Have you shown how or why this assertion is true?

Yes, I did, several times, and you cowardly ran away from the debate.

I was only pointing out that you were quoting yourself, not me.

So, you did not say this:

A producer of an intellectual work can never compete on price with somone who produces with external means.

Or this:

Despite his protestations to the contrary, this is exactly the purpose for which property rights, a human device, are employed; to prevent producers from producing, for the most part, for external economies.

Or this:

If it was zero [duration of patents/copyrights, ed. Surda], then producers would ALWAYS be producing for an external economy.

Or this:

You are so right about Mises. I have quoted this very passage a number of times, and have fanned the flames by asserting that to insist that authors should be willing to be “producers of external economies” is equivalent to advocating for slavery. Those with a choice will simply not do it.

(emphasis added)

Lies and more lies, Wildberry. IP does not eliminate external economies, nor does the absence of IP prevent the authors from producing internal economies. Your whole thread of argumentation is gone. Or, to be more precise, it never existed in the first place. You have been explained at the very beginning that your argument is wrong, and yet you continue month after month repeating that.

But behold! Suddenly you do not claim that this is relevant! Magically, the reason for IP is not to benefit authors! Rather, it is to promote the dissemination of “intellectual works”! Talk about hypocrisy. Lies and lies. Unbelievable.

It is nearly a verbatim quote from Mises, as you may recall.

You present it in a deceptive way, since your interpretation contradicts the pages Mises wrote directly preceding the quote you are providing. You’re a fraud.

Please accept this correction.

What correction? You just tried to wiggle out of a lie.

IP is not required to produce ANY [AND ALL] goods, …

Yet, you claimed as quoted above, that without IP, producers would choose not to produce some goods. Now you claim that the goods would be produced nevertheless.

Bullshit and more bullshit. Stop wasting other people’s time you moron.

The very fact that they can legally occur independently of each other

Have you shown how or why this assertion is true? I don’t recall an argument in support of it. I am saying to you that an economic interest can exist if and only if the property from which it is derived is owned. How is that false?

You can’t wiggle out of this that easily. If your argument was meaningful in any way, it would mean that IP is necessary for innovators to avoid producing for external economies (which is false), or it would mean that people other than innovators are not producing for external economies (which is also false). Unless you subscribe to one of those possible interpretations, your argument is meaningless.

I was only pointing out that you were quoting yourself, not me. It seems that if you want to argue with something I said, you have to start from what I said, not what you said in response. Like this:

Unless you subscribe to one of those possible interpretations, your argument is meaningless.

This is a false dichotomy. The statement is that IF anyone can freely reproduce the works of authors (say) without compensation, THEN the author is producing for an external economy. Therefore, without IP, since it prohibits free reproduction, authors need not produce for external economies.

It is nearly a verbatim quote from Mises, as you may recall.

It is not “nearly a verbatim quote from Mises”. Your alterations make it more biased and more wrong.

The Externlrl Economies of Intellectual Creation

The extreme case of external economies is shown in the “production” of
the intellectua1 groundwork of every kind of processing and constructing.
The characteristic mark of recipes, i.e., the mental devices directing the
technological procedures, is the inexhaustibility of the services they render.
These services are consequently not scarce, and there is no need to economize
their employment. Those considerations that resulted in the establishment
of the institution of private ownership of economic goods did not
refer to them. They remained outside the sphere of private property not
because they are immaterial, intangible, and- impalpable, but because their
serviceableness cannot be exhausted.

People began to realize only later that this state of affairs has its drawbacks
too. It places the producers of such recipes–cspeciaIly the inventors
of technological procedures and authors and composers-in a peculiar
position. They are burdened with the costs of production, while the services
of the product they have created can be gratuitously enjoyed by
everybody. What they produce is for them either entirely or almost entirely
external economies.

Human Action, Scholars Edition; page 657

So, if IP is not required to produce any goods, what is it required for?

Please accept this correction.

IP is not required to produce ANY [AND ALL] goods, or IP would be responsible for 100% of the GDP.

You dish up ignorance in such volume, it’s impossible to keep up.

On the contrary, the ignorant one is you, as documented repeatedly.

If you understood what a servitude was and how it operates, you wouldn’t make such an ignorant and nonsensical statement as this.

You are the one who evidently does not understand servitudes.

Sheep do not touch and concern the land.

You are mixing unrelated things. Touch and concern is a requirement rather than the target of the restriction. It does not mean that the servitude jumps to the object that is “touching and concerning”.

When you apply this analogy to copying, it would mean that that if the copy “touches and concerns” the original, then the subsequent owners of the original are prevented from copying. Which, again, has nothing to do with IP, because it applies the copying restrictions to people who are not subsequent owners of the original. You have it all mixed up.

You fail to state your objection.

On the contrary, I stated it repeatedly. The objection is that you are using causality as a sufficient condition for property right claim. Whenever I ask you about this explicitly though, you start backing away. That’s pathetic.

That was your term, which is why I put it in quotes.

I used it since you have failed to provide a term from your framework. Just a while ago, you ran away from a debate when it turned out that you are using circular argument to define what is wrong with copying. So I used the word trespass in order to clarify a different argument you were making, but it looks like you’re pushing it back to the circularity.

Trespass does not apply to chattel, but conversion does.

You are introducing new terms to avoid confronting that we are talking about property rights violations. Since you have to date not explained how copying violates someone’s property rights or what it even means, and your attempts to “prove” that this can be concluded failed, you should concentrate on amending that.

You appear to be thinking of “transformation”, but conversion means appropriating the benefit of possession to yourself to the detriment of the rightful owner.

Please read writings by Kinsella and Hoppe. I am talking about the changing physical integrity of the property (which can in colloqual terms be approximated as displacement (theft) and changing of composition/shape (damage)). For simplicity let’s assume that you agree that such actions, conducted against the wishes of the owner, are violations of property rights. If you do not agree just say and we can continue in a different fork.

Since, however, such a definition of property rights covers all possible actions whatsoever, introducing other rules (e.g. right to work, job, or copying) contradicts them. I said this to you over half a year ago, yet you failed to confront it.

If you possess my watch legally, but do not own it, yet sell it and keep the money, you are guilty of conversion of my property. Get it?

Since it is not necessary to possess an original to create a copy, your pathetic attempts at avoiding confronting your errors are pointless.

It’s like saying that if I have a servitude to cross a piece of land, and the land owner breeds some sheep on the land, then you also gain servitude on land of the subsequent owners of the sheep. That’s just bullshit.

If you understood what a servitude was and how it operates, you wouldn’t make such an ignorant and nonsensical statement as this. Sheep do not touch and concern the land. They have no relevance to the title or limitations burdening the land.

“The economic rights to a tangible resource are simply a consequence of owning that resource.”

Now we’re back to the question of causality. Confront it or shut up.

You fail to state your objection. Is there something in this statement of mine that you refute?

The way Austrians use “trespass” is that refers to an alteration of your property (e.g. changing its shape or location). Copying does not, per se, do either. You use the word “trespass” to denote a causal relationship, but refuse to explicitly confirm or reject this.

That was your term, which is why I put it in quotes. Trespass does not apply to chattel, but conversion does. You appear to be thinking of “transformation”, but conversion means appropriating the benefit of possession to yourself to the detriment of the rightful owner.

If you possess my watch legally, but do not own it, yet sell it and keep the money, you are guilty of conversion of my property. Get it?

Unless, of course, they are necessary and sufficient conditions, which is essentially what I am saying.

The very fact that they can legally occur independently of each other disproves your claim that they are sufficient conditions. You’re assuming something which is clearly false.

Your response to this, which you quoted initially is non-responsive to this assertion above, which I stand by.

You can’t wiggle out of this that easily. If your argument was meaningful in any way, it would mean that IP is necessary for innovators to avoid producing for external economies (which is false), or it would mean that people other than innovators are not producing for external economies (which is also false). Unless you subscribe to one of those possible interpretations, your argument is meaningless.

It is nearly a verbatim quote from Mises, as you may recall.

It is not “nearly a verbatim quote from Mises”. Your alterations make it more biased and more wrong.

As I said, I didn’t make that claim, and you call me a fraud?

So, you do not claim that IP is necessary for innovators to avoid producing for external economies, and you do not claim that people other than innovators are not producing for external economies? Well then, what is it for?

There is no right, unless of course the owner creates a limitation as a condition of transfer, the eh, POINT of this discussion.

The copy, however, can take place without a transfer (of the original, presumably), which is the point of your error.

You mean since you assume your conclusion, it MUST be true?

I’m merely pointing out that you are assuming the conclusion, although you pretend that you are proving it. To day, you have not defined copying either.

Which are?

