JNS insinuates this is evidence that there was no act of creation. Yet earlier he describes creation as “taking of something from a state of greater probability to a state of lesser probability.” A and B’s invention could be a creation in this sense. Yet he says that the fact it was independently invented implies it’s not creation. Seems like a conflict to me.

You seem to make a practice of missing the main point made and focusing your agruments instead upon circumstances which you create; it seems to me this is your insuation, not his. There must be a name for this kind of logical fallacy…

I will not argue from JNS’s theories, that is not my foundation. However, you have to admit he is making a valid point, which I’ve already commented on.

Two people are sitting near the Roman Coliseum in August, writing a story. They both write, simultaneously, “It was a hot day in Rome”. Under copyright law, and perhaps according to JNS, this act is not sufficient to warrant copyright protection. Why?

The answer must be based on some method of explaining why this not protected, while the story that they each complete, is. That is the distinction in question.

From my point of view, they are both theoretically acts of “creation”, but because mere ideas are not the subject matter of copyright, there must be more. And, of course there is.

One way of describing what “more” is, can be argued from a foundation of probabilities. The probability that two people, in the same place and same time, might express a similar, and even an identical “idea” is high. Therefore, the liklihood of simultaneous creation is high, so protection should be low to avoid casting the copyright protections too wide; remember ideas ARE free, and a mere “idea” is not an “expression”, and certainly not a “work”. According to you, thank goodness copyrights does not protect ALL ideas, (as you are apt to lump these three distinctions under the general concept of “ideas”)

Negative entropy, using the thermodynamic model that JNS offers, runs in a direction, from “idea”, to “expression”, to “work”; from low complexity to higher complexity. This act of “rearranging” reality runs counter to the natural tendency towards increasing entropy, or from higher to lower states of complexity, and according to the law of thermodynamics, requires inputs of energy.

As you follow the accumulation of increasing complexity, the liklihood that two independent authors would continue to produce identical stories grows less and less probable. At some level of complexity, say a 300 page novel, the probability is near zero.

Therefore, one could say that such use of probabilty analysis is a methodolgy that can be employed to determine if two independent works are in fact sufficiently similar such that one cannot plausibly exist without access to the other.

This is, as you well know, in fact the approach that copyright laws adopts in determining if a given work is protectable under infringement action, as I summarized above.

I’m sure you actually understand this, but it runs against your general argument that “ideas are free” and that “creation” is not a basis for property rights. Therefore, you find yourself in the curious position of denying the operation of the laws of thermodynamics.

Whoops that was a pretty bad typo! I meant that rights are not *alienable*!

Assuming of course that they are in fact wrong. Are they?

I am mostly describing the debates I have had with my dad. I have had similar debates with my brother. It seems to usually go that way on these blogs and the LvMI facebook posts as well. They are always with libertarian-leaning people.

“If we substitute the word “creation” for “property””

As I have explained before, the original author does not create unauthorized copies, the pirates do that. Also, the patent violator is the one who creates products based on the invention, not the inventor.

“Given the concept of private property and the right of exclusive use”

But the *whole point* is that exclusive use of real property is the only kind of use there is. The only reason why any owner is able to exclude use of his property is because when someone else uses it he *cannot* use it. That is completely different from the case with ideas. When someone else uses my idea it does not interfere at all with my use of that idea (unless the use is a trespass on my real property). If your use does not affect my use, what possible reason is there for me to be able to restrict use?

“Any objection to the second rendition?”

That is in no way a “second rendition” of what I said, and that is very dishonest arguing. Why not argue with the first rendition, i.e. the one I actually stated? Your statement is an entirely different one concerning an entirely different scenario.

Can you please interpret this from Sweatervest for me?

Any support for IP seems, to me, to be an outgrowth of this general feeling that a person should be able to dictate how his creation is enjoyed by the rest of society.

If we substitute the word “creation” for “property” (which is the fundamental issue of the IP debate, i.e. if what is “created” is “property” IP = Property) then it would read like this:

“Any support for [property] seems, to me, to be an outgrowth of this general feeling that a person should be able to dictate how his [property] is enjoyed by the rest of society”

Given the concept of private property and the right of exclusive use, wouldn’t this be a libertarian truism? Any objection to the second rendition?

What nail, exactly, does this hit on the head?

And of course by this point the answer is a “yes” and then there’s really nowhere to go after that. Any support for IP seems, to me, to be an outgrowth of this general feeling that a person should be able to dictate how his creation is enjoyed by the rest of society, and that it is a matter of concern that a person naturally loses such control as soon as he publishes something.

I see it in other places, and in fact I see it in kids. Little kids get upset that another kid wore the same outfit he wore yesterday, or got the same backpack, or started using the same catch phrase, and shout out a claim that comes out of kids mouths left and right: “you stole my idea!” But beyond that, people grow up and have the feeling that they have a right to control who gets to take a picture of them, or film them, or “use their likeness” or any of that (in public places). They even think they have a right to stop someone else from writing a story about them! I’ll admit I find it as bizarre as you do.

–is just superb. Excellent. Hitting nail on head.

CUrious–how/where do you have all these debates? With friends? Co-workers? Could you elaborate?

How you can string together so many wrong ideas is a monument to ignorance. You really are a putz.

This, I think, is the real core of the issue. Once one is able to shed oneself of finding a “problem” with such an action there is really no substantial reason to hold onto IP.

In arguments that have happened other places, I have successfully convinced people who started off arguing that IP is the only reason that creative works exist, to acknowledge that IP actually reduces creative output. But, they said, that doesn’t matter. Property rights don’t rely on maximizing wealth.

True enough, but then I successfully convince them that there is no such thing as ownership over an idea, what with the non-rivalry and all. But, they said, that doesn’t matter. Then we hit the loaded questions. “Do you really think it is okay for me to just download someone else’s song without his permission? Do you really think it is okay if one guy starts producing based off an invention and a big manufacturing firm starts producing those too and drives him out of business? Do you really think it is okay to use someone else’s logo?”

And of course by this point the answer is a “yes” and then there’s really nowhere to go after that. Any support for IP seems, to me, to be an outgrowth of this general feeling that a person should be able to dictate how his creation is enjoyed by the rest of society, and that it is a matter of concern that a person naturally loses such control as soon as he publishes something.

I see it in other places, and in fact I see it in kids. Little kids get upset that another kid wore the same outfit he wore yesterday, or got the same backpack, or started using the same catch phrase, and shout out a claim that comes out of kids mouths left and right: “you stole my idea!” But beyond that, people grow up and have the feeling that they have a right to control who gets to take a picture of them, or film them, or “use their likeness” or any of that (in public places). They even think they have a right to stop someone else from writing a story about them! I’ll admit I find it as bizarre as you do.

Perhaps after peoples’ privacy implied in their real property rights are violated to no end they can’t help but insist on having these sorts of “rights”. Another problem caused by the state, and here comes the state with the solution!

You can’t give me time, you can either confront my arguments or cower away from them.

Besides, masquerading my argumentative force with being worked up is a pretty convenient way to “win” any argument by ending it. And you were obviously worked up because you complained about me being arrogant and have said that you are fed up with me and are going to ignore me. I’m not the one that got upset.

“Ahem. I’m resisting the temptation towards sarcasm. I hope you appreciate that.”

Typing out “I’m resisting sarcasm” is one the most smart ass things I have ever seen. Do you honestly consider yourself an un-provoking victim of some intellectual choir (or ideologues as you often name me)?

“The validity of the “ideas are free” argument derives from freedom of speech guarantees”

No it doesn’t. That ideas are free is due to the fact they are non-rivalrous. Besides, “freedom of speech” is metaphorical nonsense. One never has a “right to speak” when they are on someone else’s property, and their right to speak on their own property is contained in their property rights. It’s also ridiculous to think any government can “guarantee” my right to anything.

That air is free does not come from the Bill of Rights.

“My definition of mercantilism is the collaboration of special interests (primarily commercial enterprises) and government to gain economic advantage through political means. In exchange, government gains means to stay in power. It is anti-free market and anti-liberty.”

