Why does Mr. Kinsella sign and copyright his work? I wouldn’t ordinarily make a big deal of such an inconsistency, but his above article seems to take pleasure in pointing out other people’s inconsistencies, so I figure fair is fair.

Your question displays utter ignorance. Why people who are ignorant about a topic pontificate about it I will never understand. I do not “copyright” my work. The state grants me a copyright in it automatically. You have a copyright in the comment you just left; and I have one in this message here. Why is it inconsistent for me to oppose a fake right that the state grants me and others? If the state granted me the right to own you, I would not use that right nor would I be inconsistent for opposing slavery.

But why sign your name to an non-”tangible”, non-”scarce”, non-commodity? I mean, it’s not like it’s real property, so why lay the putative claim of a name on it?

Signing it is not claiming it; your question is asinine. It’s just stating a fact: that I wrote it.

And why copyright it, given the lovingly described evils of that “statist” system? And why are some monographs and such charged for? To charge for that which is claimed to be unownable – how does that work?

I am about to self-publish a legal dictionary on Amazon’s DTP/kindle system, and will charge for it, but will not enforce copyright. I charge b/c I”m offering a package some might want; others are free to copy it and try to compete with me.

If “Kinsella” is but a pen name, and the copyright was against his will by evil statists who tricked him, and he never profits a cent from his unownable non-valuable, non-tangible writings, then my apologies in advance. I’ll be glad to hear it, mainly so I can start copying all his stuff, without that “Kinsella” name, and proceed to give it away to all comers for free.

Or maybe I’ll put MY name on it – after all, were he to forbid that, it would be like he was laying claim to my ink, and I know he’s not about that. I can use my ink as I please, so I’ve the freedom to write my name on his writings. Since I won’t sell it, I won’t be committing fraud, as no one will have lost any money.

I would not forbid it since I recognize that I do not own any information patterns adn you are not violating my rights if you sell something to a willing buyer. If you put your name on it one of your customers may have a fraud claim against you, but that’s between you and him. Doesn’t violate my rights any way. Are you ever aware that at the bottom of this very page there is a Creative Commons license that already gives you permissions to use things on this site as you see fit?

Another IP socialist suggested something similar to what you are suggesting, and I called his smartass bluff. http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/07/29/russell-maddens-the-death-throes-of-pro-ip-libertarianism/

And gee, he has put some of his stuff up on the net, and is letting people order copies of his stuff without signed, notarized and attorney approved contracts on each sale, so clearly he has – according to his arguments – gave up all interest in these non-works. I’m pretty sure they’re mine now. At least I won’t have to worry about a lawsuit, after all, “copying isn’t theft”, right? And he’ll still be able to look at his originals, right?

You are talking again from pure ignorance. I don’t “give up” copyright because the state makes it almost impossible. see http://blog.mises.org/9240/copyright-is-very-sticky/ But I do use Creative Commons licenses to try to minimize the harm the state does.

Even if I somehow get rid of my copyright or don’t enforce it, doesn’t mean that the patterns are “yours”–they are nobody’s. And no, copying is not theft. To say that it is, is an amateur/newb/dishonest attempt to beg the question.

(P.S. I am being facetious, and no matter how many silly arguments I see for stealing a person’s work, I would not do so.)

By calling it stealing you assume your premise: that it is property. IF it’s not property, there’s no “stealing”. So this is just a stupid or disingenuous attempt to sneak in your premise without providing any argument. Calling it stealing does not make it so. (If I “steal” your girlfriend does that mean she is your property? Wow, you can prove so much by language games!)

Admittedly, I’ve not read everything he’s wrote. He’s wrote a lot, and I just saw this site for the first time yesterday. But why sign your name to an non-”tangible”, non-”scarce”, non-commodity? I mean, it’s not like it’s real property, so why lay the putative claim of a name on it? And why copyright it, given the lovingly described evils of that “statist” system? And why are some monographs and such charged for? To charge for that which is claimed to be unownable – how does that work?

If “Kinsella” is but a pen name, and the copyright was against his will by evil statists who tricked him, and he never profits a cent from his unownable non-valuable, non-tangible writings, then my apologies in advance. I’ll be glad to hear it, mainly so I can start copying all his stuff, without that “Kinsella” name, and proceed to give it away to all comers for free.

