PeterWellington:Well I completely agree. The only thing I'd ask you to think about is that when I'm talking about contracts I'm not just talking about software seller to software buyer. I'm also talking about third party contracts. As an example, let's say that a bunch of software companies got together and paid ISPs for the right to police warez sites. Not forcibly take them down, just block the ISP user from accessing it. The terms of this agreement would be fully disclosed to the ISP user when he signed on for the service. There would be no force on the part of any party, only voluntary contracts. Without getting into whether or not you think this would work (I'm not even saying it would), do you think the terms of those contracts should be enforceable in court? If yes, then I don't think our disagreement is anything the market couldn't sort out. If not, I would like to hear more about how you define a valid contract.
Sure, and that's how the market is supposed to work. People who are willing to pay more to get free [sic] software, will pay more for an ISP that doesn't restrict such. Personally, I think that it's almost impossible to police warez at the network level. That business model is paying someone to have less customers. Totally doable in the market, but I think ultimately futile and unsustainable.
PeterWellington:My $100/$5 model doesn't presume value is equal. In fact, I'd say the original creator would probably provide more. But the question is, does that added value make up for the $95 price difference?
Since your question is hypothetical, we're just goofing off trying to answer it, although I will say that if your selling price is 20 times your competitor, either he is leaving money on the table, or you are out to lunch with your pricing. The only person who cares about creative costs, is the creator. How you value your time, how much capital you consume to complete the project. That is your problem, just as it is the consumers problem to come up with enough money to buy your product.
PeterWellington:And if you don't protect your product at all, then I can leach off you in other ways too. I can simply refer the people who purchased the digital product from me to you, for things like documentation, updates, support etc. If you're completely unprotected, how will you distinguish between someone who paid you vs. someone who paid me?
Why would someone be completely unprotected? Do people do exchanges, warranties and refunds without a receipt?
PeterWellington:We can debate the extent to which companies might try to protect their investments and how effective they might be, but I honestly can't see companies giving away their investments as a rule.
They don't have to give up their investments. They can keep them locked in a safe.
I think people are resistant to change. In the future, I think you will see more people using open source GPL, and using more public domain frameworks and scaffolds and the like. Development will be faster because we can reuse more code, and we have more people using and refining and securing that code. Decentralization is the future, not behemoths like Microsoft. Particularly in fields of science, technology and medicine. Co-operation via the division of labour is a lot more efficient than designing bespoke system after bespoke system.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
JParker,
I used to think about IP in exactly the same way you do, so I really do appreciate your point of view. I still think it's in really bad taste to take someone's work and sell it, but if the non-aggression principle is the litmus test, then I have to admit that there was no force used, only free choices made. But when I thought about the free market more, I realized that there are ways of essentially getting rid of what we'd call IP theft today. It won't eliminate it, but I would argue that you'd have a tougher time pirating things in a free market than you would now. Obviously a lot of people disagree with that, but think of the limitless ways a free market can arrange contracts, which *are* enforceable. Especially consider something like the 3rd party contract I mentioned to liberty student or my nuclear weapon example. I'm not saying these are ideal approaches, but they do represent a mechanism by which the market can "regulate" itself. There are creative, non-violent, solutions out there.
Maxliberty:How we can recognize property is it has value.
Who owns air? Surely value cannot be the end-all-be-all method of determining property, as Rothbard points out. In fact, since value is entirely subjective as opposed to the fact of scarcity, how can you defend this?
PeterWellington: If not, I would like to hear more about how you define a valid contract.
Here is where LS and many other Austrians have an issue, since they argue that you can't be forced to do anything there is in essence no valid contracts. Since enforcement of the contract might entail force it becomes invalid in their mind. So your example about the restrctions on property that you might sell are invalid because once you ahve sold it you no longer own it and they don't have to abide by the contract.
The absence of enforceable contracts makes everything uncertain.
Whenever you mention contracts on this forum most of the folks run and hide.
PeterWellington: JParker, I used to think about IP in exactly the same way you do, so I really do appreciate your point of view. I still think it's in really bad taste to take someone's work and sell it, but if the non-aggression principle is the litmus test, then I have to admit that there was no force used, only free choices made. But when I thought about the free market more, I realized that there are ways of essentially getting rid of what we'd call IP theft today. It won't eliminate it, but I would argue that you'd have a tougher time pirating things in a free market than you would now. Obviously a lot of people disagree with that, but think of the limitless ways a free market can arrange contracts, which *are* enforceable. Especially consider something like the 3rd party contract I mentioned to liberty student or my nuclear weapon example. I'm not saying these are ideal approaches, but they do represent a mechanism by which the market can "regulate" itself. There are creative, non-violent, solutions out there.
