> It’s simply the exclusive legal right to instantiate a
> specific pattern in some specific way.
Current IP laws are not defined like this. They do not apply at the time of “instantiating”, rather they kick in when you try to distribute it. Current IP law for example does not make downloading copyrighted music, texts or anything else illegal. You can also make a patented drug in your garage. You just can’t sell them on the market or give them away for free.

So, you either disagree with the current form of IP laws, or you do not understand them.

Cheers,
Peter

> It’s simply the exclusive legal right to instantiate a
> specific pattern in some specific way.
This means two different things: the right to use something, and the right to exclude others from using it. Be denying this you are confusing the issue.

> Currently, within state and common law, that takes the
> form of patents, copyrights, trademarks, and some
> other institutions.
Except for example, in order for trademarks and trade secrets to work, it is not necessary to create new category of rights, whereas for copyrights and patents it is. Hence the confusion and my insisting on pedantry. Ktibuk for example does not agree with any of those definitions. I am glad that at least you seem to, so that’s why I’ll be using this definition in communication with you.

> I can’t tell what definition you’re using of “selling”
> throughout. If you’re selling the *right* to instantiate your
> writings, then yes, that does require a property right in
> the the writings.
Again, confusion. It requires the right of owner to use it (which I don’t deny, I just claim that this is no new right and does not require IP laws). It on the other hand does not require the right to exclude others from using it. Which is what IP (meaning copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets) is.

> But in your comment you discuss the prerequisites
> to “possessing” a physical object, which are in fact not
> prerequisites …
Maybe I was not clear. I mean the “positive” definition of rights as declared above. It does not need to be material. I hope I clarified that now.

> Your attempt to differentiate the scarcity condition in
> both cases is also a result of changing definitions
> midway.
I apologise for the confusion. I hope it’s clear now.

> scarcity simply means a condition where not
> everybody’s wants — however ridiculous, over whatever
> state of affairs — can be satsified
Indeed, I agree with this definition.

> And there quite clearly IS a scarcity in the case of
> writings: I want restrictions on the instantiation of my
> writings; you do not.
This is confusing again. Some sort of restrictions exist regardless of whether the IP laws exist or not. They do not create it. They may influence it by creating rivalry though.

> In order to say that we can both “possess” the writings
> without exclusion of others ignores what the conflict is
> actually about.
It challenges the opinion that ownership requires exclusion of others. It’s just like if I insult someone. Does that create a conflict? Maybe. Does it mean someone’s rights have been violated? Only if you accept that there is a right to exclude others from insulting you.

> Sure, and that also holds when the good in question is
> information, which was the point of my satire. (You did
> realize it was satire, right?)
I was obviously aware it’s a satire, but that does not invalidate my argument. Let’s come back to the two definitions of property. The market value arises from the ability to use something (the first definition). Without it, there is no value. The ability to exclude others does not create value, it just changes it.

> Rivalry and scarcity are equivalent. Even
> Stephan_Kinsella concedes this point.
Then either you are misinterpreting him or you are both wrong.

> could you answer my long-time challenge to show how
> there is economic calculation in intellectual works
> without IP?
There have been, and still are, plentiful of vibrant markets with immaterial goods which do not rely on intellectual property laws. Just open your eyes.

I have been a software engineer my whole career (around 13 years) and rarely, if ever, did my income depend on the existence of IP, even if you follow couple of transactions down the link. In fact I have my own company.

What other evidence do you need? Do you deny that I exist?

> If you price-control IP (the legal right to instantiate an
> idea) to zero.
Non-zero price of “IP” does not require IP laws. As I said before, the price is created by the ability to use something (which IP laws aren’t about) rather than the ability to exclude others from usage (which IP laws are). The latter just shifts the price.

> You could just as easily say the same thing about
> physical goods.
Rivalry in physical goods exists regardless of whether property laws exist. It is a simple matter of fact that if I eat a loaf of bread, you can’t eat it at the same time.

Cheers,
Peter

Not at all, I understand the issues perfectly; it’s getting others to do the same that’s the problem.

You need to define it first. As I tried to explain before, in the colloquial use “intellectual property” is used for many unrelated concepts, some of which actually overlap with non-intellectual property.