I already explained it sever times: you use causality to prove a right was violated.

If technology makes it easier to steal a car, suddenly thieves have new rights to steal cars?

So, you do need to assume that copying is wrong in the first place to conclude that there is something wrong? You’re making a circular argument.

unsupported assertion

Since you have to day not explained what copying is, why should I assume it is in any way relevant?

It is your assertion, not mine.

However, I am not the one making circular arguments. My expression of assertion proved that your argument is circular: you are unable to provide a theory that makes it possible to conclude that copying is a property rights violation, you need to assume it.

Another unsupported assertion that ignores the entire subject of discussion; Brilliant.

So, when you make the unsupported assertion that copying violates rights, fail to define what it means, and neglect to address (gasp!) the original problem of such a right contradicting rights in physical goods, then all is fine, but when I make the opposing assumption, then it’s a no-no?

Copying occurs everytime you use one of your senses. If it was illegal, then you would not be permitted to do anything.

IP is not required to produce ANY goods, or IP would be responsible for 100% of the GDP.

So, if IP is not required to produce any goods, what is it required for?

So for you to argue that you earn your living without relying on IP is completely irrelevant. That is what I said.
On the contrary, it proves that IP is not necessary and your whole argument falls apart.

That’s interesting; you mean you DO rely on Statist labor laws to earn your living?

What are you talking about? I’m disproving that a specific right is necessary to earn money. I’m not claiming that purpose of rights is to earn money.

I spend so many hours a day at my desk doing work for my employer, and I get paid.

And your employer adds some markup and sells the resulting goods/services. Although there is a causal relationship between the final good and your labour, you do not have a right for the markup, because it does not follow from the contract with your employer. Similarly, if you started working without agreeing on a payment and your “employer” would deny you payment, you would not have a right to the payment either. IP is based on the assumption, just like the labour theory of value, that because you exert labour, other people that benefit from it are required to pay you. But as you clearly see from the example above, this is only the case if you covered the extent of the labour with a contract. Same with IP: if you do not have a contract with them, they are not required to pay you.

Am I really a Marxist for doing so?

Actually, you quite possibly are. Not because you’re an employee, but because you use the labour theory of value in your arguments.

You are getting tiresome. You are not even running in circles, you are completly and utterly lost.

You’re the one lost, obviously. I’m just having a hard time keeping track of you while not getting lost myself.

Why are you introducing new vague words into an argument? The inability to coherently determine whether two descriptions refer to the same phenomenon or not was one of your first errors here, you went so far as denying the very elements of logic. If two phenomena can occur independently of each other, they are two distinct phenomena. If it is legal for them to occur independently of each other, than you cannot derive the legal status of one of them by analysing the other. Putting them together, or calling them “one unit” in order to “prove” your point is erroneous.

Unless, of course, they are necessary and sufficient conditions, which is essentially what I am saying. Why, you fail to state, is “ownership of property” and “economic rights to that property” separable?

Where did I say that? Are those my quotes?

Memory loss I see. How about this:
http://blog.mises.org/17345/stallman-an-internet-connectivity-tax-to-compensate-artists-and-authors/comment-page-1/#comment-790725

Without securing property rights in intellectual works, the producers would be producing for external economies, because they will have lost control of their private means of production.

Your response to this, which you quoted initially is non-responsive to this assertion above, which I stand by. It is nearly a verbatim quote from Mises, as you may recall. If you disagree with his assertion, I think you have a bit of ‘splaining to do.

Especially unfamiliar is that I’m “Trying to present the problems authors and inventors face as economically unique”, as you say.

See above, you fraud.

As I said, I didn’t make that claim, and you call me a fraud?

There is no right to “not having your property copied”. Instead, IP proponents fabricate such bullshit to support their claims.

This is not persuasive. There is no right, unless of course the owner creates a limitation as a condition of transfer, the eh, POINT of this discussion.

Since copying is not, per se, a violation of property rights, that’s just a fabrication.

You mean since you assume your conclusion, it MUST be true?

However, you ignore the differences, which point to gaps or outright errors in your arguments.

Which are?

Now you are clearly contradicting yourself. Even assuming that copying would be a violation of property rights, certainly the ability to copy is influenced by the technological progress. If copying of some goods is tedious, expensive and of little economic effect, noone is making the claim that it violates their rights. But as it becomes more feasible and becomes competitive, suddenly people magically start claiming that the illegality of copying also applies to the field they are conducting business with. If copying as such was illegal, then almost no activity whatsoever would be legal.