That is what I've tried to point out through the course of my last few posts over the lasts couple of pages this morning. I think you are correct in your assertion that the free market will come up with incredible ways of preventing piracy that are more effective than current methods in light of state rule. I know that this assertion is difficult to argue, and I've yet to see it effectively argued in the course of this discussion.
JParker: I apologize if I've offended anybody, I'm trying only to learn and share ideas.
I apologize if I've offended anybody, I'm trying only to learn and share ideas.
Frustrating discussion, but certainly not offensive. No hard feelings here. Btw, if someone argued that IP was not property with me a year ago, my argument would have been similar to yours. And that's not to imply I am more evolved in opinion, but that I can identify with where you are coming from.
As you said, there is a lot to digest, and a lot of premises to check.
Maxliberty:The absence of enforceable contracts makes everything uncertain.
I disagree, particularly in light of the fact that I and others and provided examples contrary to this. Would you mind responding to them?
liberty student:As you said, there is a lot to digest, and a lot of premises to check.
Agreed. This has been a fascinating discussion to take part in as a recent anarchist-convert. I have learned an incredible amount, and this is thanks to you, Maxliberty, Jparker, Peter, Giles, and any others who have contributed. While I have certainly chosen sides for the time being, I owe many thanks to those who have opposed me and joined me for the time being.
Klor: Maxliberty:How we can recognize property is it has value. Who owns air? Surely value cannot be the end-all-be-all method of determining property, as Rothbard points out. In fact, since value is entirely subjective as opposed to the fact of scarcity, how can you defend this?
Value is determined by scarcity. So it is not possible to have value without scarcity. So when air is scarce, it has value (like when you are under water), and when it is not scarce it has no value.
Scarcity is subjective as well since it is based on demand. I may have no interest in something you want so for me it has no value and is not scarce. You may want the same thing so from your perspective its scarce.
Maxliberty: liberty student: My definition of property is that it is scarce (can only be owned by one person at a time) and the product of mixing labour with nature. Very simple. So my definition is equally simple, its scarce, (it can be owned by more than one person at a time) and is the product of mixing labour with nature. How we can recognize property is it has value. Information/knowledge has value. There are ready markets for this property. Markets place a value/price on it all the time.
liberty student: My definition of property is that it is scarce (can only be owned by one person at a time) and the product of mixing labour with nature. Very simple.
My definition of property is that it is scarce (can only be owned by one person at a time) and the product of mixing labour with nature. Very simple.
So my definition is equally simple, its scarce, (it can be owned by more than one person at a time) and is the product of mixing labour with nature.
How we can recognize property is it has value. Information/knowledge has value. There are ready markets for this property. Markets place a value/price on it all the time.
Wow, incredible double speak. "Yes, we agree on an objective standard for property. So let's determine property subjectively." Brilliant.
As usual, you pave right over reason and make an inaccurate statement like no one laid down a logical premise to discuss or work from.
Maxliberty: IP meets all the defintions of property.
IP meets all the defintions of property.
Like I said. Waste of time. It doesn't even conform to the very same definition you claimed to accept.
Have fun arguing with yourself Max.
PeterWellington:My challenge was for you to show me that the open source community is fulfilling all of the wants and needs of the market.
That is also irrelevant. No product fills every need. No product family, no single development process.
To do that you'd have to show me that commercial software is a failed business model.
Not at all. I cannot say that "commercial software" would not exist without patent and copyright to prop it up, but I can assert with reasonable assurance that the reason that commercial software is so big is because of the artificial monopolies of copyright and patent.
Your condition that in order to be viable "OpenSource" has to make as much money as commercial software does is silly on its face. I am not a failed teacher because I do not make money at it.
Would commercial software make as much money as OpenSource companies would without those monopolies? I don't know. I don't think you do either. However, I would love to see it tried.
And you do know that many open source packages actually come with contractual restrictions, right? Or are you against those as well?
"as well"? I'm only against the artificial monopoly grants of copyright and patent. Don't go putting words in my mouth, either.
There's also no law that prevents open source software from producing alternatives.
This discussion encompasses copyright and patent, laws which specifically are designed to prevent competition. If that isn't a "law that prevents", I don't know what is.
