http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_intellectual_property

Björn Lundahl

The “loss” argument is pure bunk. It implies damages caused for a lost sale, which is preposterous. If we have two candy stores, and one sells gum at 5c whereas another sells a similar product for 4c, then we could have a situation where the 4c product might get more sales. Would it make sense for the first candy store to report that it suffered a “loss” out of every gum it could not sell at 5c??

This is where the IP argument falls. IP and copyright law are nothing more than hidden PRICE CONTROLS. It is nothing more than the first candystore running to Daddy-government asking it to tell the other candy store to cease and desist selling that what the 2nd candy store owns!

Anyway, every time I see reporting done on [place your favorite product here]-piracy, it always leads to bogus statistics on “losses”, as if those companies suddendly owned OUR money just because they make the “original” product!

My point about the drug war was only that IT is the focus of the vast majority of police expenditures in the US today – not catching peeping toms. However, my little corner of the world had 5 prosecutions under “peeping tom” charges last year. So, yes, they can get caught, and most likely would be caught more often in the absence of a police force obsessed with the drug war (so that they can play Rambo). And again, this is irrelevant to the question of whether it would be illegal in a free market (or nearly so) code.

And, as I noted, the structural integrity of glass isn’t the point – the point is we could live in transparent houses, or nearly so (enormous windows, floor to ceiling). We don’t for a myriad of reasons, but I bet most people’s first response as to why would include a desire for a measure of privacy in their residence.

Finally, I’m not so optimistic as resigned – empires crumble. Always have, always will. Problem is, we’re either living during the decline of empire, or at the precipice of collapse. Neither one tends to be “good times” historically speaking (at least in timespans on the level of a lifespan), so it doesn’t seem to me to be something to happy about for personal reasons.

There is a significant difference between the Peepingtomomatics and drugs. Drugs are consumed when used, so a user’s supply must constantly be replenished. This is what gives the police the opportunity to catch people. If once I have a machine I do not have to attain anything more, I am pretty much undetectable.

There are plenty of reasons we don’t have glass houses. Ever heard the saying “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”? Glass likely has plenty of other reasons for being a lousy building material, like cost and insulation. Glass didn’t begun to be used in dwellings until people achieved significant wealth and resources. Finally, not everyone is going to even want to look inside your house, I pity whoever catches a glimpse of me au naturale for the damage done to their retinas far more than myself for being seen.

I reckon I understand the “anti IP” position much better now. After chasing it around with some of my colleagues and associates, the discovery is that none of us had a really clear idea of the issues (never thought about them in depth- merely took it for granted that ideas are property and therefore a monopoly priviledge should be recognised). So far no-one I know has come up with a valid, self-consistent defense of the “pro” position. It aint looking good that one is around either.

I’m most surprised by this. Time to read some more Rothbard. He may have been right (or at least closer to the reality of the matter) after all.

Sione

can I use your house/apartment when you are not there? I’ll leave everything as I found it, and thus will not affect your use of your property in any way.

Oh, and if you reply to this, do not dare quote me. Those are my sentences, and I do not give you permission to reproduce them.

Vik

Gatewood: you are being a pettifogging gadfly. Shoo.

You wrote:

“Because ideas are scarce, recognizing property rights in them necessarily means infringing on separately-justified homesteaded (scarce) property. Therefore, that’s why there can’t be property in ideas or any other scarce resources. This is the reason why scarce things can’t be property.”

Don’t you mean that ideas are non-scare etc? That is, the paragraph should read:

Because ideas are non-scarce, recognizing property rights in them necessarily means infringing on separately-justified homesteaded (scarce) property. Therefore, that’s why there can’t be property in ideas or any other non-scarce resources. This is the reason why non-scarce things can’t be property.

Typo?

Talofa

Sione

Stephan and Person are walking along, side-by-side through the (unowned)woods, when they discover two etch-a-sketches. Each picks one up (homesteads it). Person begins to draw little square-wheeled cars, while Stephan writes, in very tiny letters, a draft of “Against Intellectual Property”, then promptly falls asleep. While he is sleeping, Person plagiarizes Stephan’s work. The two men now each have a (non-scarce) pattern of words on their (presumably) scarce etch-a-sketches.

Can someone explain to me where is the “property” in this “intellectual property”?

There is not, other than Person’s unconsented-to use of my etch-a-sketch, arguably an act of trespass.

Person:

Stephan, you’re still making the same erroneous point. I agree with you that your derivation relies on the concept of scarcity. However, you additionally try to draw in the non-scarcity of ideas to support your case, when it doesn’t.

No. It’s very simple. I point out that the libertarian position is that scarcity in scarce resources means there can be conflict; so we libertarians favor property rights, with ownership assigned by the first-use principle since that is the rule that will permit conflict to be avoided. Once this is established, then you can use this conclusion or rule to apply to various proposed rights.

If someone says there should be a property right in IP, then you can say: no, property rights are only scarce things; IP is not scarce; therefore, there is no property right in it. If they remain confused or unpersuaded–some of them (my friend Tibor Machan even hints at this) say, well, there are all kinds of things that we can create: we have property rights in various ontological forms of things that we create: both tangible things, and intangible things like songs or poems or inventions or novels. They are literally saying that there shoudl be property rights assigned in both scarce, and non-scarce, things. If you point out to them that property rights are only in scarce things, they just say, well, let’s have property rights in these other things too. They see them as additional. They don’t see a problem or conflict. They don’t truly understand the need for property rights as arising from the *scarce* nature of certain objects; they don’t understand that the only way to grant an enforceable *right* in a non-scarce thing is to enforce with real (physical) force against real (scarce) things in the real world. So that’s why you have to spell it out for them. It’s not an illegitimate argument; it’s highlighting the problem of advocating rights in non-scarce things from several angles to illuminate the stubborn, slow, dishonest, or stupid. It’s meant to let them *see that* in advocating rights in non-scarce things, they have to necessarily advocate reducing or invading rights in scarce things. This all goes together, Person.

It is similar to when lefties argue for adding rights to our baseline common law rights: just add a right to education or healthcare, why not? The more rights, the better, no? They do not see that rights granted in this way infringe other rights. It has to be explained to them.

For one thing, if you consistently carry through the concept of scarcity, you find the same kind of scarcity that underlies your property theory, in IP claims. When justifying homesteading property assignment, you refer to scarcity in terms of a conflict between two actors whose desires cannot simultaneously be satisfied.

Do I? I refer to it in the sense of rivalrousness: one person’s use excludes another’s. This is just a fact of the way things are in nature. Some things if used by or taken by one person, are therefore unavailable for use by others. For these things, conflict over them is possible. For other “things,” like recipes, say, they can be used simultaneously by an infinite number of people. Knowledge can be spread like this. It is just information. It is not scarce. It is not rivalrous. It is not property. It is knowledge, used to guide action in a world of scarce means.

This is precisely the scarcity that arises in IP: two actors’ desires cannot simultaneously be satisfied.

You keep wanting to look at it this way. Why, I”m not sure, but it’s verging on crankish. What IP is, is an explicit attempt to grant a property right to control a given idea, information, knowlege, recipe, method, pattern, etc. This conflicts with real property rights as noted above.

Sure, you can justify one over the other, but it would have nothing to do with the fact that ideas are non-scarce.

Sure; if ideas were scarce, then there would need to be property rights in them.

You are pointing out that ideas are non-scarce. That’s different from pointing out that the objects in which the ideas are instantiated are scarce.

Sure. THe objects in which ideas are instantiated are not scarce. In fact, they have owners that are determiend already by the first-use principle. That is why granting a right in the IP means granting rights in the already-owned property the IP is instantiated in, which is why it’s theft.

What’s the problem with pointing this out?

Your pp.22-31 are very clear about rejecting IP specifically because ideas are non-scarce, rather than because they infringe on separately-justified homesteaded property.

It’s not “rather than”. It’s the same thing. Because ideas are [not] scarce, recognizing property rights in them necessarily means infringing on separately-justified homesteaded (scarce) property. Therefore, that’s why there can’t be property in ideas or any other scarce resources. This is the reason why scarce things can’t be property.

