Comments on: Sheldon Richman on Intellectual Property versus Liberty

By: Octobox

Octobox — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:03:06 +0000

Making distinctions of this right or that right is covered under the force-agency court system is akin to voting and lobbying — in effect it leads to perpetual war and thus no peace and thus no liberty.

In the “no liberty” state of things perpetual disequilibrium is the goal, however, rather than it being based on fickle consumers it’s based on the fickle “owners” — Fed – Elite Lobbiers – Gov’t.

The answer: Eliminate all rights, voting, and lobbying — if the goal is to end perpetual war.

The only individualis in a free-society who should be “lobbied” is the consumer while the consumer is the only one who votes — anything else is an abdication of self-rule.

By: RWW

RWW — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:24:04 +0000

What the anti-ip crowd is basically saying is that an idea can be copied without attribution or compensation by others. This is clearly an act of theft.

Handwaving isn’t going to convince anyone.

…attribution is all origination entitles you to.

No, you’re not even entitled to that. Why would you be? If I copy a book and place my name on it as author, I am committing fraud (but against the buyer, not the author). If I copy a book and simply remove the author’s name, their is no actual crime.

(Note that, as usual, I am using “crime” in the sense of what is criminal, not what is illegal.)

By: ReadandWrite

ReadandWrite — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:49:50 +0000

@David Spellman

The difference between contracts and property:

Contracts only bind the contracting parties.

Property binds everyone to the will of the owner.

So if “intellectual property” was a matter of contracts, every non-contracting party could legitimately use the content the contracts were about.

A and B are contracting parties. What about C?

By: Kevin Carson

Kevin Carson — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:45:32 +0000

David Spellman: While copyright could probably be established by voluntary contract to some degree, it’s extremely naive to think it could exist on anything remotely approaching the present scale absent state legislation. The viability of contractual models depends on the enforcement mechanism. Can you imagine digital content “owners” trying to enforce their “rights” absent the DMCA and state-mandated criminalization of “technical means of circumvention”? Imagine if the digital content “owners” actually had to meet traditional common law burdens of civil proof in establishing violation of their rights, without the aid of a federal surveillance state.

By: scineram

scineram — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:25:45 +0000

If contracts can be enforced, intellectual property can be defined, bounded, protected, and produce a profit. People with good ideas will find a way to make money.

You can make 100 page contracts with whoever you want.
Meanwhile I will just fire up utorrent and enjoy.

By: ktibuk

ktibuk — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:29:28 +0000

Stephan,

Was it you or was it Jeff that wrote this letter?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ritubpant/3620793192/

By: Peter Surda

Peter Surda — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:14:20 +0000

@David Spellman:
>It would be extremely naive to believe that intellectual
> property could not stand on its own. All that is
>required is contract law.
There is a small problem with this argument. IP does not give anybody a right to enter a contract. The ability to create and enforce contracts with regards to immaterial goods is not IP, but (classical) property. IP is the ability to prosecute those that violate your exclusivity claims, not those who violate contracts.

Kindly consult a diagram I promote here from time to time: http://shurdeek.shurdix.org/tmp/ip.png

Cheers,
Peter

By: newson

newson — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:45:12 +0000

“The example another poster gave of somebody taking Human Action and affixing their own name as the author is right on target.”

it just ain’t so. the von mises wannabe would be unmasked as a phony; his penalty would be societal ridicule. vices aren’t necessarily crimes in a libertarian framework. the social penalty is probably more effective and long-lasting than the penal remedy, in any case.

By: newson

newson — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:41:41 +0000

“The example another poster gave of somebody taking Human Action and affixing their own name as the author is right on target.”

By: Walt D.

Walt D. — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:07:51 +0000

EU rules that less is more!<\b>
At the risk of posting off topic, the EU has ruled that Microsoft's intention to unbundle Internet explorer from the next release of its operating system in Europe may constitute an unfair trade practice! This was Microsoft's remedy for the EU finding that including IE in the operating system was an unfair trade practice.

