The absurdity of intellectual property is starkly illustrated by a new campaign of the Music Publishers’ Association (MPA). Having gone after lyric sites on the Internet they are now shutting down sites that publish, get ready for this, guitar tablature (sheet music for guitars of popular songs).
Cui Bono? “The MPA represents businesses that make money from the creation and sale of sheet music and tablature… They’re understandably unhappy about trying to compete with free tablature available on the Internet, especially when people rip off their work and post it online (most tabs are user-created, but such copying does happen).”
What really struck me here is a quote from the manager of a guitar tablature site that has been shut down as a result of the MPA’s campaign:
Manager Rob Balch wonders where the line should be drawn between infringement and simply figuring out how to play a song. “When you are jamming with a friend and you show him/her the chords for a song you heard on the radio, is that copyright infringement?” he asks. “What about if you helped him/her remember the chord progression or riff by writing it down on, say, a napkin… infringement? If he/she calls you later that night on the phone or e-mails you and you respond via one of those methods, are you infringing?”
Little does Mr. Balch know but the common sense questions he raises not only cast doubt against this campaign but cut deeply against intellectual property itself. Stephan Kinsella in his classic JLS article Against Intellectual Property (pdf) identifies a crucial problem with intellectual property in that it conflicts with rights to tangible property:
What, though, is really wrong with recognizing “new” property rights? After all, since new ideas, artistic creations, and innovations continually enrich us, what is the harm in moving with the times by recognizing new forms of property? The problem is that if property rights are recognized in non-scarce resources, this necessarily means that property rights in tangible resources are correspondingly diminished. This is because the only way to recognize ideal rights, in our real, scarce world, is to allocate rights in tangible goods. For me to have an effective patent right — a right in an idea or pattern, not in a scarce resource — means that I have some control over everyone else’s scarce resources.
…the IP advocate must propose some [new] homesteading rule along the following lines: “A person who comes up with some useful or creative idea which can guide or direct an actor in the use of his own tangible property thereby instantly gains a right to control all other tangible property in the world, with respect to that property’s similar use.” This new-fangled homesteading technique is so powerful that it gives the creator rights in third parties’ already owned tangible property.
In other words, under IP if you jot down the chords to my song on your napkin, that napkin’s mine baby.
For more Austro-libertarian papers on intellectual property and the vital issue of property in general see Property in the Study Guide.
[Thanks Digg]
{ 35 comments }
Say–doesn’t an article have to be 25 years before it’s a classic? Or is that cars.
Anyway–most of these people whining about the effects of copyright law here probably support the idea of copyright law in general. They want to have it both ways.
How about this for a solution.
Before putting any patented or copyrighted object in the public domain, one has to get permission from anyone who may be affected by the product.
Since putting the P&C product in front of me is going to create a new crime for me–the crime of imitation–I want a say in who tries to affect me, by putting an object in front of me, and then creating a new crime, by telling me how I can and can’t respond to it.
Putting P&C products in front of private parties can be legal, and a matter between the two parties who will be creating this new crime between themselves.
But putting P&C products in the public domain can be illegal, since the P&C holder should have to ask permission before criminalizing some anonymous citizen’s behavior. (essentially creating a new law for someone else)
Finally, let’s extend this new system worldwide, and get the U.S. to enforce it on other countries, not just domestically.
Statism has it’s fun side !! : – )
Jeez, what’s with the animosity toward intellectual property rights here? I thought libertarians were all about property rights. e.g., you can’t do this to my PROPERTY!, etc. Intellectual property rights are a valid form of property rights. Just ask any intellectual property attorney, and he’ll explain for you. That means people have the right to stop infringements of their intellectual property.[/nskts]
Knott:
I’m confused about what you are trying to say. How does one put an object in the public domain? What kind of permission do you mean?
well, let’s take an example. According to copyight law, when you made your post just now, you authored a work that is protected by copyright. Automatically. And you just “put it in front of” the Mises.org audience, in fact the entire Internet. Are you somehow guilty of aggressing against them … by posting a blog comment? Umm, HO-kayyy.
It is the feds that make action criminal. Anyway, what does it mean to “put” a product in the public domain? This seems confused to me. But then, what would I know about IP law.
Person: hey!
Note: The above post, as of 12:14 pm EST, beginning “Knott:
How about this for a solution.” by “Person” is not my work; it is another case of Stephan Kinsella resorting to childish tactics by posting with the handle I use. Yes, I know this is “metatalk”, but people need to know what posts are mine and what are not.
“Jeez, what’s with the animosity toward intellectual property rights here?”
The cause for animosity is obvious; the state is allowing some “imaginary property” rights holder to dictate to me whether or not I can help someone learn a song on guitar. It’s retarded to the core.
Even the framers of the Constitution, who decided to make a provision for very, very limited copyrights, did not consider ideas and information to be “property”. Sure, you can torture and stretch the meaning of property to mean whatever you want, but by that point, it’s no longer the sort of “property” I nor many other libertarians care to protect. You can stop telling me what to say and what to write, thank you very much. Sell your stories of poor starving artists and inventors to someone who cares.
Paul D: Intellectual property is not “imaginary property”. It’s just as real as a jar of spaghetti sauce. Ask any intellectual property attorney.
Does the napkin violate the fair use provisions of copywrite law?
Person said “Intellectual property is not “imaginary property”. It’s just as real as a jar of spaghetti sauce. Ask any intellectual property attorney.”
Hmmmm… Stephan Kinsella is a registered patent attorney, so that should count. Mr. Kinsella, is intellectual property just as real as a jar of spaghetti sauce?
Joe: I don’t “do” arguments from authority. Try again.
Person: it was your idea to ask an authority, so that’s what I did.
it was your idea
I thought ideas couldn’t be owned. Remember?
to ask an authority, so that’s what I did.
You did… what? What are you talking about here? Patents are a separate issue from copyrights. Learn some IP law.
I thought ideas couldn’t be owned. Remember?
That’s right – that’s why I used your idea without permission or payment.
Patents are a separate issue from copyrights. Learn some IP law.
You said “Ask any intellectual property attorney”, not “copyright attorney”. Short-term memory problems?
That’s right – that’s why I used your idea without permission or payment.
Then I guess it wasn’t really “my” idea, now, was it?
You said “Ask any intellectual property attorney”, not “copyright attorney”.
Uh huh. What’s your point?
Short-term memory problems?
Personal attacks are not appropriate here. Let’s keep the metatalk off the main.
Person,
You are being non-serious.
IP includes copyright and patent. You said ask an IP attorney. So he did. I’m an IP attorney. You are pettifogging. List rules don’t permit pettifogging.
“Then I guess it wasn’t really “my” idea, now, was it?”
this is also silly. You are trying to argue by semantics. I can also refer to “my favorite movie,” “my mom,” and “my sister,” but it does not mean I own them. Duh.
Sorry, I didn’t know tactics you frequently use are inappropriate. I’ll try not to post like you routinely do, in the future. You do the same, thanks.
I really wish these discussions wouldn’t be framed as “for/against ALL intellectual property”. For example taxis and taxi licenses are property. Should we accuse someone wanting to abolish taxi licenses of being against property?
Person – repeat ten times: “Intellectual Property Is an Euphemism for Temporary Monopoly Rights Granted by State, Not A Proper Property”.
Any real property does not depend on state, is not temporary, and does not confer any monopoly rights.
averros: How does IP rights’ alleged reliance on the state differ from “regular” property rights’ reliance on the state?
Regular property rights do not rely on the state. If the government of Massachusetts were to award me title to your hand, would it become mine, or would it remain yours?
Property rights are a moral claim to control something, not a legal one.
Property rights are a moral claim to control something, not a legal one.
So are intellectual property rights. Justified? Not justified? Prove it.
