invalid.”
Not so fast. You claim that “information property” is possible only “with a state”, but that’s simply not true. As I wrote earlier, the creator of ANY product can restrict the terms of sale to prohibit unauthorized reproduction by copy cats. That the government enforces contracts, just as it enforces criminal law, does not negate the right of creators to restrict the terms under which they might agree to sell their creation to a buyer. The main point to keep in mind is that all property results from applying ideas to physical reality. “Information property” is based on spurious distinctions and is therefore misconceived.
“I’m not religious. Now what do you say?”
I say my larger point stands: the ideas we favor about ethics and politics do not spring from nothing, but tend to align logically with our fundamental philosophical premises. My point is that one’s conception of knowledge, which necessarily incorporates prior ideas about free will, the nature of thought, and metaphysics, is likely to influence one’s ideas about “intellectual property”.
Obviously, I don’t know what Steven Kinsella thinks about any of this. However, I do know that we live in an age of philosophical nihilism, in which nearly everyone believes that understanding ultimate issues is impossible to man. The left is explicitly contemptuous of the the individual mind. It sneers at free will, denies the validity of the senses, denigrates reason as illusory. The main force aligned against the left is religion, which tends to be culturally conservative but also denigrates reason as “limited” and “unreliable” when applied to ultimate issues.
If reason were useless in understanding the most important issues of human existence, then free will–the voluntary exercise of reasoning effort–would tend to be viewed as mundane and ultimately unimportant. Ideas are (properly) the product of reason and the exercise of free will–both held to be illusory or ultimately unimportant. Against this background, how important–morally valuable–could ideas be?
Ben Ranson January 31, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I think context is important here.
At the time, the record company business model was different than it is now. The process was basically as follows: First, and artist and repertoire man would find a talented performer. Frequently, producers such as Owen Bradley and Paul Cohen would double as scouts.
After the new singer was signed, the company would choose the songs to be performed (the repertoire in A and R). The most common origin for popular songs at the time were the staff writers at publishing companies, which were often owned by the record labels. Sometimes producers, arrangers or singers also wrote songs.
Nashville producers such as Chet Atkins and Own Bradley would then arrange the songs, bring in musicians to play them, direct the session and record them.
Atkins and Bradley worked very hard at keeping costs down, and at producing a consistent high-quality product. They almost always used the same highly-skilled sidemen who were very used to the process and could be counted on to give a good performance while using minimal studio time. At the time most work was done “in house” in studios owned by the record companies. Recording equipment, engineers and space were expensive. According to the Wikipedia, RCA’s Studio B, (where Atkins did most of his work) which was built to compete with Bradley’s Quonset Hut “was opened in November 1957 at the cost of $37,515.”
Singers had only a limited input in the process. Recording was too expensive to do anything except leave it up to professionals. The idea of the self-produced artist simply did not exist. Singers who wrote their own material, such as Buddy Holly or Hank Williams were exceptional. Most singers did not.
After the recording was completed, the record company still had to invest a great deal of money on pressing and promotion.
The process, on the whole, was performed almost entirely by the staff of the record companies. The songwriters, arrangers, producers and side-men were all employed by the record company. This is in contrast to today, when most of these jobs are performed independently of the record labels.
The hit making machinery the labels assembled was not guaranteed. If a song or arrangement was not a hit for one singer, the producers would frequently reuse the song and arrangement with a different singer. This is one reason why Buddy Holly’s contract would have included a provision barring him from re-recording songs for a period of years.
It is likely that Decca would have regarded songs written by Holly while he was under contract in much the same way as material produced by any other member of the staff. In the recording, when Paul Cohen says that Decca may eventually release the recordings, he may mean that Decca might eventually release them WITH A DIFFERENT SINGER.
It seems to me that the issue of intellectual property has almost nothing to do with Buddy Holly’s problems. I can’t imagine a way for a company in the business of making records (at the time) to have operated without putting clauses in the contracts of their staff writers, arrangers and producers that would prevent them from writing material on the company’s time and then selling it elsewhere.
David Bratton January 31, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Brian Macker :”Copyrights are not government granted monopolies, they are government enforced rights. ”
You are just playing word games. The right you are alleging is a monopoly right.
I think the confusion stems from a failure to discern reality from a verbal abstraction. Intellectual property is an activity, not an objective entity. It is only referred to as “property” as form of verbal sleight of hand designed to invoke sympathies associated with property. IP is the act of forcefully limiting the use others have of their property in order to artificially inflate the value of one’s own property. All the arguments defending IP are just rationalizations for the first use of force.
Mark Hubbard January 31, 2010 at 3:38 pm
David Bratton said:
IP is the act of forcefully limiting the use others have of their property in order to artificially inflate the value of one’s own property.
Oh, so you admit IP is property then.
And this is wrong anyway. I’ve said before, I want a monopoly over the use of all my property, my car, my house, my IP. Not to inflate its value, but just so it isn’t stolen. That is property rights, the only basis on which freedom can exist.
I think the confusion stems from a failure to discern reality from a verbal abstraction. Intellectual property is an activity, not an objective entity.
Anarchists just love belittling man’s effort and mind to collective patterns belonging to the hive mind with no possibility of individuality or uniqueness. This, for me, is also partly why this debate is so important, and why the anarchists are so evil.
By stating ‘verbal abstraction’ you thereby preclude an individual’s ability to have original ideas, and taking this through, to ownership of their words on the page, a tune, melody, etc.
You always end up having to demean entirely human effort and originality. You actually have to deny the sharp edges and discrete nature of ‘the individual’ – once you’ve done away with the individual like this, why do you even concern yourself with the economics of freedom based on the actions of individuals? You’ve ‘killed’ the individual, thus freedom, for you, is irrelevant.
Somewhere in all this, also, there is the definition of objective, and objectivity. I’ve just read the below on another blog (http://www.solopassion.com), on a thread about the case for objectivist ethics, and I am convinced it fits into this debate, I’ve just not been able to work it all through yet. Here’s the passage:
It’s failure to realise that objectivity comes from interaction between the internal and external worlds that is their problem; they see such interaction as disqualifying its conclusions from the realm of objectivity altogether. To them, a thing can be objective only if it comes from God and there’s no whiff of a human being anywhere. According to Goode in an earlier thread, the good, or should I say, The Good, exists whether human beings are here or not (he may not have said it as committedly as that). I believe that winning our adversaries over to a de-dichotomised, authentic notion of objectivity is even harder than weaning them off altruism, collectivism and all the rest. And more important!
http://www.solopassion.com/node/7321#comment-84046
Sean H January 31, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Mark Hubbard says:
“You claim that “information property” is possible only “with a state”, but that’s simply not true. As I wrote earlier, the creator of ANY product can restrict the terms of sale to prohibit unauthorized reproduction by copy cats. That the government enforces contracts, just as it enforces criminal law, does not negate the right of creators to restrict the terms under which they might agree to sell their creation to a buyer.”
It would be nice if we could focus on this particular contention. The pro-IP people say that IP does not result from government decree, but is instead the product of the “creators” inclusion of restrictions on reproductionin any contract for sale. However, this fails to say anything about how someone who has never entered into such a contract is bound to adhere to this restriction. I think these forum debates would prove much more fruitful if participants would focus more on this question. I request this in part because I’m a law student in the midst of my final semester, and have concentrated my studies primarily in the IP realm. Thanks in advance to anyone who responds focusing on the particular issue mentioned above.
David Bratton January 31, 2010 at 6:21 pm
@Mark Hubbard:
“Oh, so you admit IP is property then.”
Only your paper and ink are property. Your words are not.
“And this is wrong anyway. I’ve said before, I want a monopoly over the use of all my property, my car, my house, my IP. Not to inflate its value, but just so it isn’t stolen.”
No it’s right.You are simply begging the question. Whether IP is or is not property is what we are debating. BTW the poster I was replying to was asserting that IP is not a monopoly.
“By stating ‘verbal abstraction’ you thereby preclude an individual’s ability to have original ideas, and taking this through, to ownership of their words on the page, a tune, melody, etc.”
LOL Just by by stating it?
“Somewhere in all this, also, there is the definition of objective, and objectivity. I’ve just read the below on another blog…
It’s failure to realise that objectivity comes from interaction between the internal and external worlds that is their problem; they see such interaction as disqualifying its conclusions from the realm of objectivity altogether. To them, a thing can be objective only if it comes from God and there’s no whiff of a human being anywhere…
Dictionaries are a better source of definitions than blogs. The reason I do not realize that “objectivity comes from interaction between the internal and external worlds” is because the definition of objective precludes it. And BTW I’m not religious so I don’ know where you’re going with that.
Peter January 31, 2010 at 6:44 pm
But of course, Kinsella’s most oft used argument is: this singer made a bad contract, oh shit, let’s push the anarchist agenda, we better do away with the whole concept of owning anything to make a contract over.
I don’t understand this response. I don’t know whether you misread Stephan’s post or are deliberately pretending to misunderstand it to give yourself another excuse to rant, but I’ve reread it twice and can’t see any indication of Stephan wanting to (a) do away with property, or (b) do away with contracts. What he said is “Listening to Holly pleading with the masters he has alienated his rights to is heartbreaking. Decca had dropped him, apparently, but had the rights to sit on his recordings for 5 years” — note: “had alienated his rights to”, “Decca had the right to …”. There’s no suggestion that the contract between Holly and Decca should be cast aside. He’s just warning people not to agree to such contracts.
And of course the argument that goes if you take Buddy’s guitar he can no longer play it, so that is theft, whereas if you deny him income by simply file sharing his earning ability […] that is not theft.
What if you deny him income by not buying his record? Or by publishing bad reviews, so that other people don’t buy his record — is that theft, too? Must be!
Peter January 31, 2010 at 7:34 pm
I’ve said before, I want a monopoly over the use of all my property, my car, my house, my IP,
my slaves, my planets-orbiting-other-stars (hey, if I call them “property” and say they’re mine, then that’s what they are! Screw you looters who want to steal them from me by claiming they’re not my property to begin with…)
Mark Hubbard January 31, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Yes Peter. Thank you for confirming the anti-IP lobby doesn’t believe in property, and private ownership of. Of course, remember that other document that denounced property:
Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production [including man’s mind] and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods [and the minds of individuals].
