I love the LVMI for the most part, have learned a lot from it and have even donated to it. My one area of disagreement with it is with regards to the concept of intellectual property rights. I certainly agree that that out current copyright, trademark and patent laws are unjust in many ways. This is nothing inherent with IP in my view but the fact that these properties are “protected” by government. We should not expect government to protect intellectual property any better than it delivers medicine. Did Mises himself write about this? What were his views if any? What are your views? Is this something LVMI scholars generally agree on or is there a great deal of disagreement on this issue?
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
http://mises.org/Community/groups/educational_pamphlets/default.aspx
So long as the government maintains a monopoly on the protection of property, we should expect it to protect intellectual property as well.
That doesn't mean the government is efficient at protecting property, or that it has the proper incentive to do so. But intellectual property is no different from any other form of property in that aspect.
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
Stranger: So long as the government maintains a monopoly on the protection of property, we should expect it to protect intellectual property as well. That doesn't mean the government is efficient at protecting property, or that it has the proper incentive to do so. But intellectual property is no different from any other form of property in that aspect.
It's an evolving process. But suffice to say, those who are in favor of IP are being intellectually spanked left, right, up, down, and inside out. The case against IP has already been demonstrably made along Austrian Economics principles; now it's just a matter of the ideas of that demonstration being generally absorbed.
But here's my latest contribution against the possibility of validly contracting non-copying:
The point is you can't make contracts on property that you don't own. Music mixed with public domain word lyrics can't be validly contracted. Neither can music that copies common blues chord progressions. You can certainly sell whatever music you make that is represented on actual physical property. You just can't make a contract preventing copying when you don't completely exclusively own the ideas that are mixed with your production. And note that a contract is a COPY of the idea of a contract, certainly not invented and created by the latest person to write a contract.
There is no "chain of voluntary contract extending back to the point of origin". Merely by trading you are COPYING the idea of trade first created by someone else. And that's the point, all creative production is BUNDLING COPIES of ideas created by others. And that is not exclusively ownable by someone. It would be absolutely absurd for someone to pretend they are selling you a physical cd disc along with the exclusive rights to use of the English language. There are no exclusive rights to use of the English language. Anyone who mixes their creative content with use of the English language is voiding their claim of exclusive creative production. Therefore, contracts made upon mixed ideas not exclusively created are invalid. You are attempting to sell not *just* your portion of exclusively created content but also trying to sell the COPIED mixed portion of non-exclusively created content along with it. Not only is it a hypocritical stance arguing against copying whilst simultaneously copying, but it's as absurd as attempting to sell someone exclusive rights to breath air.
Ron:"You're arguing against any concept of originality in the realm of ideas, which I can't dispute. Every idea naturally builds upon a previous idea, whether it be one's own idea or that of another."
It's not just "building upon", it's COPYING the idea foundations. You cannot validly contract thought control. Minds and property are irrevocably shaped and influenced by the expression of ideas. You can't yell in a public square whilst demanding others shut their ears until they pay you. Yet that's exactly what copyright is attempting to enforce.
Ron:"If you're saying that no idea is ever legitimately gained, then you invalidate the entire concept of contracts in general. Nobody owns anything becomes somebody owned some part of it at some point in the past."
Contract itself is far less valid than most people believe, but that's a different topic. You mix your labor of breathing with the air, but you don't therefore own the air. And nor can you validly contract with someone to not breath air, or not copy your breathing of air. It's by its nature not capable of exclusive ownership, and therefore not capable of valid contract. However, you can certainly put air in a scuba tank and sell a scuba tank of air, and validly contract to receive a scuba tank of air. Just as you can validly put ideas on a physical piece of property, such as a concert performance on exclusive private property, or a music recording on physical cd. However, you can never validly contract the non-copying of any ideas. Even if you could, the second person to contract the non-copying of any ideas would be COPYING the first person who invented that contract. And that would be a violation of free trade resulting in the abject poverty of completely isolated non-trading individuals.
But usually creative artists are full of massively inflated egos, and they are conveniently deaf, blind, and dumb to the innumerable ways in which they have copied the ideas of others. And clearly their production benefits from copying the ideas of others. And clearly all who copy benefit from copying. And clearly there is always more to copy then an individual person can truly uniquely produce, thus meaning wealth increases exponentially from unlimited copying for absolutely every person. It's an epistemological impossibility to not copy others (even the idea of exclusively owned pieces of property are copies of other exclusively owned pieces of property); therefore, contracts against copying are invalid.
rtr: Music mixed with public domain word lyrics can't be validly contracted.
Music mixed with public domain word lyrics can't be validly contracted.
By this same logic "Cement mixed with public domain sand can't be validly contracted."
Should I not be permited to have ownership over my driveway?
EDIT:
rtr: But usually creative artists are full of massively inflated egos, and they are conveniently deaf, blind, and dumb to the innumerable ways they have copied the ideas of others.
But usually creative artists are full of massively inflated egos, and they are conveniently deaf, blind, and dumb to the innumerable ways they have copied the ideas of others.
ryanpatgray:By this same logic "Cement mixed with public domain sand can't be validly contracted."
Yes, that means you cannot create a valid contract against others using ALL the sand which exists, even though they are many uses of sand which copy the idea of use of sand.
ryanpatgray:This is an ad hominim if I have ever read one! And inaccurate as well.
It's really not an ad hominim. The vast majority of creative artists do indeed have inflated egos and are deaf, blind, and dumb in so far to the extent as they fail to recognize the innumerable ways in which they are copying the ideas of others.
ryanpatgray:I frequent a coffee shop across the street from an art school and have met enough artists to know they DO know the origins of the ideas they copy. They STUDY the origins of the ideas they copy. This does not make it any less "their work" when they do so long as they ad something new to the picture (so to speak.)
That's right that STUDYING and LEARNING occurs *precisely* by the methodology of COPYING. But they copy ideas created by others *into* their work. They BUNDLE ideas created by others into their work. That makes their property claims as invalid as planting a tree on my property casting a shadow on my neighbor's property makes my neighbor's property thus mine. *Adding* something new is BUNDLING the creative ideas of others, is making invalid *claims* upon the ideas created by others.
The idea that intellectual property exists is as absurd as the idea that it should be totally abolished.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
rtr:It's really not an ad hominim. The vast majority of creative artists do indeed have inflated egos and are deaf, blind, and dumb in so far to the extent as they fail to recognize the innumerable ways in which they are copying the ideas of others
Apparently you have not met very many artists. Or, perhaps you have met a great many artist wannabees.
rtr:Yes, that means you cannot create a valid contract against others using ALL the sand which exists, even though they are many uses of sand which copy the idea of use of sand.
Not my point. If I dredge sand from the ocean floor and mix it with my cement can it be validly contracted?
rtr:That's right that STUDYING and LEARNING occurs *precisely* by the methodology of COPYING. But they copy ideas created by others *into* their work. They BUNDLE ideas created by others into their work. That makes their property claims as invalid as planting a tree on my property casting a shadow on my neighbor's property makes my neighbor's property thus mine. *Adding* something new is BUNDLING the creative ideas of others, is making invalid *claims* upon the ideas created by others.
There are three important questions to consider in this. 1. Is the original artist dead. 2. Did the original artist will or sell his or her ideas to another person who is still alive? 3. Is the secondary work a true "substitute" or competitor of the original work? For example: Andy Warhol’s painting of a Campbell’s soup can is not going to serve as a substitute or competitor of a true can of Campbell’s soup. No reasonable person is going to mistakenly purchase one of his paintings thinking that it will contain soup and sate his appetite. Likewise, Marcel Duchamp’s famous Mona Lisa parody is not likely to be confused with the real McCoy. However, a skilled artist who drew an Xmen lookalike comic book with the same characters and same basic setting might well be confused for the real McCoy. It also might serve as a substitute for the real thing.
I was thinking about this today as I was listening to the King Biscuit Flower Hour on the XM.
If ever someone wanted to do a study on the perils and pitfalls of copyright there's a good place to start.
From what I can recall, King Biscuit owns the rights to the physical recording in their possession but the rights to the 'performance' is owned by either 1) the artist, 2) the artist's label, 3) the venue or 4) King Biscuit. It all depends on the terms of the contracts between the artists, their label and the venue where it was performed and as one can imagine there is a lot of contention between the first three on who gets the money if King Biscuit sells a copy to the public.
I'm sure I've left someone out who also has ownership claims but this is all off the top of my head.
I think all King Biscuit ever wanted to do was release it all into the public domain so everyone could enjoy the performances but now they release what they can for free or for fee and the rest gets to stay locked up in their vaults for, what is it now, life + 70 years or some such insanity.
All I have to say about all this is that it's a very good thing that there are a lot of really, really good bands that let archive.org distribute legal fan recordings of their live performances. I haven't actually bought a CD in years since the RIAA members decided it's a good business model to sue their customers, directly benefit from the P2P networks while simultaneously trying to shut them down and root people's boxen yet I have a 30gig iPod that's full to the brim with live legal music.
Gonna have to clear out some space for some audio books/podcasts that the fine folks at mises.org have generously provided for us eventually...
Anonymous Coward:I was thinking about this today as I was listening to the King Biscuit Flower Hour on the XM.If ever someone wanted to do a study on the perils and pitfalls of copyright there's a good place to start.From what I can recall, King Biscuit owns the rights to the physical recording in their possession but the rights to the 'performance' is owned by either 1) the artist, 2) the artist's label, 3) the venue or 4) King Biscuit. It all depends on the terms of the contracts between the artists, their label and the venue where it was performed and as one can imagine there is a lot of contention between the first three on who gets the money if King Biscuit sells a copy to the public.I'm sure I've left someone out who also has ownership claims but this is all off the top of my head.I think all King Biscuit ever wanted to do was release it all into the public domain so everyone could enjoy the performances but now they release what they can for free or for fee and the rest gets to stay locked up in their vaults for, what is it now, life + 70 years or some such insanity.All I have to say about all this is that it's a very good thing that there are a lot of really, really good bands that let archive.org distribute legal fan recordings of their live performances. I haven't actually bought a CD in years since the RIAA members decided it's a good business model to sue their customers, directly benefit from the P2P networks while simultaneously trying to shut them down and root people's boxen yet I have a 30gig iPod that's full to the brim with live legal music.Gonna have to clear out some space for some audio books/podcasts that the fine folks at mises.org have generously provided for us eventually...
As I said in my first post in this thread, I agree that there are a great many injustices in the way that IP laws are enforced at the moment. But the fact that there are problems in the enforcement of traffic laws does not mean that we should eliminate the concept of roads. It simply means they should be privatized.
ryanpatgray:Not my point. If I dredge sand from the ocean floor and mix it with my cement can it be validly contracted?
Of course. Nobody else owned or created that sand. But if you dredge sand from the ocean floor and mix it with cement you will be COPYING the ideas of others.
ryanpatgray:There are three important questions to consider in this. 1. Is the original artist dead. 2. Did the original artist will or sell his or her ideas to another person who is still alive? 3. Is the secondary work a true "substitute" or competitor of the original work?
None of those questions are important or material. All the artistic works are bundling ideas created by others into their work; even the dead artists did this bundling. When people trade in a free market do they bundle the property of others into their trades? No, because if they randomly made unmerited claims over the property of others that would result in violence. And you can't will you neighbor's house to your decendants.