In order to prove that someone replicated someone’s physical item (that contains idea) – contrary to the explicit terms of use – one never has to mention “idea theft.” All he needs to prove is that restricted physical characteristics of that item (like patterns of typed words) were beyond doubt replicated.

I also never said that the book owner has a claim against the third party. Now you are hallucinating. I only said that third party’s actions can result in a “TORT” issue between this finder and the buyer who lost the book.

Explanation for Fred: I am positive that you know that “TORT” is an injury – OTHER THAN breach of contract. I am sure that you also know that by referring to TORT – I automatically excluded the possibility that third party “finder” has any contractual obligations. We are talking about non-contractual injury that could be recovered by the buyer – in order to pay for his contractual liability to the author.

So why are you going back to Kinsella’s old pseudo-arguments that I refuted a long time ago? That’s not very nice.

It’s not my fault you tried to disapprove the basic definition of economic scarcity (QD>QS if P=0).

Of course that’s common sense and I don’t need to spend any more time on your jokes.

As far as your “rubbish” goes, you are forgetting that before the first exchange took place, we needed to have someone’s demand (wants and needs) and someone else’s supply (willingness and ability to sell). I’m not talking about hypothetical demand and supply curves based on past “facts of exchange”.

You just keep on joking.

——————

Fred,

Your “leak fees” are just forms of damages that confirm my basic point: you have right to formulate these damages in a free market contract – and to enforce them based on your private property rights.

However, a “flat fee” would be regressive and counterproductive. It would punish the small violators the most, hence stimulating larger violations. If all violators pay a flat fee of $1,000 – a person who only copies and sells one unauthorized item will be punished the most, while those who sell thousands of copies would laugh at this “punishment”.

That’s why the logical way of deterring contract violation is not a flat fee, but a fee that will be in proportion to the actual violation. Plus, if we say that the commercial use belongs to the author – than it is normal for him to create a contract, which will state that any unauthorized product from such use will belong to him.

As far as your “third party” issue goes – I think I already answered it. It is true that people lose their things all the time, but other people would be deterred from putting it into a commercial use in a perfectly free market. A finder does not have a better claim on found item than its original owner. Even without the actual reports to the “authorities,” the threat of a large tort case and theft claim is too great for anyone to ignore it.

Shocking! It is almost as if you’re saying markets may not be in equilibrium at all times!

SR> You also did not understand the significance of that definition of scarcity: product came to existence before markets were established. At the dawn of civilization, only those products that were scarce (for which demand exceeded supply at that moment without markets and zero prices) got to be owned and exchanged.

That was pure rubbish. Demand and supply are facts of the exchange market (whether barter or monetary), not a world without them.

“But if you are liable for the amount of damages based on contract – you are going to seek a tort case against that third party that caused you that damage. This third party knows that in all likelihood you can claim that your book was stolen, and a “finder” who reveals himself will have a hard time to prove that it wasn’t stolen. That would shift the cost of your liability to this third party. That will finally avert these “finders” from putting someone else’s property into a commercial use. … As far as your objection to the term “damages” goes, I am only referring to predetermined amount to be paid in case that breach of contract occurs. If you don’t like it – don’t sign it. You think that not too many people would buy books based on these conditions – but you forget that most of the people aren’t thieves – and those who are… well, they should pay.”

First of all, this is the “leak fee” which I referred to earlier … a flat fee for any and all unauthorized copies that result from your breach (or “leak”), as opposed to a fee which takes into account all copies that came into existence as a result of your book falling into the wrong hands (this would be truly ridiculous and incalculable).
Now the real problem I have with these statements is that you categorize the third parties as “thieves”. If I find your book on the beach, I am NOT a thief. Period. YOU lost it. I am not guilty of anything whatsoever. You can not hold ME responsible for YOUR actions. Using “accidental finder” in quotes like that doesn’t negate this either. People really *do* innocently lose things and innocently find things. But if you think you can make the case that this third party IS guilty of some transgression/trespass/crime, then do it here. I don’t think you can …. prove me wrong.
Also, if you go with a flat fee, then if a thief thinks he can recoup that fee plus a significant profit by violating the terms and making copies, he will. The solution to this is to make the fee significantly high. Of course if you do this, you have now provided a massive disincentive to purchase the book in the first place!!! The risk of having to pay this fee would force me to keep tabs on my books constantly. I certainly would be reluctant to take a book with me on my vacation if I knew I had to contact the authorities if I lost it. Did I lose that book in Orlando … or was it Miami? Who wants that kind of hassle? All for a $10 or $20 book? I don’t think this is going to work out for you.
The only thing I will concede is that your use of “trespass” may be acceptable ( Although, Kinsella doesn’t seem to think so, and he’s a lawyer, so who knows). But it is certainly not the common use — which refers to transgressing onto real physical property.

