Intellectual Property

Scarcity is the ultimate criterion of whether something can or cannot be property. Copyright and patent laws will probably re-appear in a different form under anarchism, but not under the guise of intellectual "property".

-Jon

kingmonkey:

If I build 10,000 Super Deluxe Widgets they are my property.  But I can sell those Super Deluxe Widgets to whomever I want but under the condition that you cannot make copies of my Super Deluxe Widgets, mass produce them and sell those.  And that is exactly what happens when you buy an iPod and you see "(C) 2004 Apple Computers.  All rights reserved."  Apple has spent the time, resources and energy to develop and produce the millions of iPods they use but they sell them to you with the understanding that you will not take their design and copy it and sell it for commercial gain. 

I believe things can be cleared up if put in an economic perspective.

Rather than supposing from the outset the sensibility of protectionism with regard to your idea (that's what it is I'm afraid), assume instead that no right to exclusive production for anything exists and you have always been aware of it.  Then, based on your above comment, you would not consider it worthwhile to ever even design a Super Deluxe Widget, let alone produce them.  And indeed, why should you?  After all, someone else is just going to copy it and produce some of their own to sell.  You would have to give up a lot of time and energy just to design it and you know it will amount to nothing, since your competitor will get your design for free.  It would just be a waste of resources.

However, within the subjective theory of value, it is entirely conceivable that some industrious individual will think it worthwhile to put countless man-hours into designing a Super Deluxe Widget fully aware that anyone can copy it.  Of course the revenue for this person makes will be severely lower than with IP rights (as is true of all beneficiaries of protectionism).  But then there's no reason the consumers shouldn't receive savings.  Also, now you get to copy his design without putting any effort into making your own! 

kingmonkey:

I can't take the movie Silence of the Lambs, copy it and put my studios name on the credits.  I didn't write the movie, I didn't produce the movie, I didn't hire the actors, extras, spend the money to bring it to market, etc.  MGM holds the rights to Silence of the Lambs.  I can buy a copy of it but I certainly can't make additional copies of it and claim it is mine or that I made the movie.

If you were to put your name and studio on the copy that would be plagiarism which, apparently, is a High Crime or Treason in academic circles. But if you were to make a copy and sell it the movie studio would be out exactly one lost sale and nothing more, there is no theft (or high seas piracy).

Now lets look at the opposite effects of Apple's ownership of the design. If I were to make 10,000 copies of an ipod and sell them under the name jpod what would Apple be out other than lost sales? Apple isn't happy with losing sales so takes me to court and confiscates my real property because they hold some imaginary claim on the fruits of my labor and capital (and a legal right to my customers). Now we're talking theft.

Who loses from this deal other than consumers subject to Apple's rent seeking behavior and competitors that have artificial barriers to entry to the market? Not Apple because they have full use of their design no matter how many copies are created so they are in no way hurt unless you calculate in potential lost sales—which isn't even possible since there is no way of telling if it were marginal buyers who were priced out of the market by Apple's artificial scarcity model purchasing my jpods or any of a hundred other options that would drive a consumer to my same quality, lower priced product.

But if you claim that every sale I make is 'stealing' from Apple then you can justify taking my property to compensate them for their loss because that's justice, just compensation for the victim. Still have the small problem that they are out exactly zero real property from this alleged crime but we'll allow victimless crimes for the 'progress of science' because without a legal monopoly people would stop inventing like during the 99.999% of human history where there was no patents or copyrights.

tgibson11, I have a few questions for you. Excuse me if it sounds stupid or uninformed, since I haven't actually studied the various points of view about IP yet.

This concerns the piracy of music. The only way I can download music without paying for it, is if somebody has at some point in time uploaded that music to the internet. If that somebody has not explicitly signed a contract with regards to the music, are they violating property rights by disseminating it on the internet? When we buy music in a shop, does the music contain some sort of conditional contract? (I never bothered looking). I know we sign EULAs with regards to games, but I haven't seen any for music.

Another question is this, according to your conception of IP, are the downloaders liable to be sued, or only the uploaders who have agreed to a conditional contract? Also, how do you deal with the problem that once something goes on the internet, such as music, it essentially ceases to be a scarce resource. It is of course limited by bandwidth, but considering how much bandwidth people have, relative to say, one song that they can download, this is a fairly moot restriction. If music on the internet is not scarce, then how is it still affected by private property rights?

