No. Do you have an ethical/moral issue with using a library
where you engage in “plunder” by reading books for free?

I wouldn’t mind an invite. Assuming I can also find the time.

while I object to your claim of you dealing with every argument, I would be happy to participate in a discussion in a more formal manner, assuming I find the time.

The territorial limitation difference is irrelevant: EM rights would work essentially the same way, and be justified for the same reason, even if everyone’s broadcast reached all of civilization.

FIRST make sure you understand the analogy (which is from the greater usefulness of the EM spectrum when exclusive rights are assigned, to the greater usefulness of the ideasphere when exclusive rights are assigned, and the corresponding claimed scarcity; NOT, as you seem to think, from the creativity of using the EM spectrum in novel ways to the creativity of new intellectual works). THEN try to address it.

But that’s kind of hard when you don’t stand a chance of either, don’t you think?

@Peter_Surda: I’ve answered every one of your arguments against my position. Every last one. It’s just that I haven’t answered the latest few incarnations of the same points you’ve made before. I only have so much time in the day, so I save it for when there are genuinely new or useful opportunities to make a point.

I’m considering hosting an e-symposium so that we can all find out where we agree or disagree on each branch of the IP debate, and not have to rehash the same arguments in every new IP thread. Would you be interested in participating in this?

why are you avoiding answering my objections? You’ve known them for several months already.

As Russ (correctly) emphasizes in the other threads, the EM spectrum does not have literal slots that you can use. Rather, by adhering to protocols, we can get information transfer out of the EM capacity of the air. The fact that it has some abstract physical properties you don’t quite understand and don’t really want to deal with, doesn’t make them the same as paperback books.

A while back I made an analogy that even you can understand: how do rights in the “vibratory spectrum” work? Let’s say someone wants to broadcast information by whether or not he hits a (subtle, non-obstructive, non-nuisance) gong at 8am. Other people can ruin this communication scheme by also hitting their own gongs, since that makes it so you can no longer tell whether the original guy is hitting his gong.

This is exactly what is going on with the EM spectrum: it *can* be used to transmit information, but only if people don’t violate the assumptions it’s predicated on. But it ultimately requires there to be rights in “pattern formation” for it to work.

Pattern formation rights — you know, IP.

So how about you make up your mind, Michael_A._Clem, and make it up soon. Because this is a pretty crucial distinction you need to be able to make on such an “easy” issue. And if you can’t figure out what you think about it … well, that sure doesn’t say much for you, does it?

What would be your position for the same book that starts out as an e-book?

I think if you go back and read my posts in the other threads, I’ve already answered this. While I object to the use of the term “plundered”, I would have to say that yes, I would have a problem with uploading a book or e-book to a file-sharing program or site (with the possible exception of dead authors). If the creator wants payment for it, then I should abide by that. However, what’s happening is improper (immoral) file-sharing, not theft, for the reasons already mentioned: ideas aren’t property. This distinction between improper file sharing and theft may seem trivial, and Kinsella and others may be suggesting something larger and broader than I am, but I still say that understanding this simple but fundamental point is the first step towards any proper application of the law and restitution.
After all, if someone DID download your e-book without your permission, you haven’t lost access to your own e-book, making restitution pointless. And it’s not so cut-and-dried to say that the download cost you a sale, since it may not have, if the downloader wouldn’t have purchased it anyway, or if the downloader decides to purchase it after downloading it, or recommends it to others who decide to purchase it. If the punishment must fit the crime, then the heavy penalties the music industry is trying to lay on music file-sharers is too excessive and unfair, even if one admits that something wrong has been done.
Furthermore, while there can be improper and immoral file-sharing, I think we would all be better off if creators did engage in different business models that include free, downloadable content, along with purchaseable content. For example, check out the tons of online comic strips on the internet, like Sheldon ( http://www.sheldoncomics.com ). In spite of the fact that he has an extensive free archive of comic strips, he can still sell books and other merchandise based upon the strip. I think when consumers recognize that creators need to make a certain amount of money to keep producing, they will do what it takes to support those creators, especially if they recognize there is no corporate middleman getting a large share of the income, such as the newspaper syndicates or the large record companies.
Far from denying individual effort, online sharing has the ability of helping individual creators realize their potential without having to compromise their artistic and creative vision.
Furthermore, any copy protection plan or law must recognize certain limits. If the production of a book, song, computer program, or other creative work is a matter of putting pre-existing concepts into a unique configuration, then we must ask just how different a work must be from previous works to be considered unique and worthy of protection. How many different plots, character names, situations, chord progressions, color schemes, etc. really exist, and how many different ways can you truly exploit them? And from the other side, people like certain styles or genres (mystery novels, smooth jazz music, romance movies, etc.) so that a certain amount of similarity and repetition is not only expected, but demanded by the potential audience. Something excessively unique may have a harder time finding an appreciative audience.
I could say more, but this is getting pretty long already.

However, if I copy your osciallations of EM waves interpretable as a description of a rose that you transmitted one day, I have not trespassed (unless your transmitter is in a secure zone that I’m not suppose to be able to access such that I can observe the EM oscillations), and you still have your transmitter. If you didn’t want your frequency of osciallation to be broadcast on (and presumably you took reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized broadcasting), then it could be said that I did something wrong (illegal broadcasting), but it could not be called “theft”.

You can’t steal non-property, especially if the original owner isn’t being deprived of it (non-scarcity). Again, there may well be such a thing as improper and immoral broadcasting, and as such, should be illegal; but it cannot be called theft or stealing. Failing to understand this distinction leads to errors about resolution and restitution in the legal system of such problems. What restitution is to be provided where the originator hasn’t been deprived of anything? Asserting that abstract frequencies are property, however original they may be, doesn’t make them property, and repeating the assertion over and over doesn’t make for a stronger argument.

Worse, there is no path to individual liberty in that, quite the opposite.

But I prefer to this deal with this on the level of morality, including Objectivist morality, and I ask Michael Clem now a question that gets to the nub of what is truly at stake here (and note that to date, Jeffrey Tucker and Stephen Kinsella have both chosen to not answer it.

Michael:

Do you have an ethical/moral issue with buying a physical book from a bookshop, scanning to an electronic file, then uploading that author’s work to a file sharing program to be plundered?

What would be your position for the same book that starts out as an e-book?

[Falloon, I answered your question squarely. I believe in a minarchist libertarian state, the role of that small state being to protect the rights of the individual, including property rights, including IP. The anti-IP argument is an anarchist argument, and an anarchist society would be just that, anarchy, with freedom of the individual the loser. Libertarians, well at least in my neck of the woods (New Zealand), acknowledge a role for the state, unfortunately modern democracies have utterly usurped that role and become the main abuser of individual liberty. Unfortunately that is being used here as a wrong headed sanction to plunder I-property].

I side with the pro IP arguments. It’s at least about access to a market. That takes some time. Theft of an idea that is marketable (something can be created from it that has saleable value on the market) might as well be theft of the final product itself. You removed the individual’s ability to garner income. The IP thief could in fact wipe out any chance of profit for the original thinker.

Without IP you still would end up with a controlling governance (groups designed to get your product to market ASAP, at a cost) and a larger group of idea trolling big companies trying to control the market. At least that is my estimation of the eventual outcome. Not seeing much room for the individual and small business there. And it certainly is deprivation to the original thinker. Just because it is future deprivation, it does not mean it isn’t. The eventual outcome is loss of income, and that is real.

Also, if an idea isn’t property of the owner (combination of neurochemical and physical connections in their own brain), what is? That combination is absolutely unique. The notion an idea exists separately from someone’s brain is, well, absurd. Furthermore, the notion that an idea is abstract simply is not true for all ideas. Many ideas are about the physical — they are mental models. They are linked to the physical object which exists or will exist and the brain is hard at work modeling it. It is subjective, but not abstract. (The difference between having an idea for a specific car design and thinking you would like to design cars.)

I would argue that IP is in fact real property, unless it is a true abstract thought.

You may be more or less correct in your historical summation of “classic liberalism” and “Libertarianism”. However, that is not the question I put before you. It is ironic that you would have concerns over- leaving aside for the moment your unsupported certainty for how things would play out- the ‘biggest gun ruling’ under a non-Hubbardian system: your recipe for government includes installing ‘biggest gun rule’ from the get-go.

Alright, couldn’t help it:

Old Mark Hubbard,
Went to the blog board,
To give the poor state a bone,
When he came there,
His “logic” was contraire,
And so the poor state had none.

In fun,

Dan

Then acknowledge you are an anarchist, Falloon, who could not posit the framework of a free society: you are not a libertarian?

Libertarians encompass the rule of law, the (humanist, classical liberal) small state simply as protector of individual rights (not trampler of them as modern democracies are), enforcer of the non-initiation of force, and a capitalist system. None of these things are available under anarchism, a system in which the biggest gun will rule.

Get yourself informed.

“You do realize that capitalizing words is kind of crankish and the sign of ignorance, or an amateur or newb, right? Capital-L “Libertarian” refers to a member of the LP, not a “libertarian.”

“there can be no free, Libertarian society without such protection.”

capital L.”

I see, you mean Libertarian Party versus libertarian the way of thinking. Got it professor. My Bad! Chalk it up to an error of passion. I don’t think I’m being cranky, just grammatically incorrect. I did check my spelling though….

I meant small “L” libertarian as in classical liberalism, or is it Classical Liberalism? It’s 1:00am and I suck at caps.