But you said it is based on sound principles.

“I thought this was rather poetic, didn’t you”

Poetry isn’t truth. Be as beautiful as you want, it’s still wrong.

“The choice between anarchy and totalitarianism is a false dichotomy.”

Who presented it as such? The point is that anarchy is the best choice out of all of them, all of the middle points included. Anarchy is better than a little government. That is the claim. The dichotomy is a straw man. People straw man ancap because there are no actual arguments against it.

“Good. We agree on this point”

What a bunch of semantic trickery. You are the one that presented ancaps as thinking ancap is a final solution! Obviously you do not agree that ancaps never presented it as such.

“The last time I listened to someone who said “Trust me”, I bought a lemon. Live and learn.”

Well forgive me for being slightly poetic in my wording. Let me be as drily logical as I typically am: You don’t understand ancap and have no basis for explaining what its proponents believe, as evidenced by your incorrect interpretation of Rothbard’s arguments concerning what to do about past property trespasses.

“You just don’t seem to get that ethics, like property, is a human device”

I explained this in painstaking detail in the last thread and instead of responding to any of it, you ignored all of it and instead went on some childish tantrum about how arrogant I am. I posted paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs.

*You did not respond to a single bit of it*. Your response all of a sudden changed the topic to what it means for something to be a human device to what kind of personality I have.

You did the exact same thing when I explained *in detail* why rights are *not* inalienable. Your response was “yeah huh, no wonder you’re confused”.

“All ethical principles are debatable”

Meta-arguing. You never actually debate them, you just say they are debatable and go right back to holding onto your own without supporting them.

“Some people may hold that certain inalienable rights are self evident. That is merely a basis for cooperation among those who agree.”

Reality is not a matter of agreement. People do not agree on what the preconditions to cooperative problem solving are. Whether they are “self-evident” or not is as irrelevant as whether Russell’s Paradox is self-evident. I’ll say this as many times as you express confusion over it: people choose whether or not to trespass on peoples’ rights. They don’t choose what is a trespass and what is not.

“Watch out, your youth is showing”

My youth is irrelevant. Your insistence to turn everything into ad hominem is the biggest reason I lose patience and turn super-sarcastic with you. You need to learn how to stay on topic and quit switching to a discussion about my personality.

“People who wish to cooperate may speak of desired outcomes they hold in common without being dictators.”

Assuming of course such a desired outcome is held in common. Either way, your desired outcome is not held by me and you expect me to follow IP laws so this is completely irrelevant. We’re not dealing with things we agree on, in case you haven’t noticed.

Ethics is not about agreement. Ethics is about ways to resolve conflicts. Where there is agreement, there is no conflict! If everyone agreed then there would be no problem and none of us would be here debating each other on what to do!

If everyone agreed to obey property rights then what would be the purpose of any of this? Besides, need I agree with you when I build a fence and literally stop you from being able to get onto my property?

“If we say that markets SHOULD be free”

This is an ethics statement. You are not dealing in ethics. As every single Austrian explains, any “should” statement is beyond the scope of economics.

“I believe Mises said somewhere (no time for research today) that the field of economics helps us understand if a given economic policy will actually produce what we intend”

That is exactly my whole point. It explains what happens, not what should happen.

“This was a major theme underlying his analysis of socialism as a set of economic policies.”

Yes. He believed it was meaningless to say socialism is bad or wrong. He just wanted to make sure people correctly understood what it entailed, which is mass poverty. No value judgements what-so-ever.

“Praxeology is a value free approach to economic study”

Praxeology is economics. Again you are tearing apart Austrian economics. Have you ever read Human Action?

“Economic policy is a value statement”

Economic policy is not economics, it’s legislature. A lawmaker does not advance economic theory when he proposes or enforces a policy.

Either way, you are the only one concerned with economic policy. I really don’t see how that is so hard to grasp. I am not advocating an economic policy. I am advocating the lack of any policy at all, and pointing out that the lack of policy entails a lack of IP (quite distinct from a lack of policy entailing a lack of property, which is quite wrong. A lack of policy allows property to flourish). I’m certainly not suggesting that a new law should be made that “outlaws copyrights” or anything like that. My point is they have no means of survival without a policy, and being the ancap I am, I only advocate the total lack of economic policy. The real question of course is why I advocate what I advocate, not simply what I advocate.

