1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/17442/how-government-values-life-and-ip/

How Government Values Life… and IP

June 27, 2011 by

Whereas Sweden has long been known for its wonderful socialism, it is also known for being a “pirate nest” in terms of lack of respect for “intellectual property.” The torrent based file sharing site The Pirate Bay was founded and is hosted in Sweden, as are the servers for whistle-blower web site Wikileaks; the country has a Pirate Party represented in the European Parliament; and people are generally unsympathetic towards copyrights and intellectual privilege. All of this has of course stirred great hatred from the US federal/corporate government as well as privileged corporations’ feudal interest safe-keepers such as IFPI and MPAA, all of which have put great pressure on the Swedish government to enact anti-pirating laws, crack down on internet-based “crime,” persecute and prosecute enemies of the state, and so on.

Yet Swedes do not seem to fall for it – despite their falling for socialist promises for over a century. Instead, people get quite upset with this madness. A recently and very widely copied Facebook status update summarizes recent high-profile cases in Swedish courts:

Indemnification for the murder of 10-year-old Engla Juncosa Höglund: $11,500.

Indemnification for the rape of 14-year-old girl: barely $7,700.

Indemnification for the Pirate Bay: $7,000,000!!!!!

There is probably more to the story than these amounts show, but the court-ruled compensations of the victims in these cases are simply ridiculous – how’s $7,000,000 for “illegal copying” compared to $7,000 for child rape? But it shows clearly how government values the lives and welfare of children (“its” children) as compared to how it values corporate privilege. No wonder people are upset with status quo.

{ 59 comments }

benevolent June 27, 2011 at 11:06 am

An interesting site for the effect of new converging technologies on economy in Europe and the world.
convergingtechnology.eu
Please comment!

Nielsio June 27, 2011 at 11:14 am

A possible explanation for the difference in ‘compensation’, is that copying is not a crime, which is why everyone engages in it. So to have any effect on people doing this non-crime they create exorbitant penalties.

It also creates much more of a show when they prosecute someone on it, which in turn creates the impression among people –who believe that the law defines right and wrong (instead of the other way around)– that it’s a really bad thing to do (to copy).

Wildberry June 27, 2011 at 11:21 am

It is not surprising that a socialist country would not secure private property rights. What’s the mystery?

El Tonno June 27, 2011 at 11:51 am

You seem pretty confused with that adjective.

Wildberry June 27, 2011 at 1:08 pm

El Tonno,

Excuse me? Please enlighten me.

sweatervest June 27, 2011 at 12:04 pm

Socialists countries don’t have slaves either, so obviously slavery is private property. More wonderful insight from Wildberry.

RTB June 27, 2011 at 8:54 pm

Socialist countries do have slaves – they’re called…the entire population.

Windows Hater June 28, 2011 at 5:24 pm

The universe has slaves, it’s called life, the entire fauna.

We’re all slaves to reality, the laws of physics, our internal pulses and instincts. Even in a capitalist country, it is still slavery.

coturnix19 June 29, 2011 at 4:51 pm

Yes! There can be privately-owned slaves (like in antebellum america) and government-owned slaves, like serfdom in 19th century russia, although there government-owned slaves were in lent to landlords and in many ways were treated as is they were private property. Moving back into history, the difference gets even more distinct. Countries like rome had private property, while much more ancient like egypt appear to have had only government-owned slaves (which usually consisted of entire population). I see no reason why slavery may not return in the future.

As you see, slave ownership is compatible with capitalism, and can be characteristic of country’s property attribution.

sweatervest July 1, 2011 at 5:29 pm

“slave ownership is compatible with capitalism”

Well that’s just plain wrong. People own their own bodies and slavery is necessarily a violation of that ownership.

“and can be characteristic of country’s property attribution.”

No it is characteristic of a country’s violation of property rights.

“I see no reason why slavery may not return in the future.”

It never went anywhere. It’s just now imposed on the weakest and most helpless part of the population, children, and it is done “for their own good”.

coturnix19 June 29, 2011 at 4:39 pm

May be it is time to divide libertarians into two groups defined on their attitude towards property rights.
The first group includes libertarians that believe in intellectual property.
The second one includes those who only considers as valid those property rights that do not need a government enforcement (at least in principle) to exist.
Can’t come up with the names…. any suggestions?

/this was trolling

David Bratton June 27, 2011 at 11:32 am

The Pirate Bay failed to mount any sort of credible defense at their trial. All that fine talk of right-to-do this and it-is-inevitable that was completely missing on court day. The entire defense strategy was one of “you can’t prove it was us”. It failed. The trial was more than a disappointment. It was a complete farce and I think the antics of Pirate Bay boys over the years have set the cause of freedom back. They energize the opposition without anything to show for it in return. The laws in Sweden are not getting more lenient. They are becoming stricter now.

Tere - Eliminar estrias June 27, 2011 at 12:54 pm

The pirate sites should be penalized more severely infringe on the intellectual creativity, not just profit from a legitimate site. The author uses money, time and effort into creating their work. It’s not fair, it should be tougher laws.

Tim June 27, 2011 at 12:58 pm

Absurd. The “fair” price for a good is whatever a competitive market prices it at. Intellectual property laws prohibit the existence of competitive markets, giving the author a monopoly and the subsequent ability to derive economic rents. Economic rents are always unfair and it is always wrong for government to grant them.

Donald Rowe June 28, 2011 at 8:47 pm

Property laws prohibit the existence of competitive markets, giving the author owner a monopoly and the subsequent ability to derive economic rents. Economic rents are always unfair and it is always wrong for government to grant them.

Down with property! Up with people!

Donald Rowe June 28, 2011 at 8:55 pm

HTML tags apparently don’t work. Please consider the above word “author” to be struck out and replaced by “owner.”

coturnix19 June 29, 2011 at 5:03 pm

That’s indeed true regarding patents, but mostly false in the case of copyrights.
If James gets patent on heat engine, you can’t invent alternative. But if Joane writes a book about a wizard boy, nothing prevents you from writing your own.

Thats why patents are unconditionally wrong, while copyrights are ‘tolerable’ to some extent.

Wildberry June 27, 2011 at 1:13 pm

Tim,

Is the price “fair” if the competition is not?

A producer of an intellectual work can never compete on price with somone who produces with external means. A copier does not own the means of production for making a copy, i.e. the original work. Under what private property theory do you own the products of production from the means of production owned by others?

Daniel June 27, 2011 at 2:36 pm

Under what private property theory do you own the products of production from the means of production owned by others?

JFF June 27, 2011 at 3:25 pm

“A copier does not own the means of production for making a copy, i.e. the original work.”

Sure he does; you need the original in order to make a copy, correct?

Still, wouldn’t the means of production for a copy be the printing press, the copy machine, the tape/video recorder, the CD/DVD burner/duplicator, the computer, etc., etc.?

Wildberry June 27, 2011 at 4:17 pm

JFF

No, the means of production is the original work. When it is originally authored, it is original (only one in existence) and fixed on, say paper. That object is unique. all subsequent copies are dependend on the means made avaiable by the original. No copy can exist without having been derived from an original.

Therfore, unlike land, which cannot be copied, or chattel, which can be copied only if the copier recreates the means, intellectual works are not detached from their means of production.

So if you want to follow a principle of property rights, you must derive them from the original act of appropriation; ie original authorship.

pravin June 28, 2011 at 3:31 am

then why is the ownership limited to a few years?why not in perpetuity? why come up with an arbitrary limit?also,the author should start paying royalties to those who invented the alphabet and for all the ideas which he has apparently copied from history.it is absurd.all human ideas are based on previous human ideas .including revolutionary new ideas.

Donald Rowe June 28, 2011 at 8:51 pm

Ownership rights to property, even ideas, in perpetuity does makes sense, when considered from the appropriate paradigm.

Daniel June 28, 2011 at 11:41 pm

What’s wrong with a trivial argument as an excuse for extracting rents?

Peter Surda June 28, 2011 at 3:56 am

Wildberry,

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

Let’s now ignore the problem of the vague words, and concentrate on the actual problem, which is a blatant lie. The statement is both theoretically false, as well as refuted by ample empirical evidence (such as, among other things, me earning money by programming without using IP laws). I would classify it as a mere oversight had you not spent several months repeating it and avoiding a debate.

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

Sione June 28, 2011 at 2:37 pm

Wildberry

I’ll make this really simple for you to understand by communicating at your intelectual level.

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

Bullshit!

“A copier does not own the means of production for making a copy, i.e. the original work.”

More bullshit!

You need to stop snorting laxitives.

Sione

Wildberry June 28, 2011 at 4:35 pm

Wow, that was impressive. Between Kinsella, Surda and you, I expect to be TP’d at any moment. You have lowered the standards of discourse here at Mises.org to new depths.

It seems odd to me that someone can get banned here for disagreeing with the “leadership”, yet can engage in this kind of conduct with impunity. I guess the Party has its benefits.

Peter Surda June 29, 2011 at 3:28 am

Wildberry,

the problem is not that you disagree. The problem is that you’re a fraud and a liar. Your attempts to portray yourself as having the moral upper ground are pure demagoguery with no empirical evidence backing it.

I disagree with people all the time. Here on mises.org, I disagree with the Misesians about Bitcoin, for example. But unlike you, I make arguments and confront my opponents. I’m driven by my desire for knowledge. You’re driven by your desire for manipulating people. You do not confront, you’re a coward. You have been presented with ample opportunities to confront your opponents, and have not done so. I don’t really care about your desires and cowardice, that’s just your personal preference and of no interest to me. But I do care about fraudsters and liars, because they waste my time and hinder my quest for knowledge.

Go away and waste someone else’s time.

Wildberry June 29, 2011 at 9:46 am

@Peter Surda June 29, 2011 at 3:28 am

The problem is that you’re a fraud and a liar.

A lie is a false statement deliberately presented as being true.

You do not confront, you’re a coward. You have been presented with ample opportunities to confront your opponents, and have not done so.

http://blog.mises.org/17398/intellectual-property-rights-as-negative-servitudes/comment-page-1/#comment-790107

http://blog.mises.org/17398/intellectual-property-rights-as-negative-servitudes/comment-page-1/#comment-789512

For the record, I am confronting you on this lie.

Peter Surda June 29, 2011 at 1:02 pm

Wildberry,

the first post was not a reply to me. I’m not following the stuff you reply to others in much detail.

The second post you provided shows the very thing I explained. In your post you misrepresent the position of your opponents in a way that cannot be logically derived from the words (i.e. it’s not due to misunderstanding, but due to either neglect or deliberation on your part). With that, you commit a straw man fallacy. In a reply to it, I explained exactly where you err. Subsequently, you failed to respond. The very example you used to show your innocence proves your guilt.

So, I’ll ask again, to demonstrate yet again your lies and frauds:
Can you show an example when a crime occurred, and knowledge alone of the crime places a liability on the person who knows about it? Also, can you accompany it with an explanation what liability it places on you (because by posting it, you demonstrate that you have knowledge of it), and on me (since after reading it I will have knowledge of it too)? I’m all ears.

Furthermore, the examples where you leave my questions unanswered are too numerous for me to present in full list. So I will provide only a handful:

http://blog.mises.org/16245/hoppe-best-interview-ever/#comment-768592
http://blog.mises.org/15867/the-fight-against-intellectual-property/#comment-763508
http://blog.mises.org/16099/ideas-free-and-unfree-a-book-commentary/#comment-766472
http://blog.mises.org/15305/commons-two-kinds/#comment-752162

The last one is a great example, because in January I still thought that you are actually a knowledgeable person with genuine interest and merely have a problem with understanding. So I repeatedly reformulated my arguments in the hope that eventually you’ll get them and address them. But no such thing happened, rather it resulted in you trailing off into completely different topics and metaarguing. An excellent warning to people not to waste their time with you.

Wildberry June 29, 2011 at 3:00 pm

Peter,

First, if you post on this blog, where do you get off thinking that you can obligate me to respond to only you? If you are participating, participate. If you want to argue with me, use my words to do it. Then we’ll all know what you’re talking about.

Second, your idea of “argumentation” is that you say something, I disagree with explanation, you don’t’ recognize your words in my response, so you assume I didn’t say anything and repeat what you originally said, sometimes in different words.

So I have learned, over months of actually trying to dialogue with you, that it is pointless. Your idea is to educate me, not to learn from me as you repeatedly claim.

Therefore, I cannot learn from you and the exercise of discourse is pointless.

Finally, you resort to the most childish, abusive ad hominem on this site, and believe me, that is a high standard. You often speak from ignorance, and then defend it when it trips you up, and make wild and personal accusations which you can’t back up. That’s you.

So now, you have made habit lately of trolling my every post. Well, enjoy yourself. Its still a free country.

Peter Surda June 29, 2011 at 3:52 pm

Wildberry,

a splendid example of your cowardice, lies and fraud. Instead of confronting your opponent, you start metaarguing. I presented clear evidence, and re-asked a clear question, all of which you ignored. You’re a fraud and a liar.

…where do you get off thinking that you can obligate me to respond to only you?

I made no such claim. I made the claim that you are avoiding confrontations with me, and that you present this in a manner that portrays you as the one having the moral upper hand. That’s demagoguery.

If you want to argue with me, use my words to do it.

That is exactly what I did. I regularly provide point by point refutations of your claims (preceded by quotations of your own words), which are subsequently ignored.

Second, your idea of “argumentation” is that you say something, I disagree with explanation, you don’t’ recognize your words in my response, so you assume I didn’t say anything and repeat what you originally said, sometimes in different words.

My idea of argumentation is that each party provides counterarguments to the other party’s claims. You do not do this, you misrepresent your opponents’ claims and talk about whatever you feel like, superficially related to the topic. And I am not the only one claiming you continuously misrepresent their claims.