I need to do no such thing and I warn other posters not to play along with your pedantry here. Everyone here knows what “intellectual property” refers to. It’s simply the exclusive legal right to instantiate a specific pattern in some specific way. Currently, within state and common law, that takes the form of patents, copyrights, trademarks, and some other institutions.

There’s no point to rehashing this assumed definition before discussing the issue, for the same reason there’s no point to defining the word “the” at the beginning of each discussion. Everyone assumes a certain common understanding before talking about any given topic. If and when you believe that the definition you are using differs from that that others are using, AND such difference noticeably affects this discussion, it is your responsibility — not mine — to point it out and explain the significance of that difference in assumption.

If you can’t do that, then please just get over yourself and move on to the important part of the discussion.

So let’s get to the specific IP laws that I object to: copyrights and patents. Selling your writings does not require copyright, selling a drug recepture does not require patents. But selling material goods (let’s say a loaf of bread) and services (let’s say a haircut) requires property. Why? Because the consumption of the latter is rivalrous. In order to achieve possession, you need to exclude others from it using it. In the areas covered by copyright and patents, there is no necessity to exclude others from consumption in order to possess the goods. You can if you want, even without copyrights and patents, but it is not a prerequisite to trading them.

Now you’re the one playing fast and loose with your definitions. I can’t tell what definition you’re using of “selling” throughout. If you’re selling the *right* to instantiate your writings, then yes, that does require a property right in the the writings. But in your comment you discuss the prerequisites to “possessing” a physical object, which are in fact not prerequisites. People have long “possessed” things without any kind of legal “property right” in them.

Your attempt to differentiate the scarcity condition in both cases is also a result of changing definitions midway. As I’ve argued ~6 trillion times with Stephan_Kinsella, scarcity simply means a condition where not everybody’s wants — however ridiculous, over whatever state of affairs — can be satsified. That’s not my choice of definition, that’s what the term must mean in order to ground any property theory, and what Stephan_Kinsella, Rothbard, Hoppe, etc. use the term to mean before they change it later on.

And there quite clearly IS a scarcity in the case of writings: I want restrictions on the instantiation of my writings; you do not. Ergo, both of our wants cannot be satisfied. In order to say that we can both “possess” the writings without exclusion of others ignores what the conflict is actually about. It forces you define a way a kind of conflict as “not counting”.

> In fact property laws are market regulation, they
> allow to shift the price above and supply below the
> equilibrium.
That is certainly completely untrue. Property rights in a market economy do not allow either decreasing of supply below or raising the price above equilibrium. For the simple reason that without them, either market or equilibrium have no meaning.

Sure, and that also holds when the good in question is information, which was the point of my satire. (You did realize it was satire, right?)

The market is a method to deal with scarcity, i.e. to attempt to solve the economic calculation problem. It requires scarcity, but does not require rivalry.

Rivalry and scarcity are equivalent. Even Stephan_Kinsella concedes this point.

And by the way, could you answer my long-time challenge to show how there is economic calculation in intellectual works without IP? If you price-control IP (the legal right to instantiate an idea) to zero, which deletes all information contained in the market’s demand for that kind of intellectual work, how does an entrepreneur decide the relative merit of producing a given intellectual work vs. other kinds of goods or activity?

But anyway:

IP laws (patents and copyrights) have no influence on scarcity, but they create rivalry. That makes them at best unnecessary.

You could just as easily say the same thing about physical goods. “Hey, if there were no property laws, everyone could just take the output of this farm or factory, no more scarcity, w00t! Unless we want to eat next year or something ridiculous like that…”

A discussion in indeed hopeless, but only because lack of common ground. I have given you many opportunities to create that common ground and explained specifically, what and why.

Cheers,
Peter

Copyrights for example. Do you see any reference to copyrights in my writings? I guess you are talking about the actual copyright laws when you go on your phantom crusade while I am talking about ethical concepts.

