Well, I knew. But you obviously did not, since you tried to imply that markets (free individuals) would not be capable of resolving any demand for copyright protection. That was the root of disagreement between Stephan and I. How nice of you for paying attention on topic before you decided to share your opinion.

The same “exact description” problem exists in #2′s “unique” language. I can’t understand paragraph 2 of #2, and there is no such thing as “a right to copy.” All that can exist is a prohibition of an agreeing party in exercising their power to copy the whatever is being described.

Regarding paragraph 3 of #2, the third party (“C”) can make whatever they want with their own property. C’s property “looking like” A’s or B’s property is completely irrelevent by itself.

I don’t mean to imply that the “exact description” problem prevents “reasonable persons” from agreeing on what constitutes a copy. People can and often do agree — but I want to say the problem always exists to some measure and can at times be significant.

Copying is a power — something people are capable of doing. It is not a right. Restricting a party from exercising their power (ability) to copy an idea requires a prohibition agreement (an NDA), since ideas are not property. People are generally at liberty (freedom in the social context) to do whatever they want with their property. But to act on reforming their property according to some idea/pattern requires ability — with ability meaning power. That’s why what is sought here is a prohibition of the use of power. (“Positive rights” are simply power deceivingly called rights. They are not rights at all. They are sometimes called privileges and licenses.).

SR> Markets can provide a lot of things, including certain terms of product use.

Shocking! It’s a good thing you’re here. I mean, who knew?

1/ If person A sells his property to another person under the condition that the buyer has no right to copy it and this property has a design, construction etc which is very usual, the buyer won’t violate the contract even if he would make another sample of the same product (property).

2/ Alternatively, if person B sells his property to another person under the condition that the buyer has no right to copy it and this property has a design, construction etc which is unique, the buyer will violate the contract if he would make another sample of the same product (property).

If person B didn’t, originally, own the property and all the rights to it (including the right to copy it), he couldn’t justifiably make mentioned contract. But in this example he did, actually, completely own the property.

As person B completely owns the property and did not either transfer the right to copy it to anyone, a third party does not have, because of this, any right to copy it.

Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden

Why don’t you stop being someone else’s cheerleader? It’s more fun when you think of a coherent argument – try it.

…But I’m afraid you are out of luck. Markets can provide a lot of things, including certain terms of product use.

In your dreams.

GREG SAID:
———————
If the copies are already out the door to D, E, F, …Inf, then only ill-defined profits could be recovered. D, E, F, …Inf, can then make countless copies while violating no contract. C will simply be bankrupted.
——————–

As it should be… if C intentionally violated our contract. Harsh consequences like those will be a powerful deterrent against copyright violation.

By the way, Stephan’s new thread only proves my point (I doubt he realized it):
- Not everyone in the free market wants our current one-size-fits-all copyright “protection”. Stossel did a report on 20/20 about Lime Wire and how it helps promoting new music and consequent sales of CDs.

That’s why I said: leave it to free individuals! Let them formulate their contracts any way they want to. I explained how free market could provide protection of copyright, but it would be left to individuals to negotiate their contracts. Some people would rather pay lower price than have the unrestricted copyright. That would make pricing more complex and that’s why econometricians and central planers would hate such liberty.

Better / worse, cause / effect implies natural moral law. (Are you a libertarian? If so I need say nothing else but to point out that your position is self-contradictory).

Survival requires mental submission. After all, you believe that engineering principles will be valid in the future although there is no logical necessity they must. (I note that the laws themselves are mystical, magical, unexplainable, immaterial).

When you say Survival requires mental submission you’re making the same upside-down mistake you already made. Human beings make nature submit, that is what makes them different. Stunningly, you don’t even understand this on your own terms:

26Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” 29And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Do understand what it means to “have dominion over?” It is not “submission.” Also, I think you probably have a crude understanding of what it means when it is said something is a “physical law.”

If the copies are already out the door to D, E, F, …Inf, then only ill-defined profits could be recovered. D, E, F, …Inf, can then make countless copies while violating no contract. C will simply be bankrupted.

BTW, I think Stephan is trolling you with a new IP thread.

I am glad we finally agree on this whole issue. Nice talking to you.

Sasha (two posts above): “…causes liability by stealing information…”

Sasha (last post): “It is not “information theft” that occurs here”

Gee, wonder why I misunderstood.

I guess we’re pretty much in agreement on the whole third-party business. Goodbye.

You totally misunderstood what is the “theft” in our case (when C acts against the will of B). It is not “information theft” that occurs here – I referred the actual trespass against my property that B uses. Information does not hang out in the air – it is stored somewhere (either in our brain, or on a physical medium). If C obtains information from B by trespassing, he will be liable for any resulting damage (amounting to all produced copies and/or profits they yielded). You can’t argue with that. There is no shame if you just stop repeating the same refuted objections.

If someone else (C) acts against the will of the person B – and causes liability by stealing information – person B is completely safe and can hold C liable for any damages that were caused to me.

This only applies if B and C have a contract similar to A and B. If no contract, then no liability can be sought by B because C broke B’s “will.”

For example: I just might make a bet with somebody that the Mariners will win the World Series next year. If I find someone who will take my bet, and I lose, I’ll hold the M’s liable for breaking my will and causing me liablity.

Without a contract, this is the same situation, since you cannot “steal” information–it is non-ownable.

YOU SAID: “technically said contract would be valid, and it would be valid for B to pass said contract to C (assuming it’s not forbidden in the contract with A”

End of discussion. Such contract is technically valid, and I didn’t misinterpret you. Also, it would be insane to argue in advance that some contract is bad for publishers – they can decide for themselves.

As far as your “loophole” goes – the term is misleading you. There is no loophole in our case. If person B causes “leak” which results in my serious economic loss – only person B is liable for any contract violations. I don’t want to punish C or D, or n, since they are not the a-holes (excuse my French) who broke my contract. In other words, person B will be fine, as long as he/she doesn’t act as a contract violator. If someone else (C) acts against the will of the person B – and causes liability by stealing information – person B is completely safe and can hold C liable for any damages that were caused to me. So I will admit that you totally misunderstood what “loophole” means and I’ll move on.

I did not commit a logical fallacy. You misunderstood me.

I never admitted that “copyright protection in contracts is technically valid.” Saying so does not make it so. You again misunderstood me.

Perhaps the whole “loophole” term is misleading to you. I’m not trying to argue that B would have a “loophole” to break his contract, just that you cannot contain the leak once it occurs. You cannot punish C or D or n. You can only punish B repeatedly, which doesn’t create copyright. If you agree, be a man, admit it, and move on.

By saying that some possible contract “so ludicrously in favor of one side” – you committed the logical fallacy. Be a man, admit it, and move on.

By admitting that copyright protection in contracts is technically valid – you basically admitted that copyright is possible if two sides wanted it. That is all I tried to say. I didn’t argue that everyone would agree on those terms, but you didn’t prove that no one would. Move on.

You didn’t prove any third party loophole. By collaborating in unauthorized copying with person C – person B causes violation of his contract and he is liable to A in the amount of all unauthorized copies that resulted. He will thing again before he “leaks” something and creates such economic taking from the author A. So there is no loophole – as long as there is a liable side. Just face this fact and move on.

Therefore, the loophole exists. But this isn’t market failure. It would only seem to be a market failure to a person who clings to the notion that we must have IP.

You said that the contract that protects copyright is “so ludicrously in favor of one side.” Well I said that that is a contradiction in terms. Voluntary free-markets contracts must be in favor of both sides (to a different degree) – or else, contract will not take place.

No I didn’t. I said your idea of how a contract could protect copyright was ridiculous. I didn’t say that if somebody did enter into such an agreement, that that would somehow be invalid. I have a point here. People are rational.

Sasha:

WRONG!!! My claim was that copyright was possible to formulate in a free market contract – and I supported my claim with analytical evidence. Your claim was (to paraphrase you): “OK, copyright is theoretically possible in free market contracts but they are unrealistic” – but that is baseless and even not so relevant for our discussion – because I said that terms of use would be negotiable and a part of a pricing process.

WRONG (yet again)!!! I never claimed that copyright was possible. I admitted that a contract with unlimited damages to a contracting party is technically valid.

Sasha:

Your assertion is wrong. And by saying that there would be no way to protect certain terms of use, you are (falsely) implying a market failure. Than you are supporting those who will sarcastically quote Ayn Rand: “You men of genius will keep on creating even if we don’t reward you for it; you can’t help it; so why should we compensate you?” That actually harms the libertarian side.

This is not market failure! In a free society, we wouldn’t have social security either. Is that a market failure as well?

By the way, we closed your “third party loopholes”. Read more carefully. Copyright can hold in a free market setting, a lot better than under out nationalized “one-size-fits-all” politburo alternative.

No, we didn’t close third-party loopholes. The third party is not part of the contract. Read again.

Self-ownership must be accepted a priori, because it is based on the fact that humans act purposefully. Unlike animals, we have the ability to consciously manage our body (to produce actions). Self-ownership simply means that nobody else’s mind has the ability to produce actions/work of our body. Stephan proved that these purposeful actions are necessary pre-requisites of self-ownership (simple use of one’s body is not enough, since animals use their body too).

