Intellectual Property

I feel as though there must have already been a topic on this one, but alas, I couldn't find a search function.  I don't understand the opposition to intellectual property. Although I have relatively firm anarcho-capitalist beliefs, I retain that intellectual property seems as though it could be done  (better) without a central government. Regardless, I'm open to new ideas. Would anyone like to explain to me this idea then?

Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella is probably the best place to start. Also, there are several threads going on the subject now.

If you go to Mises.org and use the search function you'll get scholarly papers and journal articles. The search on mises.com appears to just search forum entries - and the forum is only a few weeks old.

 Intellectual "property" is an intentionally misleading phrase invented by lawyers.

Property consists of a resource which the beneficial use of is intrinsically exclusive.  So one person taking the use of this resource necessitates another not being able to take use of it.  By way of example, if I've got a bicycle and you take it away, I can't ride it anymore because you have it.  The reason that property theft is morally wrong is the deprivation of the property's use to the original owner.  Whether or not the new owner gets any advantage from the bicycle is irrelevant.

Intellectual "property" does not have this characteristic.  It consists of ideas, which by their very nature do not deprive their original holders from further use when another "takes" it.  What intellectual "property" is trying to protect is the very *idea* of bicycles.  No matter who puts the labor into it or where their idea to make it came from, nobody else can have a bicycle without your permission.  It is the right not to protect yourself from the loss of *your* bicycle, but the right to hurt someone else for making one of their own.

So (honest) arguments for patents and copyrights are focused on the supposed benefits to society that can be achieved when a centralized agency forces a monopoly for one party or another on the idea in question.  The argument is that if people didn't get this exclusivity for creating ideas then they will be less likely to do so.  This is, for instance, the way the founders of the USA worded the power to grant patents and copyrights in the Constitution.  They don't say that Congress can grant patents and copyrights because otherwise people could "steal" ideas rightfully "belonging" to others, but that Congress could promote innovation by doing so.  I think in retrospect, this power was a mistake, but nobody said they were perfect.

To give some idea why this might be a bad idea, imagine a wall was built down the center of the country so that nobody could communicate/travel/trade across it.  Leave it in this situation for twenty years and then open it up.  Guaranteed, there will have been many inventions (if not most) duplicated on each side of the wall, and duplicate patents issued to the "inventors" on each side.  Once the wall falls down, what do you do?  You've granted a monopoly to two different people for the same thing, on the argument that they would be more productive under such a system.  Which one has the "right" to the patent?  The first one (chronologically) to invent it?  Why does that give him/her more right to the idea, considering that each worked in a vacuum?  Or maybe the answer is let each keep his/her original monopoly in the respective juristictions?  But then you punish the first inventor by not allowing him to sell what he clearly invented first!

 To give a more extreme example, imagine space aliens landed on Earth and demanded royalty payments for 10,000 years of patent infringement on the concept of argiculture, which they had invented 11,000 years ago and still hold a valid intergalactic patent on?  In your hypothetical free market intellectual property system, should you pay it?  Why or why not?

Now consider the infinitely more clear concept of a space alien stealing your bicycle and I think you will understand the difference between actual property and intellectual "property".

Scott 

IP isn't analogous to a bicycle, it is analogous to a plot of land. Violations to my IP rights are not theft, but they are more like trespassing. A trespasser doesn't dispossess me of my property interest at all, but still makes uninvited use of my work.

Sorry this analogy still does not hold.  You are also using the loaded word "rights" which has the proper meaning of being something that somebody (typically a government) is not allowed to initiate acts against you.  You have the right to keep and bear arms.  You have the right to free speech.  You have the *legal authority* to enforce patents.   Patents are on a whole different level of ethical justification, at least in the US system of government.

 But your analogy is also wrong.  If somebody takes my bicycle for a ride and later brings it back, yes I still have the bicycle after this entire sequence of events takes place.  But it does not change the fact that I am unable to make use of my asset during the time he has taken it.  Again, whether the person who "borrowed" the bicycle gets any advantage out of having the bicycle or not is irrelevant.