If own an idea I may keep it to my self. I may also let you copy it. I am not talking about a specific contract here, I am talking about an action. This may be hard for you since you can not differentiate between copying something and creating it yourself but there is a distinction. Like there is a big distinction between shooting your own movie and downloading a copy of someone else’s. Or composing your own song or copying a song of Metallica’s. You may be so deluded that when Enter Sandman plays you may be in doubt to whether you composed it or not but the rest of us know that it is Metallica’s.

I have made every attempt to clarify my position but it doesn’t work on you because you are fixated on these things. You take todays legislation as an ethical statement and keep attacking that, while asking me to put my position in the context you are used to. I am proposing an ethical stance and I don’t have to make my position fit to todays legislation.

If you try a little and get rid of your fixations you may begin to understand my points, which you still would have the right to reject.

But I am sorry to say I am done with you since I see no hope of communication.

> Unfortunately there are some on this blog that deny the
> existence of IP, so I needed to emphasise on that.
Unfortunately, so far you have failed to define what IP is, and keep using it in a confusing manner. Without the definition any reasonable discussion is impossible. I would like to stress that definitions have nothing to do with whether something is real, justified or economic.

> But if you find it tautologic you may disregard it.
If you consider it important for 2/3 of a definition to be a tautology, I really wonder if you understand what you are talking about.

> You just assumed your conclusion here. Why can’t we
> homestead in the immaterial realm?
That’s not what I said. I said your definition is incorrect because it lacks precision.

> What service do you think a teacher gives? Entertainment?
Some teachers do .

> He passes on knowledge. He sells ideas. And a student
> pays for it expecting to “gain ownership of knowledge”.
None of this requires copyright, therefore you cannot use it as a proof of the existence of IP.

> I am sorry I didn’t realize copying needed definition.
What? It’s the core concept of your argument. Obviously it requires a definition.

> This isn’t that hard really. A 6 year old would know this,
> but then again a 6 year old wouldn’t have an agenda
> based on socializing property.
It only indicates that you actually haven’t thought about this, and have no idea what copying is. Please answer the questions.

> This has nothing to to with being similar or the same.
> This is about copying.
Ditto.

> I guess you are stuck at the enforcement issue and
> getting all confused.
I guess you are stuck at the enforcement issue. Before we investigate whether a right was violated, we need to define the right (or the violation thereof) first. If you cannot define it, all the further steps are arbitrary.

> You are wondering how you can establish the truth
> where parties accuse each other and truthful?
No. I wonder how do you objectively define IP, because this needs to happen before we can evaluate if it was violated in a specific case.

> This is just like saying in order for someone to own
> anything there has to be property laws. Property rights
> are not positive rights that are legislated. It is a natural
> phenomenon.
Copyright is not about “owning”. It is perfectly possible to “own IP” without any copyright. Hence your claims about “socialising” go out of the window.

> Property rights are not positive rights that are legislated.
> It is a natural phenomenon.
I’m not sure I’m a natural rights proponent, but let’s say I agree with you on this. However, copyright is not a natural right, but arbitrary crap, as I demonstrated several times.

> You seem to be having a hard time grasping natural
> rights.
I don’t think I have. I’m just trying to react to your claims. It was you who brought up utilitarian aspects.

> You are fixated on legislation. Please get yourself
> acquainted with natural law theory first.
And you are fixated on a very unique theory of rights, which:
- you have not sufficiently explained
- you most likely have not thought through

> You gotta be kidding me. If after all that I have said, if
> you can still write these I must question your intellectual
> honesty.
After all you have said, I really doubt you have thought about the issue at all. My point is that you cannot objectively define copyright, especially not on a natural law basis.

> You can only own what you create.
Again, this has nothing to do with IP.

> Can I get any clearer than this I don’t know.
Maybe then you can try to objectively define the difference between “creation” and “copying”.

> You can not own all possible ideas because you were
> first. First comer has nothing to do with IP.
You are contradicting yourself. You can’t at the same time own what you create and not be the first to do so.

Maybe if we split the potential meaning of property into two parts we can move our discussion forward a little:
- (positive) the right to use ones property to ones own liking
- (negative) the right to exclude others from using it without the owner’s consent

Now, for rivalrous goods, these definitions are identical. For non-rivalrous, they could represent different things. The first definition is a prerequisite for trade, whereas the second one isn’t. Copyright does not deal with using your own property, but only with the ability to exclude others, therefore it is not a prerequisite for trade.