You said: >>First of all, one doesn’t “trespass against your exclusive use of that item”. That’s not a proper use of the term “trespass”.< <

REALLY?! That's interesting! I'm just kidding, it's absurd.

- Using term trespass when it comes to unauthorized use (contrary to terms) is absolutely appropriate. Trespass is an unauthorized use.

---

In addition, you said: >>Also, how can one give someone “the property title on any damages?” Do we own “damages” now?<<

- Of course you own the means to produce these damages (in the amount of unauthorized copies and/or their profits). You heard RTR…. it’s your paper and ink, but someone else’s commercial use of the book. In a copyright contract you would transfer property title on any potential damages to the author at the time of exchange. That is a conditional transfer of property that will occur only in the event that specified conditions (from unauthorized use or trespass) take place. Implicit contracts of that type prevent lottery or a casino from “changing their mind” once someone wins their jackpot. They also prevent an employer from “changing his mind” once the labor contractor satisfies conditions specified in their agreement. Once you trespass (go against your terms of use) and you create conditions that would produce those damages, the other side can exercise his property rights over those unauthorized copies (jackpot).

I already explained how contractual copyright would provide enough safeguards to deter anyone from copying book he/she “accidentally finds” or steals (makes no difference). We are repeating ourselves too much as ktibuk noted, but what should I do when you bring the old question back… pretend that you “got me?”

As in any contract, you cannot be excused for a third party action that causes your breach of contract (otherwise, third party would have a “license to steal” and no contract could ever be enforced… that would be a good-bye to market exchanges). But if you are liable for the amount of damages based on contract – you are going to seek a tort case against that third party that caused you that damage. This third party knows that in all likelihood you can claim that your book was stolen, and a “finder” who reveals himself will have a hard time to prove that it wasn’t stolen. That would shift the cost of your liability to this third party. That will finally avert these “finders” from putting someone else’s property into a commercial use.

As far as your objection to the term “damages” goes, I am only referring to predetermined amount to be paid in case that breach of contract occurs. If you don’t like it – don’t sign it. You think that not too many people would buy books based on these conditions – but you forget that most of the people aren’t thieves – and those who are… well, they should pay. People who neglect other their obligation (“absentminded” as Stephan put it) should not be excused for their actions; otherwise, you would have another type of “license to steal.”

We are repeating the same things over and over mostly but once in a while new ideas pop up.

RTR said

“Explain how the specific idea that the earth is round, not flat, is scarce. Is that idea ever used up no matter how often and how many people think that idea? No, specific ideas are not scarce. They are never used up. They can be inhabited by as many people who think it, whenever, or wherever they may be.

Now compare the idea that the earth is round, not flat, to the physical material existence of an apple. If you eat that specific apple, that’s it, the apple is gone. That’s why apples are scarce, and ideas are not scarce.”

First returnability was introduced, now “using up”.

The only thing that is used up in this universe is time. Thats it. No other matter or energy is ever lost. They only change shape.

So this, as returnability, is not a distinction between tangible and intangible property.

You are right, when you divulge an idea knowledge, you can not take it totally back. You can not erase a memory.

Once it is out there, it can spread, etc.

But this is not a scarcity issue per se.

There is definitely scarcity in the production and the first trade before it all spills out.

Sepecific, usefull, subjectively valued knowledge which contains utility, isnt free everywhere. We dont live in a garden of eden of ideas. We still dont know dont have zillions of knowledge that contains utility.

If it were then everyone opposed to IP would certainly be right.

Some people produce knowledge. Some of these give it away for free, either as a gift like tangible property (mises.org is an example), and some give it away free because transaction cost of the sale would be too high.

But please try to understand.