This part — about one quarter of the body of your paper less refs and footnotes — is pure red herring, yet people STILL use it to justify their positions.

They are more perspicacious than you, I suppose. I think you are caught in a mental fugue.

Okay, but IP claims are all in scarce things, so it’s rather pointless to claim that ideas aren’t scarce. Get it?

Really? ask IP advocates. They say, “no no, I am just claiming a right in the thing I create” etc.

But I want to thank you for giving your first evidence that you have bothered to try to understand my point. That’s more than you usually do.

I’ve always understood your confusion here. I think you are caught in a mental fugue or some kind of feedback loop.

Kent:

Mr. Kinsella would you defend your copyright on your books (since they are not scarce)?

Why in the world is this relevant? Why does it alwyas become “about me”? It’s not about me. Moreoever, my books have copyrights owned by the publisher. Ask them.

How does an author get compensation for an unprotected book? In the absence of IP and the state, would drugs only be produced by patrons? Is there a clear view of what a non IP world will look like?

Are these questions meant to somehow establish that we all are utilitarians? or that property rights can or should be given to non-scarce things? That the first-use principle is not the only just way to assign property rights?

1) But no one would go through the expense of publishing a book if they couldn’t get a copyright on it! (Oops! There goes all his insincere claims about the practicality of publishing in a non-IP world!)

2) That he “thinks” you can’t do that.

Number 2 is not a typo. Stephan Kinsella, an intellectual property attorney, despite all the work that’s been done in the GPL, in Creative Commons, despite all the authors and inventors who have released their work into the public domain, beliefs it suffices to say that he “thinks” you can’t liberate an intellectual property.

I had a hard time believing he tried that, myself.

Copybot hits SecondLife:

http://news.com.com/Second+Life+faces+threat+to+its+virtual+economy/2100-1043_3-6135699.html

(if that link is too long to show up, just go to Google news and enter Copybot Secondlife)

I’d really be interested in hearing you guy’s take on this.

Person wants to say I’m being disingenuous in arguing this, because in reality, I’m opposed to IP b/c it really means assigning property rights in scarce things pursuant to a rule other than first-use. Er, right. This is exactly what it means to point out that something is not scarce.

No. You are pointing out that ideas are non-scarce. That’s different from pointing out that the objects in which the ideas are instantiated are scarce. Your pp.22-31 are very clear about rejecting IP specifically because ideas are non-scarce, rather than because they infringe on separately-justified homesteaded property. This part — about one quarter of the body of your paper less refs and footnotes — is pure red herring, yet people STILL use it to justify their positions.

It is why it’s important to assign property rights only in scarce things. Which requires one to identify which things are scarce and which are not.

Okay, but IP claims are all in scarce things, so it’s rather pointless to claim that ideas aren’t scarce. Get it?

But I want to thank you for giving your first evidence that you have bothered to try to understand my point. That’s more than you usually do.

Non-serious arguments ignored.

I’m not sure, but I detect a note of sarcasm in your response. My problem is that I’m not sure where it ends…

Anyway, I’m not talking about Libertopia, I’m talking reality, in that I think that mini-states are inevitable in at least some parts of the world. Furthermore, I’m acknowledging human nature in that I believe (contra Rand and some Austrians who lean towards her world-view) that there is no such thing as a truly objective legal standard from A to Z.

Your arguments against a legally protected right to privacy go more to cost of enforcement, not whether, once caught, a person would be sanctioned under a legal code. I just don’t see too many cultures abiding peeping toms – and they do get caught, even today with our drug war obsessed police force.

Privacy is something people value, and expect – otherwise, why build walls at all? Why not just big glass (or plexiglass, whatever) houses?

Stephan and Person are walking along, side-by-side through the (unowned)woods, when they discover two etch-a-sketches. Each picks one up (homesteads it). Person begins to draw little square-wheeled cars, while Stephan writes, in very tiny letters, a draft of “Against Intellectual Property”, then promptly falls asleep. While he is sleeping, Person plagiarizes Stephan’s work. The two men now each have a (non-scarce) pattern of words on their (presumably) scarce etch-a-sketches.

Can someone explain to me where is the “property” in this “intellectual property”?

Can someone tell me exactly how the contents of the book, now on two etch-a-sketches, soon to appear on dozens, can possibly represent a scarce or rivalrous resource that necessitates the declaration of property to avoid conflict?

SHEESH.

And I wonder when our pal Sasha the “we own our energy” will show up.

Person, I concede your point.

Now, having said that, let me say. IP is really just information: knowledge about patterns, or ways of doing things, or of arranging matter to produce machines that do useful things. IP is clearly not scarce (rivalrous). Other things that exist are scarce, however, and it is these things that are property. By virtue of being scarce (rivalrous), conflicts can arise over their use; and that is what property rules are for: to assign a determinate owner who has the right to control that thing. And the libertarian has a unique view of the property-assignment rule that should be applied: they believe the rule is the one that is uniquely suited to this conflict-avoidance role. And that this is, basically, the Lockean homesteading principle.

Thus, this way of looking at property shows that scarcity is crucially important: things that are scarce are property; things that are not scarce are not. In fact, to assign property rights in non-scarce things necessarily infringes on rights in scarce things. That is *why* it is a problem to assign property rights in non-scarce things–that is, in non-property. I have maintained this consistently from the beginning of my foray into IP policy discussions. Recognizing that IP is not scarce of course thus explains why it is not property. Of course its non-scarcity is relevant.

Person wants to say I’m being disingenuous in arguing this, because in reality, I’m opposed to IP b/c it really means assigning property rights in scarce things pursuant to a rule other than first-use. Er, right. This is exactly what it means to point out that something is not scarce. If you point out something is not scarce in a property rights discussion, you are pointing out that it is therefore problematic to assign property rights in it, because this necessarily means infringing rights in scarce things. This is not “the real” point while scarcity is just a red herring; it is an implication of the thing’s not being scarce; it is the converse of it; it is what it means to be scarce. It is why it’s important to assign property rights only in scarce things. Which requires one to identify which things are scarce and which are not.

See, Person? You little gadfly, you.

p.s.: I do not really concede your point. Just funnin’ ya.

Oh come on! Don’t be so precious. Quit evading and answer the questions put to you. State your position, derive and validate it.

Sione

There is no intellectual property. Ideas cannot be homesteadable, since they can spawn in individuals’ minds once these are exposed.

Let’s take the example of a cornfield. A farmer uses it for growing corn. Let’s say a bum wants to sleep in it. This in no way impedes the ability of the farmer to grow corn. It does not reduce the farmer’s supply of corn-growing land. Everything he could do before, he can still do.

It is of no matter what the farmer does with the land, Person. Land IS scarce, whether the farmer sees the bum or not – there is only a finite number of acres.

Yet we still speak of scarcity in the sense that the farmer just doesn’t want other people in his cornfield

THAT is not scarcity. “Scarcity” exists whether the farmer WANTS to have the bum sleep there or not. You are just changing the meaning of a word in order to fit your argument.

In the baseball example, the game has already started. The seats remaining exceed demand for them. In one sense, they are not scarce [...]

In WHAT sense? In the sense that your polylogism dictates? They ARE scarce because there will be a finite number of them. The DEMAND for them is another thing altogether.

Yet, in another sense, they are scarce: the stadium owner’s desire for them not to be used without payment cannot be simultaneously satisfied with the crashers’ desire to use them. But once you accept the property-rights relevance of scarcity in this second sense, you accept that IP is not scarce, like Stephan Kinsella has conceded.

This DOES beg the question, Person, because you assume what you want to prove: that property is whatever the owner SAYS it is. This is not so,and yet that is the main premise behind IP – it is property because the “owner” says so.

I understand this. I have quite specifically accepted all along that Stephan has established a basis on which he could *reject* this rephrasal (is that a word?) of the IP claim. But the problem is, he’s trying to argue the “ideas aren’t scarce so they can’t be property” bit as an argument above-and-beyond the homesteading response. But that point neither supplements the homesteading response, nor stands alone as an independent, separate reason to reject IP. It’s just a red herring, albeit one that gets a lot of mileage here