Is Intellectual Property A Violation Of Real Property?
from the thinking-this-through dept
While there was a recent argument being made (weakly) that all property is intellectual property, reader Kerry Kaye recently pointed out a discussion of the opposite point of view, saying that intellectual property is actually a violation of the concept of real property. I have to admit that, while I had hoped to find the article compelling, I actually found it to be lacking in substance. At points it seems to go around in circles without clearly making a point. You could, potentially, make a case that intellectual property tries to limit what you can do directly with the output of your own mind, and that is antithetical to the concept that you have the right to make use of the output of your own brain -- which could violated basic property rights, depending on your definition of property rights. In fact, this is the part that I find most troubling about intellectual property laws (especially patents): that it effectively tells you that even if you come up with something entirely on your own, others can stop you from making use of those ideas.Perhaps a much more compelling (though, I'm sure not to strong believers in intellectual property) discussion on a similar topic is a recent piece by Vedad Krehic, (pointed out by Michael Scott) that discusses how intellectual property laws turn IP holders against their own customers. In it, he makes a similar, but much clearer argument like the one above:
If a friend, however, lends me a music CD and if I then make a copy, so that I can listen to the music without having to borrow the disc again in the future, nobody is harmed. It is possible that I could, for example, have made an agreement or contract with him when I borrowed the disc stating that I cannot copy it. If I were to do it anyway, I'd be in violation of a private agreement. If not, who is harmed by my act of duplication? I used my own tangible property (CD drive, computer, and hard drive or blank CD) to fashion a duplicate of the data on the CD. The original CD is still my friend's property. I return it to him, and while he is no better or worse off than he was before, I am now better off. The imprint of the music on my tangible property makes that property marginally worth more to me, as I can enjoy its use to a greater extent than previously.And this is where the trouble comes in for intellectual property versus real property:
Was anyone harmed at any point here?
Yes -- if you choose to believe the consumer entertainment industry. They claim there was a third party here that was being harmed. Can you see the third party? There was me, and there was my friend. There was my property and that of my friend. I don't see the third party anywhere in that process. I suppose my friend could have been in a contract with the person or organization he purchased the CD from not to copy it, but I wouldn't have been bound by that contract. Either way, I did nothing wrong.
Can anyone please explain to me how someone can be a just owner of something, yet not be allowed to exercise his or her ownership rights over it? He can throw rancid tomatoes at the painting, but not duplicate the pattern that makes the painting a painting, rather than just canvas and paint? Or, to use a different type of copyrightable pattern, how can someone own their own brain yet not own the part of it containing a song they memorized?And that's the problem that we keep pointing out around here that troubles us so much. There are many -- especially in copyright debates -- who insist that those who don't agree with copyright law should just avoid supporting those who do. But they ignore how copyright law is used, regularly, to limit what should be fundamental property rights of individuals to do as they please to products they legally purchased.
The logical conclusion is that the natural right of property and the idea of copyright, and of intellectual property in general, are fundamentally incompatible and conflict sharply. You cannot own something and have someone else dictate to you what you can and cannot do with it, without that being an element voluntarily arrived at through contract. In absence of a contract, the dictating party is initiating aggression against the just owner of an item. Intellectual property is an assault on tangible property.
In fact, Krehic then takes this further, and notes that much of the entertainment industry's troubles today may be traced back to the fact that it has aggressively tried to use copyright law to stop people from doing what they want with their own property, and it's that mistake (which they keep compounding) that has resulted in customers defecting, rather than any issue of "piracy." Again, it's easy to predict that intellectual property supporters will scoff at this and dismiss it as ridiculous, but there is growing evidence to support this position. As we've seen over and over again, content creators who learn to embrace file sharing and the power of new technologies, while connecting with fans, and providing a smarter business model, have been thriving. It's not piracy that's causing harm, it's bad business model choices, and many of those bad business model choices are driven by an over-reliance on the "crutch" that intellectual property provides, which gives firms the ability to take away property rights from individuals.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, intellectual property, property
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
GOD does not tell you anyone can own your mind
things you can walk on
nothing more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kinsella / Von Mieses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kinsella / Von Mieses
I see property rights as the solution to problems associated with scarce resources. IP has been shown to interfere with our ability to efficiently use scarce resources again and again, a prime example being selling CD's because they are easier to police, at the expense of actual scarce resources. I'd still not call property rights 'sacred' though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kinsella / Von Mieses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Kinsella / Von Mieses
Not necessarily. Physical goods have other issues that relate to scarcity, such as accessibility. There is probably more of any resource in the universe than we will ever need. There is probably more water under the surface of Europa than on the whole of the Earth, but it's pretty useless to us while it is orbiting Jupiter.
Hydrogen is the most abundant of all elements and Oxygen is the third most abundant. Put those abundant resources together and you have Water, which is a much more scarce resource.
