Say that whenever one writes a book, the writer uses a very special ink that can only be found on his property (he has a special inkwell that he taps in a deep cellar). So he can procure paper sheets, write on those using his special ink, bind those sheets, call them “books” and sell them to people who pass by his house. People can use those “books” he sells as they see fit; generally they read the text on the sheets then put the “book” away into a shelf. But there is one thing they cannot do, which is, procure their own stack of paper sheets and copy the ink stains seen on the original over to their own stack. This cannot be done due some effect best explained with Star Trek physics [in the actual world, if you had a book of unread quantum bits instead of classical bits, you could indeed not copy it under certain conditions] Anyway, in order to get a second copy of the original stack to offer to their spouse for example, people need to go back to the single place where the very special ink can be found – the author’s property – and ask for another one of these “books”.

One could endow this pretend world with additional extras, e.g. the author may sell the ink or even the inkwell, or the ink transforms into normal, copyable ink after 20 years etc.

We can now talk about whether it makes sense or is desirable to think about authors having access to a special inkwell in their basement instead of chasing tails trying to discern whether labor has been mixed in or whatnot.

Since value is the only valid source of the right of property, so must the creation of that value be the only original means of acquiring it.

What about doughnuts!? What about that Mr. Fung!?

Hsve you missed the marginal revolution? Have you heard of the diamond water paradox? I am amazed that you have posting privilages in this site.

I am not talking about a general category of time.

I am talking about every individuals marginal scarce time left in this universe.

You as an individual have certain days left, you are not immortal or the universe is timeless.

If labor just imples the discomfort or pain to you, in this theory that is not sufficient. There is a time element to all of this. You can not escape it even if you try.

Time is the only scarce resource in this universe, relative to humans.

You can not consume energy or matter, although you can transform them to eachother.

This means if you have technology and know how, which is also a time realted issue, you have infinite amnount of energy and matter which means energy and matter is not scarce.

But since time is scarce for humans nonscarcity of matter and energy is irrelevant. There will be scarcity in this universe as long as time exists.

Time is scarce, and you can not actually save time itself, or stop it for that matter.

But by saving up capital and stacking up technology (which is capital that can not be consumed) humans in a way save time.

That capital and technology that is used to set up a car factory is the result of the thousands of years of invested time before it.

Therefore humans by saving up capital and tech are getting close to near nonscarcity by the way of abundance.

Getting back to homesteading.

First comer is not sufficient to establish a homesteading rule. I can not pass over an unowned proptery and claim it while I pass.

I have to interact with it and mix it with something that explicitly belongs to me. And that is my labor (the discomfort) and my scarce time.

“You want to argue that IP is ownable because it took time to create it, and that time was mixed with the owner’s labor? To make that case you need to show that time has a residue – some persistent physical attribute that can be transformed by labor. ”

Everthing in the universe has a time residue. And every manmade thing has a time residue once belonged to the creator or the rearranger of that thing.

Mossoff’s use of “labor” and “creation” isn’t necessarily tied to physical action. Like Rand, he’s arguing that the mere act of thinking establishes a property right. I keep thinking back to the Fountainhead, which is really a lengthy defense of intellectual property. Here’s the key passage from Roark’s defense at his trial:

“I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I designed it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.”

Consider the implications of this argument. He designs a housing project without demanding any tangible payment–only a promise from Peter Keating not to change the design. Keating doesn’t have the authority to guarantee this and Roark admits as much. Roark then maintains the right to destroy Cortlandt, because he designed it. In his words he “gave it to you,” which is false. He didn’t bring the capital or physical materials together to actually construct the project, he merely developed the plans. But to Rand (and Mossoff), the intellectual act of design trumps the tangible property rights of others.

The implications here go much further then even current IP law. Cortlandt’s builders changed Roark’s design, so what was built was neither his physical property nor a tangible manifestation of his idea. Yet, again, Rand maintained Roark had an absolute right to destroy the project despite the fact he was never a party to any contract giving him any such rights.

Those contracts *explicitly* agree to abide by government copyright law. But, of course, the profits hoped for rely on that copyright law to be forced upon everyone else not party to the agreement. It is a market setting, sure, but not a free market setting.

Really, we don’t know how it would look were people free to choose. Perhaps something similar to the current copyright law would arise, but, as you said, it is really sloppy. My thoughts are that a free market in books, etc. would be much more dynamic. Who knows? Maybe the sale of books would cease, and those resources would be used for something else. Who knows what we are missing out on?

“Are you suggesting that current copyright law has everything to do with strictly enforcing private contracts, or that there *could* be copyright contracts in a purely contractual society?”

Contracts protecting copyrights do exist in market setting. You can choose to obtain full ownership rights over a book (like any publisher), but that is kind of pricey if book is good at all. On the other hand, you can decide to settle for only a limited use of someone’s book for a couple of bucks.

Copyright law is the government’s sloppy way of fighting against the criminals who only buy a limited use and then hijack full ownership rights from the rightful owner. The fact that government sometimes fights crime does not mean we should support criminals. We should leave that to communists.

PS
It is interesting that Dr. Kinsella favors those bloggers who don’t mention the fact that anyone willing to buy the full ownership rights is not a subject to any copyright restriction.

Only those of us who enter implied market contracts for limited use of someone’s property (like books, CDs, etc.) are voluntarily restricting our legal ability to replicate such works.

To be accurate we would have to say he owns his future time, because his past time is now permanently beyond his control.

You want to argue that IP is ownable because it took time to create it, and that time was mixed with the owner’s labor? To make that case you need to show that time has a residue – some persistent physical attribute that can be transformed by labor.

And yes every mortal owns its unique scarce time left in this universe.”

Time is a scarce resource, that people own? Really? So if you are using one segment (?) of time, then others can’t? This is ludicrous and confused. With friends like you, IP advocates need no enemies.

Kevin: “Are you suggesting that current copyright law has everything to do with strictly enforcing private contracts, or that there *could* be copyright contracts in a purely contractual society?”

Copyright and patent advocates are all over the map. They don’t know what they are for. One day it’s utilitarian; the other it’s rights based. The objectivist here is arguing for a natural right to copyright, *not* based on some contorted contract argument. AT least they’re honest.

“Time” is the scarce resource, individuals invest with, to attain the ethical norms of homesteading.

And yes every mortal owns its unique scarce time left in this universe.

Are you suggesting that current copyright law has everything to do with strictly enforcing private contracts, or that there *could* be copyright contracts in a purely contractual society?

I love you, Person. (And that ishhn’t the bourbon talking.

Kinsella is still working on the spectrum, just as you are still working on IP. (I respect you too much to think that you’ve made up your mind.)

If you only purchase a non-commercial, personal use of someone else’s book, you can’t assume full ownership and violate owner’s exclusive rights. In other words, copyright has everything to do with private property rights and nothing to do with “owning thoughts”…

As for copyright, I deal with this in detail in Against Intellectual Property, available in the JLS here on this site.

How do you feel about copyrights? Please recommend some reading materials that address your opinions regarding copyrights.

But I’m a little confused: Remind me how, exactly, homesteading a resource gains me “the right to write a Harry Potter novel with this stuff”, while it does NOT gain me “right to determine patterns of radio waves through this stuff”.