This proves that the original property acquisition (self-ownership) is based on one’s mind’s exclusive control of one’s “ability to work” – which is the basic definition of energy (check, if you don’t believe it). So the action-axiom on which the entire praxeology is based directly implies that we own our labor (transfer of our energy)

By understanding the origin of our first property (conscious control over “ability to act/work” = energy) – we can logically conclude how other property is acquired. Every single case of property acquisition involves mix of our body’s work with some unclaimed object. Since work is defined as a transfer of energy, it means that we transfer our existing property on that object. This property acquisition is based on transfer of our real property, instead on some imaginary, fictitious “decision” of “society.”

My theory is based on facts of our physical reality when I analyze the properties of physical objects – as well as praxeology when it comes to logical implications of human action. It is the science-proper (true to the Latin origin of the word: scientia = correct knowledge). It is very much different from “scientism” which tries to treat human action as a mathematical phenomenon. Equally wrong is Stephan’s attempt to deny physical characteristics of natural object, when he tries to include them in a praxeological hypothesis. A physicist cannot deny the axiom of human action and its derivatives – just like a praxeologist cannot deny physical reality in which human action takes place.

SASHA: I explained why self-ownership implies labor-ownership (because human action takes place in physical reality) – but I also explained how we demonstrate that we own our labor (by exchanging our labor for property – instead of selling our body parts to employers as your alternative suggests).

On the other hand, you were incapable of explaining why else would the first use provide you with a “better claim”, and who decided and when that this is “better.” You strongest argument so far was “NAAAAAH.” That is really sad.

———-

STEPHAN: “To assert something is ownable you need to show that it is the type of thing is. What is your theory about what kinds of things are ownable?”

SASHA: Every physical thing in this world that can be employed as a mean to an end is “ownable”. Work qualifies as such.

——–

STEPHAN: “Labor’s a scarce resource? Really? Do elaborate”

SASHA: Sure. The demand for labor exceeds its supply when price is zero. So it is scarce. And it is a resource, since it represents a mean by which the employer pursues some end. Labor has value for an employer — a value derived from that of the goal — because he must regard its use as necessary in order to effectively achieve the goal. Employer does not need just the presence of your body or body’s parts – he needs your labor.

——
STEPHAN: “And? Is the definition of scarce resource “what people will pay for”?”

SASHA: No, don’t be silly. You have the definition above. The fact that employers don’t pay for your body’s presence – but for your labor – clearly demonstrates that labor is their valued mean. Because they value labor as a mean to their valued goal – and labor is scarce, they will pay for it. Economics 101.

—————–

STEPHAN: “When and where did it state this?”

SASHA: I used figurative speech. If you own a physical body, you own all of its physical properties, including work.

———

STEPHAN: “Yeah, wow, man, energy, wow man.”

SASHA: True. If you own your physical body, you own everything it consists of. You don’t like to discuss these physical matters because they don’t fit into your idea of property acquisition. But you cannot change reality by ignoring it.

——————-

STEPHAN: “it is true that “doing something” can be a condition of a title transfer of money payment from a payor; and that the payor might value your doing-the-something. So what? One can value the affection of his cat, but that does not mean anyone owns that affection.”

SASHA: Affection of one’s cat is not a mean to some end for your employer. Your labor is – and by exchanging it for someone else’s property you exercise that ownership (which is directly derived from the fact that you own your entire physical body).

By the way, labor is a “condition of a title transfer” – just like a delivery of a pizza is a “condition of a title transfer”. You failed to show that labor is not a property.

———–

STEPHAN: I have shown in detail many times–see my Against IP, and my recent How We Come To Own Ourselves.

SASHA: Naaaaaahh. By saying that we come to own our property by “first use” – you confirm Locke’s theory. Because how can you have a “use” without labor/work??? So you only confirm that property acquisition is impossible without applying OUR labor (our property) to unclaimed object.

You say: to heck with physics, we don’t own our labor. The fact that you cannot acquire property without some form of labor is coincidental to you. You say: we become owners by first use, because we have a “better claim” than someone else. But like I said: you were incapable of explaining why else would the first use provide you with a “better claim”, and who decided and when that this is “better.”

———————
(in his article “How We Come To Own Ourselves”) STEPHAN SAID: “…one is not really the “first user” of one’s body in the same sense as one is the first user of a previously unowned thing that one appropriates… If “first use” is not the ultimate test for the “objective link” in the case of body ownership, what is? It is the unique relationship between a person and “his” body — his direct and immediate control over the body.”

In other words, self-ownership can only exist out of action/work, which implies will. It is the action/work to secure one’s own existence that begets one’s self-ownership. Work (energy transfer according to physics) begets ownership, based on your own statements.