Manifesto of the Communist Party
Oh look – http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
Copyleft: Marx/Engels Internet Archive (marxists.org) 1987, 2000. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.
The manifesto of the Communist party is published under Creative Commons. Why am I not surprised.
By the way, in relation to your post before the above, look at every Kinsella post in totality: his modus operandi is very evident.
Old Mexican February 1, 2010 at 1:10 am
Re: Mark Hubbard,
The neo-Rothbardians who own the Mises Institute are devoted to the notion that property rights are incompatible with literary and musical products.
Nonsense. What is being argued is that Intellectual Property is incompatible with the concept of PROPERTY as it is understood by economics.
Copyrights are enforced by the government, they muse; therefore rights to literary endeavors must be ethically tainted and corrupt.
You have it exactly backwards. Precisely because IP is NOT property, it has to be enforced artificially by a government, THEREFORE Intellectual Property is a government-granted monopoly and thus incompatible with the concept of Property as understood by economics.
Private property rights to one’s writing are no different, in principle, from one’s proper ownership of any other form of property.
Sure – as long as the author does NOT publish. He can perfectly own the sheets of paper where he scribbled universally recognized symbols in a certain pattern. He cannot however own the pieces of paper with scribbles placed in the same pattern that someone else owns – this is where IP becomes a property transfer by government fiat.
One doesn’t own the words that appear on one’s written page. One owns the written page!
Agreed – HIS page, his piece of paper. But he does not own someone else’s piece of paper just because the scribbles in that piece of paper happen to match the scribbles in HIS piece of paper. The two pieces of paper are different.
For owners have the right to set the terms of the voluntary exchange of their property, which may include prohibiting unauthorized reproduction.
Only between the two parties that exchange. You cannot bring a 3rd party to an agreement without HIS approval, which is what IP laws actually do – bring 3rd parties to agreements others did, unduly.
Copyright law is an imperfect attempt to legally codify this rightful condition of exchange by writers and artists.
If IP requires copyright law in order to conjure it into existence, then it cannot be property. Property exists by virtue of the self-ownership principle and scarcity, not because of the State’s say so.
All property is created by the application of one’s ideas to physical reality.
This is false. Property is NOT created, it is OBTAINED.
An inventor or writer may have scarce and valuable ideas that she uses to create a physical product.
You’re committing a fallacy of composition – just because the resources used to create a product are scarce does not mean the idea is scarce. Ideas are NOT scarce: they can spawn with no limit in people’s minds.
Mark Hubbard February 1, 2010 at 3:08 am
Hey Mexican Looter: buy some glasses, you’re not even quoting me.
Though the anti-IP argument is the sanction of theft, have no doubt about it.
Thus just for the record: you are a looter, an immoral shite, fostering the no-work ethic, in our current nihilistic generation of the looter.
The scarcity argument is pure bullshit, it comes after the IP has been created.
Plus, to copy myself from another thread in here:
I remember my Damascus moment also. My granddaughter showed me her hard disk and said, look granddad, all this music, Bounce or Beyonce or something, Madonna, Britney Spears, U2, and I didn’t have to pay anything for it. I’ve chucked in my paper round, no need to work, I can get everything I want, and it’s free. This free enterprise system you keep talking of, I love it.
I thought, oh shit …
newson February 1, 2010 at 3:14 am
hubbard’s never taped a tv programme, never a radio programme. yeah, right.
newson February 1, 2010 at 3:34 am
yeah right, hubbard. your granddaughter is a crim, and you’ve never taped a tv or radio show in your life. sounds believable.
Bala February 1, 2010 at 4:22 am
Mark Hubbard,
” The scarcity argument is pure bullshit, it comes after the IP has been created. ”
Chronology is utter nonsense as a BASIS for property rights.
For the record, you are yet to refute this basic argument of mine….
Rand said
“Rights are moral concepts defining and sanctioning man’s freedom of action in a social context. Rights are a recognition of a condition of existence essential for the survival of man qua man.”
To this, I added the following. For man to live qua man, he needs to free to act as per the judgement of his rational mind and face the consequences thereof. Action implies the acquisition of material and non-material objects for application in the service of his own life.
The metaphysical nature of material objects requires exclusivity because it in the absence of exclusivity, freedom of action is metaphysically impossible. In the case of non-material objects like ideas and patterns, simultaneous instantiation of an idea by any number of people does not affect the freedom of action of any of them including the originator of the idea/pattern. Since freedom of action is metaphysically possible even with simultaneous instantiation of ideas and patterns by many people, exclusivity is not an essential condition for the freedom to act to apply such non-material values in the service of one’s own life, i.e., for man to live qua man.
Thus, it is absurd for an Objectivist to claim that ideas and patterns deserve property status.
Unless you show me where this is wrong (and for the record, you haven’t yet grappled with this argument; not here; not on solopassion), you are just sounding like a scratched gramaphone record or a poorly trained android..
I could descend to the level of your language too, but since that would be a DESCENT, I am choosing not to.
Kerem Tibuk February 1, 2010 at 6:55 am
“Chronology is utter nonsense as a BASIS for property rights.”
This one is a gem.
Can an effect precede the cause?
Peter Surda February 1, 2010 at 7:10 am
Dear Kerem,
> This one is a gem.
Indeed. It is a gem because none of the IP proponents so far seems to comprehend the consequences of this issue.
> Can an effect precede the cause?
No, but cause is not a sufficient condition for ownership. You failed to address my last objection to you, in that you didn’t explain how to distinguish between immaterial goods that can be owned (IP) and those that cannot (externalities).
Brian Macker February 1, 2010 at 7:12 am
“It’s fraud if you claim you no longer own money? Really?”
Yes, if you owe the money it is. You are trying to defraud the lender of what you owe him, by lying.
Brian Macker February 1, 2010 at 7:22 am
David Bratton,
“You are just playing word games. The right you are alleging is a monopoly right.
I think the confusion stems from a failure to discern reality from a verbal abstraction. Intellectual property is an activity, not an objective entity.”
I’ve gone over this before. “Intellectual property” is a misnomer. The copyright owner retains coownership in all copies of his physical item, and that is what his rights apply to. It just boils down to physical property rights. What the government is really enforcing is his physical property rights of co-ownership of the book/record/DVD. Such property rights are established by the author when he sells his physical property.
No monopoly need be established. It’s quite clear that any copy of his physically owned object requires a misappropriation of his property. People who have not misappropriated his property are perfectly free to do whatever they like with their own property and to sell whatever they want.
Stephan Kinsella February 1, 2010 at 7:37 am
macker: “”It’s fraud if you claim you no longer own money? Really?”
Yes, if you owe the money it is. You are trying to defraud the lender of what you owe him, by lying. ”
Got it. It’s fraud because you are trying to defraud someone! It’s so easy!
Stephan Kinsella February 1, 2010 at 7:58 am
Macker:
” The copyright owner retains coownership in all copies of his physical item, and that is what his rights apply to. It just boils down to physical property rights. What the government is really enforcing is his physical property rights of co-ownership of the book/record/DVD. Such property rights are established by the author when he sells his physical property.
“No monopoly need be established. It’s quite clear that any copy of his physically owned object requires a misappropriation of his property. People who have not misappropriated his property are perfectly free to do whatever they like with their own property and to sell whatever they want.”
Let’s say the producer has co-ownership of the CD he … rents? half-sells? to consumer C. Okay, fine. And let’s say part of this agreement, part of this coownership, is the limitation on C’s right to use the property in certain ways. And the side-agreement on C’s part that any copy he makes of the CD using his own property, well, he automatically grants co-ownerhsip in this new piece of property to Producer.
Fine. but for Producer to have the rights you speak of he has to have similar rights in CD’s owned by third parties. He has such co-ownership rights in C’s material beause of their agreement. BUt how does he get such rights in the material owned by third parties? You say that “It’s quite clear that any copy of his physically owned object requires a misappropriation of his property”–this is not true at all. Here you are saying the property itself is the material CD owned by C. For a third party to imprint this patter on his own CD does NOT require any misappropriation of anything. Now what you gonna say?
David Bratton February 1, 2010 at 1:20 pm
@Brian Macker:
“The copyright owner retains coownership in all copies of his physical item, and that is what his rights apply to. It just boils down to physical property rights.”
“It’s quite clear that any copy of his physically owned object requires a misappropriation of his property.”
I’m not clear on that at all. If, as you say, it’s all about coownership of the physical medium the books are printed on, then how do you establish this coownership over the property of a third party who didn’t make an agreement with you? I know you want to say the presence of your words proves he must have made a copy of a legitimate sample of you book and you are undoubtedly right, but that only means he’s a probable trespasser. Recourse against a trespasser is limited to getting him off your property. You don’t get title to someone else’s property just because he trespassed on yours.
It may also be the case that the third party made a secret deal with someone who already had a legitimate copy of your book, someone who broke their contract with you by showing a third party the book without getting him to agree to give you coownership of any copies he makes. In that case you have a very good case against the individual who broke his contract with you, but you have no recourse against the third party. The only way to project coownership rights onto the third party’s property in this scenario is to claim that property rights follow the words. But you’ve already rejected that sort of claim by agreeing that “It just boils down to physical property rights.”
Then there is the most probably scenario. A third party begins selling copies of your book and will not tell you how he made a copy of you words. You don’t know if he has trespassed or if one of your contractees has been unfaithful. What will you do now? Perhaps you will claim that there is an implied contract. Perhaps you even have some verbiage to that effect printed on the first page of your book. But when you show it to the third party he says he’s never seen it. Remember you have agreed that there is no property right in the words, only in the physical medium. So by what legal principle will you establish coownership over third party’s paper and ink in this scenario?
Maybe you will resort to a theory relying on some sort of property easements. For example when one buys a house he is bound to certain deed restrictions which get passed on to his successors whether the buyer agrees or not. But easements won’t work as a substitute for IP. When one buys a house one actually gets a house. When one copies a book the new copy is a different article of property. An easement would apply to the book having been copied but not to the book being copied.
So the question remains. How do you project coownership onto the property of a third part with which you have no agreement?