Stop calling it force or coercion. Some people may have said that, but not me. I'm not calling for either. If you keep repeating that then show me where I said it.
No need to throw a tantrum. I'll leave you alone, now. Good boy.
Maxliberty:Here is where LS and many other Austrians have an issue, since they argue that you can't be forced to do anything there is in essence no valid contracts.
That is a straw man. Are you ignorant or lying?
Maxliberty:Whenever you mention contracts on this forum most of the folks run and hide.
Another straw man. Are you ignorant or lying?
Ignorance I can help with. Liars are beyond hope.
Klor: Maxliberty:The absence of enforceable contracts makes everything uncertain. I disagree, particularly in light of the fact that I and others and provided examples contrary to this. Would you mind responding to them?
Contracts relate to future actions. So without enforceable contracts any action which has a dependent future action is now uncertain. Contracts are designed to increase stability and certainty between parties. If all enforcement of contracts is by definition coercion then future actions become substantially less certain.
CurtHowland:No need to throw a tantrum. I'll leave you alone, now. Good boy.
Can we please keep this civil? This comment was uncalled for and horribly degrading.
liberty student: Maxliberty: liberty student: My definition of property is that it is scarce (can only be owned by one person at a time) and the product of mixing labour with nature. Very simple. So my definition is equally simple, its scarce, (it can be owned by more than one person at a time) and is the product of mixing labour with nature. How we can recognize property is it has value. Information/knowledge has value. There are ready markets for this property. Markets place a value/price on it all the time. Wow, incredible double speak. "Yes, we agree on an objective standard for property. So let's determine property subjectively." Brilliant. As usual, you pave right over reason and make an inaccurate statement like no one laid down a logical premise to discuss or work from. Maxliberty: IP meets all the defintions of property. Like I said. Waste of time. It doesn't even conform to the very same definition you claimed to accept. Have fun arguing with yourself Max.
Run and hide LS. You bitch and moan in the forum about defintions of property and now run when one is provided.
Welcome to the forum and enjoy your stay!
In all seriousness though, I am issuing a general request that the ad hominem attacks be kept at a minimum.
To darkness I condemn you...
liberty student: Maxliberty:Here is where LS and many other Austrians have an issue, since they argue that you can't be forced to do anything there is in essence no valid contracts. That is a straw man. Are you ignorant or lying? Maxliberty:Whenever you mention contracts on this forum most of the folks run and hide. Another straw man. Are you ignorant or lying? Ignorance I can help with. Liars are beyond hope.
As usual LS whenever anyone presents the idea of contracts you always respond with that people do not have the right to make those contracts. So as you were previously asked why dont you answer and explain why the various contract scenarios outlined in this thread all violate your rights?
Deafening silence.
Maxliberty:Run and hide LS. You bitch and moan in the forum about defintions of property and now run when one is provided.
I have asked you a half dozen times for a definition. You waited until I provided one to say you agreed with it.
Then you proceeded to disagree with yourself.
So, I'm not bitching and moaning at all. This is what I expect from you. Never admit you're wrong, always argue subjectively, and attribute straw man positions to your opponents in debate, so that you can avoid answer direct questions.
Again, I don't know if you are ignorant or a liar. I was your biggest supporter on this forum, but your irrational arguments and loathsome behaviour make it hard to stand by your side. I'd like to believe I support people with an interest in learning and honesty.
Maxliberty:As usual LS whenever anyone presents the idea of contracts you always respond with that people do not have the right to make those contracts.
Source, or another strawman?
Maxliberty:So as you were previously asked why dont you answer and explain why the various contract scenarios outlined in this thread all violate your rights?.
Source or strawman?
Maxliberty:Deafening silence.
I'm actually able to laugh at how deluded you are. You continue to create false attributions. Straw men. That is a tactic others here use. It's way of arguing subjectively, and not objectively. It's also dishonest.
I'm actually giving you a little of the benefit of the doubt that you might not be lying on purpose, but ignorant or confused.
Feel free to source where I say these things, if you're not lying.
Maxliberty: As usual LS whenever anyone presents the idea of contracts you always respond with that people do not have the right to make those contracts. So as you were previously asked why dont you answer and explain why the various contract scenarios outlined in this thread all violate your rights? Deafening silence.
I think LS already addressed this a long time ago by stating that you cannot make contracts regarding something that cannot be owned by anybody. It does not make any sense. If you have a problem with his assertion, you should address it explicitly.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap