You seem confused. DRM increases scarcity of property, true, but it increases scarcity of physical property – not IP (Imaginary Property).

If you are resting your argument for IP on scarcity, then you fail here because it is physical property that is made more scarce due to DRM software.

“I dont really care about the electrons and particles and stuff.”

When it comes to arguing about electronics, you don’t care about the electrons? No wonder you think your example supports IP. You’re ascribing the results of all the physical operations to magic.

It was not a utilitarian argument because I was not asserting that IP is or is not property on the basis of whether making it property increases or decreases utility. Clear enough?

ktibuk: “Ok so you say natural scarcity is ok but artificial scarcity is not? Now you need to set forth an argument about this instead of keep repeating it.”

You’re the one asserting the positive, that IP can be property. Why should I have to disprove your assertion?

Since you’re rejecting my definitions, which ones would you prefer? What are property rights, why do they exist, and how do you tell valid assertions of property rights from invalid ones (and thus defense from aggression)?

For reference, my answers were as follows. A property right is the right to exercise ultimate decision-making with regards to how a resource (something that can be employed in service of one or more ends) will be transformed from one state to another. They exist because only one person can exercise such decision-making at a time with regard to a particular resource; divergent transformations are naturally rivalrous (interfere with each other). Valid property rights begin with the Lockean homesteading principle and are passed from one person to another through contractual title-transfer. Coercion is the usurpation of the owner’s right to decide how the resource will be transformed. Aggression is initiation of coercion, coercion which is not a proportional response to prior aggression. Defense is coercion which is a proportional response to prior aggression.

ktibuk: “So you are saying without a perfect safe or a perfect door lock against thieves there is no justification for any property. Are you kidding me?”

That’s my line. What I said was that you have not demonstrated that perfect DRM can exist, and I did not concede any implication to that effect. Nothing to do with mandating perfect locks as a precondition for the existance of property.

ktibuk: “DRM creates scarcity. According to your definition scarcity creates property. So DRM propertected IP is scarce thus property.”

First, you misrepresent my definitions. I specifically stated that scarcity (in the common sense which you’re using here) does not make something potential property, much less property. Homesteading creates property out of land (unowned potential property). On the contrary, by my definitions there is no point in holding property rights in IP because they are untransformable by nature; it is impossible to aggress against any property right in IP, and thus such rights would be empty, having no effect.

Second, DRM doesn’t make IP scarce, it makes physical instanciations (copies) of IP scarce. If anything, it would be an argument for ownership of the copies, but since they are already rivalrous (being physical objects) there is no need for such an argument. That the copies can be owned does not mean there is anything wrong with making new copies, any more than the fact that one can own a car makes it somehow wrong to build new cars, even in the likeness of the original.

ktibuk: “Unless you can prove artifical scarcity is illegali that I dont have a right to put DRM on IP, or I have an obligation to share IP with everyone you can not condone artifical scarcity since I am not agressing against anyones property by putting DRM.”

I think you meant “condemn”, not “condone”. And I didn’t argue that to begin with. You have every right to add DRM to your property (the copies you already own), but it doesn’t give you a property right in the patten itself (the right to prevent others from making copies). It merely makes it difficult for others to make copies, a practical deterrent but not an ethical/moral one.

ktibuk: “Why should I [argue for IP absent DRM]? You are saying there cant be property rights without scarcity but ask for a property right argument in the absence of scarcity.”

I don’t expect you to be able to make such an argument (thus my anti-IP stance), but you were the one that said that whether or not something is property does not depend on the existance of perfect locks. What difference does it make whether the DRM is weak or simply nonexistant? My property is my property whether or not I put a ten-foot barbed-wire fence around it; simply marking the boundaries is sufficient, and even that is probably unnecessary so long as my claim remains clear. If IP is property then it is such whether or not you employ DRM. Conversely, if it is not property then the addition of DRM will not make it property.

If you are basing your argument on profitability then it is an utilitarian argument. I might profit more from investing you savings and you might just throw it away but that doesnt give me the right to steal your money.

Jesse: “False. For something to be property requires more than just scarcity (in the common sense which includes artificial scarcity). Property boundaries only exist where they must exist; this is where rivalry comes into play. In economics scarcity means natural scarcity”

Ok so you say natural scarcity is ok but artificial scarcity is not? Now you need to set forth an argument about this instead of keep repeating it.

Jesse: “True on all counts, unless you intended to imply that such anticopying technology could be perfectly implemented.”