Regular property rights do not rely on the state. If the government of Massachusetts were to award me title to your hand, would it become mine, or would it remain yours?
If the government seized Pfizers patents and “liberated them”, are they still Pfizers? Your answer says exactly nothing.
So are intellectual property rights. Justified? Not justified? Prove it.
Not justified. The intellectual property argument begs the question – the person making the argument assumes a priori that ideas are scarce commodities in order to conclude ownership. Ideas, however, are not scarce, since they can spawn ad infinitum in people’s minds and in recordable media.
If the government seized Pfizers patents and “liberated them”, are they still Pfizers? Your answer says exactly nothing.
It is not the same thing, Person. The patents are government created constructs, whereas your home is a physical entity, with physical measurements and limits. Patents are not real, they are an abstraction – more akin to a Letter of Marque.
Francisco Torres:Not justified. The intellectual property argument begs the question – the person making the argument assumes a priori that ideas are scarce commodities in order to conclude ownership.
First of all, no, now you are begging the question in assuming the relevance of (your version of) scarcity in justifying property rights. Second of all, the IP argument does not require that ideas be scarce, merely that there be conflicts (scarcity) over their use. It is not physically possible for both a) nobody to copy someone’s work without permission AND for b) me to copy someone’s work without permssion. The is the distinction Stephan Kinsella delibertately ignores.
It is not the same thing, Person. The patents are government created constructs, whereas your home is a physical entity, with physical measurements and limits.
Please lengthen your attention span all the way to the original question. The question is what the difference is between physical property rights’ reliance on government, and intellectual property rights’ reliance on government, NOT what the difference is between a physical object’s existence’s reliance on government, and intellectual property rights’ reliance on government.
In the case of a patent the government really owns your idea and leases it to you for a couple of years. That is reason enough to abolish them.
Hmmmm.
I own a chair. I make a copy of it, I own the copy. I keep the copy, give it away or sell it because it is mine. Government only intervenes if it is stolen from me.
I own a book. I make a copy of it, I own the copy. I sell it or give it away, government intervenes even though I have done nothing different than I can do with anything else that I own.
That is the difference between physical property rights’ reliance on government, and intellectual property rights’ reliance on government.
Intellectual property laws require an interventionist government that takes action against people who are engaging in purely voluntary interaction. Just like every other prohibition.
Government only intervenes if it is stolen from me.
So it does rely on government just the same.
Person, “So are intellectual property rights. Justified? Not justified? Prove it.”
As the individual who is trying to assert that government regulation and control is a good thing, it is up to you to “Prove it.”
Remove the laws, remove all restrictions and legalities. What remains? Does “intellectual property” exist independent of government’s power of enforcement?
Or, put another way, how have I deprived you by quoting you? How have I reduced your use of your words by copying them? Can you demonstrate harm?
It’s easy with a thing. You take my thing, I no longer have it. Your theft of my thing has a direct, demonstrable negative effect on me. I am damaged. No government existence or non-existence effects that damage, only its prosecution.
As the individual who is trying to assert that government regulation and control is a good thing, it is up to you to “Prove it.”
As the individual who is trying to assert that government regulation and control is a good thing for enforcement of physical property rights, it is up to you to “Prove it.”
Remove the laws, remove all restrictions and legalities. What remains? Does “intellectual property” exist independent of government’s power of enforcement?
If people could respect and enforce physical property rights without government, they could do the same for intellectual property rights.
Or, put another way, how have I deprived you by quoting you? How have I reduced your use of your words by copying them? Can you demonstrate harm?
It’s easy with a thing. You take my thing, I no longer have it. Your theft of my thing has a direct, demonstrable negative effect on me. I am damaged. No government existence or non-existence effects that damage, only its prosecution.
Well, like in the other example I gave a while back and ignored, you could say the same thing about trespassing. If I squat on land you aren’t using at the time, how does that harm you? How do you prove harm? Now, take that answer and apply it to your question.