 The property analogy is similay.  By trespassing, the person is taking away your ability to use the property.  If I want to have a business on my property and you come and start a camp fire in my lobby, you are making it difficult for me to run my business.  If I am sleeping at home and you start making a meal in my kitchen and wake me up, I am no longer asleep, am I?  Again, whether the trespasser gets any benefit is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

 Let's make another thought experiment here.  Stripping away the complexity and familiarity of modern society can sometimes really illuminate the core ethical issues.  Suppose we are both hunter gatherers.  We are both starving because, frankly, this lifestyle is difficult.  Then you discover that by putting seeds in the ground (instead of simply eating them) and letting them grow can produce a great deal of food with comparatively little effort.  I observe you doing this, realize that it is a good idea, and start doing it myself on a remote piece of land.  Should you have the "right" to stop me from using your "work"?  Why?

 The typical justification for why you should have this "right" in modern society is that if you aren't allowed to stop the imitator then you will be unable to practice your monopoly over the idea.  This is not an ethical argument, but a circular one.  The monopoly you are being deprived of is itself a product of the IP protection law which created it.

 This is why the only serious discussion about IP protection (aside from contractually negotiated terms, of course) revolves around the benefits to society allegedly achieved by granting the monopoly through the encouragement of idea creation. 

Scott

sdkee:

 This is why the only serious discussion about IP protection (aside from contractually negotiated terms, of course) revolves around the benefits to society allegedly achieved by granting the monopoly through the encouragement of idea creation. 

 

And what a con that is.

We hear how its fair to creators to have IP, yet has IP law rewarded creators? Do authors own their books, do musicians own their songs? No, IP laws have only achieved the result of creating publishing companies and music labels. We've legislated rent seekers into existance. Yippee!

Swill researcher claims markets inspire invention more than patent systems. I like this article because its the first I've read which explains how the inventor gets paid in the market system.

 

 

Markets are much better than patents in stimulating intellectual curiosity and discovery, according to Swiss-led research.

An international team, led by Professor Peter Bossaerts from Lausanne's Federal Institute of Technology, carried out experiments to quantify the ways patent systems and market forces might influence someone to invent and solve intellectual problems.

...

"If a scientist is really convinced that platinum, for instance, is the best catalyser for his fuel cell, the best way to go, he would go out and buy a bunch of platinum futures, knowing that once his invention got into the public domain, the items that go into that invention - in this case, platinum - will go up in price."

 

lostinwilderness:

...he would go out and buy a bunch of platinum futures, knowing that once his invention got into the public domain, the items that go into that invention - in this case, platinum - will go up in price

A good argument for eliminating the insider trading statutes.

DBratton:

A good argument for eliminating the insider trading statutes.

Don't say that! If we allowed insider trading somebody might make a profit off of it!

sdkee:

if you aren't allowed to stop the imitator then you will be unable to practice your monopoly over the idea.

 Intellectual property "rights" not only stops imitators. It stops independant inventors too. If I invent the bicycle without ever having seen one or heard of it, the original inventor stops me from getting on with my own invention. Patent law doens't prevent copying or imitation. It prevents independent discovery too. It must be discouraging to invest in any long-term large scale development project under a patent system, since the risk is great that someone might reach the aim before you and patent it, suddenly writing off your entire R&D-investment as a total loss.

Thats why I still side with Rothbard's concept of an 'inventors copyright'. Acting as a contract between buyer and seller, infingement constitutes implicit theft and would be punishable under a free system of courts.

Secondly, and I'm not trying to revive an old topic, I believe it is correct to use the term "Intellectual Property" as well as "rights" in their context. But this is only pointing out the ownership of the mind of the individual, not claiming the ownership of the minds of others. But the actions of the minds of others can be contracted such that they must act as if they are under conditional ownership of some idea, this can include the 'reserved right' of copy.

Once again, I am not saying this would be a common practice in a free society, only that copyrights under Rothbard's definition would be consistent with libertarian contract theory.  

similarly amputating your own arm sans good medical reason is consistent with libertarian property rights, yet is unlikely to be a common practice.

JackSkylark:

Thats why I still side with Rothbard's concept of an 'inventors copyright'. Acting as a contract between buyer and seller, infingement constitutes implicit theft and would be punishable under a free system of courts.

I don't think this takes fully into account the existence of third parties. A and B can enter into a contract but it is difficult if not impossible to plan for the actions of a completely free thrid party.

JackSkylark:

I believe it is correct to use the term "Intellectual Property" as well as "rights" in their context. But this is only pointing out the ownership of the mind of the individual, not claiming the ownership of the minds of others. But the actions of the minds of others can be contracted such that they must act as if they are under conditional ownership of some idea, this can include the 'reserved right' of copy.