David Bratton February 1, 2010 at 1:30 pm
2nd try. The blog owner approval gremlin got me.
An easement would apply to the book having been copied but not to the book being copied.
Should have been:
An easement would apply to the book having been copied but not to the copy.
Mark Hubbard February 1, 2010 at 4:42 pm
I’ve put the below post up on the Murphy’s lessons thread, but other than to the very last part, it appears the anti-IP proponents cannot or are not prepared to, answer it.
For Bala, lets call this post all about consequences.
Am I doing wrong anywhere in this sequence?
I mirror this site: everything a complete replica – http://mises2.org.
Obviously over time I add new content to balance out what is going wrong here. But everything about the site, the look, the header, a lot of the content, everything, is an exact replica, visitors to the site would know no difference on my – I hesitate to use that word as there is no ‘my’ in anarchist – … sorry, visitors to the site would know no difference on entering my home page than being on this one.
Hey, this site is published under Creative Commons, just like, disconcertingly, the Manifesto of the Communist Party ( http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm ). Nothing wrong with this right; it’s just a copy.
Of course, because I would not want my mises2.org being reliant on charity, there will be no giveaways: all literature, copied from your site, will be paid for, I will be pocketing the proceeds.
There is then the problem of my rival site, mises.org wantonly giving away their booty for free, taking my customers, because they’ve completely mis-interpreted free enterprise, so I gather a gaggle of looting file sharers, clever little buggers, to launch a cyber attack to shut this site down.
At which stage, if any, have I committed a moral wrong in the looters world of no IP? Why?
Jeffrey Tucker February 1, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Mark, you are getting tedious. It’s pretty shabby when you can’t even be bothered to read answers to your own queries. see the other thread.
Mark Hubbard February 1, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Jeffrey, there was only one answer, unless this was you, posting under your first name only – actually, I’ve just gathered the significance of the ‘we’:
Mark, while we appreciate your generous offer, a fair warning that maintaining these servers and paying for bandwidth (among a zillion other costs) can break the bank. Nonetheless, if are you willing to do so, everyone would be very grateful.
And if that is you, are you seriously saying I am doing no wrong in doing as I said above? Replicating this site completely, and charging for its content.
All the work and effort the founders such as Lew Rockwell have put into this endeavour for nothing?
Can you say you would be happy with me ripping you off like this, and still say that no immorality has occurred?
[And I am tedious, yes, I’ll say again, tell me to stop posting and I will: and my words aren’t just audio/visual patterns, they have meaning, I can be held to them. A free world can only be, if men take responsibility for their words. The owners of this site – note that, ‘owners’ – have shown great patience with me. But this is a issue that is so important, it’s worth getting tedious over.]
Brian Macker February 1, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Me: “Yes, if you owe the money it is. You are trying to defraud the lender of what you owe him, by lying. ”
Stephen, “Got it. It’s fraud because you are trying to defraud someone! It’s so easy!”
I guess if you ignore all the other verbiage in the sentence it might boil down to that. Like if I had merely written “You are trying to defraud the lender”. However, I mentioned the lying in the attempt to get out of payment.
Fraud is when you make a personal gain by deception. The forgiveness of a loan is certainly a personal gain. Lying certainly counts as deception. So if you manage to use a lie to get out of paying back a loan or owed money you are most certainly defrauding the lender.
Brian Macker February 1, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Stephan,
“For a third party to imprint this patter[n] on his own CD does NOT require any misappropriation of anything. Now what you gonna say?”
I will say what I said in the past. What you are saying is an impossibility.
The 3rd party cannot imprint a CD with the pattern of digits that comprises MS Word without using a copy of MS Word. Since Microsoft owns the copying rights on any such CD (or on disk copy) you will be misappropriating the property of Microsoft in order to generate your copy. Since Microsoft’s property was used as a factor of production in the copy they have ownership rights in the copy also.
Stephan Kinsella February 1, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Mark Hubbard:
And if that is you, are you seriously saying I am doing no wrong in doing as I said above? Replicating this site completely, and charging for its content.
All the work and effort the founders such as Lew Rockwell have put into this endeavour for nothing?
Can you say you would be happy with me ripping you off like this, and still say that no immorality has occurred? ”
Mark, are you thick or something? Have you read about the Mises Institute’s wildly successful “open” strategy (beautifully explained by Mises Institute President Doug French in “The Intellectual Revolution Is in Process“; see also Jeff Tucker’s post “A Theory of Open“)? We want our ideas out there. The site is CC for a reason–Jeff is all in favor of people replicating our ideas. I won’t speak for Jeff here but I believe he and the MI would be ecstatic if you want to host a mirror of the site. If you think you can charge for it, more power to you. What do we care? You Objectivists are destroying yourselves with your obsession over idea ownership.
Read also the wonderful piece by B.K. Marcus, Mises.org on iTunes U; and Tucker’s If You Believe in IP, How Do You Teach Others?–esp. Jeff’s thoughts on Rand. Note your Randian sickness: they are doing something benevolent for the good of all–spreading ideas about freedom. You condemn this. This is typical of Randians who are so psychologically stunted that they think of benevolence as something marginal, at best, but probably “immoral,” or, at least, in need of a defense.
Brian Macker February 1, 2010 at 6:01 pm
David Bratton,
“Recourse against a trespasser is limited to getting him off your property. You don’t get title to someone else’s property just because he trespassed on yours.”
But he didn’t merely trespass. The trespasser actually utilized misappropriated property as a factor of production in the copy. He has co-mingled his property the property of someone else without permission. It then becomes an issue of how to rectify the situation and who has the greater claim to the copy, who’s productive input was the cause of the greater share of the value of the copy.
Most of the value of a copy of MS Word comes from the productive input of the original copy. Very little comes from the labor and blank DVD.
“In that case you have a very good case against the individual who broke his contract with you, but you have no recourse against the third party.’
Of course, I do. The person who broke the contract didn’t own the copying rights. Therefore he couldn’t give away the property for that purpose. No more so than a landowner who does not own mineral rights can allow mining on his property. The third party in the case of a mineral rights violation would be stealing the property of the mineral rights owner regardless of what the property owner represents to the third party.
The fact remains that the third party used property that was not his as a factor of production.
“The only way to project coownership rights onto the third party’s property in this scenario is to claim that property rights follow the words.”
They follow the object.
“But you’ve already rejected that sort of claim by agreeing that ‘It just boils down to physical property rights.’”
Yes, because it follows the object. You’ve already admitted the 3rd party used the physical object to make the copy.
“Then there is the most probably scenario. A third party begins selling copies of your book and will not tell you how he made a copy of you words. You don’t know if he has trespassed or if one of your contractees has been unfaithful.”
But the contractee can’t give him permission to copy my book. My ownership of the copying rights of the book are not at all dependent on the contractee. They are ownership rights that I never gave up in the first place. I created the book and I retained ownership over those rights. The third party trespassed directly against me.
“So the question remains. How do you project co-ownership onto the property of a third part with which you have no agreement?”
Because he’s using my property as a factor of production in the copy.
Peter Surda February 1, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Dear Brian,
> Because he’s using my property as a factor of
> production in the copy.
As I wrote elsewhere earlier today, there are only two ways to interpret “use”. One is the literal, where the object in question is made unavailable, at least partially and/or temporarily, to anyone else. The other one is metaphorical, meaning that you gained some benefit (or tried to get some) as a side effect of the object in question, without the unavailability issue. This includes externalities, non-rival goods and IP. There is no meaningful way to make additional theoretical distinctions in the second category. Therefore, you either have to accept or reject the whole category as property.
Bala February 1, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Kerem Tibuk,
” This one is a gem.
Can an effect precede the cause? ”
Chronology is indeed a basis for figuring out WHOSE property something is, but then that means that treating the object in question as “property” is already legitimate because of OTHER considerations. It is these OTHER considerations that form the legitimate BASIS of the concept “property” and of assigning that exalted status to specific objects.
So, it has nothing to do with “cause and effect” as you portray it.
I guess this is too much for you to comprehend considering how badly you have yourself entangled in your “extension” theory.
Nate Y February 1, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Brian Macker says:
“Because he’s using my property as a factor of production in the copy.”
No. He is not.
You sold your property to another party in exchange for money. What was once yours now belongs to the second party and vice versa. He is free to do whatever he wants with his newly acquired property and you are free to do whatever you want with your newly acquired property (the money). Done and done.
Stephan Kinsella February 1, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Macker:
Me: “Yes, if you owe the money it is. You are trying to defraud the lender of what you owe him, by lying. ”
Stephen, “Got it. It’s fraud because you are trying to defraud someone! It’s so easy!”
I guess if you ignore all the other verbiage in the sentence it might boil down to that. Like if I had merely written “You are trying to defraud the lender”. However, I mentioned the lying in the attempt to get out of payment.
Claiming you don’t own money is not fraud. Maybe you believe it. Maybe you pay while claiming it. Maybe you claim it to a third party. You didn’t specify enough. Moreover, refusing to pay is not fraud–it’s better classified as a type of conversion, trespass, or theft. Again: what’s it got to do with fraud?
Fraud is when you make a personal gain by deception.
Again with the looseness here. If I deceive a young lady into thinking I come from money and she gives me a kiss for that reason, is there fraud? Maybe in some moral sense. But libertarianism is concerned with property rights and justice. Fraud is only relevant if it is a type of theft-and theft is theft of owned things. So we are talking about misrepresentations used to gain possession or use or ownership of an owned thing without valid consent.
The forgiveness of a loan is certainly a personal gain. Lying certainly counts as deception.
Why is claiming you don’t owe money a lie? Owing money is not a fact, it’s a legal issue. And I can forgive a loan for whatever reason I want.
You don’t have a good example here dude. This is all confused.
So if you manage to use a lie to get out of paying back a loan or owed money you are most certainly defrauding the lender.
I don’t know what you mean “get out of paying back a loan.” This could be done any number of ways. You yourself said above it might be forgiven. If it’s forgiven it’s forgiven. What a bizarre hypo anyway: who ever heard of a creditor being deluded into “forgiving” a loan because the debtor falsely claimed, “Oh no, I don’t owe that to you.” Hunh?