So I have learned, over months of actually trying to dialogue with you, that it is pointless. Your idea is to educate me, not to learn from me as you repeatedly claim.

My “idea” is to find the truth and I will go at great lengths of making sure the arguments I’m making are falsifiable, and that I ask relevant questions. Your idea is to confuse everyone. You have regularly shown ignorance of elementary logical constructs and the ability to coherently counterargue.

Finally, you resort to the most childish, abusive ad hominem on this site, and believe me, that is a high standard.

If you look at the debates from our past, you will notice that I started in a very neutral manner and only switched to less neutral words when it became clear that you are a liar and a fraud.

Besides, it’s not really an ad hominem, because I do not claim that your despicable behaviour is the reason why your arguments are flawed. Your arguments are flawed because they contain logical fallacies, and I explained over and over where the errors are (others did that too). Your despicable behaviour merely explains why you are making flawed arguments: it is not your intention to make correct arguments in the first place.

Might I remind you the time when Schulman stopped by, started calling everyone names, while I stayed neutral and provided clear points which he ignored? Your reaction was to compliment him for his handling of the situation. See here:
http://blog.mises.org/16319/the-origins-of-libertarian-ip-abolitionism/#comment-772400

That was the moment that convinced me that you’re not merely a troll but a full blown demagogue.

Shay June 30, 2011 at 4:08 am

I bothered to read these last few messages (and follow one of the links of an example of behavior) and it’s pretty clear who tries to stick to topic, and who can’t resist otherwise. I loved this question that was posed of IP:

If X performs action A, and Y performs action B, causally related to action A, and X does not like it, is this a sufficient condition to conclude that Y violated X’s rights?

Wildberry June 30, 2011 at 11:13 am

@ Peter Surda June 29, 2011 at 1:02 pm

The only thing relevant to my message to you is the following:

I still thought that you are actually a knowledgeable person with genuine interest and merely have a problem with understanding. So I repeatedly reformulated my arguments in the hope that eventually you’ll get them and address them.

To which I repeat what I said below:

Second, your idea of “argumentation” is that you say something, I disagree with explanation, you don’t’ recognize your words in my response, so you assume I didn’t say anything and repeat what you originally said, sometimes in different words.

So I have learned, over months of actually trying to dialogue with you, that it is pointless. Your idea is to educate me, not to learn from me as you repeatedly claim.

Therefore, I cannot learn from you and the exercise of discourse is pointless.

http://blog.mises.org/17442/how-government-values-life-and-ip/comment-page-1/#comment-790335

Wildberry June 30, 2011 at 11:21 am

@ Shay June 30, 2011 at 4:08 am

You’ve informed us you have an opinion, but neglected to say what it is.

You also said this was interesting:

If X performs action A, and Y performs action B, causally related to action A, and X does not like it, is this a sufficient condition to conclude that Y violated X’s rights?

Can you tell me what theory, any theory, that claims that the crucial distinction in law is whether someone “does not like it”? What cause of action would that be, I wonder?

This is a logical problem that might have been formulated by Billy Madison (thanks, Kinsella)

This logical construct is irrelevant to anything that has been discussed here, as far as I can tell.

Peter Surda June 30, 2011 at 11:50 am

Wildberry,

Can you tell me what theory, any theory, that claims that the crucial distinction in law is whether someone “does not like it”? What cause of action would that be, I wonder?

again, you completely evade the question in a pathetic attempt to confuse. The crucial distinction, of course, is not the “does not like it”, rather the question of causality. In the IP theory, the “does not like it” is a necessary condition, whereas the causality is a sufficient condition. You can read about it on wikipedia. But obviously in order to comprehend that you would need to stop denying elementary logical constructs.

Let me turn your cowardly act against you and demonstrate the fraud you are perpetrating: can you show me an example where A liking an action of another person B makes that action a violation of property rights of A? If yes, then your objection might have some merit, albeit still being deceptive since it’s unrelated to the debate at hand. However, it if the answer is no, that proves you’re again fabricating constructs based on empty sets.

Peter Surda June 30, 2011 at 11:57 am

Wildberry,

The only thing relevant to my message to you is the following:

The only coherent reaction to my claims that you provided is this:

 

Yes, exactly, it’s nothing. At no point did you demonstrate a genuine interest in argumentation. It’s all just mirrors and smoke.

Wildberry June 30, 2011 at 1:11 pm

@ Peter Surda June 30, 2011 at 11:50 am

You asked this:

If X performs action A, and Y performs action B, causally related to action A, and X does not like it, is this a sufficient condition to conclude that Y violated X’s rights?

Can you please provide a real-world example, related to IP, easements, servitudes, contracts or property that illustrates the monumental insights of our question? That way, someone as stupid and dishonest as I am can try to follow along.