Let us assume that we want people to “own their IP”. What does that mean? If we subscribe to the the positive definition, then no IP concepts, or laws, are required to accomplish this, they are only required if you adhere to the negative definition.

So, lets try it again. Please define the terms you are using: property, idea, creation, copying. Without them, argumentation is impossible. Stop using phenomena which can be explained without copyright as a proof that copyright is a natural right, this is not a valid argument. And stop asserting that without copyright there can be no possession or trade with regards to intellectual works, because there is sufficient theoretical backing and empirical evidence that it’s not the case.

Cheers,
Peter

“doesn’t it strike some as strange that the government disallows private knowledge to be used for profit (insider trading), and yet protects other information from wide dissemination in order to safeguard private profits (ip)?

and all with a straight face?”

Newson do you think the state handles tangible property (the only legitimate property according to you) rights as they should? And if they have problems, bad legislation, is this a reason to abolish all property?

You keep misrepresenting my position and I ope this is due to my own lack of clarity.

“> A property, is something that is a part of this
> universe
This is a tautology, things that are not part of this universe do not exist (for the purposes of our discussion).”

Unfortunately there are some on this blog that deny the existence of IP, so I needed to emphasise on that. But if you find it tautologic you may disregard it.

“> and this action is called homesteading.
No. There are plenty of cases where your action cause changes in “something” and isn’t homesteading. Especially in the immaterial realm.”

You just assumed your conclusion here. Why can’t we homestead in the immaterial realm? Because we can’t isn’t an argument. “Ideas are abstract reflections of tangible matter all around us in a pattern that can be expressed by humans” and there as much as if not more different variations that can be created in the immaterial realm, as in the material realm. Nothing abstract can be created totally divorced or isolated from reality but that is also true for tangible things. You can not create something out of nothing, but we can easily call rearrangement of natural things as creations, or production.

“> A teacher could ask for and receive something he
> values in exchange of the ideas he would give to a
> student.
This is a bad example, it doesn’t have anything to do with ideas being a property or not. This could be a service contract.”

No it is a perfect example. What service do you think a teacher gives? Entertainment? No. He passes on knowledge. He sells ideas. And a student pays for it expecting to “gain ownership of knowledge”.

“> … copying without the consent of the owner …
You have not defined what “copying” is. Why are patent infringements not copying, but copyright infringements are? Is paraphrasing copying? Is translation copying? Is format change (e.g. between written and spoken text) copying? What if I do a pantomime of written text, is that copying?”

I am sorry I didn’t realize copying needed definition. Copying is copying. Independent discovery is not copying, so most patent infringements are not usually copying. Changing something on the other hand is also not copying. Copying songs, movies, software, novels as it is and downloading is copying. This isn’t that hard really. A 6 year old would know this, but then again a 6 year old wouldn’t have an agenda based on socializing property.

And another thing. Aggression doesn’t have to be only about the integrity of a tangible object at an atomic level. Who cares about physical integrity. Ethics is about humans and the only meaningful thing about humans is free will and consent. Aggression is about consent. If you copy something of someone with out his consent you are aggressing against him.

The best way of analyzing for this is creating a mental construct of isolated beings. If two persons are isolated on different islands and if there can not interaction between them, there can not be possibly any aggression. No aggression regarding physical integrity of tangible stuff, or copying which is also aggression. Can they independently homestead different tangible goods and make them property? Yes. Can they independently homestead ideas and make them property? Yes.

“> As stated many times todays patent laws for
> example claim that only one person can
> homestead an idea, and if someone else in fact
> homesteads a similar idea he is accused of
> copying, which is coercion.
I think this is a good example of what I just said. What is the difference between being similar and being a copy? I have come to the conclusion that the difference is quantitative rather than qualitative. Which makes the definition of intellectual property as a natural right very dubious.”

This has nothing to to with being similar or the same. This is about copying. You can not copy if you don’t have any access. And either you have copied something or you didn’t. If you did you committed aggression if you didn’t copy you haven’t.

