you cannot apply contractual conditions to people who are not a party to that contract.

“I can’t speak for Mises Institute, but I don’t believe they DO want to. The point is that they have the legal RIGHT to. So if a consumer wants to republish an article on Mises.org, he leaves himself open to exposure–liability, if he has no legally binding license he can rely upon. Do you get it now? It is to his advantage that he have a contractually binding license he can rely on.”

I get it now. The Mises Institute reserves copyrights in order to protect other people from the Mises Institute.

Stranger, you are either stupid, or dishonest. This is not that hard to understand. They don’t reserve copyright, dolt: there is no way to get rid of it. Don’t you get it? The state attaches property right to us, and does not give us a way to get rid of it. It’s like your “right” to sue an employer for racial or sexual discrimination, or your right to seek welfare someday. Suppose you just post somewhere, “I, Stranger, hereby ‘renounce’ my right to sue employers for racial, religious, or sexual discrimination, and i hereby ‘renounce’ my right to seek welfare if I ever need it.” Does this statement prevent you from doing these things later? No. It is not binding.

It is the same with copyright. The state imposes copyrights on authors. If you post copyrighted work on a website, you give them implicit permission (license) only to read it on your site. But not to use it in other ways. If they use it in other ways without your permission you CAN sue them; you have the legal right to. They need some kind of defense or permission if they want to be sure they can use the work without possible liability. That is what CC is used for. We put it there to provide the user with legal assurances that he can use it with impunity. Now, if we had some half-assed statement like, “this work is public domain” or “we hereby renounce all copyright,” this would give the would-be copier no assurance–it’s not a binding agreement! It’s not an agreement binding on the author.
“I will note also your admission that a copyright is a contractually binding license. Now what is wrong with any other contractual forms of copyrights?”

Copyright is not a license. Copyrihgt is a right imposed by the state. The license is a permission given by the rights holder to allow others to use it. The license or permission would not be necessary if the state did not grant these fake rights.

Yes, that’s it — I deny that bald people exist while simultaneously claiming that everyone is bald!

Obviously, they don’t want to do this today. But who’s to say a bunch of Randroids don’t end up running the LvMI 50 years from now, or something? What a silly argument.

What if you read the book, outdoors on a nice day. The other guy has access to spy satellites with really high resolution optics, and takes photographs of your book as you turn the pages (note: the book doesn’t need to be held open as he copies the contents out — it only takes a small fraction of a second to capture each page). He then writes out (or OCRs?!) the same content on his own paper, using his own ink. At no time has he ever come within hundreds of miles of either your book or anyone who owns a copy (and thus has agreed to the copying restrictions); he certainly hasn’t ever touched it! What say you to this scenario? How is he bound by your “copyright” agreement?

Once again, you must concede the validity of copyright.

“I can’t speak for Mises Institute, but I don’t believe they DO want to. The point is that they have the legal RIGHT to. So if a consumer wants to republish an article on Mises.org, he leaves himself open to exposure–liability, if he has no legally binding license he can rely upon. Do you get it now? It is to his advantage that he have a contractually binding license he can rely on.”

I get it now. The Mises Institute reserves copyrights in order to protect other people from the Mises Institute. It makes perfect sense. It is not a praxeologically irrational action at all.

Responding to this.

“Claiming you don’t own money is not fraud. Maybe you believe it.”

How can someone who is lying believe what they are saying?

The hypothetical you set up already had the person owing the money. There was no question of that. We weren’t even talking about a case where no money was actually owed.

Then I added to the hypothetical stating that there could be fraud in the non-performance if the person was trying to get out of the repayment by lying.

He can lie in all sorts of ways to get out of payment. For example he could claim destitution when in fact he had all sorts of secret bank accounts.
They even have a subclass of fraud called bankruptcy fraudd to cover such tactics.

I had already agreed that mere non-performance on a contract isn’t fraud. That doesn’t however mean you don’t owe something.

I would tend to agree that non-performance on a contract doesn’t count as stealing in any case (no more than it counts as robbery).

I don’t however see copyright violation as a contract violation in the first place. It’s a property rights violation because the copyright holder is in fact retaining partial property rights in the copies he sells.