By: BioTube

BioTube — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:51:11 +0000

Mr. Butte, I’ve said before that plagiarism is perfectly handled as fraud; attribution is all origination entitles you to.

By: Gil

Gil — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:48:02 +0000

“So, you are admitting that copyrights and patents can’t exist without the guns of the state backing it?” – kmeisthax.

All property rights are backed by force of some sort. No one argue that there’s going to be a perfect world without the need for force. However why should people be the denied the right of ownership just because something can’t be enforced? It’s akin to petty theft of small, cheap items – the owner can’t reasonably recover the items because it would cost more to recover the items than it would be to just replace them.

By: jc butte

jc butte — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:01:36 +0000

@kmeithax

IP is indeed a natural right, although not an unalienable one. I believe it can be protected by private means, but would also approve of government protection.

What the anti-ip crowd is basically saying is that an idea can be copied without attribution or compensation by others. This is clearly an act of theft. Attribution without compensation would be completely absurd as the former justifying the latter.

The example another poster gave of somebody taking Human Action and affixing their own name as the author is right on target.

By: kmeisthax

kmeisthax — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:25:13 +0000

@jc butte
So, you are admitting that copyrights and patents can’t exist without the guns of the state backing it?

Again, I must say, IP is not a natural law right. It supersedes private property. Making it a natural law right would make our axioms contradictory.

By: BioTube

BioTube — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:21:40 +0000

IP that binds third parties would be limited to fraud – for example, if I pass a novel off as my own work when somebody else wrote it, I would be committing fraud; the same goes with trademarks.

By: Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:27:39 +0000

Neal W., of course civil judgments come down to force. The state will use force to sieze the defendant’s property to make him pay whatever the state says. Or , if an injunction is awarded, then if you breach it, it could be contempt of court–jail time.

By: jc butte

jc butte — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:05:45 +0000

“Unreasonable contracts are unlikely to be enforced. For example, you cannot contract yourself into slavery.”

Oh really? Either you have unalienable rights or you do not. Who is the higher authority that declares your voluntary consent “unreasonable?” Either you can consign yourself to voluntary slavery or you were a slave to begin with.

Some of you guys are convincing me that we do need the state afterall. We need it to protect our property from those who covet it, regardless of their motives. In my ideal world, Nicola Tesla would be the richest man on earth. I could live with that and I would gladly pay a few taxes to keep it that way.

By: Neal W.

Neal W. — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:01:40 +0000

Stephan,

I was having a debate with an IP lawyer a couple months ago and I was trying to get him to see the point that we also need to consider the issue of justice when considering the merits of IP. He told me that IP is mostly civil law and that with civil law it will never come down to a use of force, unlike criminal law.

Is this correct?

By: Michael A. Clem

Michael A. Clem — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:07:17 +0000
Covering your ears and shouting "I can't hear you!" will not change the fact that in a free society, contracts could be made with arbitrary and unlimited conditions to incarnate intellectual property.
Contractual enforcement is done through the legal process, even in an anarchist society. Unreasonable contracts are unlikely to be enforced. For example, you cannot contract yourself into slavery. Contracts with arbitrary and unlimited conditions might well be considered unreasonable and unenforceable, although the details of any particular contract would need to be considered to make that determination.
Thus, contracts are not a back door to absolute intellectual property, although they might well work for limited IP rights. Also, contracts don't bind third parties who are not a part of the contract, so any contractual arrangements will need to consider the possibility of externalities and how that affects the arrangement.

By: David Spellman

David Spellman — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:47:36 +0000

# Michael A. Clem
#

“What, no comments, yet? Sheldon has a way of putting things that seems so straightforward and indisputable, even though he is essentially saying the same things that have already been said many times over on this blog.”

There is a difference between winning an argument and having people stop talking to you because your mind is closed to the truth.