Or maybe I’ll put MY name on it – after all, were he to forbid that, it would be like he was laying claim to my ink, and I know he’s not about that. I can use my ink as I please, so I’ve the freedom to write my name on his writings. Since I won’t sell it, I won’t be committing fraud, as no one will have lost any money.

And gee, he has put some of his stuff up on the net, and is letting people order copies of his stuff without signed, notarized and attorney approved contracts on each sale, so clearly he has – according to his arguments – gave up all interest in these non-works. I’m pretty sure they’re mine now. At least I won’t have to worry about a lawsuit, after all, “copying isn’t theft”, right? And he’ll still be able to look at his originals, right?

I would feel bad, but as he’s explained, mere creation of a thing gives no rights at all. Only the rights of the copiers, to be free to copy as they please have any relevence. Right to property in created ideas is non-existent, but the right to those created ideas by copiers is all encompasing.

Well, someone let me know.

(P.S. I am being facetious, and no matter how many silly arguments I see for stealing a person’s work, I would not do so.)

Property: an owned value
Ownership: justifiable possession
Action: self-initiated exercise of a mental or physical function
Action (in the context of rights): self-initiated exercise of a mental or physical function to gain or keep a value

“… (as if there was any difference between a discovery and a creation).”

Facts are discovered, and they cannot be property because their existence and value to man is not a product or consequence of anyone’s reason and effort. Ideas, on the other hand, but for someone’s reason and effort would not otherwise exist as values.

@Bala

“… copying an idea or pattern does not in any way affect the freedom of action of the originator.”

You have dropped the context of “action”.

The actions rights protect are individuals’ applications of reason to their effort for the production of life-fulfilling values. The right to an action is the right to its product and consequences. There is no point to defining rights to actions in pursuit of life fulfilling values if the values that are the product and consequences of those actions would not be recognized as property.

Concrete-bound Misesians can’t see the values owned for the physical “actions” and “patterns” over which they obsess.

” Surely the only way to make progress is by demonstrating the “broadness” of Objectivist premises and encouraging a more precise definition. ”

I don’t think it has anything to do with the “broadness” of Objectivist premises but with errors in interpretation of a number of their own premises including the basic definition of “rights”.

For instance, after stating that rights are moral concepts sanctioning man’s freedom of action in a social context (Rand’s own emphasis was on the word “freedom”), Rand goes on to “deify” Intellectual Property even though copying an idea or pattern does not in any way affect the freedom of action of the originator.

By insisting that the originator alone should be free to instantiate the product, she has converted IP rights into a “right to an object” or an “exclusive right to perform an action” rather than a “sanction of the freedom of action”. That to me is as self-contradictory as it can get.

There is more. A thorough analysis can reveal all the errors.

That apart, the main defence that serious Objectivists offer to most refutations of their stand is that their position is inductively derived from a proper understanding of the man’s nature and is hence a position most suited to the survival of man qua man. They reject most refutations as arrived at through a process of deductive reasoning and hence unsuitable to disprove conclusions obtained through an inductive process originating in self-evident axioms.

As I understand it, there are errors that have crept into the inductive process leading to wrong conclusions. These errors include ignoring key aspects of the nature of man as well as the entities that one is attempting to assign the moral status “property”. This has led them to treat entities that they ought not to consider as “property” as just that.

Therefore, IMO, the correct way to take on Objectivists is to start from their own premises, go through an inductive process, correct the errors of omission and commission that they have made (pointing them out clearly) and show that the Lockean conception of “property” is the most moral one.

If and when that can be done, IP would stand automatically invalidated to any honest Objectivist.

I know what you’re trying to do but I think the task is impossible when you consider how broad their premises are. Every Objectivist I’ve argued with has demonstrated a complete lack of willingness to precisely define their premises. The very fact that I have not yet once seen specific Objectivist definitions of “property”, “ownership”, “action”, etc is proof of how shaky their foundations are. Objectivists avoid doing this completely. They usually just start quoting Ayn Rand and calling me names when I raise these questions. The exceptions to this rule (eg Bala, Deefburger) have all converted to the anti-IP position.

“Intellectual Property” is a contradiction in itself. And the absurdities that result from following this concept to it’s logical conclusions should be obvious to everyone. Objectivists themselves realise the contradictions. That’s why they advocate these arbitrary limited time periods on “IP” and why they state that discoveries are ineligible for protection while creations are eligible (as if there was any difference between a discovery and a creation).