Your variables are:

action A,

action B, causally related to action A,

does not like it

Y violated

X’s rights?

Thank you

Wildberry June 30, 2011 at 1:17 pm

@Peter Surda June 30, 2011 at 11:50 am

A liking an action of another person B makes that action a violation of property rights of A?

The sets are?

The relevance to IP, easements, servitudes, contracts, or property is?

Peter Surda June 30, 2011 at 2:55 pm

Wildberry,

The relevance to IP, easements, servitudes, contracts, or property is?

the construct I provided to you is a formal representation of your “economic rights” nonsense, and the claims of IP proponents in general. It exposes the illogic of the premises by eliminating the vagueness and metaphors.

The sets are?

The set is related to the the alleged surprise that not liking an action is a necessary condition for that action to be a rights violation. If the condition was not necessary, then it would be trivial to refute it, by providing a counterexample. Which, of course, you will avoid at all costs. Therefore, you are basing your “argument” on an empty set.

Can you please provide a real-world example, related to IP, easements, servitudes, contracts or property that illustrates the monumental insights of our question? That way, someone as stupid and dishonest as I am can try to follow along.

A writes a novel (action X). B creates a copy of the novel (performs an action Y, causally related to to action X). A does not like it (claims it’s a copyright infringement). From this you conclude that B violates A’s rights. Please explain how this logically fits together.

Your variables are:

action A – the writing of a novel
action B, causally related to action A – the manufacturing of a copy
does not like it – being a copyright infringement
Y violated X’s rights? – copyright infringement being a rights violation

(there are only four parts, not five)

Thank you.

I’m curious what you’ll reply, but it’s more a curiousity of conducting an experiment and wondering how the subject will behave, rather than an expectation of an intellectual debate.

Wildberry June 30, 2011 at 4:14 pm

@Peter Surda June 30, 2011 at 2:55 pm

The relevance to IP, easements, servitudes, contracts, or property is?

the construct I provided to you is a formal representation of your “economic rights” nonsense, and the claims of IP proponents in general. It exposes the illogic of the
premises by eliminating the vagueness and metaphors.

You mean to say that everything I say can be reduced to a mathematical formulation? I wonder way people just don’t speak in mathematical notation then?

Despite your enlightening explanation, sorry, I don’t see it.

The sets are?

The set is related to the the alleged surprise that not liking an action is a necessary condition for that action to be a rights violation. If the condition was not necessary, then it would be trivial to refute it, by providing a counterexample. Which, of course, you will avoid at all costs. Therefore, you are basing your “argument” on an empty set.

Huh? I thought sets were collections of objects. Like, “Set X is all actions taken by X”. and and empty set was one with zero objects.

Can you please provide a real-world example, related to IP, easements, servitudes, contracts or property that illustrates the monumental insights of our question? That way, someone as stupid and dishonest as I am can try to follow along.

A writes a novel (action X). B creates a copy of the novel (performs an action Y, causally related to to action X). A does not like it (claims it’s a copyright infringement). From this you conclude that B violates A’s rights.

Your variables are:
action A – the writing of a novel
action B, causally related to action A – the manufacturing of a copy
does not like it – being a copyright infringement
Y violated X’s rights? – copyright infringement being a rights violation
(there are only four parts, not five)

I don’t know why I’m actually going through this with you, as it feels like a waste of time, like watching Ben and Jerry on a sunny Saturday afternoon. But I guess I’ve gone this far…

There are five, since a right cannot be infringed unless it exists. Rights cover a wide range of things, so what right exists here? How can we tell if it was violated if we don’t know what “right” is?

Therefore please define: “X’s rights” That is rather crucial, don’t you think?

If “X’s rights” is an empty set, then Y cannot violate X’s rights, which makes your premise false.

If “X’s rights” is not an empty set, then “Y’s act”, as a member of the set “All Acts” could be a member of the set, “all Acts which violate X’s rights”.

Also, you are missing the causal link between X’s act (writing) and the unstated condition, “B acquires novel”? This missing variable might well be the cause of Y violating X’s rights, (whatever they are.)

I guess in set theory this would be something like (B3 is all B’s acts of acquiring new property from Y, B3A is acquisition by purchase, B3B is acquisition by theft, etc. etc.)

If this was software, it would have crashed after the first instruction.

I’m curious what you’ll reply, but it’s more a curiousity of conducting an experiment and wondering how the subject will behave, rather than an expectation of an intellectual debate.

Yes! YOU TOO can be the subjects of Peter’s behavioral experimentation!

Where do I sign up?