So you are saying without a perfect safe or a perfect door lock against thieves there is no justification for any property. Are you kidding me? ,

Jesse: “Peter was right, this is a non sequitur. You’re creating a circular argument: (a) DRM creates artificial scarcity, mainly due to it being illegal to break; (b) IP is property because it is scarce; (c) breaking DRM is wrong because IP is property.”

Where is the circularity here? OI thouth circular means ending where it started. I started from somewhere and ended somewhere else.

Again.

DRM creates scarcity. According to your definition scarcity creates property. So DRM propertected IP is scarce thus property. HAcking is an aggression against property. Eventhough IP ceases to be property after it is hacked you should concede that hacking is an attack on property.

Unless you can prove artifical scarcity is illegali that I dont have a right to put DRM on IP, or I have an obligation to share IP with everyone you can not condone artifical scarcity since I am not agressing against anyones property by putting DRM. Thre agressor is the hacker.

Jesse: “You haven’t raised any argument for IP as property in the absence of DRM.”

Why should I? You are saying there cant be property rights without scarcity but ask for a property right argument in the absence of scarcity. Again, are you kidding me?

That was not a utilitarian argument, it was an argument against the profitability of the copyright-contract business model. Cost of enforcement is a legitimate factor in determining the practicality of contractual arrangements, including copyright-by-contract.

ktibuk: “On theory, it is possible to implement anticopying technology for the digital media. It is being done today albeit not perfectly. . . . This is called creating artificial scarcity.”

True on all counts, unless you intended to imply that such anticopying technology could be perfectly implemented. That you would need to prove.

ktibuk: “Which in turn demolishes the claim that IP is not property at all because it is not scarce.”

False. For something to be property requires more than just scarcity (in the common sense which includes artificial scarcity). Property boundaries only exist where they must exist; this is where rivalry comes into play. In economics scarcity means natural scarcity, which in term is equivalent to rivalry; you’ve been using different definitions, which explains your confusion. Just because something can be made scarce does not make it property. (If it did there would be no distinction between aggressive and non-aggressive actions, since one could just declare one’s actions to be in defence of their preferences relabeled as property rights; “that wasn’t murder, it was just defense of my property right in my peace of mind”, etc.)

ktibuk: “On the question of hacking or breaking DRM, . . . . Problem is not whether or not theft can take place or the cost of security but if it is ok, lawfull or not.”

First, if it is theft then it’s obviously not OK or lawful. Second, you still haven’t proved that IP is property. Otherwise I agree.

ktibuk: “If you concede DRM is moral and legal then you must concede breaking or hacking the DRM is illegal.”

Peter was right, this is a non sequitur. You’re creating a circular argument: (a) DRM creates artificial scarcity, mainly due to it being illegal to break; (b) IP is property because it is scarce; (c) breaking DRM is wrong because IP is property. Besides the fact that both (a) and (b) are faulty, as I have previously stated, the illegality of DRM depends on its effectiveness at creating scarcity and its effectiveness depends the illegality of breaking it. You appear to be attempting to prove your assumption: that IP is property.

ktibuk: “. . . when you define property and theft you don’t take account the practical difficulties of making unbreakable locks or deterrents.”

True, but that’s exactly what you’re doing — your claim that IP is property is based on the existance of effective DRM to create artificial scarcity. If IP is property it is such with or without DRM. You haven’t raised any argument for IP as property in the absence of DRM.

ktibuk: “Maybe you can not find the first leaker, maybe you can not punish every thief . . . . This does not mean there is no crime or there isnt any property right.”

True, but irrelevant. That entire argument over the cost of enforcement was made with the assumption that IP isn’t property; thus the attempt to enforce copyright through contracts.

We are not talking about morality here but talking about economic value, or loss and profit.

There is an exchange and exchange happens only when there is reverse valuations of the parties.

And one party can not force his valuation on others.

I own the IP I rented out. I dont want its integrity (its DRM) to be agressed against.

You cant hack the drm but claim “hey nothing happened”.

If scarcity creates property and DRM creates scarcity untill it is hacked,

then

DRM protected IP is property before it is hacked.

Hacking is an “agression against property”, hence the only definition of crime.

IP is not nature given but produced by man. So please stop confusing IP with nature given abundant things and get a perspective.

A “loss” is a subjective valuation just like a gain. You might think I havent lost but I might think otherwise, you might even think I gained but still I might think I have lost.

