Stephen said:
Therefore instead of saying that one “owns a frequency” one should say that one “owns the
right to broadcast a frequency over a given volume of space.”

Isn’t airwaves hostile of the same enemy argument of IP that you advocate?

how to copy xbox 360 games

Strictly speaking, one cannot own a frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum. That just makes no sense, insofar as the electromagnetic field extends across the entire universe, including locations that no human could possibly ever have been to homestead, such as beyond the horizon of a black hole. Owning a frequency, if that phrase were taken literally, would be to claim property rights over the entire universe. It would be similar to the claim, “I own red” or “I own middle c” This is similar to an intellectual property claim because this would also constitute claim to a property right over everything in the universe, since anything in the universe might end up as a physical embodiment of the idea. To think of a libertarian radio broadcaster as “owning a frequency” does therefore seem very similar to “owning an idea”.

However, broadcasts do not reach the entire universe, but only a limited volume of space, or at least beyond a given distance the signals are too weak to be detected. Therefore instead of saying that one “owns a frequency” one should say that one “owns the right to broadcast a frequency over a given volume of space.” When we think of it this way, the right of a broadcaster to broadcast seem no different than ordinary property rights because we are now talking about owning something physical and localized, not an abstract property of waves. Geometry is the essential part in resolving the confusion.

One would homestead this volume of space in the ordinary way, as Kinsella describes: by being the first broadcaster in this volume, one gains an easement over it to continue broadcasting.

> You have presented no definition of “use” when you
> claim the right to use is the superset.
> Please define “use” as an obejctive concept.
I define the “use” from an economic perspective as any sort of consumption. In the narrower meaning, it only includes self-consumption, in the broader one, also allowing other people to consume it (trade).

> To own a property means having the right to exclude
> others from it.
Again, [citation needed]. Logically, it doesn’t follow.

> Only and only after this fact may come the acts of use
> or trade.
The right to exclude is not sufficient to utilise the right to trade. It merely means that you have a right to refuse a trade you don’t want, but the (positive) right to sell to those you want is missing. You can clearly see that from my diagram. Because of this, the right to exclude cannot be a superset. This is simple logic.

On the other hand, the (broader) right to use is very much sufficient for either trade or to exclude third parties (the latter only for rival goods of course). Therefore, it is the superset for (classical) property and a disjunct set with IP.

> The owner may
> choose not to use or trade the property in question.
Yes. Choose.

> Person A, “So it is not that you are using the property in
> some objectively defined way but you are here first and
> you are using your right to exclude anyone else
> according to your whims.”
You are confusing the rights with actual activities. These are two separate things. The right to use means that you can consume the property if you so desire. There is no imperative to actually consume anything. Similarly, the right to exclude is not equivalent with actually excluding anyone. If in your case person B permitted person A to use the field, it wouldn’t mean that he didn’t have the right to exclude, but that he chose not to exercise it.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Cheers,
Peter

You have presented no definition of “use” when you claim the right to use is the superset.

Please define “use” as an obejctive concept.

To own a property means having the right to exclude others from it.

Only and only after this fact may come the acts of use or trade. And they don’t have to come either. The owner may choose not to use or trade the property in question.

This is what the logic dictates.

Person A approaches person B who is at that moment standing on a field,

Person A, “I want to work the field”

Person B, “No I am sorry. I am using this piece of land and since two of us can not use it at the same time I must exclude you”

Person A, “So if you weren’t using this land, I could have used it but since you are already using it I can not?

Person B, “That is right”

Person A, “Do you mind telling me what exactly are you doing to the field when you say using it.”

Person B, “I am just standing on the field looking around.”

Person A, “Can you think of any other activity regarding the field, that can be considered “not using” the field.”

Person B, “Not really”.

Person A, “So it is not that you are using the property in some objectively defined way but you are here first and you are using your right to exclude anyone else according to your whims.”

Person B, “I guess”

> No. Right to use, or right to trade (the right to exclude),
> are derivative rights.
If a right B is a derivative right of a right A, it means right A is a superset. Logic dictates that the right to exclude is not a superset.

> If you have right to use but not a right to exclude,
> abundance will cause problems as I tried to show
> above.
Unfortunately, you have not demonstrated anything. You have yet to show me an example of a violation of right to exclude (non-rival) that at the same time doesn’t also violate the right to use or right to trade. Unless you do it, you can’t claim that these rights are derivative.

On the other hand, opposite examples are easy. Say a government forbids you to sell bananas that are not curved properly (happened in the EU once). This way, your right to trade is violated, you cannot trade your bananas as you want. However, your right to exclude is not impacted. That would be impacted if the government forced you to sell the bananas to people you don’t want to sell it to. Also, your right to use (the narrower one) isn’t impacted, that would be impacted if the government forbade you to eat them yourself.

> Your (not exclusively yours of course) problem is, you
> are twisting the derivative right to use, and shaping it to
> a right derived from the ability to use.
Logic dictates that my approach with sets is the only correct one. Each of the possible activities can be properly assigned to a set, a subset or an intersection thereof. See the picture that I posted. It is independent of ethics, a proper value-free approach.