“While I have utmost respect and considerable exposure to the scientific method”

You were completely wrong in your description of a “fudge factor” and so I have no reason to believe this. Besides, scientists talk about the “scientific method” far less than anyone else does. I really hope you don’t think all scientists actually go by some five step procedure in everything they do. Physics is a bit more sophisticated than that (i.e. how do you use a lab procedure to figure out how to build a physics lab?).

“if that was all that was required in life, the only thing we should learn is mathematics”

Why in the world is that? That is ridiculous. You didn’t support it with anything.

Mises uses logical deduction from axioms in Human Action. He emphasizes that over and over all throughout the epistemology sections near the beginning. That is how he presented his diminishing marginal utility theorem. He certainly did not base that on observations.

“Empirical science, as Mises observed, has limitations.”

Mathematics is not an empirical science! How do you observe that every subset of the real number line bounded above has a least upper bound? Mathematics is not based on experience.

Beyond that, the whole point of Human Action and Austrian economics in general is that economics is a “pure science of human action”. That’s what praxeology is. Praxeology is *NOT* an empirical science. It is a logical deduction starting with incontestable a priori axioms. No experience necessary. More on that in “Theory and History”.

You are taking Mises way out of context there. His point in saying empirical science is limited is that it is off limits to any economic theories! To do economics you must do science in a fundamentally different way (methodological dualism).

“Continually cutting something in half only approaches zero, but never arrives there”

I understand the concept of limits. And this is an oversimplification. If you do it an infinite number of times you will get to zero, which explains how you can cut the distance between yourself and the wall across the room in half over and over and actually get there eventually.

“You are assuming, of course, that the shorter the better, yet you have no rational basis for saying how short is enough except you believe zero is right”

I literally said that. My point is that you have no rational basis for thinking it is greater than zero (my rational basis for thinking it is zero has been presented in other places).

“The result of zero is undesirable, for the many reasons I have previously stated. It violates the principles of private property and means of production”

This is simply wrong. If you’re not gonna explain why it’s right, I don’t have to explain why it is wrong, though Peter and I have many times.

“Infinite is wrong because it eventually causes all knowledge to be privatized, which is an anti-liberty policy”

How is total privatization anti-liberty? According to ancaps a free society is precisely one in which everything is owned privately (obviously restricted to that which can be conceivably owned). In fact, by speaking of “private knowledge” as the endpoint of IP you throw away your entire case for IP not being about owning ideas.

“As to the hard time that some people give me, I’ll leave it to others to observe what those people have in common”

They’re all Austrian economists well-familiar with the Austrian intellectual tradition. Welcome to the Mises Institute!

“I am here because of AET. My confidence in that is pretty solid”

Well, do you know what AET is really about? It really sounds like you don’t.

“What you and perhaps others seem to not understand is that it is possible to debate how those same principles of AET play out within the context of a particular form of economic activity, like IP”

I understand that such an analysis demonstrates only that IP interferes with production of creative work, resulting in less of it and redistributes those productive efforts to other places. I also know that it is beyond the scope of economics to advocate one of those as being better. It is also beyond the scope of economics to establish whether IP is rooted in actually existing property rights or involves spurious unjustified claims to property. And no, I don’t think the ethics of the problem is worthy of being ignored.

I have done substantial economic analyses, particularly where I describe how a functioning creative market would have the manufacturers of entertainment hardware paying creative people to continue creating new material in order to make their hardware valuable enough to sell for a profit. I have also done an economic analysis of IP, explaining, for example, that the mechanism by which music copyrights make it harder to be a successful musician is that people must pay larger amounts for albums and therefore buy less albums and listen to (and discover) less artists.