I guess you are stuck at the enforcement issue and getting all confused. You are wondering how you can establish the truth where parties accuse each other and truthful? Enforcement is a technical issue and you can not foresee every possible scenario when you are dealing with ethics and rules. In some cases the judgment would be easy. In some it would be hard, and believe it or not in some cases there would be wrong decisions. That is life.

“> Artists and writers would justly own their work.
Distortion. In order for someone to “own their work”, IP laws are not necessary.”

Nonsense. This is just like saying in order for someone to own anything there has to be property laws. Property rights are not positive rights that are legislated. It is a natural phenomenon.

“> Looking from a utilitarian point of view …
From a utilitarian point of view, IP laws create costs by the requirement to track IP. Due to the lack of scarcity, the costs grow exponentially. Obviously, it is more a problem for patents than copyrights, but still.”

More nonsense. I am not talking about IP laws, or basing my property rights theory on any laws that were or that are. You seem to be having a hard time grasping natural rights. You are fixated on legislation. Please get yourself acquainted with natural law theory first.

“How many bytes for example are necessary for a text to be property? For any number you say, I can create a program that can generate all possible combination of characters of that length, therefore making all future texts written by anyone my property (because any text shorter than this is not protected by copyright, and any text longer must contain what my program can also generate).”

You gotta be kidding me. If after all that I have said, if you can still write these I must question your intellectual honesty.

You can only own what you create. Can I get any clearer than this I don’t know. You can not own all possible ideas because you were first. First comer has nothing to do with IP.

and all with a straight face?

So let’s get to the specific IP laws that I object to: copyrights and patents. Selling your writings does not require copyright, selling a drug recepture does not require patents. But selling material goods (let’s say a loaf of bread) and services (let’s say a haircut) requires property. Why? Because the consumption of the latter is rivalrous. In order to achieve possession, you need to exclude others from it using it. In the areas covered by copyright and patents, there is no necessity to exclude others from consumption in order to possess the goods. You can if you want, even without copyrights and patents, but it is not a prerequisite to trading them.

> In fact property laws are market regulation, they
> allow to shift the price above and supply below the
> equilibrium.
That is certainly completely untrue. Property rights in a market economy do not allow either decreasing of supply below or raising the price above equilibrium. For the simple reason that without them, either market or equilibrium have no meaning.

The market is a method to deal with scarcity, i.e. to attempt to solve the economic calculation problem. It requires scarcity, but does not require rivalry. IP laws (patents and copyrights) have no influence on scarcity, but they create rivalry. That makes them at best unnecessary.

Cheers,
Peter

Cheers,
Peter

First of all, I think you still haven’t defined what intellectual property, or even real property for that matter, is. You are describing some of its properties, but I think they are too vague. E.g.:

> A property, is something that is a part of this
> universe
This is a tautology, things that are not part of this universe do not exist (for the purposes of our discussion).

> which is altered by conscious human action
This describes a causal relationship between the owner and the changes in property. So far ok.

> in the hope of better his state of affairs
Also, from austrian point of view, a tautology. All human action is done in the hope to better one’s state of affairs.

> and this action is called homesteading.
No. There are plenty of cases where your action cause changes in “something” and isn’t homesteading. Especially in the immaterial realm.

> This thing can be something tangible like a plant,
> or something intangible like an idea.
You have not defined what “an idea” is. This is especially confusing because copyright (which you support) doesn’t protect ideas, but patents (which you reject) do.

So I’ll skip the parts where a definition of idea is required.

> A teacher could ask for and receive something he
> values in exchange of the ideas he would give to a
> student.
This is a bad example, it doesn’t have anything to do with ideas being a property or not. This could be a service contract.

> A writer may ask for compensation in exchange of
> letting the other party read his novel.
Same here.

> … copying without the consent of the owner …
You have not defined what “copying” is. Why are patent infringements not copying, but copyright infringements are? Is paraphrasing copying? Is translation copying? Is format change (e.g. between written and spoken text) copying? What if I do a pantomime of written text, is that copying?

> Ideas, being intangible, are always embedded in
> tangible objects whether it be brain tissue, paper,
> digital media, film, etc.
Ideas, being intangible, only exist in human mind. A CD, DVD, RAM or a book would merely be physical objects without the human to interpret them.