And as to your reference to “necessary” and “sufficient” causality, since we are not writing software, I will remind you that the legal terms of art that encompass this distinction are “actual” (necessary) and “proximate”(sufficient) cause. Your reference gave me reason to revisit what I wrote to Kinsella on the subject here:
http://blog.mises.org/15867/the-fight-against-intellectual-property/comment-page-1/#comment-763220

Time to turn off the TV and play some baseball, a truly American sport.

Peter Surda June 30, 2011 at 5:50 pm

Wildberry,

You mean to say that everything I say can be reduced to a mathematical formulation? I wonder way people just don’t speak in mathematical notation then?

Logical formulation, not mathematical. The alternative, obviously, is illogical approach. I hope I do not need to elaborate why the alternative cannot be taken seriously.

I wonder way people just don’t speak in mathematical notation then?

People say all kinds of illogical things because it makes them feel good. But that does not make their beliefs come true.

Huh? I thought sets were collections of objects. Like, “Set X is all actions taken by X”. and and empty set was one with zero objects.

Yes. You were wondering why I mentioned “does not like” as a necessary condition for a rights violation. Obviously, the alternative is “does like it” as a condition for a rights violation. That, however, is an empty set (if you disagree, feel free to provide a counterexample). Since it’s an empty set, wondering why I neglect to consider such a situation is illogical.

There are five, since a right cannot be infringed unless it exists.

If you insist, I can go this way too. It only makes it easier for me.

Rights cover a wide range of things, so what right exists here? How can we tell if it was violated if we don’t know what “right” is?

This is the question you have to answer, rather then me. I do not claim that such an action constitutes a rights violation, nor that there is an underlying right that can be violated. However, the pro-IP position requires that there is such a right. You sometimes call it an “economic right”.

So, does such a right exist or not?

Therefore please define: “X’s rights” That is rather crucial, don’t you think?

I indeed think this is crucial. But the definition is up to you. I do not claim that such a right exists, you do. My question is a formal representation of the pro-IP position, not the anti-IP one.

If “X’s rights” is an empty set, then Y cannot violate X’s rights, which makes your premise false.

Exactly. If there are no rights in causality, then the whole argument for IP falls apart.

If “X’s rights” is not an empty set, then “Y’s act”, as a member of the set “All Acts” could be a member of the set, “all Acts which violate X’s rights”.

Correct. Since you claim that IP is some sort of right, it is up to you to explain what exactly that means, and how to determine to which set an action belongs.

Also, you are missing the causal link between X’s act (writing) and the unstated condition, “B acquires novel”?

I do not miss such a link. "B acquires novel" is a subset of causality. It is up to you to explain how to distinguish between the two, and what the terms "acquires" and "novel" mean in this context.

This missing variable might well be the cause of Y violating X’s rights, (whatever they are.)

Correct. And that is why I’m asking if causality is a sufficient, rather than a necessary condition. Without the sufficiency conditions, the pro-IP argument falls apart.

In a way, you pointed out precisely what the problem in my formulation is. At the same time, you miss that the whole purpose of the argument is to analyse the pro-IP position in a formal manner.

I guess in set theory this would be something like (B3 is all B’s acts of acquiring new property from Y, B3A is acquisition by purchase, B3B is acquisition by theft, etc. etc.)

Set theory does not seem to be a helpful too in this case, but if you insist, feel free to provide the missing definitions of the individual sets.

If this was software, it would have crashed after the first instruction.

Precisely. It is ironic that you do not comprehend that you are criticising your own position.

Yes! YOU TOO can be the subjects of Peter’s behavioral experimentation!

Behavioural experimentation is not my intention, it is merely all I can get from you.

I will remind you that the legal terms of art that encompass this distinction are “actual” (necessary) and “proximate”(sufficient) cause.

This has no effect on my claims. My claims do not require a specific legal system.

Wildberry June 30, 2011 at 6:54 pm

And this, as if I needed yet one more example, is why you are a waste of time.

Let me summarize what we have accomplished:

If X has rights, B can violate them by doing Y.
If X has no rights, B cannot violate them by doing any act.

As for what X’s rights are or are not, and whether any act violates them or not, we’ll have to leave for another time.

Peter’s position: X has no rights
Wildberry’s positon: X has rights

Wow, that was really worth the time. Reminds me of playing a really really bad video game.

Peter Surda July 1, 2011 at 1:42 am

Wildberry,

Let me summarize what we have accomplished

Let me summarise how you reacted (again): after misrepresenting my question several times, when it became apparent that you can’t do that anymore, you avoided an answer. Such a blatant display of intellectual dishonesty.

It’s obvious that you’re a fraud. At no point you argumentatively react to your opponents claims. You only have three modes of expressing yourself: misrepresentation, ignorance, and arrogance. The mirrors and smoke do not work anymore.