“That is the only reason I am interested in IP debates; as a vehicle for understanding the economics of law”

The economics of law, like any economics, cannot shed light at all on whether or not those laws are justified. If you simply don’t care that laws are justified then that is a serious problem. Questioning whether they are justified or not (or arguing to either effect) is one thing (a crucial thing. It would be disastrous to be mistaken on what is justified and not). Saying “who cares” or worse yet “that’s just an opinion” (ethical relativism) is different.

Ethical relativism is monstrous. Mussolini even realized as soon as you conceive of ethics as a “what do you think” situation, then all of the worst tyrants can validate their own feeling that they ought to enforce their tyranny with all their might, and if anyone says, “Doesn’t matter what you think, what you are doing is wrong” they are fundamentally mistaken. Worse yet, if they put a spell over society as all tyrants must, then do we really lose any capacity to call him a tyrant? Is someone only a tyrant when no one wants him to rule (how then, does he rule? He may have force on his side, but no state rules through force, they are not nearly powerful enough)? What if people grudgingly accept? What if they agree simply out of fear of disagreeing?

“But I am not a full-time scholar on the subject like some. Despite what opinions you may have formed about me, I have considerable humility about that fact.”

Wildberry, maybe you should stop and think of the kinds of things you have said to me. I mean, it’s pretty cartoonish to dismiss everything I say simply on the grounds that you think I am arrogant (so what? Arrogance does not imply that I’m wrong). Maybe I have put considerable thought (years) into these problems, and read plenty of literature on the subjects, and feel like I have something important to say (as soon as the words come out of my fingertips they become forever detached from me).

Maybe I’m just trying to explain, for example, why it does not matter that anything is a human device and use math examples as analogies to better illustrate my point because it is easy to grasp what I am saying in the context of math. Maybe I’m really putting a lot of effort into explaining why I think what I think, which is the best testament to humility you could ever get. People who explain their positions fully, all the way down to the epistemological basis, and present as being as bulletproof as they can, are not being arrogant by doing so.

No, what is arrogant is to simply state your position, never explain it or not explain it fully enough that it appears as incontestable, and expect that to be enough. That I have gone through the lengths I have to explain my position to you just shows how eager I am to be criticized (and also that I present it as the only solution even close to viable… that definitely makes it easier to criticize than if I was nihilist about everything). That’s why it is seriously obnoxious to be literally accused of the complete opposite, as though the only choice I have to come across as humble is to agree with what those calling me arrogant think I should agree with.

There is NOTHING WRONG with showing that B’s ideas or products are “based on” things he learned from A’s products or ideas. Society has gone mad to think there is something wrong with this.

You are right to put “based on” in quotes. Is your postion so tenuous that you have to dismiss the entire definition of the subject matter of copyrights and the fair use doctrine to make it all look horrible enough?

If what you say was true, there would be no value in intellectual works, since, according to you, people are legally prevented from making any productive use of them. (eye roll)

No offense, Dingleberry.

I can’t tell if you are addressing me here, but if you are, I’m touched that you care that I might be offended by your accusatoin that I support a concept of society that thinks “there is something WRONG with learning from others, from emulating, copying, and competing.” I might be, if that is what you were actually saying.

Because you seem to have calmed down a bit, I’ll give you some time.

The first amendment!? What in the world does this have to do with the first amendment?

Ahem. I’m resisting the temptation towards sarcasm. I hope you appreciate that.

The validity of the “ideas are free” argument derives from freedom of speech guarantees. If ideas were not free, then free speech would be curtailed, violating the First Amendment.

My definition of mercantilism is the collaboration of special interests (primarily commercial enterprises) and government to gain economic advantage through political means. In exchange, government gains means to stay in power. It is anti-free market and anti-liberty.

That’s what mercantilism is and has always been. Where in the world did you get that mercantilism has anything to do with owning what you produce?

You answered your own question below:

To reject it entirely and consistently as an attack on private property rights

”Between anarchy and domination by tyrants lie the open fields of liberty”

What is your basis for this? How does one have more freedom under a restrained state than under no state?

I thought this was rather poetic, didn’t you? The choice between anarchy and totalitarianism is a false dichotomy.

Who said ancap is the “final” solution to anything?

Good. We agree on this point.

Trust me Wildberry, you just don’t get ancap at all.