“For a third party to imprint this patter[n] on his own CD does NOT require any misappropriation of anything. Now what you gonna say?”
I will say what I said in the past. What you are saying is an impossibility.
The 3rd party cannot imprint a CD with the pattern of digits that comprises MS Word without using a copy of MS Word.
Nonsense. I might see your sculpture in your front yard, and make a copy of it. I might hear a friend tell me about the plot of Star Wars, and decide to write a sequel. Etc. How did I ever “use” someone else’s property to gain this information?
The case is even worse for patents. If see a new vacuum cleaner that is popular; I make a competiing one. How did I “use” the other guy’s property? I never even touched it. I just *learned about it*. And this is another exmaple of how IP basically impedes learning and communicaiton and the spread of knowledge.
Since Microsoft owns the copying rights on any such CD (or on disk copy) you will be misappropriating the property of Microsoft in order to generate your copy. Since Microsoft’s property was used as a factor of production in the copy they have ownership rights in the copy also.
are you really so bereft of imagination?
Stranger February 1, 2010 at 8:33 pm
@Kinsella
“The site is CC for a reason–Jeff is all in favor of people replicating our ideas.”
Yes, the Mises Institute does not pay writers to write books, only to sell them. It is not a capitalist enterprise.
But capitalists are newbs anyway. Who needs their money?
(Side note: a CC license is still a copyright – the Mises Institute will use force on those who copy their books without making a reference to the Mises Institute.)
February 1, 2010 at 8:36 pm
February 1, 2010 at 10:47 pm
February 1, 2010 at 10:55 pm
-
Your reasoning is extremely odd. Are you against eleemosynary pursuits and activities? Why are you writing your posts here–you are not being paid!
Ah, this tired cliche again: you gave away something for free, obviously the property rights in what you gave away shouldn’t exist and have no impact on production.
February 1, 2010 at 11:25 pm
-
“All someone need do is attribute it; this is not even a burden since people want to do this. ”
And what will happen if they don’t? Information should be free of any restriction after all.
February 2, 2010 at 12:37 am
February 2, 2010 at 12:56 am
-
@Brian Macker
I asked:
So the question remains. How do you project co-ownership onto the property of a third part with which you have no agreement?You replied:
Because he’s using my property as a factor of production in the copy.And before we forget let’s recall you also said: “It just boils down to physical property rights.”
Someone who makes a copy of your book is not using your physical property as a factor of production. He reads the book, gives it back to you, and then makes and sells copies using his own paper and ink. He is using your words as a factor of production, but not your property (again, you said physical property only). Unless your alleged co-ownership rights are being transmitted by or with the words somehow then you still haven’t explained how you establish these rights over the copier’s paper and ink. It’s not as if he’s mixing your paper with his paper.
February 2, 2010 at 3:38 am
-
Kinsella said,
“Hubbard: if you still find yourself incredulous that Mises Institute allows its material to be copied–if you still view it as being “ripped off”; you just don’t get it”
Allowed?
Well that kind of implies a right over the content doesn’t it? Like a property right.
Was that a Freudian slip?
February 2, 2010 at 3:42 am
-
Bala said,
“I guess this is too much for you to comprehend considering how badly you have yourself entangled in your “extension” theory.”
I would have loved this to be MY “extension” theory. If it wasn’t the oldest and the most consistent and contradiction-free property theory since it was formulated centuries ago by John Locke.
Then it would have shown my genius.
But as you pointed out I am just an idiot.
February 2, 2010 at 7:49 am
-
“He reads the book, gives it back to you, and then makes and sells copies using his own paper and ink.”
Good luck with that. He’s still used the book as a factor of production if he manages to create an accurate copy. What really happens is that he holds the book open as he copies the contents out.
This scenario becomes even more absurd if the product is a piece of software.He also didn’t have the right to use the book in that fashion, to make a copy. It could not have been lent for that purpose because the person who had the book didn’t have those rights. Sure it could be lent for reading, but not copying. It doesn’t matter what process you use to copy.
February 2, 2010 at 10:05 am
-
@Brian Macker
“He’s still used the book as a factor of production if he manages to create an accurate copy.”
If that’s your standard for declaring something a “factor of production” then my eighth grade math book is a factor of production every time I have to figure out the tip at a restaurant. That doesn’t mean the publisher can come and claim some of my property.
If your book is being used without your consent then your legitimate recourse is to take your book back. You do not have a claim to co-ownership of the other guy’s property. It doesn’t matter how it was used or what it was used for. If I borrow your garden hose to put out a fire do you own my house? If I borrow your pencil do you own my copyrights?
February 2, 2010 at 10:29 am
-
@Kinsella
“Well the US copyright law grants a right to sue to copyright holders, for acts of infringement. So I suppose Mises Institute could sue. Just as a minority can sue for racial discrimination in employment, because the law gives him this right. It is not the fault of the Mises Institute that the state gives them copyright automatically, nor is it their fault that the state make it virtually impossible to disclaim this “right” ahead of time. What exactly is your criticism? The only criticism I see is that of the copyright law itself–and those who support it.”
Please don’t pay the victim here, no one is buying. The Mises Institute did not have to include an attribution clause in its copyright notice. It could have granted all rights to transform the information. It didn’t because it claims a property right on the information.
If the Mises Institute recognizes the legitimacy of some restrictions of copying, there is no argument against any other form of restriction, including the full reserved rights that are necessary for capitalist production of information.
February 2, 2010 at 10:43 am
February 2, 2010 at 11:51 am
-
It then becomes an issue of how to rectify the situation and who has the greater claim to the copy, who’s productive input was the cause of the greater share of the value of the copy.
This just gets stranger and stranger. Okay, let’s say I have a recipe to make the perfect brew of coffee provided by a famous chef. This chef worked for weeks to find the best beans, filter, water, and fineness of grind to use. I put in five minutes of my time to follow his recipe. Now, because his productive input was much larger than mine, he owns the coffee I brewed, am I right? Or do I at least get to take a sip?
Or lets say I read “Harry Potter and the Stolen Pattern” and when I am finished, I write a short story about a young female wizard in a gothic fantasy setting. I happily proclaim that Rowling inspired me and I would not have written my story if not for reading hers. Does J. K. Rowling own my story?
Or let’s say I teach myself html by looking through the source code of hundreds of web pages. Do the programmers for those pages all own stake in anything I subsequently produce if my own effort in writing a webpage was less than what they used to produce the pages they wrote?
If I take five minutes to write a book review for a book that took two years for the author to write, do I owe the author a royalty on the sale of my review?
If I hum a Taylor Swift song, does she own the sounds I make? How about if my co-worker pays me a dollar to stop my impromptu performance? Royalty money?
Really, it seems to be a much better strategy to just yell, “You’re all thieves! No rational argument against IP could ever soothe the pain in my heart!” Then you don’t have to try to defend something that is completely subjective and arbitrary with logic, since logic is horribly unsuitable for such a task.
Yep, argument from emotion, that’s where it’s at, baby. Those poor, starving artists and authors. Shame on you for being exposed to photons that are causally connected to the author’s past activity and choosing not to pay him money. All your brain are belong to me.
February 2, 2010 at 3:51 pm
-
@Kinsella
“Mises Inst. could simlpy change its mind and sue the copier for copyright infringement”
You just assured us they didn’t want to do this.
What bizarre arguments they teach in law school these days.
February 2, 2010 at 4:12 pm
February 2, 2010 at 5:34 pm
-
@Stephan
Logic and reason are inadequate to the task of arguing against stoic belief. Only direct experience of the false nature of the belief will loosen the grip the belief has on the mind. And even then, the belief will remain as blame is passed on to those who do not share the belief.
Only a mind dedicated to true knowledge is capable of shedding a belief, let alone be willing to do so. Belief has the appearance of knowledge, and only loses this appearance when rigorously examined and tested, and that requires intelligence and the bravery of curiosity.
There are some who don’t have what it takes to do this, and continuous engagement is a merry-go-round of frustration. Leave them alone, they are helpless and doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over and over again, ad nauseum.
February 2, 2010 at 6:18 pm
-
“If that’s your standard for declaring something a “factor of production” then my eighth grade math book is a factor of production every time I have to figure out the tip at a restaurant.”
Really, so you think that you could add without that particular math book (and even though some animals can add), yet you somehow think you can make a copy of MS Word without having used it to make the copy.
I think one of the main problems you IP opponents have is that you get confused by things that do not have fixed boundaries. You would deny that bald people exist because of the fact one can go bald incrementally. Not being able to precisely define how many hairs separate a bald man from one with a full head of hair you deduce that everyone is bald.
The fact of the matter is that you cannot create a copy of MS Word without access to MS Word, nor Harry Potter without a copy of Harry Potter.
You can figure out how to add two numbers without access to whatever math book you happened to use in grade school.
February 2, 2010 at 6:21 pm
-
I also have over and over pointed out that ratio of coownership in the produced good is determined by the value of the input factors of production. Not only isn’t your math book an important factor in your being able to add two numbers together there would be no way to prove it was used, and furthermore adding two numbers together is not even the same as producing a copy of the book. Your counterexample, contrary to Kinsella’s comment of “Perfect Point” isn’t even on point.
February 2, 2010 at 6:25 pm
-
Nate Y,
Wrong, the sale was not free and clear. The seller retained copyright ownership and even stated so in the book/CD.
February 2, 2010 at 6:48 pm
-
Dear Brian,
> Really, so you think that you could add without
> that particular math book (and even though
> some animals can add), yet you somehow think
> you can make a copy of MS Word without having
> used it to make the copy.
The issue is purely quantitative rather than qualitative. You are confused because in some cases, the “physical act of copying” is practically unavoidable. But not theoretically. There are people who can remember large sequences of numbers. Per reductio ad absurdum, even the copy of MS word is theoretically possible without a “physical act of copying”. How is it qualitatively different when I repeat a sequence of 10 digits and 10 billion digits? The latter is more difficult to pull off. Should that be the criterion for property? How hard would it be to do something?> Not being able to precisely define how many hairs
> separate a bald man from one with a full head of
> hair you deduce that everyone is bald.