The contradictions are already present. No need to spend time finding even more of them. Now we have to show where their reasoning is false. And this, I believe, lies in the “broadness” of their premises. In particular their very definitions of property and action.

Once they define “action” as something along the lines of “a transformation of a tangible material from one pattern to another pattern”, the flaw in their reasoning starts to become apparent.

Surely the only way to make progress is by demonstrating the “broadness” of Objectivist premises and encouraging a more precise definition.

It is theoretically possible that the integrity argument does not prove ownership of EM per se, but only of the transmissions, however from practical point the consequences are identical. Just like the right to prevent others from making noise and flashing you in the eyes is a consequence of you wanting to hear or see something else and does not necessarily require the ownership of sound waves and light.

In EM, concurrent signal sending sometimes changes what the recipient receives. In this case, one can assume a violation. There is no equivalent phenomenon in IP, no matter how many (unauthorised) copies are made, the (legitimate) customers of the original author still can use their own copies unaffected.

The EM spectrum argument is exactly the same as a “sound waves” argument. The same problems arise, for example, when two bands decide to hold a concert on the same night right across the road from one another. It seems to me that “communication” is a special case of “property”. Another example which seems to fit into this area is whether or not someone is allowed to paint their skyscraper bright pink. This is clearly not in the “communication” category and demonstrates that their is a fuzzy line between the two.
It seems clear to me that more work needs to be done in this area from all camps.

I think the charges against Stephan Kinsella for “circular reasoning” or “assuming his own conclusion” are not justified. As usual, the source of the disagreement comes down to simple definitions. This all comes down to whether your definition of “ownership” is positive or negative.
If you define ownership as: ‘the right to transform your property in any arrangement or pattern’, then IP rights clearly violate classical property rights.
If you define “ownership” as: ‘the right to exclude others from transforming your property in any arrangement or pattern’, then IP rights do not violate classical property rights.

I adopt the first definition myself and therefore I think Stephan’s arguments are valid. Lastly, I should point out that, if in the process of transforming your property you interfere with someone else’s property, you are violating their rights. Hence I believe the first definition has the second definition embedded within it.

I’m not sure if I explained that well enough. In any case, I think everyone needs to clearly state their definition of “ownership” prior to engaging in a discussion like this. Otherwise we all just go round in circles.

(sorry, I’m just trying to fix an error)

In EMP, people recognize that there is a scarcity to the extent that people deem EM waves more valuable if people have exclusive rights in them. The desires of everyone in transmitting information cannot be all satisfied, so in the sense that people value using the EM spectrum to transmit information, there is scarcity. But people value *some* transmission capability over zero transmission capability, and the assignment of EMP eliminates some, though not all, of the scarcity.

It is in this sense that IP is parallel: people deem (both as creators and consumers) ideas more valuable when the creators can have exclusion rights in them. The consumers value the better ideas, and the creators value being able to do something they like when they can (choose to) have more control over its distribution. This allows more value to be extracted from the “idea space”, just as exclusivity in EM waves allows more value to be extracted from the EM spectrum.

It’s also parallel in that people can detect when others are transmitting their pattern in violation of their claimed rights, just as they can detect radio interference. Despite IP opponents’ protests of “how does this use of property enter your property’s boundaries?”, the IP infringement does in fact “leak out”. After all, how do IP rights holders ever know who to sue, and that they need to sue someone, when others infringe?

It’s also funny that I spent the earlier evening of the last two New Year’s Eves making the IP/EMP parallel on the Mises blog. Go fig.

To own a “channel” or “frequency” would necessitate the kind of abstraction you’re talking about, but no imaginary “Barta-Space” is required given that what’s being transmitted is a useful physical object, and that sabotaging it’s function destroys it, as much as covering a written letter with more ink.
It’s not that you can homestead some imaginary territory, you simply have a right not to have your property destroyed. If you were broadcasting a signal that did not destroy someone else’s signal, than you have a right to continue doing so without your (quite physical) property being destroyed.

It’s funny you should mention a metal wall, because I almost used the example of erecting a giant lead wall, but I had already been accused of taking things to the level of absurdity, so I changed it to tampering with the mail. But the wall is a good example as it demonstrates the physicality of the signal itself, and no, you should not build a giant metal wall in cases where the the airspace was already in use for broadcasting. (You’ll like that Rothbard article, I promise.)