These ideas are not like air we breathe. They are not free as anyone could obtain them without effort and conflict.

They are not scarce.

Hence they are property.

Enforcement is a technical issue.

“In exchange for the use of your book I can give you the property title on any damages if unauthorized copies of that item occur. Basically, I transfer you the property title on any such “mirror book” that was made when I trespassed against your exclusive use of that item. You are now legal owner of paper, ink… these books in their entirety. ”

Does this mean that I have to pay for all copies that come into existence if a stranger finds my copy of the book that I accidentally left on the beach?
If so, I don’t think many people would buy books in the first place. Why purchase something as trivial as a book if it could cost you untold amounts of money if you should lose track of it?
Of course, I have to ask, because the language you use above is extremely garbled. First of all, one doesn’t “trespass against your exclusive use of that item”. That’s not a proper use of the term “trespass”. I guess what you mean is “violate the ‘terms of use’ agreement”? Also, how can one give someone “the property title on any damages?” Do we own “damages” now? If so, I’ll give you ten dollars for that sack of damages.
Speaking of damages, a very interesting problem arises if we entertain your free-market copyright scenario (one of MANY) …..
How are we to know that any damage occurred at all? Presumably, you use the term “damages” to refer to some perceived loss of sales that results from some unauthorized copies coming into existence. But of course, we don’t know if any of these sales would have actually occurred. (In fact we can never know if ANY sales *would* have occurred *AT ALL* given a different set of circumstances.) How do we know that these people (or any people) would have bought your book? We don’t even know if these “potential customers” would have even known of the book’s existence, were it not for the specific set of circumstances which brought it to their attention/posession (i.e. if it wasn’t for the unauthorized copy, these people may have never seen/read *any* copy of your book.)

You obviously made a logical lapse and forgot about basic economics and what I really said, while trying to be a smart-mouth. Give it up.

I did not say that giving away goods for free is a free-market outcome, and you know this well.

Yes, we can experimentally set prices of some good to zero after something is produced – just 1to see what would happen (politicians did this for particular goods and services in socialist economies). And what happen in those cases are extreme shortages (Q demanded is greater than Q supplied). That’s the definition of scarcity. Such condition normally does not exist for air, harmful weeds, pollution, but they do exist for software or labor.

You also did not understand the significance of that definition of scarcity: product came to existence before markets were established. At the dawn of civilization, only those products that were scarce (for which demand exceeded supply at that moment without markets and zero prices) got to be owned and exchanged.

You are incorrect when you say that no one cares about scarcity of labor (anyone who managed at least a household knows why such statement is absurd – the issue of scarcity gave birth to property rights and market exchanges). But of course we care more about what labor accomplishes – just like we care more about what goods accomplish (our end goals of personal satisfaction or production).

So you failed to say anything meaningful, but you were not ready to admit that economic definition of scarcity makes perfect sense.

——————

rtr,

You can only make me laugh. Of course that you think my arguments were “stripped and defeated” because you imagined many statements that I never made. That is the only way you can provide rebuttal – by arguing with yourself.

1) Nobody here argued that labor can be compelled – you hallucinate.

2) Nobody argued that ideas per se are property (on the contrary, we insisted that copyrights must deal only with the use of tangible and exchangeable property) – you hallucinate.

3) There are copies of my book. That’s why we have COPY machines… and no, that’s not a metaphor. And I can lease my product or sell it any way I want to – without “pretending” (whatever you meant by that) – you hallucinate.

4) In exchange for the use of your book I can give you the property title on any damages if unauthorized copies of that item occur. Basically, I transfer you the property title on any such “mirror book” that was made when I trespassed against your exclusive use of that item. You are now legal owner of paper, ink… these books in their entirety.

5. My contract is valid on grounds that it is a voluntary exchange of property title. There are only certain conditions that would make some contract voidable. You don’t know a single one. Please educate yourself. The arguments that you tried to use are ridiculous:

A) Contracts always prohibit some form of “labor” that is in violation of that contract. The only way that a contract can be enforceable is by prohibiting action (labor) of contract violation. You don’t even realize how silly your first pseudo-argument is, just from a primate intelligence standpoint. I don’t know where you got that insane notion about freedom of any kind of “labor” – but surely, it was not on this planet.