It’s not the issue per se that we cannot decide who is bald or not. It’s the issue when you attempt to derive objective truths from the “level of baldness”. “Baldness” is a concept that is only meaningful for humans. It does not have an objective existence.Yet, as for IP proponents, without the fixed boundaries, they have no theory of property.
> You can figure out how to add two numbers
> without access to whatever math book you
> happened to use in grade school.
This is, I am afraid, only confusing the situation. Some IP proponents claim that causality is an unnecessary criterion (e.g. those that reject independent discovery patent defence theory). But the core issue is not whether the outcome is hypothetically possible without, rather whether there is an actual causal relationship. It would be even more absurd to demarcate property boundaries based on what could have happened, as opposed to what actually happened. February 2, 2010 at 6:56 pm
-
Dear Brian,
> I also have over and over pointed out that ratio of
> coownership in the produced good is determined
> by the value of the input factors of production.
Value to whom? You really want to define property boundaries based on how people value the inputs? That’s the value theory of property, refuted several times over by economists smarter than me. Furthermore, if you extend the “inputs” into the immaterial, there is an infinite number of them, fluctuating as time progresses. Who will keep a track of everything? To do so would require complexity that exceeds that of our own universe. February 2, 2010 at 7:00 pm
-
Stephan,
“Claiming you don’t own money is not fraud. Maybe you believe it.”
How can someone who is lying believe what they are saying?
The hypothetical you set up already had the person owing the money. There was no question of that. We weren’t even talking about a case where no money was actually owed.
Then I added to the hypothetical stating that there could be fraud in the non-performance if the person was trying to get out of the repayment by lying.
He can lie in all sorts of ways to get out of payment. For example he could claim destitution when in fact he had all sorts of secret bank accounts.
They even have a subclass of fraud called bankruptcy fraudd to cover such tactics.I had already agreed that mere non-performance on a contract isn’t fraud. That doesn’t however mean you don’t owe something.
I would tend to agree that non-performance on a contract doesn’t count as stealing in any case (no more than it counts as robbery).
I don’t however see copyright violation as a contract violation in the first place. It’s a property rights violation because the copyright holder is in fact retaining partial property rights in the copies he sells.
February 2, 2010 at 10:01 pm
-
@Kinsella
“I can’t speak for Mises Institute, but I don’t believe they DO want to. The point is that they have the legal RIGHT to. So if a consumer wants to republish an article on Mises.org, he leaves himself open to exposure–liability, if he has no legally binding license he can rely upon. Do you get it now? It is to his advantage that he have a contractually binding license he can rely on.”
I get it now. The Mises Institute reserves copyrights in order to protect other people from the Mises Institute. It makes perfect sense. It is not a praxeologically irrational action at all.
February 2, 2010 at 10:07 pm
-
I will note also your admission that a copyright is a contractually binding license. Now what is wrong with any other contractual forms of copyrights?
Once again, you must concede the validity of copyright.
February 2, 2010 at 10:09 pm
-
Good luck with that. He’s still used the book as a factor of production if he manages to create an accurate copy. What really happens is that he holds the book open as he copies the contents out.
What if you read the book, outdoors on a nice day. The other guy has access to spy satellites with really high resolution optics, and takes photographs of your book as you turn the pages (note: the book doesn’t need to be held open as he copies the contents out — it only takes a small fraction of a second to capture each page). He then writes out (or OCRs?!) the same content on his own paper, using his own ink. At no time has he ever come within hundreds of miles of either your book or anyone who owns a copy (and thus has agreed to the copying restrictions); he certainly hasn’t ever touched it! What say you to this scenario? How is he bound by your “copyright” agreement?
February 2, 2010 at 10:16 pm
-
You just assured us they didn’t want to do this.
Obviously, they don’t want to do this today. But who’s to say a bunch of Randroids don’t end up running the LvMI 50 years from now, or something? What a silly argument.
February 2, 2010 at 10:19 pm
-
You would deny that bald people exist because of the fact one can go bald incrementally. Not being able to precisely define how many hairs separate a bald man from one with a full head of hair you deduce that everyone is bald.
Yes, that’s it — I deny that bald people exist while simultaneously claiming that everyone is bald!
February 2, 2010 at 10:25 pm
***
Authors: Beware of Copyright: archived comments below:
Authors: Beware of Copyright

When an author signs a publication contract, insofar as it contains strict and traditional copyright notices, he is pretty much signing his life away. It used to be that the publisher would maintain control only so long as the book is in print. Today, with digital printing, this means forever: your lifetime plus 70 years.
During this time, you can’t even quote significant portions of your own writing without permission from the publisher, and you could find yourself paying the publisher for the rights. You can’t read your own book aloud and sell the results. You certainly can’t give a journal a chapter.
You could try to be sneaky and change the text a bit, right? Wrong. They’ve thought of that. You will own and control new matter but the old matter is still the private possession of The Man.
What if the publisher isn’t marketing your book? You can yell and scream but they don’t have to answer. In fact, most publishers have a system for dealings with authors. It’s called voice mail. Emails go unanswered.
You are done for. You sold your soul and you can’t get it back. Not within your lifetime. Your creation, which copyright is designed to protect, is now the possession of someone else. This follows the trajectory as laid out in Michele Boldrin and David Levine’s smashing new book Against Intellectual Monopoly.
As they explain, this racket began in the 17th century when government instituted the idea of ownership of ideas, precisely so that the government could crush ideas it didn’t like. Only approved authors got the stamp of approval. Same with art. But then the authors and creators rose up and demand their rights in the 18th century, and the copyright idea was transferred from government to private parties, who were then in a position to crush competitors. In the 20th century, this changed again, when the right was transferred from individuals to corporations.
In the digital age that exists simultaneous to the most tyrannical copyright laws ever, this is creating an intolerable situation that amounts to a form of involuntary servitude. Creators write and paint and watch corporate interlopers doom their work to obscurity. The creator hoped to make a dent in the universe but only sees his material land in the recycle bin of history.
Yes, it is done by contract–contract backed by the power of the state. So why do authors put up with it? Mostly because it is a convention, and they haven’t known about alternatives. Also, they are bribed by the ego-exploiting promise of royalties that never arrive.
The practical effects can be devastating. There is, for example, a book on Austrian business cycles that was published some years ago, and it is print from an academic house, but in print only in the most technical sense. It is essentially unaffordable for anyone but a state-fund library with an inelastic demand curve.
The Mises Institute wants to bring it back in paperback and make it affordable. Nope, can’t happen. The publisher says that it will do it for us, at a very high price with virtually no discount. They are in their legal rights to do this.
Of course it makes the whole project completely unviable. No deal. The authors are cornered. There is nothing they can do. There is nothing we can do. A great Austrian book, written over the course of ten years, is consigned to the dusty shelves of a handful of libraries, for at least another 70 years.
This is only one case of a hundred that I’ve seen. It is even worse when the author is dead. The publisher may or may not have handed back the rights to the manuscript. Those rights may or may not have been transferred. They may or may not have been handed on in the will or perhaps they are part of probate.
Yes, a potential new publisher can hunt this down to find out who among 6 billion potential owners actually controls rights to this manuscript. A lawyer is always glad to spend vast amounts of your money doing research. He may or may not come up with an answer you can trust. Meanwhile, you have spent the equivalent of a first print run.
Most potential publishers will say: to heck with it. Again, you have failed to be immortalized by your work. This goes for artists and musical compositions and even recordings of your band or voice. Thanks to federal law since the 1980s, all this material is bound up in a thicket of law, and this thicket will not evaporate for more than one hundred years.
This is what the “intellectual property” of copyright has wrought.
So I say to all authors: please look at your contracts. Don’t sign your life away. Publish on the condition of Creative Commons. Claim your rights back as a creator and an author.
How does this work? You have to copyright your work if only to prevent others from claiming copyright and thereby binding all other living persons, including you, from publishing it. Once you claim copyright, add that it is published under the Creative Common License 3.0. This rids your manuscript or song or painting of copyright’s provision of doom: the requirement that only one institution can control it.
In other words, it makes your creation part of the free market. It can be posted, recorded, shown, photograph, celebrated by one and all forever. Isn’t this why you create in the first place? Isn’t this what drove you to write, paint, photograph, sing, or whatever? You want to make a difference. You want credit for your work. This permits this.
Old-fashioned copyright is nothing but a form of modern tyranny in the digital age. It has no future. Bail out of this wicked institution and make sure that your work has a future too.
Comments (55)
- andras
- Jeff: “This is what “intellectual property” has wrought.”
Why should a damaging contract be identified with intellectual property? Or should not be after all as
Jeff’s conclusion: “Claim your rights back as a creator and an author.”
- Jmh
- Mind giving the name of the book so at least we can check the library for it?
- Jeffrey Tucker
- These contracts are universal and made possible only by IP
I feel funny giving the name since it really is the authors’ business.
- Silas Barta
- Jeffrey_Tucker: I understand that you’re saying this partly as a way to show authors an alternative, but it’s also a biased polemic against copyright. While I agree that the ever-longer terms are ridiculous, would you even consider endorsing these arguments in any other context? Would you consider factory workers exploited in that they sign away any claim to the stuff they help make? No, you’d point out that they’re free to take their labor to someone else who will offer better compensation.
Would you complain that these poor workers keep getting fooled by false expectations of the returns from that kind of factory work? No, you’d say that they can think for themselves, and if they can’t accurately guess the returns, it’s their own fault.
Would you complain that these factory workers are signing contracts “backed by the power of the state”? No, you’d point out that a) the involvement of the state is incidental, as there are non-state methods of contract enforcement, that b) no one forces them to sign these contracts, and that c) there are good reasons why factory owners prefer to exclusively own what the workers have helped to build.
It’s tiresome to see libertarians constantly inverting their arguments when the topic turns to IP. “Oh, am I okay with workers being denied shares in the fruits of their labor because of a contract they signed? Of course! Oh, wait, were we talking about intellectual property? Never mind, in that case, it’s an atrocity.
- Inquisitor
- I think that’s a problem with Rod Long’s books too, like his Reason & Value or his book on Wittgenstein. Very hard to find and very pricy.