Your comment about dogs and property is totally irrelevant.
As an IP lawyer you should know that IP and IP laws are not about property but homesteading of properties, internalization of the external. They try to codify this arbitrary process. Of course, here your scarcity argument will not stand either, an original idea is unique by definition. My original comment, that even homesteading of land is at least as arbitrary as the IP laws was then thrown to the dogs. This issue is always ignored or ridiculed.

“What however Bala, Russ and I are trying to achieve is to prove that the IP proponents’ premises lead to contradictions.”

That’s not what I am trying to do. I’m trying to show that the “IP is invalid because it violates classical property rights” argument is invalid. This is not because I am pro-IP; I’m not. It’s because I think this argument is poor; it assumes that no “extended” conception of property rights is valid, even though I think that an extended conception of property rights is needed to justify EMP. Also, I think the argument, when not explained in its Lockean fullness, could be used against classical property.

Jesse Forgione wrote:

“The first problem is silly. I’m sure you’ll agree that if I mix feces into your food, it’s been damaged, and has become unusable.”

Sure, but food is a material that I can own under a Lockean theory of property. Radio signals are not property in the same sense; I don’t believe there is a reasonable expectation under Lockean theory that a radio receiver will not receive signals that the owner doesn’t want.

“The second problem only exists if the transmission is somehow infringing on someone’s property, which is not the case so long as it doesn’t interfere with the usefulness of said property to it’s owner.”

What if I build a tall metal wall that blocks radio waves? Is that OK? That would interfere with reception just as much as another signal on the same frequency would. Is one OK, and one not?

Silas Barta wrote:

“But why does this information transmission capability entitle one to claim a portion of it as their own? If you can justify that, you can justify IP. And yet most people intuitively see the scarcity in EM waves.”

There is “scarcity” in the sense that there is a scarcity of useful channels, in the information theory sense of the word “channel”. Only one transmitter can use a channel at a time, and have it still be useful for transmitting information. I don’t think there is any scarcity of anything physical here, though, so it’s hard to derive EMP from pure Lockean theory, AFAICT. As I said above, I don’t think there is a reason under Lockean theory for a person to expect that a radio transmitter/receiver pair will be a useful information channel. In order to do that, somebody has to say “Wouldn’t it be nice if we all pretended that these scarce information channels are really scarce physical goods? Then we can treat them like property and get some use out of them!” But that introduces the bête noire of many people here; utilitarianism! AAARRGGHHH!!! *grin*

But with respect to IP, I don’t think there is a scarcity of any kind here. An indefinitely large number of people can get use from the same pattern at the same time, including the person who originated the pattern. Since there is no scarcity of any kind here, the argument falls back to “Let’s pretend that patterns are scarce physical goods; then people can sell them for money. If they can’t do that, nobody will make them. That’s unacceptable, so we need to pretend they’re like scarce physical goods.” My only problem with this logic is that I don’t think that people will stop programming, writing, making music, etc., if IP goes away. If I could be convinced that this is the case, then I would become pro-IP.

EM rights are basically the same as the “right to hit a gong in this area for the five minutes after 8am”. It is necessary for people to respect both rights in order for information to be transmitted through that medium. If more than one person transmits at frequency f, people cant measure frequency f and get a message out of it. if more than one person hits a gong at 8:03am, you can’t send messages via the gong at that time.

I think there’s an unfortunate tendency to blur metaphors with reality when talking about EM rights. When you send a message via radio waves, what’s really going on is that you’re exciting electric fields in a certain pattern, and people use a pre-defined method to decode the patterns. Everyone can transmit the waves at the same time, but *not* while also sending information. But why does this information transmission capability entitle one to claim a portion of it as their own? If you can justify that, you can justify IP. And yet most people intuitively see the scarcity in EM waves.

-the libertarian view is that the Lockean-homesteader, or his descendant in title, has property rights in it … This basic formulation does not answer all the gray areas or procedural or epistemic issues, but that does not make this a “circular” idea, Silas.

You clearly haven’t been reading my comments, because I answered this exact point already:

1) If you’re justifying property rights (in the abstract) through Lockean homesteading, it’s not a circular argument. I agree with you here. That’s not the problem.

2) But when the very topic of dispute is about which specific property rights a homesteading entitles you to, you cannot assume that it does or does not entitle you to specific rights. That is circular, because you’re essentially saying, “IP violates already-owned rights because those rights are already owned.” Um, but *why* are they owned?