A-1) Terms of use specify what use of my product is allowed. Any “labor” that is not mentioned in terms of use is trespassing and theft. If you don’t like the use I offer – don’t buy them. However, you cannot pay for these allowed terms of use and than give yourself an “upgrade” like in my airline seats example (that’s stealing).
B) I never mentioned that ideas are property. You hallucinated again.

C) Property titles of real goods were “exchanged to me,” although your mental defense mechanisms will prevent you from understanding that. Money that I paid for personal use of your book and property title on possible damages that I gave – are all “real goods.”

Regards.

“We” can’t, and the price isn’t zero. Fairies and elves didn’t produce while “we” were asleep, even in a socialist state. What fantasy land are you living in? When A exchanges the product of A’s labor for B’s product of labor, “they” don’t set the exchange price to zero, by definition. If “they” did, it would be another thing: gifting. But gifting costs the giver. What you say makes no sense. Some things, like air, cost zero and are needed/valued, but we don’t call air scarce (usually). That is why it costs nothing.

SR> …it is also a symptom of your economic ignorance. [And] … don’t feel too bad: the author of this thread (Kinsella) failed to even recognize the issue of scarcity in labor markets.

{laughs} No one cares about “scarcity of labor.” They care about what labor accomplishes — that’s what is scarce. The fact that a real person has to sit/stand/jump/dance to manufacture the accomplishment is merely incidental. If everyone could leisurely sip mimosas under their cozy cabana without working a second, then that is what they would do.

1.) Labor cannot be compelled, even by contract, such as forcing sex, or prohibiting copying.

2.) Ideas are not property.

3.) There are no copies of your book. There is still just your book, your pages, your splotches of ink on those pages. That’s all you can sell, that’s all you can pretend to just “lease”.

4.) Any other books which may mirror yours are made with different specific materials, different specific pages, and different specific splotches of ink. Any comparison of content is a comparison of non material non tangible property. Even a change in font is a completely different book than your original, unless you again want to fantasize that you can sell non material non property ideas, which you can’t.

5.) Your contract is invalid on multiple grounds:

A.) It’s enforces/prohibits labor in the form of labor on copying

A-1.) Terms of use are also prohibitions on labor. If I want to spit on “your” book, that’s my right. If I want to toss “your” book into the ocean, that’s my right also. If I want to burn “your” book, it’s burned. You gonna sue those who’s libraries may burn with your book in them? Your argument is so weak, you couldn’t claim damages if the actual physical manifestation of your book was deliberately destroyed. Why? Because you have no property claim on that book, let alone any other property claims which was not your original book. Deliberately burning the book you sold is not theft nor agression. And nor is “copying” it. Ideas can’t be stolen. Labor cannot be compelled. You’re done, friend. Check mate.

B.) It mentions as property things like ideas which are not property.

C.) Real goods were not actually voluntarily exchanged to you.

You need to read more, or read more carefully. We can always decide to set the price of any good or service to zero (that’s called state socialism). But what happens at that moment (we’re talking about markets for “goods,” not about something worthless)? It happens that quantity demanded becomes large, while quantity supplied goes drasticly down – and shortages exist. That is a symptom of scarcity that exists in markets for software – and it is also a symptom of your economic ignorance.

—–

rtr,

You may hallucinate about “idea ownership” all day long. I never advocated such thing and your messages about that nonsense only illustrate the weakness of your arguments. Trust me, you’re not going to accomplish anything by replying to something I never even said.

We both know what the whole point of our discussion is: you have a right to sell a certain use of your product and to restrict other uses. If you think that your authorship is worth anything, you will certainly care about your “ink patterns”. If I buy the personal use of your book – and I pay $15 for that plus the obligation to pay the amount of all damages from unauthorized use (copies + profits)… that is a perfectly valid contract.

I cannot say one year after the exchange happen:
-”Geez, I really overpaid this book – let me give myself a nice fat upgrade… I will just take for free that commercial use that belongs only to the author.”
And imagine if I also said:
“I think that I should also give myself a nice fat discount… I will take back the amount of damages that belongs to the author (based on property title exchange) – screw you!”

That is nothing but a theft and aggression. It is not aggression when some author tries to collect his property, for which he obtained the property title in a voluntary market exchange. If someone publishes the author’s works against the terms of use – wherever that person publishes it – that author will use his resources to track him down and to collect his damages.