The last time I listened to someone who said “Trust me”, I bought a lemon. Live and learn.

Yes, it is not an ethical or natural rights issue. The reason is because ethics establishes any IP as unethical and not contained in any natural right. That you don’t seem at all to be bothered by that is concerning to say the least.

You just don’t seem to get that ethics, like property, is a human device. All ethical principles are debatable. Some people may hold that certain inalienable rights are self evident. That is merely a basis for cooperation among those who agree.

Beyond that, an outcome desired by whom? You? Anyone who speaks of “the” desired outcome is being a dictator.

Watch out, your youth is showing. People who wish to cooperate may speak of desired outcomes they hold in common without being dictators.

Mises was a utilitarian through his advocacy of free markets

Let’s start there. If we say that markets SHOULD be free, I suppose we have to work out what that means, and why that should be so, and what economic policies move us towards and not away from that objective. I believe Mises said somewhere (no time for research today) that the field of economics helps us understand if a given economic policy will actually produce what we intend. This was a major theme underlying his analysis of socialism as a set of economic policies.

If it didn’t matter that we distinguish between what is good and not so good, we should all be happy with communism, and economic calculation would be meaningless.

Economics is a value-free science</blockquote

Praxeology is a value free approach to economic study. Economic policy is a value statement. Economic theory is helpful in understanding if that policy will produce the desired outcomes.

YES!! Your approach to this is non-scientific, non-rigorous and based on an emotional litmus test. That you choose to be so unscientific in your approach is certainly not a proof that a scientific approach is impossible.

While I have utmost respect and considerable exposure to the scientific method, if that was all that was required in life, the only thing we should learn is mathematics. It seems you sort of lean that way. Empirical science, as Mises observed, has limitations.

the exact same analysis as presented by the study will still apply and they should be shortened even more, etc. until they are shortened all the way, to zero.

I thought you were somewhat of a mathematician? Continually cutting something in half only approaches zero, but never arrives there. You are assuming, of course, that the shorter the better, yet you have no rational basis for saying how short is enough except you believe zero is right. I don’t. To see the effects of a shortened term, we can look to zero for the effect. The result of zero is undesirable, for the many reasons I have previously stated. It violates the principles of private property and means of production. Infinite is wrong because it eventually causes all knowledge to be privatized, which is an anti-liberty policy. Somewhere in between is “right”, in my opinion.

Wildberry, people at the LvMI might be giving you such a hard time because you are launching an attack on the very thing the institute exists to promote, which is Austrian economics: economics as an a priori science of human action. You desperately need to read “Theory and History” by Mises.

I read every day. So much to learn, so little time. As to the hard time that some people give me, I’ll leave it to others to observe what those people have in common.

I am here because of AET. My confidence in that is pretty solid. What you and perhaps others seem to not understand is that it is possible to debate how those same principles of AET play out within the context of a particular form of economic activity, like IP. That is the only reason I am interested in IP debates; as a vehicle for understanding the economics of law in relation to AET.

But I am not a full-time scholar on the subject like some. Despite what opinions you may have formed about me, I have considerable humility about that fact.

Cheers.

And of course, I am leaving aside here the entire monstrous idea that there is something WRONG with learning from others, from emulating, copying, and competing. There is NOTHING WRONG with showing that B’s ideas or products are “based on” things he learned from A’s products or ideas. Society has gone mad to think there is something wrong with this. No offense, Dingleberry.

No you do. And I have another one. And Kinsella has another, and someone else has another. Whose is the one that gets to be the law?

The original author does not produce unauthorized copies. The “pirates” do that.

You can make distinctions, but they don’t have relevance for libertarian rights.

If the libertarian rights you refer to are private property rights and the right of a producer to own what he produces with his own means, then I beg to differ.

Without any way to distinguish between one act of creation and another, you are right, we would be lost. But we do. I don’t know how JNS proposes doing it, but it is reasonable to suspect there is more than one approach.

For myself, I am reasonably satisfied that existing IP laws have developed a pretty workable system of determing if a given work or invention is protectable under IP law. While not perfect, perhaps, it is far from hopeless.