> If the owners of the ideas wish, these tangible
> goods and contracts may be used to create
> artificial scarcity. Which would give the owner a
> chance, but not a guarantee, to exchange ideas
> for economic value.
Again, none of this has anything to do with ideas being property or not.

> In short, my idea of IP is somewhat different than
> todays IP laws but todays laws by themselves
> don’t justify abolishing all private property in IP.
This is indeed correct. I think I already said that. I also said that I consider the deficiencies in the current “IP laws” unfixable and asked you to provide fixes for them if you disagree.

> As stated many times todays patent laws for
> example claim that only one person can
> homestead an idea, and if someone else in fact
> homesteads a similar idea he is accused of
> copying, which is coercion.
I think this is a good example of what I just said. What is the difference between being similar and being a copy? I have come to the conclusion that the difference is quantitative rather than qualitative. Which makes the definition of intellectual property as a natural right very dubious.

> So patent laws are against property rights theory.
Patent laws are at the very core same copyright, except copyright requires much more specificity. Therefore I reject your explanation.

> Also when it comes to simple ideas, even
> copying, aggression, couldn’t be proved in court
> thus protected.
Again, you have not defined what “copying” is. Why do you seem to think that using an algorithm developed by another person without their permission is ok, but humming a song without the authors permission is not?

> Artists and writers would justly own their work.
Distortion. In order for someone to “own their work”, IP laws are not necessary.

> Looking from a utilitarian point of view …
From a utilitarian point of view, IP laws create costs by the requirement to track IP. Due to the lack of scarcity, the costs grow exponentially. Obviously, it is more a problem for patents than copyrights, but still.

> Expiration of rights are a travesty.
At least here you’re trying to be consequent. However, this only adds to costs mentioned above. What then about fair use then, would you abolish it too?

> I hope my position is clearer now.
I would like to thank you for taking the time. However, my concusion is still that you haven’t thought it through.

How many bytes for example are necessary for a text to be property? For any number you say, I can create a program that can generate all possible combination of characters of that length, therefore making all future texts written by anyone my property (because any text shorter than this is not protected by copyright, and any text longer must contain what my program can also generate).

The same procedure can be applied to music (producing all possible note sequences).

I hope this demonstrates sufficiently that IP laws are arbitrary and unfixable.

> Although it is hard to establish a unique position
> through these comment sections of these many
> posts.
Indeed, I find it very hard to keep track of conversation too.

Cheers,
Peter

Oh, right, Mises.

You can disagree but I think a little intellectual honesty can be asked for.

You complaining at me or to me? I’ve never made the arguments you are complaining about. You are not exactly winning my compassion here in either case. That’s something everyone has to put up with, and the only way to avoid it is to drop out of the argument.

Not keeping an IP secret doesn’t necessarily mean “you broadcast, or release it to publics use”.

I am tired of stupid examples like humming tunes while walking or villages in the jungle. This is a dishonest way of trying to confuse the argument.

Like the life boat scenarios. Two people are stranded at sea and see a life boat. One reaches the boat first. Can he let the other die, by not letting him in? Do property rights let him do this?

Rules can not be based on rarely seen exceptions.

And I am sick of reading real life patent stories while bashing all IP, but when it comes to IP and copying we see these idiotic irrelevant examples.

Ideas can be owned. They can also be given away for free, this doesn’t abolish any rights. They can be kept secret, or exchanged in a controlled manner. They can also leak while the owner can not do anything because he cant prove copying.

I dont know I how much more clear I can get on this point.

Brian said “Just because someone thought something first does not mean they own the “idea”.

Yes it does. It just doesn’t have to do with “doing it first” and this doesn’t implies anyone else can not also own it. But only if they homestead it themselves.

So being first when it comes to homesteading ideas are meaningless. This means patent laws are meaningless. They actually create a monopoly, this I agree with IP socialists. But not because ideas can not be property. But because anyone can homestead ideas.

Of course as you said, complicated stuff like novels can not be homesteaded by many different people and this means proving the aggression is easier. But that is a technical enforcement issue. ]

“Not all copying implies a violation of property rights”

In what context is this being said. If it is about access it is one thing. If it is about consent it is another.