> I also have over and over pointed out that ratio of
> coownership in the produced good is determined
> by the value of the input factors of production.
Value to whom? You really want to define property boundaries based on how people value the inputs? That’s the value theory of property, refuted several times over by economists smarter than me. Furthermore, if you extend the “inputs” into the immaterial, there is an infinite number of them, fluctuating as time progresses. Who will keep a track of everything? To do so would require complexity that exceeds that of our own universe.

> Really, so you think that you could add without
> that particular math book (and even though
> some animals can add), yet you somehow think
> you can make a copy of MS Word without having
> used it to make the copy.
The issue is purely quantitative rather than qualitative. You are confused because in some cases, the “physical act of copying” is practically unavoidable. But not theoretically. There are people who can remember large sequences of numbers. Per reductio ad absurdum, even the copy of MS word is theoretically possible without a “physical act of copying”. How is it qualitatively different when I repeat a sequence of 10 digits and 10 billion digits? The latter is more difficult to pull off. Should that be the criterion for property? How hard would it be to do something?

> Not being able to precisely define how many hairs
> separate a bald man from one with a full head of
> hair you deduce that everyone is bald.
It’s not the issue per se that we cannot decide who is bald or not. It’s the issue when you attempt to derive objective truths from the “level of baldness”. “Baldness” is a concept that is only meaningful for humans. It does not have an objective existence.

Yet, as for IP proponents, without the fixed boundaries, they have no theory of property.

> You can figure out how to add two numbers
> without access to whatever math book you
> happened to use in grade school.
This is, I am afraid, only confusing the situation. Some IP proponents claim that causality is an unnecessary criterion (e.g. those that reject independent discovery patent defence theory). But the core issue is not whether the outcome is hypothetically possible without, rather whether there is an actual causal relationship. It would be even more absurd to demarcate property boundaries based on what could have happened, as opposed to what actually happened.

Wrong, the sale was not free and clear. The seller retained copyright ownership and even stated so in the book/CD.

Really, so you think that you could add without that particular math book (and even though some animals can add), yet you somehow think you can make a copy of MS Word without having used it to make the copy.

I think one of the main problems you IP opponents have is that you get confused by things that do not have fixed boundaries. You would deny that bald people exist because of the fact one can go bald incrementally. Not being able to precisely define how many hairs separate a bald man from one with a full head of hair you deduce that everyone is bald.

The fact of the matter is that you cannot create a copy of MS Word without access to MS Word, nor Harry Potter without a copy of Harry Potter.

You can figure out how to add two numbers without access to whatever math book you happened to use in grade school.

Logic and reason are inadequate to the task of arguing against stoic belief. Only direct experience of the false nature of the belief will loosen the grip the belief has on the mind. And even then, the belief will remain as blame is passed on to those who do not share the belief.

Only a mind dedicated to true knowledge is capable of shedding a belief, let alone be willing to do so. Belief has the appearance of knowledge, and only loses this appearance when rigorously examined and tested, and that requires intelligence and the bravery of curiosity.

There are some who don’t have what it takes to do this, and continuous engagement is a merry-go-round of frustration. Leave them alone, they are helpless and doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over and over again, ad nauseum.

“”Mises Inst. could simlpy change its mind and sue the copier for copyright infringement”

You just assured us they didn’t want to do this.

What bizarre arguments they teach in law school these days.”

I can’t speak for Mises Institute, but I don’t believe they DO want to. The point is that they have the legal RIGHT to. So if a consumer wants to republish an article on Mises.org, he leaves himself open to exposure–liability, if he has no legally binding license he can rely upon. Do you get it now? It is to his advantage that he have a contractually binding license he can rely on.

“Mises Inst. could simlpy change its mind and sue the copier for copyright infringement”

You just assured us they didn’t want to do this.

What bizarre arguments they teach in law school these days.

It then becomes an issue of how to rectify the situation and who has the greater claim to the copy, who’s productive input was the cause of the greater share of the value of the copy.

This just gets stranger and stranger. Okay, let’s say I have a recipe to make the perfect brew of coffee provided by a famous chef. This chef worked for weeks to find the best beans, filter, water, and fineness of grind to use. I put in five minutes of my time to follow his recipe. Now, because his productive input was much larger than mine, he owns the coffee I brewed, am I right? Or do I at least get to take a sip?

Or lets say I read “Harry Potter and the Stolen Pattern” and when I am finished, I write a short story about a young female wizard in a gothic fantasy setting. I happily proclaim that Rowling inspired me and I would not have written my story if not for reading hers. Does J. K. Rowling own my story?

