plagiarism at here:

Thanks

Thanks again for your cogent response. I believe I see the essence of your argument for IP. I confess that the entire theory of natural law is still a bit wishy washy for me–I need to read more extensively on the subject–but I see the appeal and logic of IP as the right of a creator. I suspect this goes deep to the root of natural law.

In most of the arguments I’ve witnessed your having on the comment boards, I don’t think that your opponents fully comprehend your position. I’m not trying to be insulting or incendiary here, but I would attribute that to your terse, often sarcastic posts and your opponents’ lack of curiosity to figure out what you mean.

I’ll give some more thought to your position, and I’m sure I’ll run into you again on the blog.

I have written a lot on this blog, of course in the comments section but I haven’t written a whole manifesto on the issue. Unfortunately I don’t have time to write a scholarly essay.

But mainly my IP position depends on my property rights position.

I wholeheartedly believe in the Lockean/Rothbardian property rights theory and as an atheist anarchist there is nothing else I find more sacred than private property rights.

I believe first and foremost everyone owns his own body (and soul) and whatever he creates (rearranges with his scarce time in this universe) he owns. When it comes to homesteading scarce nature given resources there is also a necessary “first comer” principle but when it comes to IP this principle becomes void since we all know there is possibility of independent discovery especially when it comes to simple ideas.

Property is a part of reality and natural law. It is not a man designed law with a goal of a better society. There is no need for rivalry for something to be property. Robinson Crusoe owns the fish he catches even before Friday comes to the island. Fridays arrival only makes protection of property and enforcement of property rights necessary.

Property can be protected in many ways, and the owner of the property should bear the cost. But in this world we are forced to live under protection rackets called states thus protection of all property is socialized.

When it comes to IP, it is mostly protected through the tangible goods it is embedded in and contracts. Bear in mind, contracts don make IP property. IP is property prior to any contract. Contracts are only tools.

When a creator rents you an IP on certain conditions you should honor that contract. Also third parties may be held liable, if they knew that IP was copyrighted. This is the main issue that is brought ip by IP socialists but they since they deny that IP is property this point is moot.

If A rented an apartment to B and they have a lease contract, and B forgets to lock and close the door and C who has never signed o contract gets in thrashes the apartment he is as liable as B who was negligent. This is because the property exists prior to any contract, and the action is not only a breach of contract but aggression against property.

I have time for this much for now. If you have any questions I would try to answer when I find the time.

Thanks. I’m beginning to sense that, as with many disagreements between people who are able to think critically, our apparent disagreeement is a matter of insufficiently precise definitions.

When I used to be in favor of minimalist government (before discovering Mises et al.), I was opposed to IP based on the typical utilitarian arguments put forward by anti-IP people. I thought it better to allow private institutions to create contract-based equivalents of IP governing bodies, but saw nothing reminiscent of natural IP rights as a factor.

After reading Rothbard and eventually becoming a proponent of a stateless society on the basis of its being the most just (according to a value system that believes human life and prosperity to be good things), I realized that I needed to re-examine the IP issue on the basis of natural law.

In a stateless society, it is up to each “justice provider” to discover and interpret natural law. With free market competition and no artificial monopolies, they would be most likely to do the best job discovering said natural law, so it goes. In addition to interpreting aspects of natural law necessary to resolve disputes that arise inter-justice provider, it seems to me a near certainty that every justice provider would also develop contractual provisions prohibiting certain behaviors that are not illegal per se, but sufficiently immoral that its customers demand it (e.g. a prohibition on drunk driving).

It occurred to me that IP-type regulations would probably be another example of regulations that people would voluntarily submit to in order to subscribe to a quality justice provider.

Assuming my above scenario is valid, the conclusion to be drawn is that what we’re arguing over (assuming we’re all natural law anarcho-capitalists) is not so much how to set up society to properly administer IP rights (or a synthetically created equivalent). The question is one of a purely philosophical, legal theoretical nature. That is, does IP stand on the same footing as one’s property rights over an apple he harvested from a tree he homesteaded? You say yes. Your so-called IP socialists say no.

The answer you gave to my question is consistent with my point of view. I think I would have thrown up my hands if you had said that it would indeed be a crime.

I need to let your answer sink in a little bit to try to understand, and hopefully define more precisely your view of IP. You’re against patent as an IP right…we’re in complete agreement there.

I take it you would be opposed to my printing up sheet music for Beethoven’s 5th and selling it because the sequence of notes was his creation? My intuition says that there could be a natural law basis buried somewhere in that position, but I think it needs a lot of polishing. Have you rigorously defined your views elsewhere, where I could read them?

To answer Matthew’s question, I believe any form of legal IP protection (which should NOT include current definitions of copyright and esp patents) should be limited to things that a jury feels beyond a reasonable doubt MUST have been directly copied. For example, it is quite plausible that two different cultures produce similar inventions, such as eating utensils, transportation devices, clothing designs, etc. These should be exempt from IP law.

It is not plausible, however, for two different sources to create a software program with an identical MD5 checksum, or great swaths of identical machine code (or even moreso applied to source code). It is not plausible for two musicians to create songs with the same melodies, harmonies, and rhythms (beyond EXTREMELY simple songs such as children’s or exercises in music theory).

Yet, I don’t advocate IP law for restricting the market. I simply believe any productions clearly directly copied from some legally protected IP owe a portion of income to the original creator, with the size of the portion based on the amount of time that has expired since the work was first published. This means I don’t need to license works based upon the original author’s will. In other words, if I want to use Mickey Mouse in a porno, I don’t need Disney’s permission…and given the length of time he’s been around, I probably wouldn’t need to pay a royalty either.

Most importantly, this shouldn’t be handled by bureaucrats and judges, but by juries.

I never denied the possibility of “independent discovery”. Also I contend that who ever accuses another of copying his work bears the burden of proof in a court of law. So “first come first register” is not a something I endorse. Also I am strongly against patent laws and patent offices.

So there is no violation in your example.

But what you are giving the example of is not the poster child of IP theory. It is a bad law used by IP socialists to try to socialize all IP.

I am saying a creation is the creators. Go and create anything yourself but don’t copy my work. I may not be able to stop everyone, even enforce my right on property all the time but don’t come here and argue that you are entitled to my work in theory.

Assume that there are two distinct and geographically separated cultures, ones that will never interact with one another in all likelihood. Something like Australian Aboriginals and a tribe deep in the heart of Africa. If a person in each of the two cultures both independently develops the same idea, an idea that meets whatever criteria necessary to be deemed property in your (natural law I presume) conception of IP, has there been a property rights violation? If so, why and by whom?

Please feel free to fill in arbitrary details beyond that if necessary to make your argument.

Don’t you just wish there was no property thus no disputes? Everyone would be so happy, just like little blue smurfs. Everyone would work when he wants, play piano when he wants. No property and no oppression. Happy people loving each other.

Oh wait…

kbutik in 5, 4 …

Yes I did. Hey, if Objectivists can do it…