I don't think it is appropriate to use the term Intellectual Property as pretty much an oxymoron. Something that is non-tangible, non-physical and not scarce cannot and does not constitute property. Saying that one 'owns one's own mind' is a senseless metaphor in this context (at best). 

 

sdkee:

You have the right to keep and bear arms.  You have the right to free speech.  You have the *legal authority* to enforce patents.

Coincedentally (or not) S.Kinsella discusses this with regard to IP and the foundations of rights. He claims that one only has the right to property. One does not have the right to free speech and one does not have the right to bare arms. If you are on someone on else's property you have to abide by their rules, so if they say no speaking about the holocaust and no guns then that is what you have to do, or leave. One ought not at that point make a scene about one's rights...

good post alan

alansmithee:

I don't think this takes fully into account the existence of third parties. A and B can enter into a contract but it is difficult if not impossible to plan for the actions of a completely free thrid party.

That's why I had never figured out how the inventor gets paid. Why would a big producer pay the inventor when it would just put him at a disadvantage compared to his competitors? But buying futures shows one way.

But that doesn't apply in the art world. If somebody writes, records and releases a great song, and Bono likes it so U2 covers it and releases their version the next day, U2 will suck up all the money. How does the original artist get paid?

lostinwilderness:

Swill researcher claims markets inspire invention more than patent systems. I like this article because its the first I've read which explains how the inventor gets paid in the market system.

 

 

Markets are much better than patents in stimulating intellectual curiosity and discovery, according to Swiss-led research.

An international team, led by Professor Peter Bossaerts from Lausanne's Federal Institute of Technology, carried out experiments to quantify the ways patent systems and market forces might influence someone to invent and solve intellectual problems.

...

"If a scientist is really convinced that platinum, for instance, is the best catalyser for his fuel cell, the best way to go, he would go out and buy a bunch of platinum futures, knowing that once his invention got into the public domain, the items that go into that invention - in this case, platinum - will go up in price."

 

Now that post was a resurrection from the dead.

This thread was unbelievably old - how did you get to it? Search, i suppose? But then there are about 5 newer IP threads in the short time I've been here!

 

Don't take it that I don't agree with you.

Intellectual monopoly is tyranny.

I can give three good reasons to be against IP laws.

1) It largely benefits the lawyers, not the creators nor those that fund creators (thus are owed a profit based on the creations).

2) It stifles competition for the sake of 'attribution.' (Someone can come along and make a light bulb, so why should only one person have the right to make them if they can do so in a new way?)

3) It takes away from the creative process. (Whether it it's Eli Whitley having to sue people who copied his Cotton Gin or James Watt who sued competitors over his steam engine and not fielding the technology wider and improving it, IP laws don't help creators be creative, it's just that simple).

 

Search isn't time sensitive, and I'd be happy if you provided a link to more up to date threads that would explain how an inventor (creator) makes money in a non-IP protected market place.

lostinwilderness:

That's why I had never figured out how the inventor gets paid. Why would a big producer pay the inventor when it would just put him at a disadvantage compared to his competitors? But buying futures shows one way.

But that doesn't apply in the art world. If somebody writes, records and releases a great song, and Bono likes it so U2 covers it and releases their version the next day, U2 will suck up all the money. How does the original artist get paid?

There is no individual 'right to get paid'. and if you two covers it and people buy it from them then it seems clear to me that U2 are offering something that the original artist could not, namely the song being performed by U2. It seems that there are two possibilities: either people are buying 'the song' and in this case you should have sold them it, or people are buying the 'U2 song' which is a product the original artist couldn ot supply. Either way there is nothing to suggest that you 'should' get 'paid' (at what price? a serious question). But again, I would never rely on these arguments to 'prove' my position, for this I would rely more one the 'something non-physical cannot be property (namely homesteaded or involved in contracted exchange)'.

lostinwilderness:

Search isn't time sensitive, and I'd be happy if you provided a link to more up to date threads that would explain how an inventor (creator) makes money in a non-IP protected market place.

Against Intellectual Monopoly: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

Thanks for the link.

Of course there's no right to get paid, but getting paid is the incentive to work, to innovate and to create. We know what happens when people don't have the profit incentive - they don't work as hard - so artists won't create as much. That's a bad thing. In an industrial application, being first to market can provide that incentive. Buying futures can provide that incentive. But in software and music, where there is no manufacturing time lag involved, where does the profit incentive come from?