Or let’s say I teach myself html by looking through the source code of hundreds of web pages. Do the programmers for those pages all own stake in anything I subsequently produce if my own effort in writing a webpage was less than what they used to produce the pages they wrote?

If I take five minutes to write a book review for a book that took two years for the author to write, do I owe the author a royalty on the sale of my review?

If I hum a Taylor Swift song, does she own the sounds I make? How about if my co-worker pays me a dollar to stop my impromptu performance? Royalty money?

Really, it seems to be a much better strategy to just yell, “You’re all thieves! No rational argument against IP could ever soothe the pain in my heart!” Then you don’t have to try to defend something that is completely subjective and arbitrary with logic, since logic is horribly unsuitable for such a task.

Yep, argument from emotion, that’s where it’s at, baby. Those poor, starving artists and authors. Shame on you for being exposed to photons that are causally connected to the author’s past activity and choosing not to pay him money. All your brain are belong to me.

Kinsella said,

“Hubbard: if you still find yourself incredulous that Mises Institute allows its material to be copied–if you still view it as being “ripped off”; you just don’t get it”

Allowed?

Well that kind of implies a right over the content doesn’t it? Like a property right.

Was that a Freudian slip?

No, and this argument of yours is extremely evil and slimy. You IP fascists impose these terrible laws on us. Becaues of you, Mises Institute HAS COPYRIGHT in some things, whether they want it or not. The only way to minimize the harm done is to NOT exercise copyright, or better yet, make some kind of legally enforceable promise not to–a license. If we just say “we promise not to enforce copyrgiht” or “I hereby make this public domain,” your terrible copyright system WILL NOT RECOGNIZE THIS and IT’S STILL IN COPYRIGHT. Therefore, we grant the most minimally intrusive legally enforceable license available, which is CC-attribution only. And you have the gall to criticize us for this? How dare you.

David Bratton:

@Brian Macker

“He’s still used the book as a factor of production if he manages to create an accurate copy.”

If that’s your standard for declaring something a “factor of production” then my eighth grade math book is a factor of production every time I have to figure out the tip at a restaurant. That doesn’t mean the publisher can come and claim some of my property.

Exactly. Perfect point.
Stranger:

@Kinsella

“Well the US copyright law grants a right to sue to copyright holders, for acts of infringement. So I suppose Mises Institute could sue. Just as a minority can sue for racial discrimination in employment, because the law gives him this right. It is not the fault of the Mises Institute that the state gives them copyright automatically, nor is it their fault that the state make it virtually impossible to disclaim this “right” ahead of time. What exactly is your criticism? The only criticism I see is that of the copyright law itself–and those who support it.”

Please don’t pay the victim here, no one is buying. The Mises Institute did not have to include an attribution clause in its copyright notice.

It could have granted all rights to transform the information. It didn’t because it claims a property right on the information.

How the hell do you know? I linked you to my “copyright is sticky” post which explains and links to pieces showing that WITHOUT this limitation the “license” is NOT a license. Don’t you get it? Your IP fascist system makes it impossible for Mises Inst. to make their works public domain. If you do not include the attribution line, there IS NO LICENSE–probalby because there is then no consideration by the reader/copier. It is FOR THE COPIER’S BENEFIT THAT WE INCLUDE THE ATTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT–without it, Mises Inst. could simlpy change its mind and sue the copier for copyright infringement. This way, as long as the copier complies with a small requirement, they have a better legal argument–a defense–against any copyright suit.

I suggest you read the links and research this before mouthing off like a legal expert.

“Well the US copyright law grants a right to sue to copyright holders, for acts of infringement. So I suppose Mises Institute could sue. Just as a minority can sue for racial discrimination in employment, because the law gives him this right. It is not the fault of the Mises Institute that the state gives them copyright automatically, nor is it their fault that the state make it virtually impossible to disclaim this “right” ahead of time. What exactly is your criticism? The only criticism I see is that of the copyright law itself–and those who support it.”

Please don’t pay the victim here, no one is buying. The Mises Institute did not have to include an attribution clause in its copyright notice. It could have granted all rights to transform the information. It didn’t because it claims a property right on the information.

If the Mises Institute recognizes the legitimacy of some restrictions of copying, there is no argument against any other form of restriction, including the full reserved rights that are necessary for capitalist production of information.