Of course when the owner consent to copying the copying doesn’t constitute aggression. I already mentioned this. You may think of some rare instances where the owners consent might not be all clear. He may in fact broadcast it for free, but after it is known he may change his position and claim he didn’t. If you are talking about an exceptional case like this, we may say he gave away his property and he cant take it back.

But do you really think the finding out the owners’ consent is an issue where we see these problems, like pirated songs, movies, software, etc?

No. And these wont be mentioned in IP Socialists initial examples. No, you will see a lot of humming, forgetting books on the beach, or villages in the jungles. But you wont see songs, movies, novels, and software pirated over the internet.

I think this is unfair. You may disagree but I think he’s given enough to have an understanding of what he means by IP. Perhaps if you read Rothbard’s book Man, Economy, State Chapter 10—Monopoly and Competition Section 7. Patents and Copyrights it will become more clear to you.

He’s certainly clear on what an “IP socialist” is. That’s someone who uses arguments against intellectual property rights that are identical to those that are used against physical property rights.

The utilitarian arguments can be used against IP can and are used against physical property. Arguments about the difficulty in enforcing rights can also be used. I believe he listed these. He listed many others.

I think another argument that would fit is the argument made by Kinsella that one can “see” IP ownership by looking at an object. Which works as perfectly well (or badly) as an argument against physical property as it does against intellectual property.

I have just spent quite a bit of time deconstructing this mistake on another thread. Lukas asked me:

I won’t repeat Stephan’s argument here, I’ll just refer you to it… in Against IP, pp. 47–55, he disputes the “bundle-of-rights” view of property that you seem to (do you?) espouse. Where do you disagree with him?

I replied at length on this chapter showing why it is a flawed rebuttal to Rothbard’s position, and mine.

There’s no need to identify specific individuals with a definition, but I think it is clear he is calling Kinsella, and Tucker by this label.

It’s a polemic way to argue, but I see the same going the other way. Something I avoid because it tends to make opponents more ridged against a position, but I am sometimes guilty of this tactic myself. For example, I’ve called people who cannot understand the self organizing nature of economic systems by the label, economic creationists.

“But not all copying implies use of another’s property.”

Without access to the original, which is property, there can not be any copying. This is a logical necessity as Brian put it very well.

I believe that seeing something is a kind of use. That’s why reading counts as use of a property. What I disagree with is that all use is trespass.

When an owner forces use of his property on others it is quite clear that he has given consent.

For example, I can use a marker to identify a dangerous hole. Each time I pass and see the marker I am using that marker. If someone else moves the marker they are interfering with my use.

Similarly we use our ability to see the property of others in order to AVOID trespass. This use of other peoples property is not in fact a trespass.

It’s quite clear that this use of our property by others is authorized. They have to see our property in order to respect it.

I also believe that there are other reasons we can use other peoples properties that do not amount to the crime of trespass. Use in ways that no one would claim was non-use.

I can for instance use someone else’s car as a platform to stand on to save a baby being handed out a window without trespass. I’ve used the car and may owe damages but I have not violated property rights in a way that is criminal.

If Kinsella said, “Not all copying implies a violation of property rights” then I would agree with him. When the owner forces the use of his property, the viewing, on others then he can’t claim that that use was unauthorized.

I’ll give another example to make this clear. If a nude sunbather builds a high fence that prevents anyone from seeing them from the surrounding land then reasonable care has been taken to prevent the forcing of use on others. The person is not forcing others to view their nude body.

If a someone in a plane flies over and uses a camera to zoom in an take pictures this is a use of the persons body that they did not agree to. Publishing such pictures is even an even further intrusion because it is absolutely clear the nude sunbather did not intend that some guy on the internet be forcefully subjected to the use, the seeing of their nude body.

According to my understanding of your proposed idea about “copyright contracts”, these have actually nothing to do with copyright as we know it, and are in fact normal contracts, which do not require any special laws, or anyone recognising that IP is actual property. Do you agree?

Besides the copyright contracts, do you have any other proposals? Because if you don’t, then anything said further merely adds to confusion.

Cheers,
Peter