Anonymous Coward:

kingmonkey:

I can't take the movie Silence of the Lambs, copy it and put my studios name on the credits.  I didn't write the movie, I didn't produce the movie, I didn't hire the actors, extras, spend the money to bring it to market, etc.  MGM holds the rights to Silence of the Lambs.  I can buy a copy of it but I certainly can't make additional copies of it and claim it is mine or that I made the movie.

If you were to put your name and studio on the copy that would be plagiarism which, apparently, is a High Crime or Treason in academic circles. But if you were to make a copy and sell it the movie studio would be out exactly one lost sale and nothing more, there is no theft (or high seas piracy).

Now lets look at the opposite effects of Apple's ownership of the design. If I were to make 10,000 copies of an ipod and sell them under the name jpod what would Apple be out other than lost sales? Apple isn't happy with losing sales so takes me to court and confiscates my real property because they hold some imaginary claim on the fruits of my labor and capital (and a legal right to my customers). Now we're talking theft.

Who loses from this deal other than consumers subject to Apple's rent seeking behavior and competitors that have artificial barriers to entry to the market? Not Apple because they have full use of their design no matter how many copies are created so they are in no way hurt unless you calculate in potential lost sales—which isn't even possible since there is no way of telling if it were marginal buyers who were priced out of the market by Apple's artificial scarcity model purchasing my jpods or any of a hundred other options that would drive a consumer to my same quality, lower priced product.

But if you claim that every sale I make is 'stealing' from Apple then you can justify taking my property to compensate them for their loss because that's justice, just compensation for the victim. Still have the small problem that they are out exactly zero real property from this alleged crime but we'll allow victimless crimes for the 'progress of science' because without a legal monopoly people would stop inventing like during the 99.999% of human history where there was no patents or copyrights.

Well...after thinking about this all night I'm going to have to concede.  You can't argue with logic, especially if it makes good sense.  I kept running into the same barriers with my line of logic and couldn't figure out where I was going wrong.  That is until last night when I woke up at 2am and said, "!  I'm just plain wrong!"  Congratulations.  You've converted me. 

This is one of the reasons why I started this thread in the first place.  I'm still new to anarchist thought so bare with me people.

Fred Furash:

tgibson11, I have a few questions for you. Excuse me if it sounds stupid or uninformed, since I haven't actually studied the various points of view about IP yet.

This concerns the piracy of music. The only way I can download music without paying for it, is if somebody has at some point in time uploaded that music to the internet. If that somebody has not explicitly signed a contract with regards to the music, are they violating property rights by disseminating it on the internet? When we buy music in a shop, does the music contain some sort of conditional contract? (I never bothered looking). I know we sign EULAs with regards to games, but I haven't seen any for music.

Another question is this, according to your conception of IP, are the downloaders liable to be sued, or only the uploaders who have agreed to a conditional contract? Also, how do you deal with the problem that once something goes on the internet, such as music, it essentially ceases to be a scarce resource. It is of course limited by bandwidth, but considering how much bandwidth people have, relative to say, one song that they can download, this is a fairly moot restriction. If music on the internet is not scarce, then how is it still affected by private property rights?

See http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

That explains it much better than I could.  Regarding your question, see the section titled "IP as Contract", starting on page 33.

In short (my view, not necessarily Kinsella's):

1) It is theoretically possible that in purchasing music one may contract not to copy or distribute it.  Whether this is in fact generally the case is debatable.  In the absence of an explicit statement of which uses are permitted and which denied, I would lean toward the opinion that there are no contractual restrictions.  A counter-argument could be made that the permitted and denied uses are commonly understood, and a contract does in fact exist.

2) Assuming such a contract did exist (and only in that case), then certainly the uploaders would be liable for some type of damages.  The amount of damages would have to have been stipulated in the contract - since there was no violation of property rights apart from the contract, and hence no objective loss to the seller.  (Another reason to think that such contracts would have to be explicit in order to be valid.)

3) The downloaders did not have any contract with the seller, so it seems to me that they could only be held liable if it was somehow obvious that the music in question was being distributed illegally.

The general concept of IP aside, currently existing patent laws most certain are not just. Patent laws are essentially a state granted monopoly and gaurantee of potential future profits. It effectively restricts competition, particularly in the fields of science and technology. It certainly constitutes a barrier to entry, as it falsely convicts some people of what amounts to fraud for even trying to enter and succeed in a given market.