You are trying to twist the logic so that your precious dogma is uphold. I personally don’t really care whether IP is real property or not or what the ethical implications are. However, logic dictates it isn’t so I have to follow. I used to be an IP proponent once, but found my position intellectually unsustainable.

> Liberty is the condition that no other human may restrict
> and/or cause harm to one individual. This depends on
> having the right to exclude other humans.
Just another confusion. If you’d abstract your claims into a set theory, you would immediately recognise the flaws therein. Basically, you are claiming identity of different parts of the diagram.

> If you think an author doesn’t have the right to exclude
> others from his novel, you are defending a parasitic
> relationship …
Once again, you are weering off the main course of discussion. Whether IP is ethical or not is irrelevant. It is not property, and it is not in any way deducible from “nature”. You can, in theory, make a utilitarian (which B&L refute), a social or a historical argument for IP. But logic, Austrian economics and natural science do not support it.

> You are the one that is making arbitrary valuations.
I most definitely am not.

> You think Gates’ wealth – 100 dollars is meaningful, but
> authors novel – the exclusivity is not.
You are confusing the use of word “wealth” as nominal units of currency in once case and market value in another. The first one is an objective measure, the second one not. There is no claim to market value, that’s just the labour theory of value rehashed.

> If the exclusivity of the novel is meaningful to the author
> who are you to say that it is not, or it is not in the same
> league as 100 dollars.
It is irrelevant whether it is “meaningful”. What counts is whether it can be assessed in an objective, value-free approach.

> Do you think if someone found and copied your personal
> diary, and exposed it, it would be ok when they pointed
> out to you that you still have you diary?
Obviously, it would depend on whether that person in the course of the copying:
- violated some of my real property (e.g. breaking & entering, getting a physical hold of my diary without permission)
- violated any contracts

Depending on what exactly they did, their activities would overlap with one or more parts of the diagram that I posted earlier. If it only intersected with the set I labelled “IP”, then logically I don’t see anything to claim from them. If it intersected with the left part of my diagram, I would have a claim against them. Current law might see it differently though. What I would do in reality would depend on my assessment of the situation and the comparison of opportunity costs of various actions. Making a claim might seem like a more prudent approach from short term point of view, but could also cause negative PR which might outweight the gain. But this is an empirical question.

Diagram URL: http://shurdeek.shurdix.org/tmp/ip2.png

I am sorry, but you need to make a decision here. Either you’ll continue pulling out random claims out of nowhere, or you stop and re-assess your arguments logically.

Have a nice day,
Peter

“In other words, it isn’t the right to exclude that is the superset, but the right to use.”

No. Right to use, or right to trade (the right to exclude), are derivative rights.

If you have right to use but not a right to exclude, abundance will cause problems as I tried to show above. This is not only an issue of IP it is also an issue when tangible property is abundant.

Your (not exclusively yours of course) problem is, you are twisting the derivative right to use, and shaping it to a right derived from the ability to use.

Saying, “the author still has the book after I copy it”, is an example of this absurdity.

“Even if you insist on making the unified right to exclude (both rival and non-rival goods) a superset and redesign the diagram, there would be parts of rights to use/trade that are outside of that set.”

No.

Right to use or trade are natural outcome. When an individual has the right to exclude others, he is left with the property or reality as you will. He may do anything he wants with it, and it all depends on his ability. There are no conditions put by other humans on his right to property. He is Robinson Crusoe. He has the absolute liberty. He might not have all the might, the know how and such but he has the liberty.

That is why property rights are the basis of liberty because it brings the right to exclude other humans.

Liberty is the condition that no other human may restrict and/or cause harm to one individual. This depends on having the right to exclude other humans. On ones own body, mind and earthly possessions.

If you think an author doesn’t have the right to exclude others from his novel, you are defending a parasitic relationship where the host has no say over his body and mind (since the book is the product of his body and mind).

“I fail to see the logic in this argument. Indeed, you are not only misrepresenting the right to use, but creating arbitrary valuations. It is not my or your call to value 100 dollars or 10% of Bill Gates’ money. Before, he had X dollars, now he has X-100. He cannot use the 100 anymore, therefore his right to use is infringed. He cannot trade them, therefore his right to trade was infringed. It doesn’t matter what he wanted to do with them.”

You are the one that is making arbitrary valuations.

You think Gates’ wealth – 100 dollars is meaningful, but authors novel – the exclusivity is not.

If the exclusivity of the novel is meaningful to the author who are you to say that it is not, or it is not in the same league as 100 dollars. And not everything is about money. The author may want exclusivity for profit or he may want it just for sentimental value.

Do you think if someone found and copied your personal diary, and exposed it, it would be ok when they pointed out to you that you still have you diary?

Cognitive radio and open spectrum are ways of ameliorating the problem. They don’t eliminate it.

In the same space two links can’t be used at the same time without interference. However it is possible to select when a transmission is performed so that competing transmissions don’t overlap. This doesn’t eliminate the problem though, all it does is to share the available channel between several users. This is what 802.11 protocols – WiFi – does. As the number of users increases performance deteriorates. This isn’t noticeable for a few users but can occur.