What a crock. If technology makes it easier to steal a car, suddenly thieves have new rights to steal cars? Who can take you seriously?

Copying, as such, is not a violation of private property.[ unsupported assertion] What the technological progress is causing problems with is not private property but business models that are becoming obsolete.

Perhaps, but I am not discussing business models, like selling your labor instead of creating IP. Stick with the subject.

But in that case you cannot use this line of arguing to support your position. The claim that rights are technology-indifferent is must be valid regardless of whether copying is legal or not.

It is your assertion, not mine.

Copying is not, per se, a right violation. You can try to use your wit, property rights and economic position to prevent copying, if you’d like. But you have no claim against third parties who did not violate any of contracts they entered in, nor trespass or steal. Servitudes (if applied the way you present it) would only cover a tiny proportion of copying and still leave vast legal opportunities for copying.

Another unsupported assertion that ignores the entire subject of discussion; Brilliant.

You said (paraphrased form above) that IP is necessary for producers of some types of goods to be motivated to produce. I said it is false. Suddenly you play confused. The point is your argument is false. IP is not necessary to profitably produce any type of good. The only argument you can make is a utilitarian, that somehow it causes better or more goods to be produced. I don’t think you are making that argument, however I disproved that however too, at debates with others.

Are you kidding? IP is not required to produce ANY goods, or IP would be responsible for 100% of the GDP. So for you to argue that you earn your living without relying on IP is completely irrelevant. That is what I said.

No, but I’m not arguing that “labour laws” exist in order for me to earn money and otherwise I would be broke.

That’s interesting; you mean you DO rely on Statist labor laws to earn your living?

You cannot sell labour. That’s the labour theory of value. Stop the Marxian nonsense, Stephan refuted that many times over. But assuming it would actually happen that you exerted some labour and this caused someone else receiving money rather than you, and this would be legal, then I would tell you that you have a stupid business plan.

Are you tired, or on drugs? I spend so many hours a day at my desk doing work for my employer, and I get paid. Am I really a Marxist for doing so?

You are getting tiresome. You are not even running in circles, you are completly and utterly lost.

IP is, and always has been, a creation of the State. No State, no IP. Therefore, IP is illegitimate. Let me know if I need to break that down for you.

But you failed to explain why you think they are separate “units”.

Why are you introducing new vague words into an argument? The inability to coherently determine whether two descriptions refer to the same phenomenon or not was one of your first errors here, you went so far as denying the very elements of logic. If two phenomena can occur independently of each other, they are two distinct phenomena. If it is legal for them to occur independently of each other, than you cannot derive the legal status of one of them by analysing the other. Putting them together, or calling them “one unit” in order to “prove” your point is erroneous.

Where did I say that? Are those my quotes?

Memory loss I see. How about this:

http://blog.mises.org/17345/stallman-an-internet-connectivity-tax-to-compensate-artists-and-authors/comment-page-1/#comment-790725

Without securing property rights in intellectual works, the producers would be producing for external economies, because they will have lost control of their private means of production.

You refuse to counter the errors in this claim.

Especially unfamiliar is that I’m “Trying to present the problems authors and inventors face as economically unique”, as you say.

See above, you fraud.

As for below, although you were originally attempting to “prove” that IP is somehow equivalent with servitudes, in the end you ended up making circular arguments by having to assume that copying is a violation of rights even when it’s not trespassory, contract-violating or servitude-violating. So your whole attempt is erroneous.

Land cannot be copied, chattel can be but only if you re-create the means of production, but with IP, the means of re-production are attached to the good itself.

Whether land can or cannot be copied is irrelevant. The right to copy is not a derived from the property rights in the object being photographed. There is no right to “not having your property copied”. Instead, IP proponents fabricate such bullshit to support their claims.

This creates the “unique” property problem.

Since copying is not, per se, a violation of property rights, that’s just a fabrication.

In fact, the entire focus of this discussion has been the SIMILARITIES, between servitudes in land, and the operation of IP through copyrights.

However, you ignore the differences, which point to gaps or outright errors in your arguments.

I am saying the opposite, that technological development does NOT rearrange property rights.

Now you are clearly contradicting yourself. Even assuming that copying would be a violation of property rights, certainly the ability to copy is influenced by the technological progress. If copying of some goods is tedious, expensive and of little economic effect, noone is making the claim that it violates their rights. But as it becomes more feasible and becomes competitive, suddenly people magically start claiming that the illegality of copying also applies to the field they are conducting business with. If copying as such was illegal, then almost no activity whatsoever would be legal.

The fact that books are easily and cheaply reproducible with current technology is creating a problem of enforcing the principle of private property.

Copying, as such, is not a violation of private property. What the technological progress is causing problems with is not private property but business models that are becoming obsolete.

I have repeatedly said that the ease with which something can be reproduced is not relevant to determining the property rights of ownership.

But in that case you cannot use this line of arguing to support your position. The claim that rights are technology-indifferent is must be valid regardless of whether copying is legal or not.

Yet opponents argue the opposite; because the copies cannot be “prevented” then that shows that IP is wrong.

I don’t know anyone who says this. Copying is not, per se, a right violation. You can try to use your wit, property rights and economic position to prevent copying, if you’d like. But you have no claim against third parties who did not violate any of contracts they entered in, nor trespass or steal. Servitudes (if applied the way you present it) would only cover a tiny proportion of copying and still leave vast legal opportunities for copying.

Well, I earn my living without IP too, but I don’t have any idea why you think selling your labor is an argument against IP.

You said (paraphrased form above) that IP is necessary for producers of some types of goods to be motivated to produce. I said it is false. Suddenly you play confused. The point is your argument is false. IP is not necessary to profitably produce any type of good. The only argument you can make is a utilitarian, that somehow it causes better or more goods to be produced. I don’t think you are making that argument, however I disproved that however too, at debates with others.

IP does not establish labor laws.

No, but I’m not arguing that “labour laws” exist in order for me to earn money and otherwise I would be broke.

But if you did sell your labor and someone else got your paycheck, what would that make you?

You cannot sell labour. That’s the labour theory of value. Stop the Marxian nonsense, Stephan refuted that many times over. But assuming it would actually happen that you exerted some labour and this caused someone else receiving money rather than you, and this would be legal, then I would tell you that you have a stupid business plan.

Slaves don’t remain slaves voluntarily.

And stupid businessmen run out of business.

who knows what this means, and why you are saying it?

See above Wildberry. IP is not necessary to earn money for the production of anything, including what you call “intellectual works”, but your whole argument is based on exactly that assumption.

What argument is there in the a priori fact that private ownership of a thing gives you exclusive economic rights to its use?

You are using the word “economic rights” to denote causality, again.

This is not my argument.

So you are not claiming that the copies are an “economic interest” of the creator of the original?

You’re moving in circles.

There is no nice way of describing your behaviour, so let me tell you this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8uefBUOfgA

Peter! You should be ashamed!

Don’t know that video clip violates the important economic interests of these movies?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/search/?search=penguins&sitesearch=rt
It makes a mockery of 3D animated penguin flicks everywhere!

If only the magical producers of these important economic interests were allowed to patent their intellect then this sort of economic interest theft can be stopped!

I explained it e.g. here: http://blog.mises.org/17345/stallman-an-internet-connectivity-tax-to-compensate-artists-and-authors/comment-page-1/#comment-790745

You made this assertion there:

The fact that neither of them is logically nor legally a necessary requirement for the other one means that they are two distinct phenomena and treating them as a single unit is a flawed methodology.

But you failed to explain why you think they are separate “units”. See my response to Kinsella, and let me know what you think is an error.

You erroneously present the decisions of authors and inventors as “all or nothing”, and something that other kinds of producers never have to face. The fact is, both groups produce some internal benefits and some external ones. Trying to present the problems authors and inventors face as economically unique is at best an oversight and at worst outright lie.

Where did I say that? Are those my quotes? It doesn’t look familiar. Especially unfamiliar is that I’m “Trying to present the problems authors and inventors face as economically unique”, as you say. I am saying the exact opposite:

There is nothing unique about the problems between real property rights (land) and IP, save one. Land cannot be copied, chattel can be but only if you re-create the means of production, but with IP, the means of re-production are attached to the good itself. This creates the “unique” property problem. However, this does not make the operation of property rights unique between them.

In fact, the entire focus of this discussion has been the SIMILARITIES, between servitudes in land, and the operation of IP through copyrights.

That books are more easily copy-able than cars is not some inherent property of the books. It is a just curious empirical datum. As our technology progresses, more and more objects will be copiable. Why should this be relevant from point of view of property rights in any way? Does the status of technological development rearrange property rights?

I am saying the opposite, that technological development does NOT rearrange property rights. Are you paying attention? The fact that books are easily and cheaply reproducible with current technology is creating a problem of enforcing the principle of private property. I have repeatedly said that the ease with which something can be reproduced is not relevant to determining the property rights of ownership. Yet opponents argue the opposite; because the copies cannot be “prevented” then that shows that IP is wrong. I disagree, but we are going far afield.

Also here: http://blog.mises.org/17442/how-government-values-life-and-ip/#comment-790050 and here: http://blog.mises.org/16099/ideas-free-and-unfree-a-book-commentary/#comment-768303 :

You mean where you said this:

Shove your lies up your ass Wildberry, noone is interested in them anymore.

Or this:

This is both theoretically and empirically false. Among other things I have been earning money as a programmer my whole career and cannot recall a situation where the income required IP, even in the long years before I became anti-IP.,

Well, I earn my living without IP too, but I don’t have any idea why you think selling your labor is an argument against IP. IP does not establish labor laws. But if you did sell your labor and someone else got your paycheck, what would that make you? Slaves don’t remain slaves voluntarily. You disagree with this? Again, way, way wide of the mark. Can you stick to one line of argument and make your point?

Without IP, the proportion of “external markets” of your output is not 100%, and with IP it is not 0%.

This is so elementary, I’m getting bored. See above; who knows what this means, and why you are saying it? Yes, IP has nothing to do with activity in the market that doesn’t involve IP. I agree.

The question is: what do you mean by economic interests? You do not define it, but make assertions that it exists, and then base your whole argument on it.

I am unaware there is an argument here. See my response to you and Kinsella, linked above. What argument is there in the a priori fact that private ownership of a thing gives you exclusive economic rights to its use? Is that controversial?

You are using vague words again. The way you use “economic interest” in other claims is by equating it to causality, i.e. your property having an effect on others.

This is just another one of your empty assertions. Show me. I have said how I use it in this context. If you want to refer to another context, first show me, but second why change contexts? Can you stick with one argument?

No, you did not. All your claims come back to the argument from causality: that because author created an original, he has a right in copies other people manufactured. But when I ask you explicitly, you start avoiding. The whole argument is a fraud. No amount of smoke and mirrors can hide it.

This is not my argument. If you can show me where I have made such a ridiculous statement, I will correct it for you. If you are making an argument here, it is too subtle for me. I can’t see it.

It’s d, another option: Your argument is vague, and you continuously, for months, refuse to address it. You use causality to “prove” that copying violates rights, but when confronted about it, you avoid it. You’re a coward and a fraud.

And here we are at the end, and as far as I can tell, you haven’t said anything and have simply engaged in a bunch of unsupported assertions and childish name-calling. Is there any wonder why I can’t take you seriously? You contribute little.

you utterly failed to address anything what I said. You did not address the problem of using causality to justify your position, but only as long as your statements can remain vague. You also did not address the more specific problem of servitudes jumping to copies (hint: they do not, and that screws up your whole argument). Furthermore, you did not address the problem that you ascribe to inventions and artistic creations unique economic features that they evidently do not have.

You misrepresent my words, then ask for a clarification, and when I provide one, you ignore it.

There is no nice way of describing your behaviour, so let me tell you this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8uefBUOfgA

I am simply responding to Peter’s assertion that a servitude has nothing to do with property ownership, etc.

Let me untwist the words. Servitude does have to do with “property ownership”, but not in the way you present it. Furthermore, one cannot legally become obligated by being lied to.

Now, the core of your fallacy is actually purely logical and does not have anything to do with the specifics of servitudes or property.

From the fact that a good (original) is covered by servitude, you somehow derive that other goods (copies) are also covered with servitude. I already pointed this out this elementary error several times, which you ignored. It’s like saying that if I have a servitude to cross a piece of land, and the land owner breeds some sheep on the land, then you also gain servitude on land of the subsequent owners of the sheep. That’s just bullshit. From a causal relationship you fraudulently “derive” that there is also a legal one. Merely because you have a servitude on the land, it does not follow that the servitude jumps to the sheep because they ate grass that grew on the land, and from the sheep it jumps to other pieces of land because someone purchased the sheep. Or even better, if someone photographed the sheep on the land, the servitude would jump to the land the photographer owns. It’s a complete fraud. Your attempts at justifying your illogic are pathetic.

The economic rights to a tangible resource are simply a consequence of owning that resource.

Now we’re back to the question of causality. Confront it or shut up.

You have a right to exclude others from “trespass”, or the more proper term for movable goods, from conversion of your privately owned resources in those uses.

The way Austrians use “trespass” is that refers to an alteration of your property (e.g. changing its shape or location). Copying does not, per se, do either. You use the word “trespass” to denote a causal relationship, but refuse to explicitly confirm or reject this.

You’re a fraud, Fraudberry.

See my response here:

http://blog.mises.org/17398/intellectual-property-rights-as-negative-servitudes/comment-page-1/#comment-791226

Wildberry: “Is it possible to own property and not own the economic interests to it?”

I am not even sure what this means. It is incoherent. What is an interest? how can you own it? To own is to have the legal right to exclude others from using a scarce resource. See http://www.stephankinsella.com/2011/06/hoppe-on-property-rights-in-physical-integrity-vs-value

Well, thanks for asking. I do NOT mean that the value we create is the property interest.

I am simply responding to Peter’s assertion that a servitude has nothing to do with property ownership, etc. I’m sure you can explain it to him.

The economic rights to a tangible resource are simply a consequence of owning that resource. Exclusive use extends to uses within the meaning of catallactics. You have a right to exclude others from “trespass”, or the more proper term for movable goods, from conversion of your privately owned resources in those uses. Those uses describe your economic rights to your private property.

You explained what, where? This is an Easter egg hunt now?

I explained it e.g. here: http://blog.mises.org/17345/stallman-an-internet-connectivity-tax-to-compensate-artists-and-authors/comment-page-1/#comment-790745

You erroneously present the decisions of authors and inventors as “all or nothing”, and something that other kinds of producers never have to face. The fact is, both groups produce some internal benefits and some external ones. Trying to present the problems authors and inventors face as economically unique is at best an oversight and at worst outright lie.

Also

That books are more easily copy-able than cars is not some inherent property of the books. It is a just curious empirical datum. As our technology progresses, more and more objects will be copiable. Why should this be relevant from point of view of property rights in any way? Does the status of technological development rearrange property rights?

Also here: http://blog.mises.org/17442/how-government-values-life-and-ip/#comment-790050 and here: http://blog.mises.org/16099/ideas-free-and-unfree-a-book-commentary/#comment-768303 :

Without IP, the proportion of “external markets” of your output is not 100%, and with IP it is not 0%.

You’re a fraud, Wildberry.

This is mrely an assertion. Why not and what do you mean?

The question is: what do you mean by economic interests? You do not define it, but make assertions that it exists, and then base your whole argument on it.

You can own property, and I said that the “economic interest” is just another away of describing “exclusive rights of ownership” of private property. You can own private property, so what is your objection?

You are using vague words again. The way you use “economic interest” in other claims is by equating it to causality, i.e. your property having an effect on others.

Vagueness can be remidied, but I think I clarified.

No, you did not. All your claims come back to the argument from causality: that because author created an original, he has a right in copies other people manufactured. But when I ask you explicitly, you start avoiding. The whole argument is a fraud. No amount of smoke and mirrors can hide it.

So your answer is a) you deny the possibility or b) you don’t understand it or c) both or d) another option.

It’s d, another option: Your argument is vague, and you continuously, for months, refuse to address it. You use causality to “prove” that copying violates rights, but when confronted about it, you avoid it. You’re a coward and a fraud.

I am not even sure what this means. It is incoherent. What is an interest? how can you own it? To own is to have the legal right to exclude others from using a scarce resource. See http://www.stephankinsella.com/2011/06/hoppe-on-property-rights-in-physical-integrity-vs-value/

The problem is that you’re a fraud. I already explained and reformulated it several times. Reread what I wrote, I’m not going to repeat myself again.

You explained what, where? This is an Easter egg hunt now?

you cannot own “economic interests”.

This is mrely an assertion. Why not and what do you mean?

You can own property, and I said that the “economic interest” is just another away of describing “exclusive rights of ownership” of private property. You can own private property, so what is your objection?

This entire discussion has been about the alienability of bundled property rights, which I dare say you either deny as a possibility, or don’t understand, or both.

The debate is about clarity versus vagueness. You represent the latter.

Vagueness can be remidied, but I think I clarified. So your answer is a) you deny the possibility or b) you don’t understand it or c) both or d) another option.

I know you are not one to let a question go unanswered, so which door do you pick?