- I Hate Taxes
- How can you protect Intellectual Property in a world of 6 Billion plus human beings and hundreads of millions of computers and cheap printers and internet and file swapping.
I saw borrow the book at the dusty library, scan all the pages and distribute the book in peer-to-peer software file swapping. Go underground and fight to spread the ideas you want to spread.
Down with copyright !!! This is the 21st century !
- Eric Hood
- Comic book authors went through this some time ago if a work is languishing the author can reassert control and sell it to someone else.
Check out the comic book legal defense fund, they will have the information you need.
- Helios
- Silas Barta – bingo, my words precisely! I’m also tired by this IP bashing absurdity, have my favourite libertarians lost their common sense? What socialist nonsense is this? What’ll be next, are they gonna start an IP proletariat? An IP International? Fight against authors’ exploitation? Seriously, people, don’t do this. We are in the midst of the biggest events since the fall of the Soviet empire and you’re toying with the idea that art and research are people’s property?
- Per-Olof Samuelsson
- I must be naive, I always thought “copyright” meant the *author’s* right to his own work. Now, it seems it means the exact opposite.
Are we living in a Hegelian universe?
- prettyskin
- Free market– should be able to do business as long as there are customers within reach– nefarious or not, that includes Intellectual Property.
- Geoffrey Allan Plauche
- Actually, last I heard, the publication of Roderick’s book on Wittgenstein is being held up over copyright issues pertaining to some very long quotes.
- Daniel C
- Roderick’s book on Wittgenstein is actually available (in early draft form) as a PDF on his website. . .for now. Look on the main page, almost all the way to the bottom.
- Bruce Koerber
- Dear Jeffrey,
Thanks for the information about Creative Common License 3.0.
With warm regards,
Bruce - Maty
- I must say that this piece raised a good point, and was much better written than the original article insofar as it focused on a concrete problem rather than blowing smoke in all directions; however, the problem seems to be with concrete [i]Copyright laws[i\] that need to be updated in order to accommodate advances in technology rather than the [i]concept[i\] of Intellectual Property per-se.
But one thing I fail to grasp is the idea of ‘Creative Commons’ as a remedy… If I understand correctly, under creative commons anyone and everyone would have free license to use the work as they please, am I right? If so, how can a writer (or any artist for that matter) ever hope to get paid for his work? I mean, recognition and changing the world is fine, but I’m sure every writer also chose his profession to put some food on the table… (or is he supposed to depend on some users’ integrity to ‘donate’ for their use of his material–wouldn’t that put him in the shoes of a beggar?)
Even with present Copyrights Laws (though I think they may very well they should be fixed) it sounds like an artist would be better off going with a publisher and seeing some proceeds than under creative commons.
Perhaps a better alternative would be self-publishing on the web, which seems to be getting easier and more popular… I’m curious why the author didn’t mention that if the idea is to make the artist autonomous…
- Gil
- To say I.P. was a con to restrict ideas of the masses to enrich a few is equivalent to saying landownership was a way of making the landless trespassers and allowing the newly enriched land tyrants the right to shoot people they didn’t like without consequences.
- newson
- yes, the current welter of laws is ineffective to guarantee “the artist” the true value of his thoughts. what we need is to redouble our efforts, train many more attorneys, and stiffen the penalties.
that’s bound to solve the problem.the state’s past successful track record in solving thorny problems inspires a warm sense of hope in me.
are kafka’s works still subject to copyright?
- newson
- the writer/artist only produces his masterpiece through the suffering that abject poverty creates.
let them live in garrets and eat stale bread, it’s every romantic’s dream. - Maty
- newson said:
“the writer/artist only produces his masterpiece through the suffering that abject poverty creates.
let them live in garrets and eat stale bread, it’s every romantic’s dream.”I hope this was a joke. Even if it was, it’s in bad taste. And if it wasn’t, you must be a very sad human being…
- Gil
- What of bigmammal’s question whether I.P. can being privately enforced via enforcers knocking on the door of someone who had violated their employer’s I.P.?
- Becky
- I am not an expert when it comes to giving advice on copyright laws, however I had my eyes opened after reading “Clearance and Copyright ” by Michael C. Donaldson. I had no idea how many ways people could get themselves in trouble – without knowing that what they were doing was wrong. I was really impressed with the way that Mr. Donaldson took an otherwise confusing topic and brought insight and clarity to a number of copyright issues. This book is a must for anyone trying to find answers to their copyright questions.
- Jab
- Of course without IP rights, the Publisher could just publish it without your permission since you couldn’t own it.
Andras is right. Freedom allows us to enter into unfavorable contracts should we chose to do so. While I applaud Mr. Tucker’s role in warning authors about possible pitfalls, the broader implication of having no IP rights is far worse.
I honestly don’t get this Marxist subsection of an otherwise free-market-supporting organization. Virtually every argument against IP at mises.org is identical to far-left leaning arguments against property rights in general (that they are arbitrary assignments by the government). Property rights and ownership are axiomatic to the free market, and we’ve been far better served by assigning more property rights over assigning “public” rights.
- crosson
- Regardless of whether IP is right or wrong is really irrelevent to the point of this article.
Clearly current IP laws are not best suited to encourage intellectual growth as creators often get their ideas tied up into some organization without realizing it until later.
All these IP toters scream panic in fears of lost wages from the artist, however it is the very artist who is getting scammed from doing business with his own work.
Not to mention that without IP laws what you would have instead is civil contracts between private party’s. It’s not like these things will just magically dissapear. Obviously good folks like yourself want to protect your ideas. Why not have more control over the contracts you sign? You see? It’s just that you won’t have government interference in the private trade process. Short of protecting from fraud/theft ect…
If you want to make the argument that IP protects private property, then you should at least amend to your argument that IP needs to be reformed to actually PROTECT the original owner of that private property.
When an artist signs some of his work via various IP laws he is in effect selling his idea without knowing it. Thusly probably signing his idea away for less then market value.
It’s like thinking your renting your home, but when you come back to take your house realize that your tenants now own it.
If anything I would think that the IP toters would be more outraged at the current situation then people against IP.
- Gil
- Gee, did you know that many a property owner could declare his perimeter by putting notches into trees? Does he have to abide by the excuses of trespassers who were looking for a fenceline or a signpost?
- ktibuk
- I used to get upset at seeing these anti IP posts here all the time but now I think differently.
These posts are great tools that expose the real “socialist” in an “IP socialist”.
Also looking at the comments I am glad more people with intellectual consistency is showing up at this site.
- RWW
- Labels and sweeping approvals of those who agree with you are no more convincing than your usual weak attempts at actual argument, ktibuk.
- Brently
- Let us not forget that any author or artist that wishes to retain full creative control of his work may self-publish.
This requires him to “beat the pavement”, but the profit margin is much higher per unit. Also, his success is truly determined by the free market.
- newson
- jab says:
“Of course without IP rights, the Publisher could just publish it without your permission since you couldn’t own it.”…and as a consequence the author is going to be very discriminating about which publisher he selects. dodgy operators will be shunned; trustworthy and professional printers will be sought out. in short, a market in reliability developments.
the contracting publisher will pump out the work as quickly as possible to capitalize on the early, richer profits.
if the book’s sales explode, non-contracting publishers will swarm in to print the work, and whilst this is of no direct financial benefit to the originator, his fame is spread (and can be capitalized upon in the publishing negotiations for the next work).
- newson
- has anybody read “Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (2004)” by lawrence lessig? just curious.
- Kirk Reeves
- I enjoyed your two recent essays on copyright. Something you are probably aware of. Copyright law are written for Laywers, by lawers for the benefit of lawyers
I have a TV show and dealing with copyright is a headache. The people who supposely hold the copyright do not benefit. This was my lesson. I started my TV show to play music but quickly learned it could cost me 25,000 to play a song one time. You were upset the tv crew made you take down the painting in your office. They did it because
1.) It could cost them $25,000 or more. (A $100,000 if they took a chance and filmed with the painting)2.) They probalby didn’t have the time to wait around to get permission. It can take six month or more.
The lawyers get the money.
I wanted to use a very famous song played by Louis Armstrong called
Do you know what it makes to miss New Orleans. The copyright holder was the daughter of the songwriter who recieved the copyright in your father’s will. She took back the copyright which was being being handled by an agency and she was in the process of switching when I contacted her. She was thrilled I wanted to play her father song since it wasn’t being played anymore, being a song from the 40’s. It meant people still remember her father and his music. But th new agency didn’t want t let her give me the rights. They were taking a lot of time and holding out for a lot of money. She finally decided she still had the right and it was hers to do with as she like so as long as I gave her a DVD of the show, I could use the music and the hell with the lawyers.You may also be aware how easy it can be to lose copyright to a corporation even if you never signed a contract. One way you can lose a copyright is if you in any way can be considered a work-for-hire even if you are unpaid. Another way is some of the public access and other cable station will claim your copyright unless you make it clear you are the copyright holder And there are a lot more ways as well.
the last thing about copyright is how it increases the lenght of it “protection” For music is used to be 28 years and you could renew it for another 28 years. If we had the same copyright laws in effect, I would be free to play music from the early 50’s the beginning of early rck and roll. But no, music is under copyrigt protection if it was written in 1925. But even that is not enough. I am starting to see music that is in the public domain written in 1921 still under copy-right protection so the protection is getting retro-active. 1924, now 1921, who know how far back?
Even classical music is under copyright protection. Look in any recent sheet music book and you will see the Music of Mozart, Beethoven and other copyrighted by this shyster outfit called “Beam me up Scotty” It iis not a new arrangement because I”ve seen the arrangement in other older music so I am wondering what gives.
Last if the copyright protection was in force in the 1920 and 30’s, fairy tales, and early musical works would not gained the popularity they did. Consider Disney. Most of they early stories used public domain fairy tales. They would not been able to because most fairy tales were written in the 1800’s to 1900’s. As well as the famous great literiture works such as Dickens, Twain and others. Dinsey would have been barred by copyright. Or maybe not. When Disney wanted to do their new Tinkerbelle movie they claimed the Peter Pan copyright had run out in the United States. But then Disney had the money to fight that. Most people don’t.
- Toban
- For all those who are confused why the Mises scholars reject IP, read Stephan Kinsella’s Against Intellectual Property. He completely blows apart the notion that information is property. I remember Walter Block saying that this article completely changed his position.
- Jab
- Funny how the new libertarianpapers.org uses the Creative Commons license which is based, like the software GPL license, upon copyright law. They could have openly and overtly placed everything in the public domain had they chosen to do so.
So, is copyright good or bad? Or is it just bad for everyone else but good for libertarianpapers.org and other mises.org entities?
- Joshua Park
- Authors ought to get a good agent if they are worried about not getting paid fairly for their own work. That’s the dirty, lawyer-ridden reality as it stands. I wonder… does Art and Literature fall into the same category as patents for hinges and water pumps?
I don’t think it’s fair and honest, for example, if I were to copy the text of “The Shack” and sell it as my own. In a world without at least some IP, where do authors stand? We’re not talking about something fungible like an apple or barrels of oil. We’re talking about a unique combination of words that form a novel or poem.
Several posters, (not to mention Mr. Tucker) have obviously read Against Intellectual Property. Perhaps someone could summarize how someone like J.K. Rowling would operate her business in a world without ©, ®, and IP?
Thanks in advance.
- Mike
- “Several posters, (not to mention Mr. Tucker) have obviously read Against Intellectual Property. Perhaps someone could summarize how someone like J.K. Rowling would operate her business in a world without ©, ®, and IP?”
Who knows? We can’t all be entrepreneurs. She’d probably figure something out, though. My guess is she’s write serially, or simply write more, or publish online with advertising revenues, or work product placement into her stories, or work on commission for wealthy patrons. There are tons of business models that don’t rely on monopolizing information.
- jeffrey
- Ok, this is interesting. There are 100 sites on the web publishing Harry Potter fan fiction, some 1000 pages long, all of them illicit. Many of these would be in print. The book stores would carry Harry Potter and 100 HP knockoffs. It would be an industry far larger than the current one. Would Rowling be poorer or richer? I don’t think there is any way to know. But the main thing is that the world be a better place.
- Jab
-
But the main thing is that the world be a better place.
Because “Harry Potter” probably would never have been written in the first place?
I might actually agree with that…. 😉
Many leftists would argue, and have argued, that the world would be a better place without fences or the ability to put up fences. I guess that’s the next “libertarian” objective.
Who knows? We can’t all be entrepreneurs. She’d probably figure something out, though. My guess is she’s write serially, or simply write more, or publish online with advertising revenues, or work product placement into her stories, or work on commission for wealthy patrons. There are tons of business models that don’t rely on monopolizing information.
All these “models” require her ability to be able to control the fruit of her own labor. Otherwise, thousands of other people would be publishing her work and getting the “advertising revenue” within seconds of her publication of the work (I won’t put “her” work since, under this scenario, she doesn’t own it.).
- Mike
- “Ok, this is interesting. There are 100 sites on the web publishing Harry Potter fan fiction, some 1000 pages long, all of them illicit. Many of these would be in print. The book stores would carry Harry Potter and 100 HP knockoffs. It would be an industry far larger than the current one. Would Rowling be poorer or richer? I don’t think there is any way to know. But the main thing is that the world be a better place.”
I’ll even go so far as to say that she would likely be poorer, but, as Rothbard would say, “So what?” If X% of her wealth is a result of her IP monopolization, then I don’t care if she would be X% poorer without IP. That’s not to say I think she’d be *poor*, however. Look at Cory Doctorow. He publishes under Creative Commons, and he seems to be doing fine for himself.
- Mike
- “All these “models” require her ability to be able to control the fruit of her own labor. Otherwise, thousands of other people would be publishing her work and getting the “advertising revenue” within seconds of her publication of the work (I won’t put “her” work since, under this scenario, she doesn’t own it.).”
What? Maybe you misunderstood me, but no, they don’t. Say you publish online, in regular intervals. Fans would know to visit your site for the next chapter of a story, and would put up with banner ads to do so. If a competing site published with fewer (or no) ads, well, tough. It’s called competition. But you would always have the advantage of being *first* to publish, and I suspect readers would value that, and advertisers would pay extra for it.
- RWW
- If a competing site published with fewer (or no) ads, well, tough. It’s called competition.
But Mike, it’s just so distasteful.
- Mike
- “But Mike, it’s just so distasteful.”
Time to outlaw rudeness.
- Joshua Park
- Even if we were to limit the business model to selling physical paper books in stores, we still may run into problems. Say, for example, that IP is removed and there are 100 fan fiction stories out there that are good enough to publish and sell. We might assume that it would increase Harry Potter’s popularity (increasing demand), and so the original works would be sold more than before. On the other hand, those people interested in Harry Potter already have a limited supply of money, so their resources might be spent on some Hermione fan-fiction-story rather than the gold-leaf-embossed version of Goblet of Fire. In the latter scenario, Ms. Rowling would have less money than before.
Taking a different approach, what if some publisher, let’s call them Antarctic Fowl Publishing (AFP), decides that they ought to get in on the action and not only reprints Rowling’s books, but they do so at a lower cost. You see, they wouldn’t have an agreement to pay her royalties, so they can pass on the savings to undercut the current publisher. AFP could do the same to the 100 fan-fiction stories, couldn’t they?
Or, am I completely off? I’ve read neither Against Intellectual Monopoly nor Against Intellectual Property (yet), so perhaps I misunderstand the proposals. Do those authors and their supporters seek to rid the world of Copyright, or just Intellectual Property?
This is the difference between reprinting Harry Potter the book vs using Harry Potter the character.
- Mike
- “Taking a different approach, what if some publisher, let’s call them Antarctic Fowl Publishing (AFP), decides that they ought to get in on the action and not only reprints Rowling’s books, but they do so at a lower cost. You see, they wouldn’t have an agreement to pay her royalties, so they can pass on the savings to undercut the current publisher. AFP could do the same to the 100 fan-fiction stories, couldn’t they?”
Yes, so long as they don’t defraud the consumer.
“Or, am I completely off? I’ve read neither Against Intellectual Monopoly nor Against Intellectual Property (yet), so perhaps I misunderstand the proposals. Do those authors and their supporters seek to rid the world of Copyright, or just Intellectual Property?”
Copyright is a form of intellectual property, so both.
- Joshua Park
- “Yes, so long as they don’t defraud the consumer.”
Really? So, the most successful business model in the publishing world would be to re-publish cheaper versions of popular books. They would have significantly lower operating costs if they didn’t have to pay authors. Other publishers would end up paying a small fee to authors so that they could have a crack at the first-run of books, since it would take a bit of time for the knockoff companies to re-produce the books. Why pay big bucks for something that will only be copied and distributed more cheaply by your competition, or freely by Internet folk?
Unless I’m missing something, I think it would drive down the demand for authors drastically. Authors might be able to work out some deal for “first run”, but they certainly wouldn’t get anything after that. Why would a potential author care to spend hours and hours writing some new novel if they know they’ll only scrape out a few pennies from the deal? That is, if they could find any publisher at all who would be willing to pay for new material. Since first-run publishing would be much more costly than reprint publishing, I wonder if the literary world would simply regurgitate all the works that are currently available.
An author might take the plunge anyway and shop out their manuscript to AFP after all. What’s to stop them from saying, “Thanks, mate. Of you go, then; we’re not paying you one Fed Penny.” Even if the author only sends the first three chapters, AFP can still give them the California Wave and hire some hack writer to sloppily finish out the story. No signed contract, right?
Sigh. This isn’t competition–this is madness. (Or, is it Sparta? I’m so confused.)
- Mike
- Joshua Park,
I don’t mean any offense, but these questions have been addressed ad nauseum in this and other threads. I suggest you read the book in question, “Against Intellectual Monopoly,” which addresses this and many other issues.
- Phil Thompson
- I agree strongly with your article “Authors: Beware of Copyright.”
Something many authors may not be aware of is the fact that publishing for free under Creative Commons does not mean working for nothing.
In the last year or two, I have read all or part of a number of novels by Cory Doctorow and Charles Stross (two I can think of offhand) by downloading the full text from their websites. And then, having determined that I like the book, I’ve gone ahead and ordered it from a retailer. I wrote to Stross to thank him for letting me download Accelerando so I could confirm it was worth buying, and he replied that he hears that a lot: People who download his books tend to go on to buy them.
It’s the same with the many O’Reilly technical books: I can download many of them from the Web (some even legally) and then I buy the ones I determine I will actually use. I certainly buy more books as a result of intelligently evaluating the contents than I would if I had to drive over an hour to the nearest town with a Barnes & Noble, stand in the aisles, and page through a wall of books at once.
Maybe it’s counterintuitive to authors who have been indoctrinated that copyright == getting paid, but my experience is that creative use of Creative Commons licenses with share and reuse options leads to hard-copy book sales.
- Maty
- I think that on the level of principles the problem is that we all use the general word ‘ideas’ here to denote different things—the anti-IP people take it to mean concrete instances of knowledge and therefore rightfully reply that no one can ‘own’ what’s in their heads, while the pro-IP people take it for anything that is non-physical—and hence the confusion.
So why not simplify it?
As I mentioned in a previous post, no can own or copyright an idea per-se—nor can one do so with knowledge. Property is the result of work; either one’s own, or someone else’s. However, when one takes isolated ideas and groups them together in a certain way; in a particular order and fashion that is distinct and personal to him—he creates a new unit. All those ideas that have been previously isolated and continue to be so outside of his work, once formulated by the power of his mind, constitute a new whole. This does not mean that the individual ideas, concepts, information, or knowledge used therein are his property and cannot be used by others—what it means is that the new whole, the particular combination he has attained, is his property and cannot be replicated without consent.
Just because an author is using concepts—non-material units—for raw materials and not steel, concrete or any other physical commodity does it mean that he should not own the end result of his effort? And can you really claim that the end result of his work is only the PHYSICAL book and naught more? After all, what has he been toiling over all those years—binding and pressing papers, or contemplating concepts and grouping them into logical units, glued together by coherence and his unique style of expression?
Just as the mason, whose workplace is physical, would own the house his hands have built—should not a writer, whose workspace is conceptual, own the structure his mind erected?