Many of the bandwidth limitations encountered in practice are the result of technological limits. But nature also sets limits.

The similarities between land and radio spectrum are close. Different parts of radio spectrum have particular propagation properties. This makes different parts similar for certain uses.

To put this into an example, if you only had the right to exclude, you would be able to prevent others from eating your food and drinking your drinks, but you wouldn’t have the right to consume them yourself. It would rot away and you’d die. Eating and drinking is not exercising your exclusion right. Such a right on its own is obviously a very useless right.

If you disagree, provide me an example where an infringement on the right to exclude (rival goods) doesn’t infringe on the right to use or the right to trade. Unless you can do it, you logically need to admit that right to exclude cannot be the superset.

> It is argued by IP socialists that, since the owner doesn’t
> lose his ability to use the original after copying, it is
> ethically ok to copy.
A simplification, but let’s assume that it’s correct (ignoring the repetitive “IP socialist” ad hominem).

> This is in no way different than stealing 100 dollars from
> Bill Gates and claiming that Gates didn’t lose his ability
> to use his money in general because he has so much
> money he couldn’t have used that 100 dollars even if he
> tried.
I fail to see the logic in this argument. Indeed, you are not only misrepresenting the right to use, but creating arbitrary valuations. It is not my or your call to value 100 dollars or 10% of Bill Gates’ money. Before, he had X dollars, now he has X-100. He cannot use the 100 anymore, therefore his right to use is infringed. He cannot trade them, therefore his right to trade was infringed. It doesn’t matter what he wanted to do with them.

Now, let’s say that I copy MS Windows. Before, Microsoft had X copies of windows, now they have X too. They can still install them or sell them or shred them. I don’t see any stealing happening. In certain cases (regardless of IP), copying might result in a contract violation, but that’s a separate thing.

What a lot of IP proponents argue however is that because copying (sometimes) decreases the demand for their products and they have to lower the price, that means it’s stealing. That’s a modified version of the labour theory of value (which was refuted by early Austrians). There are an infinite number of activities that decrease the demand for your goods and lower their market price. For example, the car decreased the demand for horses. Does it mean the cars’ manufacturers stole the horse breeders’ property? Desktop PCs decreased the demand for mainframes. Internet decreased the demand for print media. And so on.

> If you claim the authors exclusion is not dictated
> by “reality” but just the whim of the author …
Let’s assume that’s correct.

> … then you must also claim Gates’ exclusion of 90% of
> his wealth is pure whim …
Again, yet another wild jump. You confuse what people want with what the nature dictates. The nature dictates that rival goods cannot be consumed simultaneously, and non-rival can. This is not influenced by people’s wishes or the ideologies they adhere to. Both a socialist and a capitalist need to deal with the first (otherwise they die), but there is no such imperative with the second. There is, evidently, a social pressure to put rules around the second, but from logical point of view it isn’t necessary.

To summarise: you are making arbitrary jumps in the flow of your arguments and breaking the value-free methodology of the Austrian economic school.

You are losing your ground and presenting sillier and sillier arguments.

Cheers,
Peter

“I don’t know if you did it on purpose, but in your description you omitted a very important right: the right to trade”

The right to use or trade is implied and derived from the right to exclude which is the main right.

As I said, “right to use” or even trade can not be defined, thus they can not be used to define something else, the definition of private property rights.

There are many other problems arising from “the right to use” definition.

It is argued by IP socialists that, since the owner doesn’t lose his ability to use the original after copying, it is ethically ok to copy.

This is in no way different than stealing 100 dollars from Bill Gates and claiming that Gates didn’t lose his ability to use his money in general because he has so much money he couldn’t have used that 100 dollars even if he tried.

If you claim the authors exclusion is not dictated by “reality” but just the whim of the author then you must also claim Gates’ exclusion of 90% of his wealth is pure whim since only 10% is enough for a very lavish life for Gates and his family.

Also, the debate over the spectrum does not generally ask the question if government (and property rights) are the only answer, assuming that the spectrum is limited, for the sake of argument. Ham radio operators have a standard code of conduct on how to use the small amount of free bandwidth that they can use, why would this voluntary solution not work for everyone else. Large antenna operators (such as tv, public radio, and cell phone providers, et al) would no doubt get together and decide between themselves who would use what frequencies and what other rules they would follow to make sure that they all could coexist. Would that not be in their best interest? Smaller operators would then do the same thing, since the local ham operator is not going to be able to overpower the broadcast of one of the big players, but will instead find a smaller, unused section of the spectrum for their own purposes. Even if the spectrum was so crowded that the small or large players could not have their own piece of the pie, the players in question would no doubt come up with strategies and rules on how to share the spectrum so that everyone could use it.

The EM spectrum is a set of measurements of the frequency and wavelength of light waves. One cannot own a measurement; it is a quality, not an item. I can own a 10 kilogram widget (which is one very heavy widget), but not the kilogram. It is the same with EM spectra-one can own light that one produces, but not the characteristics of that light.