JackSkylark: Yes, I have read everything posted here and I am a regular reader of this site. And, no, I do not think that asking a question or soliciting information is a lack of "reading comprehension". In fact, I would hope you don't take everything as truth immediately. This is an issue with me because I am personally in the business.
Yes, I have read everything posted here and I am a regular reader of this site. And, no, I do not think that asking a question or soliciting information is a lack of "reading comprehension". In fact, I would hope you don't take everything as truth immediately. This is an issue with me because I am personally in the business.
Your questions appears to be ignorant of the materials that this site has posted, especially since it is already answered in various way.
Did you read my link on classical musicans? That should get you started on finding a suitable business model for your needs.
You may call it a failed business model but I would like to have ownership over what I make. Working eight years to develop a piece of music and then getting a market price of 0$ because it suddenly becomes an infinite good, forces me either to starve or give up music. So if I seem a bit thick, forgive me.
So sad, too bad. You sucks. Either find a way to make your activity profitable or do something else.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
kiba: Did you read my link on classical musicans? That should get you started on finding a suitable business model for your needs.
Yes, I did read that link. Giving away a free sample (primarily when you are already established within the music world) is a form of advertising, so as to sell other works to a larger audience (who were introduced through the free offer). The business model presented in that link you gave relies totally on IP in order to work.
But enough of that, I want to ask another question and offer another scenario. I was reading "Against Intellectual Property", since I have not yet read it and it was mentioned as an answer. In general (and I mentioned this before) I agree with every word, untill I get to the part about "reserved rights" (pg. 47). Kinsella argues that, unlike with tangible property, I am unable to reserve rights on an idea, since he finds that "something is amiss". But to this he gives very little actual arguement. Should I not be able to sell the partial rights of my musical composition while keeping the "right to copy", as he puts it. No one has even suggested that we should do away with conditional ownership, because of this why could I not have some sort of "end-user license agreement" which would contractionally oblige someone not to copy?
You can make money the way, historically, all musicians have made money:performances and commisions.
FWIW, I think such agreements are perfectly fine. So long as you understand they cannot replicate current IP models.
To darkness I condemn you...
JackSkylark: No one has even suggested that we should do away with conditional ownership, because of this why could I not have some sort of "end-user license agreement" which would contractionally oblige someone not to copy?
but consider if a whole lot of excellent competing product is out there without 'protection/ you might find people positively avoid your work so they cant be guilty of copying it by accident (absentmindedly get confused about what product they can copy and what they cant).
if they find enough good stuff to listen to without legal hassles......
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
JackSkylark: But enough of that, I want to ask another question and offer another scenario. I was reading "Against Intellectual Property", since I have not yet read it and it was mentioned as an answer. In general (and I mentioned this before) I agree with every word, untill I get to the part about "reserved rights" (pg. 47). Kinsella argues that, unlike with tangible property, I am unable to reserve rights on an idea, since he finds that "something is amiss". But to this he gives very little actual arguement. Should I not be able to sell the partial rights of my musical composition while keeping the "right to copy", as he puts it. No one has even suggested that we should do away with conditional ownership, because of this why could I not have some sort of "end-user license agreement" which would contractionally oblige someone not to copy?
I think you are confusing Intellectual Property with Copyright. If I create something and copyright it. The buyer forms a contract with the seller that they will not copy it. For instance: I buy a painting of Mickey Mouse and it is copyrighted by the painter. I agree that I will not copy this painting. However, if I decide to paint my own unique Mickey Mouse painting I would not be in breach of the contract.
Intellectual property, on the other hand, claims that an Idea is unique and that a certain person or corporation is the only person who can use or profit from that idea. For instance: After I paint this Mickey Mouse painting I decide to copyright and sell it. After selling a couple paintings I am contacted by the "intellectual property owner of Mickey Mouse." They tell me that I must stop selling my Mickey Mouse painting or I will be sued because I do not own the "idea" of Mickey Mouse.
Look at calculus for instance: Leibniz and Newton both came up with calculus independently of one another. Their notation was different but the idea was the same. Ideas are not unique and can be reached by any person. As the saying goes.. Anyone can have an idea, It's what you DO with the idea that counts.
People are always appealing to art because they know they can get easy agreement. Who would argue against art? no one that doesn't want to look like an uncultured slob surely. Stop relying on children, art, and raw fear to back up your anti-libertarian assertions. It is intellectually dishonest.
Let's change that original post to an invention that you worked on for eight years. Who is going to copy an unsuccessful product? If your product is a success then it doesn't matter if people copy it, you've already made some money and you don't have a right to monopoly status so that you can artificially increase the time span that you derive revenue from it. "But then people will only make things that they can turn a profit on!" you complain. Let's change the term "turn a profit" which is obviously loaded to "that people will want". "People will only make things that other people want" you complain....this isn't much of a complaint. If you want to make things that other people don't want feel free. Just support it with your own money instead of expecting public funds that were stolen at gunpoint to be used to support it.
nazgulnarsil: People are always appealing to art because they know they can get easy agreement. Who would argue against art? no one that doesn't want to look like an uncultured slob surely. Stop relying on children, art, and raw fear to back up your anti-libertarian assertions. It is intellectually dishonest. Let's change that original post to an invention that you worked on for eight years. Who is going to copy an unsuccessful product? If your product is a success then it doesn't matter if people copy it, you've already made some money and you don't have a right to monopoly status so that you can artificially increase the time span that you derive revenue from it. "But then people will only make things that they can turn a profit on!" you complain. Let's change the term "turn a profit" which is obviously loaded to "that people will want". "People will only make things that other people want" you complain....this isn't much of a complaint. If you want to make things that other people don't want feel free. Just support it with your own money instead of expecting public funds that were stolen at gunpoint to be used to support it.
I chose art since that’s my business and thus what I naturally think of. There was no hidden meaning in my choosing so, I had thought I had made that quite clear. Also, you misunderstood me; I do not defend total monopoly on broad "idea" but on the narrow product itself under general contract or "reserved rights". I'm sure you've seen plenty of people selling copies of brand new recordings for a quarter. There is obviously nothing wrong with reinvention, which I would call the "idea", but the owner and user of media purchased is under (usually it is printed on the disc or in the liner notes) contractional obligation not to copy. My reason for setting up this question was to determine the libertarianism of "reserved rights" in relation to, for instance, music.
Also, I do not know who your post was directed towards, and if it was for me then you have set up a straw man as I never called for taxation. Spouting beginning libertarian catchphrases and calling questions and hypothetical inquiry "anti-libertarian assertions", puts you on a huge disadvantage in presenting your argument.
My pretense is a libertarian system of courts. Now, of course, this sets up a huge discussion on law without legislation and competitive courts, which would naturally include some public presentiment (or demand for law). But, for the sake of argument, we simplify this by calling for a libertarian legal code. As a restatement, my question is “are “reserved rights” compatible with a libertarian legal code?” (I am satisfied with alot of the previous responses)
JackSkylark:I never called for taxation.
right but it seems you believe in copyright, something tax dollars are used to enforce.
copyright is supposed to be a contract between the seller and the buyer that the buyer will not reproduce the work he is being sold. This would be fine if the copyright system wasn't horribly flawed.
nazgulnarsil: JackSkylark:I never called for taxation. right but it seems you believe in copyright, something tax dollars are used to enforce. copyright is supposed to be a contract between the seller and the buyer that the buyer will not reproduce the work he is being sold. This would be fine if the copyright system wasn't horribly flawed.
While such contracts are probably permissable in a libertarian society, I predict such contracts would not outcompete with more competitive offering. Bad business models are the kind that substract values from a good or services.
In other words, such contract would be self-defeating in the long run.
It's not really enforceable. What happens when the person who bougt the thing shows it to their friend? do they make their friend sign a contract? do you sue them for showing it to their friend?
So few would bother to enter into such a contract. People who demand such contracts would probably be laughed out of the market.
nazgulnarsil: It's not really enforceable. What happens when the person who bougt the thing shows it to their friend? do they make their friend sign a contract? do you sue them for showing it to their friend? So few would bother to enter into such a contract. People who demand such contracts would probably be laughed out of the market.
We had this discussion a while ago with Max Liberty and Peter Wellington. Yes, people can and probably should use contracts. No, contracts cannot create an effective monopoly where the property is not scarce.
Imagine the problem of one more degree of separation. While showing your invention to your friend, his wife/sister sees it.
People assume folks will line up to sign a piece of paper because it's thrilling and will make them feel important. But imagine that the wife/sister sees the value in the product, and when presented after the revelation of the product with a contract to maintain discretion, now that knowledge has value and demands something in exchange (which seems entirely reasonable).
The great problem of IP goes even one step further. One can produce an idea in seclusion, keeping it secret. But he's totally screwed when someone else, solves the same problem with a similar or different solution. And how can one be a criminal, for inventing a good, after another? Well, the state can do these crazy things, but no rational understanding of the circumstances would allow it.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
nazgulnarsil:Let's change that original post to an invention that you worked on for eight years. Who is going to copy an unsuccessful product?
Most people who argue for IP still haven't completely bought into, or understand the subjective theory of value. Because all else aside, if they did understand the subjective theory of value, then they would understand that determining losses (reparations) from IP leakage would be nearly impossible. Not every good has value, and sans monopoly no creator dictates the value of his product in a vacuum.
Just because there aren't IP laws doesn't mean there aren't ways of protecting your work, ways that are compatible with libertarian principles. Charles Anthony touched on a very direct way earlier in the thread, but you have even more options.
When you write a book, develop a piece of software, or compose music, *you* have it. No one else knows about it until *you choose* to reveal it. That's really important because it gives you the chance to come up with a business model to profit from it.
Imagine you lived during a time when the printing press started being used to print books, and there's only one being operated within 100 miles of you. You write up a proposal (a contract) for the owner of the printing press. You agree to pay for 500 copies of your book, on the condition that he does not print any unauthorized copies for 2 years (you'd probably pay a premium for this). If he doesn't agree, he loses your business. If he agrees, he's just entered into a binding contract, one where you can collect damages if breached. You can enter a similar contract with the town bookstore. Now copycats have to deal with the difficulty and expense of copying and marketing the book through alternate means. If you wanted to take it further, you could even include some usage terms with your book before the reader broke the seal (whether readers would buy a book like that or it would hold up in court or if that would even decrease copying, who knows, just another possibility).
In the realm of music, think of the ways in which people obtain it (the ways you don't like). Contract with those sources, those who are part of that process. Make it worth their while financially. This can be difficult in situations where you're a small player in the market, but if enough people/companies have that same need, you can come together and make it happen. It really comes down to what you want to pay to protect your work vs. what people are willing to pay or avoid in order to obtain it.
PeterWellington: Just because there aren't IP laws doesn't mean there aren't ways of protecting your work, ways that are compatible with libertarian principles. Charles Anthony touched on a very direct way earlier in the thread, but you have even more options. When you write a book, develop a piece of software, or compose music, *you* have it. No one else knows about it until *you choose* to reveal it. That's really important because it gives you the chance to come up with a business model to profit from it. Imagine you lived during a time when the printing press started being used to print books, and there's only one being operated within 100 miles of you. You write up a proposal (a contract) for the owner of the printing press. You agree to pay for 500 copies of your book, on the condition that he does not print any unauthorized copies for 2 years (you'd probably pay a premium for this). If he doesn't agree, he loses your business. If he agrees, he's just entered into a binding contract, one where you can collect damages if breached. You can enter a similar contract with the town bookstore. Now copycats have to deal with the difficulty and expense of copying and marketing the book through alternate means. If you wanted to take it further, you could even include some usage terms with your book before the reader broke the seal (whether readers would buy a book like that or it would hold up in court or if that would even decrease copying, who knows, just another possibility). In the realm of music, think of the ways in which people obtain it (the ways you don't like). Contract with those sources, those who are part of that process. Make it worth their while financially. This can be difficult in situations where you're a small player in the market, but if enough people/companies have that same need, you can come together and make it happen. It really comes down to what you want to pay to protect your work vs. what people are willing to pay or avoid in order to obtain it.
Or more realisticaly, you would write a book and if it was a hit then you would earn by touring from one Q&A session and lecture on your work to another. Provided your work was high quality and your fee wasn`t excessive you would be in great demand.
PeterWellington:In the realm of music, think of the ways in which people obtain it (the ways you don't like). Contract with those sources, those who are part of that process. Make it worth their while financially. This can be difficult in situations where you're a small player in the market, but if enough people/companies have that same need, you can come together and make it happen. It really comes down to what you want to pay to protect your work vs. what people are willing to pay or avoid in order to obtain it.
DRM works wonderfully.
Actually I don't think it would be necessary (or worthwhile) to go to such lengths to protect your music without the state. The problem now is that for a number of reasons CDs are horribly overpriced and the quality is usually quite bad. Usually there's a lack of any (decent) album artwork or anything like that. I used to buy CDs for a long time because I liked having the real thing. But in the end I figured it wasn't worth it, I can go on a torrent site find literally any album I like and have the album within minutes.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
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