Person:
Real property rights can be recognized and enforced and respected without state intervention. Patents are a pure creature of state legislation.
Even dogs can respect each others’ territory. Real property rights are really not that complex.
Regular property rights are not a creation of government. It has simply monopolized the defense of property rights. Without the state property rights would still exist, and people could still enforce them. I could lock my door, for example, and put up a fence, or use a gun to shoot interlopers.
by contrast, patents, for example, are purely a creation of the state legislature; it is yet another exmaple of teh state’s monopoly-making power. It is inconceivable that you have a free society with something like patents arising. Imagine Clem riding around the country in his horse and buddy, threatening to shoot people who don’t pay him for living in a house, on the grounds that it was his ancestor who invented houses. He’d be run out of town.
We do not.
‘If people could respect and enforce physical property rights without government, they could do the same for intellectual property rights.’
Again, you need to prove that intellectual property rights exist in the satate of nature.
The fact is that physical property rights have been understood and respected to some degree for millenia.
There was never a free-market intellectual property rights enforcement aparatus, it was in fact brought into being by the English gov in the 1700s.
Something that never existed VOLUNTARILY anywhere, and then suddenly brought into being by INVOLUNTARY means shows you that intellectual property rights do not exist in the state of nature – because they are NOT SCARCE.
It was brough into being for the narrow demands of the publishers, not for the authors and artists.
The nature of intellectual property rights is quite interesting: You show everyone what you’ve got and then prevent them from using it with their own physical property. You also prevent people who never saw it from using it with their own physical property.
Any serious follower of IP must take it to it’s logical conclusion: paying for every action.
It is indeed the ultimate pyramid scheme and the ultimate form of slavery.
When will you get through your thick skull that there is no way to have IP rights without violating the majority of physical property rights.
In fact, ‘the multiplier effect’ is quite apt for IP enforcement.
“If I squat on land you aren’t using at the time, how does that harm you? How do you prove harm? Now, take that answer and apply it to your question.”
If I don’t know that you squatted, then I have no case, do I?
And even if I did, the worst harm that I should be able to inflict is to squat on your property! Or I could just forget about it, and tell you to PLEASE not do it again.
My PLEASE indicates that I do not want you to squat on my property. If you ignore it, I will have a better case against you.
‘As the individual who is trying to assert that government regulation and control is a good thing for enforcement of physical property rights, it is up to you to “Prove it.”‘
That’s interesting, because most people here are against such a thing, and we have the proof right here on mises.org, and you know it.
I don’t have time to respond to everything right now; I’ll get to it later tonight. However, I did want to highlight this:
The question I posed is:
Stephan Kinsella’s answer is:
What Stephan is saying is:
a)Patents “were created by the state”, while property rights “were not” and b) Dogs can respect territory, while “real property rights” are “not that complex”.
That’s right, folks. Likely without even knowing it, Stephan is basing his differntiation of physical from intellectual property rights on, is 1) the way dogs act, and 2) the (false) vague handwave that “real property rights are not that complex”.
Should I feel obligated to respond to that, or is it obvious why I shouldn’t bother?
a) Correct
b) Real property rights for dogs is a simple feat, for humans more complex. Do you not understand the analogy?
What you really want to say is that all current doggy bones and doggy snacks should be handed over to the family lines of the dogs that invented the bark, the rollover, the catch, the whimper, the nose balancing, etc..
‘Should I feel obligated to respond to that, or is it obvious why I shouldn’t bother?’
It would be fruitful if you could convince us that a free market (no government) in IP rights enforcement would work voluntarily, without in effect violating MORE physical property rights in the process. Once you manage this imaginable feat, we can take you more seriously.
Good luck!
I like the approach of this article. The site is a literary masterpiece and is constantly providing fairness reviews and information.
Great blog! So many websites like yours cover subjects that aren’t found in magazines. I don’t know how we got on 10 years ago with just print media.
Comments on this entry are closed.