Some people actually defend IP theft by claiming freely roaming IP promotes the product so it is actually a good thing but that is up to the owners to decide and this has nothing to do with property rights discussions. Tangible property also is being given away by the owners for promotion reasons but this doesnt mean there is no property rights whats so ever.

The term “Digital Rights Management” actually implies that you are not buying the good (song, movie or a digital book) but merely renting it for a life time (unless it destroys itself after sometime which is also possible). If there was a transfer of property title then the producer would stop managing the rights after the transfer.

something still doesnt seem right here.

if i rent a car…well…i guess could rearrange it into a convertible by cutting of the top and putting it into the trunk. the rental car company then has to pay to get a new car or reassemble and weld the top back onto the car.
they have incurred a loss (unless the new choptop rents better than the ‘old’ car.)

but making a copy (rearrangement) of a ‘rented’ song doesn’t create a loss for anyone.

Breaking the DRM is not covered by seemingly naive and cute examples of “absent minded people leaving a book on the beach” which you anti IP people love to give trying to show contracts between two people can not be enforced on a third party.

Here with the DRM, theft is exposed since the people trying to hack the DRM are intentionally trying to alter the integrity of the digital product.

So yes it does follow.

When I lease a DVD movie for life time with a contract that explicity states that you can only view it at home and when this DVD has DRM then persons (you or a third party) hacking the DRM is damaging the property. It is an agression on property.

So yes artificial scaricty can be created.

And yes once you do this, IP becomes real property.

And after it becomes real property and aggression towards it, is a crime.

The best part is you dont even have to use defensive violance or the threat of it to enforce it most of the time.

Since sophisticated thieves (much more sophisticated than say car thieves) are required.

And guess what gives people the chance to create artificial scarcity for IP?

The “intellectual” part of the thing.

That’s what we call a “non-sequitur”, Latin for “it doesn’t follow” – the morality/legality of applying DRM (i.e., of encrypting your content) doesn’t in any way imply the immorality/illegality of decrypting that content without permission (i.e., “hacking the DRM”). Quite the contrary: on the basis of your argument, DRM suffices to make “artificial scarcity”, making something property (in your misunderstanding of Kinsella’s argument); thus it follows that breaking the DRM is sufficient to prove it not-property, and therefore no theft and no illegality is involved.

Please lets not use utilitarian arguments, like how costly it might be to use anti copying technology. That is not the problem.

On theory, it is possible to implement anticopying technology for the digital media. It is being done today albeit not perfectly.

This is called creating artificial scarcity.

Which in turn demolishes the claim that IP is not property at all because it is not scarce.

On the question of hacking or breaking DRM, I know it is being done.

But theft of tangible property is being done ona daily basis too.

Car alarms, and locks dont work for pro car thiefs either.

Problem is not whether or not theft can take place or the cost of security but if it is ok, lawfull or not.

If you concede DRM is moral and legal then you must concede breaking or hacking the DRM is illegal.

And that is where the debate stops.

Because when you define property and theft you don’t take account the practical difficulties of making unbreakable locks or deterrents.

Maybe you can not find the first leaker, maybe you can not punish every thief (IP aside states are historys biggest thiefs and you can not punish most of government beuracrats and politicians either). This does not mean there is no crime or there isnt any property right.

That is why I noted “even without agreement.” With a prior use agreement the situation changes. If you agree to upload the song to my computer on the condition that I will not copy it, then I cannot copy it.

I agree that it would be wrong to break the contract, but Jesse is right in that finding the right person to sue in the case of a leak would be quite costly – the model doesn’t work. In a contractual society, I would suggest considering other options.

Sure, you can place access to that key beyond the technical capabilities of the average person, but it only takes one smart kid with a few decent tools to categorically defeat any given DRM scheme. This happens routinely even under the threat of aggression against anyone found circumventing DRM; without the aggression it would be even more commonplace. The cost of developing new, “unbreakable” DRM schemes is far greater than the cost of breaking them, and there’s no sign that that will ever change. Your assertion that publishers will have “total control” over content in the future is unfounded.

ktibuk: “What if the record company rents you the song on certain conditions . . . What if you are not buying the books but leasing it for a lifetime under certain conditions . . . What if the publisher keeps the property rights of the paper and ink on the book?”