3) When your 2nd biggest argument is that IP rights are vague, you make that argument irrelevant when you admit that your property system leaves property rights vague as well. Yes, it’s impossible to define a property system with arbitrary precision. So what?

“But IP is not. There is no conceivable argument whereby A’s peaceful use of his own property–fashioning it into certain shapes, using it according to certain recipes or steps–invades the borders of others’ property. This is not circular.”

This circularity thing really bugs you, doesn’t it? Fine, I’ll take it back. I still think that your argument is a smuggled premise, i.e. you are implicitly assuming that which you wish to prove.

Here is what I understand your argument in your last post to be, in a nutshell:

Premise 1) The only valid theory of property is the Lockean homesteading theory of property.

Premise 2) IP cannot be derived from Lockean homesteading theory.

Conclusion) Therefore, IP cannot be enforced without violating property rights. Therefore, IP is invalid.

If the premises are true, then the conclusion is true, I’ll grant you. But the first premise is not obviously true. By taking it as a given, you are basically assuming all the rest.

Let’s go back to the quote above, which I’ll repeat part of:

“…There is no conceivable argument whereby A’s peaceful use of his own property–fashioning it into certain shapes, using it according to certain recipes or steps–invades the borders of others’ property. …”

Let’s say A fashions his own physical property into a machine. Then he uses the machine to emit “Barta rays” to a machine that Z built which is designed to detect Barta rays. B builds a machine similar to A’s, and also emits Barta rays. Z’s machine also detects these. Z would rather that B’s machine not emit Barta rays, because the Barta rays that A’s machine is emitting are modulated into a message that Z wants to receive, and B’s Barta rays are interfering with this. Nonetheless, B is not doing anything that invades the borders of Z’s *physical* property. Nothing B’s machine is doing is damaging either A’s or Z’s machines. And neither A nor Z has a real right to expect that only A can use his Barta ray emitter, or that Z can receive the message. Therefore, neither A nor Z really has a right to make B turn off his machine.

Then along comes a lawyer. He notes that Barta rays exist in a range of frequencies. He says, “What if we call this range of frequencies ‘Barta space’? Then we can pretend that Barta space is like real space; then it can be homesteaded and owned!” Voila, the concept of Barta space property, or BS property, is born!

The lawyer gets the government to enforce BS property rights. Pretty soon Barta ray emitters and detectors are everywhere, become a significant part of the economy, and people can’t imagine living without them.

Then another person, C, comes up with a machine he calls a “pattern manipulator”. It turns out that a pattern manipulator, if configured with the proper patterns, can do many useful things. He comes up with a really useful pattern. The only problem is, people get copies of this pattern from their friends instead of paying C for them, and this puts a real crimp in C’s business plan. But C can’t stop them. After all, if people make their own pattern manipulators out of their own property, then they can do what they want with them, right?

Along comes the lawyer again. He says, “What if we say that the set of all possible patterns is part of ‘pattern manipulator space’? Then we can pretend that pattern manipulator space is like real space, and can be homesteaded and owned!” Voila, pattern manipulator space rights, or PMS rights, are born!

Now, what is the essential difference between BS rights and PMS rights? After all, they’re both just legal fictions, that don’t involve homesteading a real space or piece of material property. If one is OK, why not the other?

(BTW, no offense was intended to Mr. Barta. All was written in the spirit of good, clean, silly fun.)

“but it is *THE* libertarian idea.” (emphasis added)

Ahem. No. It is *A* libertarian idea. It’s amazing how *THE* libertarian ideas always seem to agree exactly with what you happen to believe.

“Not if one figures out a way of sending multiple messages on the same frequency without one message distorting the other.”

I agree with that, but I don’t see how it’s an objection. The reason I put quotes around the word “homesteading” is because it’s not exactly the right word for the right to not have your property damaged in transit, provided it is not already infringing on another’s property.

@Russ,

The first problem is silly. I’m sure you’ll agree that if I mix feces into your food, it’s been damaged, and has become unusable.

The second problem only exists if the transmission is somehow infringing on someone’s property, which is not the case so long as it doesn’t interfere with the usefulness of said property to it’s owner. This is also important for the people who were talking about arbitrary heights above someone’s land. For more on this point I’ll refer you to Rothbard: http://mises.org/daily/2120