Wildberry’s positon: X has rights.

So, your answer to my question is that causality is a sufficient condition for a rights violation?

Wildberry July 1, 2011 at 11:20 am

@Peter Surda July 1, 2011 at 1:42 am

Let me summarise how you reacted (again): after misrepresenting my question several times, when it became apparent that you can’t do that anymore, you avoided an answer. Such a blatant display of intellectual dishonesty.

It’s obvious that you’re a fraud. At no point you argumentatively react to your opponents claims. You only have three modes of expressing yourself: misrepresentation, ignorance, and arrogance. The mirrors and smoke do not work anymore.

meh….

Wildberry’s positon: X has rights.

So, your answer to my question is that causality is a sufficient condition for a rights violation?

No, Grasshopper. There must be both actual and proximate cause. An act must be necessary to cause harm (violation) and sufficient (attributable to the actor).

Is that sufficient to win a gold star? Your approval is neccessary, but my answer may not be sufficient.

Peter Surda July 1, 2011 at 1:03 pm

Wildberry,

There must be both actual and proximate cause.

“actual” and “proximate” is a label. What you are missing is the explanation which features must an act contain in order to be classified either as actual or proximate with respect to a violation of IP.

An act must be necessary to cause harm (violation) and sufficient (attributable to the actor).

You are avoiding the core question, which is how to determine whether harm occurred or not in the first place. The question of harm needs to be the conclusion, rather than assumption, of the argument. You are using IP to conclude that harm occurred, and then the harm to conclude that a violation of your rights occurred. Apart from not providing an answer to what either IP or harm is, it is circular reasoning.

Wildberry July 1, 2011 at 5:12 pm

Surda,

I cannot describe the condition without facts, and a legal framework witin which to analyze those facts.

Don’t you hate it when the real world imposes itself on your Matrix?

sweatervest July 1, 2011 at 7:23 pm

“I cannot describe the condition without facts, and a legal framework witin which to analyze those facts.”

So you admit that the assumption of IP as legitimate rights is at the bottom of all your posts?

Cause that would be, like Peter said, circular reasoning.

Peter Surda July 2, 2011 at 3:32 am

Wildberry,

I cannot describe the condition without facts, and a legal framework witin which to analyze those facts.

And it is precisely the legal framework that is here under the question. When I ask you to confirm what your legal framework is, then your answer is that you need a legal framework in the first place. For months you evade answers to simple questions you coward.

I think it would be the best to ban you from here so that you are not wasting other people’s time. And to prove that the reason why I’m saying this is your cowardice, I challenge you to a public interactive debate, such as in in a web chat room. In an interactive debate, your attempts to avoid a genuine argument are only more so obvious and you can’t trail off into irrelevance for prolonged periods of time. A moderator will be selected in advance (I’m sure yet how, either by a public vote by anyone interested in the debate, or by mutual consent of the two of us).

Wildberry July 2, 2011 at 12:27 pm

@Peter Surda July 2, 2011 at 3:32 am

When I ask you to confirm what your legal framework is, then your answer is that you need a legal framework in the first place.

You have got to be kidding, or think that the concept of dishonesty only applies to me. No one here doubts that my legal framwork is the positive law that exists. That is my legal framework.

I have taken the trouble to learn the principles of AET and Ancap, so that I could participate in these discussions from an informed basis, and use the terminology of that framework to bridge and distinguish to the framework I employ to contrast principles.

You, on the otherhand, make no effort to educate yourself on the principles of the legal framework, and believe you should be taken seriously because you are a software engineer. I would not presume to debate open source code development with you; I know too little to be taken seriously.

Likewise, an AET scholar would not engage in a serious debate with someone who has not studied the principles and main scholars.

Thererfore, you are not a serious spokesperson here. You do not know enough about the subject matter. I respond to your ignorant posts on the subject because it is an educational exercise for me to articulate an argument, not because you make any sense or make informed, coherent rebuttals.

Therefore, I decline. I have already invited Kinsella to do what you suggest on the subject at hand here; property rights and the operation of servitudes, and the parallels to the operation of IP in the positive law of copyright. Naturally, he declined.

If you wanted to write a serious piece defending your views against the existing legal framework, you would have to study that framework. I suggest you would not presume to write a serious economic treatise without studying the history and state of the art of the subject matter?

Yet no such presumption seems to limit you here.

So I repeat, you have to be kidding…

Wildberry July 2, 2011 at 1:06 pm

@Peter Surda July 2, 2011 at 3:32 am

I think it would be the best to ban you from here so that you are not wasting other people’s time.