It wouldn’t make any difference, even if people were willing to accept mere rental in place of ownership. None of those things would make it morally or ethically wrong to distribute copies of the media; only the contractees would have any liability (voluntarily assumed under the contract), and you’d probably never figure out who first leaked the media to the public, even if it was intentional — and they’d have plausible deniability, since the kinds of precautions necessary to avoid unintentional leaks would be prohibitively expensive. The model doesn’t work because it only takes one leaked copy for everyone to have access, and there’s nothing you’d be able to do about it.

I dont really care about the electrons and particles and stuff.

What anti IP advocates suggest that, since I can copy a song without lessening the original then it is not scarce and not a property.

I am saying that every IP can be made scarce, with anti copying technology.

We dont need to waste any time on abstract concepts like owning ideas and stuff.

The real world cares about music, books, videos inventions and trade marks.

“What you are suggesting is that by arranging another’s electrons into a certain pattern, you gain a right to those electrons at the former owner’s expense, even without agreement. ”

And when you say anothers, what makes you so sure that it is infact anothers. What if the record company rents you the song on certain conditions like itunes does, like you cant play it on another mp3 player than ipods and you cant copy it somewhere else?

I also mentioned books. An old technology.

What if you are not buying the books but leasing it for a lifetime under certain conditions.

Why do you automatically suppose property rights are being transfered including paper and ink.

What if the publisher keeps the property rights of the paper and ink on the book?

The problem with IP is that the prıducers couldnt control the copying process in the past.

Now in the digital age they have some control and in the future they will have the total control.

This doesnt mean there wont be an freebees out there, also it doesnt mean music industry will not give up making money from recorded media but it is their choice as the owners of property not anyone elses.

What you are suggesting is that by arranging another’s electrons into a certain pattern, you gain a right to those electrons at the former owner’s expense, even without agreement.

Taking from another without permission is theft, in fact it’s downright rude.

Actually, DRM is part of a physical program, not some imaginary construct. “IP” may only be as scarce as it can be real property. A computer program, as far as electrons go, is real property, not IP. Basically, DRM affects the physical operations of the CPU, affecting the placement of electrical charges here and there. (Gross oversimplification, I know.)

If I have one less song on my computer, then that is less data. Data (real property) is held on all sorts of storage devices – none made of ether.

`Also he should not use the name of Locke ase explained above.`

There is nothing wrong with this. In fact IP is the only property that can be protected without the use or threat of violance.

Kinsella mentions artificial scarcity through Bouckaer but that’s it he just mentions. No justification on why artificial scarcity is bad, or unjustified. There is a quote that says it and that is it.

Here, DRMs are artifical scarcity technologies. Do we need to justify them? Or are you going to force the creators to give them away unrestricted since he doesnt lose it?

Also I don’t think Bill Gates would miss 100 dollars. And according to the law of diminishing marginal utility the value of 100 dollars for Bill Gates is almost nothing. It is almost as not losing the IP when giving it away. Should it be ok to steal 100 dollars from Gates?

Also for the physical books. Every anti IP person thinks of a transfer of property when it comes to books. Why is that?

Can’t it be that “buying” boks are a long term lease, where transfer of ownership of the paper and ink isn’t being transfered at all? So no you can not use Harry Potter to balance a table if the person who actually rented you the book for a lifetime doesnt want it so.

Today all patent and some copyright laws are indeed stupid and it is shameful to keep using these idotic laws to further a stupid agenda of socialist anti IP position.

Look at every post here, mostly from Kinsella, every one of them are an example of a patent law which not one real libertarian IP advocate really supports. No one is giving examples of stealing music and movies and books and profiting from them by copying.

Also Kinsella, just to prove there is no IP, turns the homesteading rule on his head and kicks labor out and replaces it with occupancy without realizing the consequances for the tangible property. If you only use occupant one person either can own everywhere he first takes a walk in (like Crusoe owning the whole island) or loses the property right when he leaves the property and not occupy it anymore.

Do you thing Locke and Rothbard couldnt think of using occupancy? Are you the qenuieses that corrected them?

Also when Kinsella says

“The libertarian view is that conflicts should be avoided in things that can be conflicted over (namely, scarce or rivalrous goods) by assigning property rights in accordance with just, fair, objective rules, namely, the Lockean homesteading rule whereby the first user of a previously unowned scarce resource owns it.”

He is totally wrong. Property rights arent assigned by some know it all. It is naturally there. Conflict may or may not arise but property rights are property rights, they are not created to accomplish some socialistic harmony. Also he should use the name of Locke ase explained above.