Like you said, you cannot “change your mind” and adjust the outcome of a voluntary market transaction by violating someone’s property rights (in both terms of use and damages for which the author has the property title).

Regards.

Ridiculous. When the market price of a “good” is zero, it is no longer a good, it is something worthless, by definition. Goods are not ideas. Ideas are not property.

So what are you going to do if the contents and ideas of your book are on the internet? Claim the internet for yourself? Claim all the computers that belong to others for yourself?

If the property hasn’t been transferred at the time of trade, then indeed the transaction is cancelled if someone changes their mind. It isn’t a final transaction, it isn’t a final trade, until both parties have transferred what they agree to transfer. If it makes you feel better, agreement has not been executed until the goods are indeed voluntarily traded. Until that time, any contract, any promises, and conditionals, are as good and meaningful as a might possibility. If it doesn’t voluntarily come to you from the other party, coercing it is nothing but theft.

At any rate who cares what words or what ink pattern splotches are on the specific pages of your specific book. You don’t and can’t own meaning, ideas, or content, as you’ve already admitted, such things are not ownable, such things are not property. The only thing you can regulate or contract is the use of the specific pages with specific ink in your specific book. As long as those specific pages with that specific ink is sitting on someone’s bookshelf, your book isn’t being used commercially, and thus, you lose. The content may as well be random jibberish, may as well be the word “the” written 1,000,000 times, may as well be anything in any possible arrangement whatsoever; you never owned any of that content, you never owned any of those ideas, and thus you never had any authority to make a contract regarding those ideas, as you have already admitted, ideas can’t be owned, ideas can’t be stolen.

So I guess every book author with a copyright claim in it is in violation of every other book author with a copyright claim in it. What do they all have in common physically? They are bound pages with ink. Copycats indeed! What? Is the book unpatentable now too?

You are hallucinating again. I never said that I “own property in or of the ideas” (whatever that means). I own my physical property – and I can sell you the specific use of it.

When you make a purchase of a book, in addition to money you provide you also entitle the seller with any unauthorized copies (you give him title to any damages that may ocurr as a result of your trespassing into a commercial use).

You unintentionally supported my whole argument with you nonsensical “air-sale” example (“nonsensical” because when it comes to air we normally breathe it is not a scarce resource that is sold – but we can talk about the air tanks in SCUBA diving… plus, this deals with the issue of “limited privilege in cases of necessity”… An airline cannot kick you out of their moving plane, even if you are trespassing).

But my whole point was this (excuse the emphasis): YOU CANNOT CANCEL PROPERTY TITLE TRANSFERS BY “CHANGING YOUR MIND”! That was my whole argument on why copyright contracts must hold.

You don’t even know what you are arguing anymore.

That’s just it, you have no authority regarding copies because you don’t own property in or of the ideas which may or may not be in your specific physical book. You have no authority regarding what others do with their owned real existing blank pages and ink.

If you contract with me to pay me for the air you breath I cannot force you to continue trading your property to me if you change your mind and decide to cease paying me for the air you are breathing. What am I going to do? Take away the air you are breathing? Likewise, what are you going to do with ideas someone may have paid you for? Take those ideas back? Nope, you are stretching for false justification to commit violent aggressive actions to forecefully the take the real existing property of others under the bogus guise of the oxymoronic term “copyright”. That’s absurd.

The relevant FACT is it’s a physical impossibility to return an idea. That fact is a distinguishing characteristic from real physical property, which is able to be return transferred.

Explain how the specific idea that the earth is round, not flat, is scarce. Is that idea ever used up no matter how often and how many people think that idea? No, specific ideas are not scarce. They are never used up. They can be inhabited by as many people who think it, whenever, or wherever they may be.

Now compare the idea that the earth is round, not flat, to the physical material existence of an apple. If you eat that specific apple, that’s it, the apple is gone. That’s why apples are scarce, and ideas are not scarce.

You’re right that people choose to pay for ideas, just as you may choose to pay me for the air you breath. But that’s a choice that cannot be coercively enforced by another, whether they were promised such payment indefinitely, or whether they wave a contract in your face. You can’t force someone to pay for something you don’t own. If they voluntarily wish to do so, that’s their choice, keyword being choice.