Is this your decision? Do you have the power to ban oppenents to your point of view? Is this the concept of “freedom of speech” that you believe in? Is this the kind of conduct we can expect from Ancap-heaven?

This is pure cowardice.

You seem to have more time than most to waste. You could save yourself considerable expenditure if you would stop trolling my every post.

Peter Surda July 2, 2011 at 2:24 pm

Wildberry,

You have got to be kidding, or think that the concept of dishonesty only applies to me. No one here doubts that my legal framwork is the positive law that exists. That is my legal framework.

You are mixing two arguments here, again, like I pointed out several times in the past. The first one is that the positive laws are written by a bunch of people. The second one is that the laws are supposed to have a purpose. I’m asking about the alleged purpose of the positive laws, and you answer me that you agree with them. That’s one of the most ridiculous “arguments” you have every produced. Your pathetic attempts to avoid a serious debate at all costs are ones of a true demagogue.

I have taken the trouble to learn the principles of AET and Ancap, so that I could participate in these discussions from an informed basis, and use the terminology of that framework to bridge and distinguish to the framework I employ to contrast principles.

You did no such thing. You fail to address some of the core principles, and it is doubtful that you comprehend them.

You, on the otherhand, make no effort to educate yourself on the principles of the legal framework, and believe you should be taken seriously because you are a software engineer. I would not presume to debate open source code development with you; I know too little to be taken seriously.

First of all, you regularly misrepresent current laws, which brings doubts to your qualifications. But that is not the actual issue. The issue is that I am not interested in the positive laws, I am interested in economics and logic. Merely because positive laws exist does not mean that the explanation that is provided for their purpose is logically correct, nor does it mean that that they are based on economics.

Let’s make an analogy. I would say that the Nuremberg laws violate private property. In order to support my claim, I would ask for an example when they do not violate private property, and for an explanation why a Jew conducting business is causing negative economic externalities that other people conducting business are not. You would avoid answering any of these questions, and instead go on a long tirade of complaining how I am not qualified to understand them. That’s the level of sophistication that you produce. It’s bullshit. You hear me? Bullshit.

Thererfore, you are not a serious spokesperson here.

No, the one who’s disingenuous is you. You avoid debate at all costs and waste other people’s time by pretending to debate.

Therefore, I decline.

Being afraid of your lies exposed, the fraudster runs away. I vote for a ban then (if it had any weight).

So I repeat, you have to be kidding…

Your behaviour is ridiculous.

Do you have the power to ban oppenents to your point of view?

I have no such power, but I have some weight in influencing people’s opinions. Furthermore, the reason to ban you is not that you have an opposing point of view, but that you are a liar, fraud, demagogue and are wasting other people’s time. In the past, I even expressed regret at you being banned. But since it’s clear that you’re a recidivist, I see no more point in having you here.

This is pure cowardice.

Let me repeat: I regularly make point by point refutations of your claims, only for them to be ignored by you. The coward is you. I’m merely someone who exposed your cowardice.

You could save yourself considerable expenditure if you would stop trolling my every post.

Let me repeat again: I regularly make point by point refutations of your claims, only for them to be ignored by you. The troll is you.

James June 27, 2011 at 4:38 pm

All I really need to further convince myself of the absurdity of IP is to continually read postings of it’s defenders. Works every time.

RTB June 27, 2011 at 8:57 pm

How’s that?

Ohhh Henry June 27, 2011 at 10:09 pm

Government is the inversion of morality and common sense. It demonstrates this in nearly everything it does. In this case, non-theft of non-property is given an extremely high value by the state but the most heinous destruction of the most precious of all property, a human life, is barely a blip.

If a government does not steal and destroy property then it is not a government, but something else.

Anders June 27, 2011 at 10:21 pm

The Pirate Bay guys was convicted by people who had no clue about Bittorrent technology or anything technical at all for that matter. They believed Piratebay was storing all these files on their own servers like Napster did. They could not understand that all files being shared were stored on individual computers.

coturnix19 June 29, 2011 at 5:23 pm

How about this: a hash-sum of a file is what bittorrent forums (but not tracker!) store and serve to internet users, is a derivative work of the file in question. As the file is intellecually-owned (i-owned) by a third party, that also makes the hash sum in question his property. Therefore, they did serve copyrighted material.

Shay June 30, 2011 at 4:10 am

What if I calculated a one-bit exclusive OR (parity) of all the bits in a copyrighted work, and posted it? If that could really be considered a derivitive, them please allow me to violate half of every copyright now and in the future: 0 and now to violate the other half: 1

coturnix19 June 30, 2011 at 2:19 pm

Not the bit itself, but the information that the copyrighted work in question has the parity given, is a derived work. And yes, sounds ridiculous. So you see, the real problem here is – where to draw the line?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: