intellectual property

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?

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.

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:

rtr:

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.

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.

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.

ryanpatgray:

By this same logic "Cement mixed with public domain sand can't be validly contracted."

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? 

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.)

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.

rtr:

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.

Mises and Rothbard did not address the subject much. The current anti-IP movement is young. 

I agree with it very strongly on several grounds.

Austrian:

    Austrians ask "Will this policy have the desired effect?" IP was created to improve access to works of art and new technologies, and reward creaters. It has failed miserably in both regards. And since the creation of the internet its failure has been laughable.

Libertarian:

    People who do not respect copyrights are not violent. Invading the property of a person who downloads a song from the internet from a willing provider violates the NAP. IP would require passive(non-violent) enforcement. However, Industry attempts at this, like copy-protected CDs, have been failing miserably. So they have been resorting increasely to government violence.

Natural Rights: 

    Ideas are non-scarce goods, the only way an IP law can work is controlling what people can do with their own labor and property. This violates self ownership.

JonBostwick:

Libertarian:

    People who do not respect copyrights are not violent. Invading the property of a person who downloads a song from the internet from a willing provider violates the NAP.

I should explain this because it might be confusing.

Stealing REAL property is a violent crime, even when done through stealth. Labor is a required component of real property. By stealing property you are not just claiming ownership of nature, but also the labor itself. Its a form of retroactive slavery. But by copying a piece of art I am not depriving any person of their copy, so I am not seperating any person from their own labor.

If you believe copying a piece of art is a crime(I certianly don't),  it is a non-violent crime; more akin to a thought crime than a property dispute.

ryanpatgray:

It is when a person combines natural resources with effort or ingenuity (or sometimes homesteading) that one creates property.

And just like the artists, copiers combine natural resources with their effort or ingenuity creating their own property, just the same as different people dredging sand from the ocean to mix with cement copy the ideas of each other but still create their own unique property.

ryanpatgray:

When an artist combines ideas that already exist with his or her own ideas and ingenuity a new work is created.

And when a copier combines ideas that already exist with his or her own ideas and ingenuity on his or her own copy  a new work is created on their own private physical property. This new work is commonly called a "copy".

ryanpatgray:

A new separate and distinct idea is born.

That's just false. Innumerable older ideas are *bundled*  into the artistic work. And my recognition of *bundled* ideas created by others in all creative artistic content works is an epistemological breakthrough in the analysis of the "intellectual property" debate.

ryanpatgray:

However, these new works are the property of those writers because they have added their own effort to the literary cannon.  When J.K. Rowling writes her novels she isn't just regurgitating old European mythology but creating NEW mythology of her own. She is forging a new sword from old public domain steel.

 You cannot legitimately trespass on t