So if you have worked hard to infer certain truths which the author happened to demonstrate in his book, or even if you have exerted your mental faculties to grasp the contents of his very book, it does not mean that the author now owns the ideas in your mind—you obviously own them because you have worked to put them there, and you are free to use them and express them in any way you wish. However, you are not free to appropriate the author’s expression—even if you memorized his entire text.
Ideas DO NOT equal their expression, formulation, or presentation—even though many of us may hold the same truths in our minds, we all have our own way of explaining and expressing them. If we wish to repeat or paraphrase someone else’s expression—would cite or credit them. Why? Because we acknowledge their work and the fact that even though the idea is equally ours—the expression is theirs.
The thing that concerns me most about the anti-IP arguments presented herein is that they all seem to do away with the process of creation and its significance–regarding man-made creations once revealed to the world as equally metaphysical as the rocks and leaves…
Now, as a foot note, I do hope that this post is going to be answered intelligently and not ignored as my previous lengthily posts. Up to this point I have approached this debate as an exchange of ideas where everyone engaged is seeking to reach the truth, and gave most comments due time and consideration. Others arguing in favor of IP seem to have taken a similarly mature approach, taking the time to consider comments and trying to reason through them (even if not always successfully). However, those arguing against IP seem to have (mostly) confined themselves to being dismissive (bordering on elusive), while at times seemingly aiming at ridicule rather than intelligent discourse.
As for myself, I have been curious to hear the case for anti-IP and was open to challenging my own convictions. However, none of the arguments offered thus far withstood my deconstruction, nor were my counterarguments counteracted. Seeing as much confusion on both side has resulted from the use of analogies on the practical lever—I have sought in this post to bring the matter down to the level of principle, and to two fundamental questions:
1. Is a man entitled to the result of his work, and
2. Is he then entitled to set the terms under which he is willing to trade it?These questions are at the root of the discussion, and I think that at this point, if we are not to talk in vain, we should strive to focus on the roots.
This would my last attempt to engage in this discourse intelligently, and if again it goes unanswered, I can only conclude that those arguing against IP simply have no answers and stop wasting my time. Those who care can keep on playing in the sand box…
====================================
jeffrey said:
“Would Rowling be poorer or richer? I don’t think there is any way to know. But the main thing is that the world be a better place.”
So much for the ‘individual’ as the standard of value…
- Maty
- Sorry, I meant to post the above under ‘A Book That Changes Everything’…
- Gil Guillory
- Jab writes above:
“Funny how the new libertarianpapers.org uses the Creative Commons license which is based, like the software GPL license, upon copyright law. They could have openly and overtly placed everything in the public domain had they chosen to do so.”This misunderstands copyright law. It is Federal Law that upon authoring a work, a copyright is created. There is no method under Federal Law by which an author can “place into the public domain” his work. The Creative Commons licenses *must* use copyright law as its basis, because that is the legal environment in which we operate. It would be unwise to merely ignore copyright law, just as it would be unwise to ignore tax law.
- Jab
-
This misunderstands copyright law. It is Federal Law that upon authoring a work, a copyright is created. There is no method under Federal Law by which an author can “place into the public domain” his work. The Creative Commons licenses *must* use copyright law as its basis, because that is the legal environment in which we operate. It would be unwise to merely ignore copyright law, just as it would be unwise to ignore tax law.
Yet software is often explicitly placed into the public domain.
If “CC 3.0” is a valid license, you could just as easily create a license that has all the effects of public domain without any restrictions whatsoever. A lot of software is issued with exactly that type of license.
- Stephan Kinsella
- For people above who in ignorance criticize us for using the Attribution license instead of just “putting it in the public domain”–there is no reliable way to do this. See my blog posts hereand here regarding this.
- Jab
-
For people above who in ignorance criticize us for using the Attribution license instead of just “putting it in the public domain”–there is no reliable way to do this. See my blog posts hereand here regarding this.
Yes, I’d seen at least one of your blog posts, but in the Wikipedia article you reference, it has a quote:
Although Computer Associates only mentioned the issue in passing, Nimmer observes that the public domain is particularly rich and valuable for computer programs. He seems to say that a computer program author who wishes to release his work into the public domain may either include it in a book as example code or post it on a “bulletin board” and encourage sharing and distribution. (Nimmer is the treatise most widely cited in copyright opinions, and is generally authoritative)
Publishing work to a website is more “shared and distributed” than either a book or an old-school bulletin board.”
But, again, it’s beside the point. If “CC 3.0” is a valid, non-revokable license, then you could just as easily make a valid, non-revokable license that had the same effect as public domain — with no requirements, attribution or otherwise.
- Brian Macker
-
“Of course without IP rights, the Publisher could just publish it without your permission since you couldn’t own it.”…and as a consequence the author is going to be very discriminating about which publisher he selects.
Without IP rights the artist doesn’t get to pick a sole publisher. His works will soon be ripped and copied by others. I don’t see how this gives any more incentive to be more discriminating than with IP in place.
- Bob Schaefer
- Some practical questions/examples which neither Kinsella nor Boldrin/Levine answer:
1. Assuming a world without IP, imagine I am a novelist. I submit my manuscript to a publisher. Couldn’t he sent me a rejection notice, remove my name from the manuscript, substitute his and publish my (now his) novel retaining all the profits for himself? In fact, couldn’t the same scenario be played out by anyone to whom I submit my manuscript, be he agent, editor or the secretary who opens the publisher’s mail? Though unethical, perhaps, wouldn’t these behaviors be perfectly legal in a no-IP world?
2. Assuming a world without IP, and in order to avoid the behaviors above, imagine I decide to self-edit and self-publish my novel. Couldn’t the very first person who buys my self-published book do exactly what the publisher did in my example above? In order to prevent such behavior, wouldn’t I have to flood the market with the first printing of my book in order to maximize my profits, which would entail a huge capital investment? [Obviously, the current practice of self-publishing a small number of books in hopes of attracting the interest of a major publisher would be a fool’s errand in a world without IP.]
3. Is there a clear distinction between trademark and copyright? (Boldrin/Levine are vague on the subject.) For instance, imagine I formed a trademarked company the whole purpose of which was to sell my novel. Then, imagine this trademarked company published my novel under its trademark. In a no-IP world, would my trademarked company protect my rights to my novel as tangible property?
4. Speaking of trademarks and tangible property, assume a no-IP world and imagine a restaurant opens. This trademarked restaurant has a unique concept and is extremely profitable. Obviously, as in our current IP world, imitators opening under different names and trademarks would soon abound in a no-IP world. However, in a no-IP world could imitators open an exact duplicate of this restaurant with exactly the same name and trademark? If so, why? And if not, how is the trademark protection for this restaurant different from copyright protection on a novel?
5. Boldrin/Levine and Tucker seem to rely on the utilitarian principle of the greater good for the greater number when advocating the demise of IP. In a no-IP world, certain creative individuals would have to be satisfied earning a little less off of their creations in order that society at large may enjoy a faster pace of technological progress and cheaper access to a greater variety of art and entertainment. However, couldn’t this same argument be turned against the concept of private tangible property?
Imagine a time when oil is in severely short supply. Imagine a rich landholder who owns thousands of square miles of land under which lie undeveloped oil resources. For his own reasons, be they environmental or merely crazy, this landowner refuses to develop these oil resources to their full potential. Isn’t society at large the worse off for protecting this landowner’s unlimited tangible property rights? Shouldn’t society be able to limit this individual’s tangible property ownership rights to some reasonable acreage so as to benefit the greater number?
Certainly this landowner has profited greatly from the oil resources he has developed already. Like Bill Gates, he’s rich enough. Certainly he wouldn’t miss the extra income he would lose by society nationalizing a portion of his property and developing its undeveloped resources? Certainly society, as a result, would enjoy more rapid and more expanded technological progress.
What say you Kinsella and Tucker?
- Elizabeth Barrette
- The part of copyright that allows creative people to formalize ownership of their own work, so that others cannot claim to have produced it nor profit from it without the creator’s permission, is very useful. It’s the rest of the institution that is a disaster, for the reasons you list above.
The Internet is making more alternatives viable. For some time now, I’ve been studying and practicing cyberfunded creativity. Instead of selling material to an editor or gallery owner or whatnot, creators market it directly to their online audience. There are many different models in effect — some use subscriptions, some use donations, and so forth. Audience interaction tends to be high.
You can read discussions about this on the LiveJournal community “Cyberfunded Creativity” including links to some popular projects:
http://community.livejournal.com/cyberfund_creat
If you want to see an example in action, drop by “The Wordsmith’s Forge” for the monthly Poetry Fishbowl (click “fishbowl” or “poem” tags for previous samples):
http://ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com/ - Elizabeth Barrette
- The part of copyright that allows creative people to formalize ownership of their own work, so that others cannot claim to have produced it nor profit from it without the creator’s permission, is very useful. It’s the rest of the institution that is a disaster, for the reasons you list above.
The Internet is making more alternatives viable. For some time now, I’ve been studying and practicing cyberfunded creativity. Instead of selling material to an editor or gallery owner or whatnot, creators market it directly to their online audience. There are many different models in effect — some use subscriptions, some use donations, and so forth. Audience interaction tends to be high.
You can read discussions about this on the LiveJournal community “Cyberfunded Creativity” including links to some popular projects:
http://community.livejournal.com/cyberfund_creat
If you want to see an example in action, drop by “The Wordsmith’s Forge” for the monthly Poetry Fishbowl (click “fishbowl” or “poem” tags for previous samples):
http://ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com/ - Dmitry Chernikov
- Bob, that’s a wonderful question you ask in #1. Consider scientific and scholarly papers. Scientists are most interested in disseminating their work far and wide, free of charge. (Many would probably agree to pay journals to publish their stuff.) That’s how they gain their fame and glory. Yet the kind of theft you describe never happens. So, there is a difference in receiving credit and recognition for your work and retaining the right to copy your work. Even if there is no copyright, and anyone can copy your novel, there may still be strict laws governing the attribution of credit. Therefore, the publisher might be able to publish a novel and give you nothing, but he won’t be able to deceive the public about who authored it.
{ 128 comments… read them below or add one }