Okay here's the idea; Before I write it down it is only mine and I have sole ownership of it. but when I write it down, I am making it public, in essence I am putting it in the open, in the common domain, the whole of the world that is literate in the english language and has internet access can share my idea, and this is the express reason I am putting it out there. If I wanted to protect my intellectual property I would keep it to myself, or sell it with a contract setting the terms of future proliferation of the idea by my buyers.

But what concerns me is that my idea will not be credited to me. what happens if after a few months one of you start espousing my idea as your own? you lie. I suppose this is no more harmfull than any other type of lie. but then it is one of the most flagarant.

Everyone who has a trace of ethics can see that much. and the most effective and probabably the largest number of libertarians come from a Ethical stance. So it would seem that we would be interested not in keeping other people from spreading my idea, but just to keep the line of authorship pure, if you will.

The difference in plagerism and in who you were with and where last night is that the formula for the first is the same every time, it is clear and undisputable. It seems both ethical and benificial to keep the authorship of works pure.

copywrite 2008 Donkey Publishing Corp.

If the idea-robber does call the idea originating with you his own then, since there are no protectionist IP laws, people would probably be skeptical that it his in fact his if you claimed the same (since they would have heard disputes over idea "ownership" a million times before), and also it would be in most senses (certainly economically) meaningless since anyone else is free to use the idea.

It's probably worth noting that the blogosphere works in a similar vein. 

that might be okay in blogging, more or less we are rehashing old ideas, but what about books, or things of that nature?and what when I come up with an idea as virtually a nobody, and someone with more academic credibility claims it was his idea? Im not saying there should be a $10,000 dollar penalty for it or anything, but theres nothing wrong with having a rule, or at least formulating a method to make it a taboo within society.

Distinguishing between patents and copyrights solves the problem like crazy. Intellectual property rights can only exist as conditions of ownership through contractual exchange. They can exist neither as titular nor as effective ownership of an idea. That is as antithetical to the libertarian concept of ownership as would be a claim by NASA to the entirety of the moon.

I think copyrights are a form of contract, that by using or buying a book you agree not to copy the information except by the terms set forth in the front of the book.

but in regards to patents... I have a hard time defending them. not in utility, but in ethics. I just dont see how a guy who is able to replicate an ipod can be forced to not do so if he is able to provide his own materials and put it together. but he can not call it an ipod... That is copyrighted.

And now I feel a moral conviction when it comes to the bootleg music I download... blast it!

Deo Vindice

Attackdonkey:

But what concerns me is that my idea will not be credited to me. what happens if after a few months one of you start espousing my idea as your own? you lie. I suppose this is no more harmfull than any other type of lie. but then it is one of the most flagarant.

How is that a lie?  I assume most of my ideas came from somewhere.  I hear your idea, assimilate it into my ... world-view, I suppose ... and eventually I end up spouting something similar if not identical.  Am I really supposed to keep track of where each idea came from, how they get mixed in with other ideas, etc., and add "this is 80% from X with 12% of Y and 3% of Z and 5% my own Genuine Original Thought(TM, Pat. Pend.)" to everything I say?  Sounds ridiculous.  (And of course it wouldn't really work like that, because "your" idea would also be 5% GOT(TM,PP) and you'd have to tell me the other 95% and pretty soon simply listing all the sources would take longer than a human lifetime before you were allowed to take your first breath...)

Attackdonkey:

I think copyrights are a form of contract, that by using or buying a book you agree not to copy the information except by the terms set forth in the front of the book.

Where do you make a contractual agreement not to copy a book? At the purchase? If I find a book on the ground I've made no agreement. Do you put it on the cover so the agreement can't be avoided when you open or look at the book? What if the book I find on the street is mising its cover? More importantly, how would you even issue consent to something just written on the cover of (or even inside of) a book. I could go on all day explaining away each case of trying to enforce an agreement in copyright.

but in regards to patents... I have a hard time defending them. not in utility, but in ethics. I just dont see how a guy who is able to replicate an ipod can be forced to not do so if he is able to provide his own materials and put it together. but he can not call it an ipod... That is copyrighted.

Words can be monopolized?

And now I feel a moral conviction when it comes to the bootleg music I download... blast it!

Bootleg music is often ripped from a CD and uploaded as a .mp3 . I'll ignore the obvious argument against ownership of music and simply explain that the file you download was simply not created by the artist. The file has been created by a program which transcoded it from the original CD which was purchased. Essentially an artist claiming ownership over that file would be like a novelist claiming ownership over every single translation of his book despite the fact that he took no part in creating it.