To use a car analogy, even if you have infinite cars only one person can drive each at a time. Property is about more than just scarcity of the resource, it is also about issues relating to scarcity. Digital information is an abstract, every representation is actually physically a collection of 1's and 0's in whatever form. Scarcity issues do apply to the 1's and 0's just not necessarily to their configuration because the configuration can be copied as many times as you have 1's and 0's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinsella / Von Mieses
While Hydrogen has an "accessibility" issues, I have yet to here of anyone claiming that they own Hydrogen. The resource is therefore technically free for the taking (as far as I know). Try pumping oil as a "free" resource; people will be screaming theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinsella / Von Mieses
Well, Carbon is a pretty common element too and I think people would take issue with you if you started violating their bodies. The point was that scarcity is about more than how much of something there is, even an element. You can have infinite humans but each one would be a person and would likely object to being subject to slavery. There may be infinite water, but if you use some Star Trek transporter to take it out of my flask while I am walking in a desert, then I might die.
Theft is theft because of the deprivation. As shown in the drinking flask example above, depriving someone of something abundant can still be harmful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinsella / Von Mieses
Your water flask example seems to contrived to be usable as a definition of "theft". Stealing a physical resource, such as water, is considered theft because you are denying them the use of that resources, which I assume they acquired legally and is now their property. However, with intellectual property there is no theft since you are not denying the person the use of the resource. You have simply made another copy. Now, in Star Trek there is the replicator, consequently your strawman would never run out of water in the desert since he could make more!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinsella / Von Mieses
I did not mention anything about stealing intellectual property. I often give people detailed explanations on why infringement does not equate to theft. I am firmly against strong IP laws and believe it is up to the proponents to prove they are needed at all.
I have been trying to address the notion you put forward that if there is no scarcity then there should be no property rights. As you accept that although water is an abundant resource, it should still be subject to property rights, we seem to be in agreement.
"You have simply made another copy. Now, in Star Trek there is the replicator, consequently your strawman would never run out of water in the desert since he could make more!"
For what it is worth to continue the analogy, just because replicators may exist does not mean people should be expected to have access to them at all times, or ever. In the Star Trek universe physical property rights are still important and would be less likely to be violated due to replicators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinsella / Von Mieses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scarcity is an illusion.
No one owns anything but the effort they make to effect change. You don't own your land, it belongs to everyone. When you die or move on, someone else will use it. That's not ownership, that's borrowing. Scarcity is just a misuse of resources by perpetuating the lie that once something is consumed, it's gone. Nothing is destroyed, it's only transformed and when that thing is past its usefulness, it is to be transformed into something else. So I say again, we can only own our ability to effect change, or transform. Everything else in this world is commonwealth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kinsella / Von Mieses
Unfortunately, once a concept such as IP becomes "real" in the public mind it is very difficult to refute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Others on techdirt have already said something to this extent. It's amazing how I constantly see things said in comments on techdirt first and then others write up papers on them. But it's good.
Adams smiths original version of free markets didn't really include things like IP. When Adam Smith said free markets it was in reference to physical goods and services and the lack of a government sanctioned monopoly on who can sell certain goods and services. Intellectual property negates the true meaning of a free markets exactly by granting a monopoly on who can sell what which is exactly what free market capitalism is against. After all, what is a monopoly on who can sell an item? A monopoly on who can sell something is a monopoly on who can sell an item with X characteristics. It's ultimately an expressed idea of what people can and can't sell. Isn't that basically what a patent is.
but IP maximists, at least some commenters on this blog that I have seen, have perverted the original meaning of the term free market capitalism by stating that the lack of IP somehow means that everything is socialized. This, of course, is nonsense and only demonstrates the true dishonest and fraudulent nature that Adam smith warns against, the fraud that IP itself encourages.
“The granting [of] patents ‘inflames cupidity’, excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits...The principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just.”
http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2005/10/patents-are-monopolies.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Heck, I've been called a socialist for supporting free market capitalism (ie: the lack of IP).
"otherwise the us quickly sinks into a socialist state with no true ownership of anything.
...
no socialism is the sharing of everything through collective and shared ownership it has nothing to do with government. ... exactly how many u2 songs exist? limited or unlimited? it is only unlimited if you look at copies not the original product. your argument is a fail."
Apr 10th, 2010 @ 1:14pm
The nerve of IP maximists. They are either too lazy to know the true meaning of free market capitalism (which would suggest that they only want IP to facilitate their lazy nature so that they can make money and not do any work) or they are dishonest. and this isn't, by any means, the first time I've seen IP maximists on techdirt equate the lack of IP with things like socialism and communism in an attempt to pervert Adam Smiths original meaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Finally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The idea that ip is in conflict with real property is in itself very sound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm against IP because I believe in the free market system. Copyrights and patents are exceptions to the free market for the simple fact that it prevents competitors from making their own copies of the item in question. In other words, it's telling other people what they can't do with their own materials. It's intellectually dishonest to call that property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That makes no sense at all. It is clear now that you are nothing more than a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it's not like I'm saying that the works would not have owners, I just believe the ownership of them should be defined under the traditional, pre-IP definition of property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: either all property is false or it is real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This one is a joke, right? … Right? Okay look, there is this thing called 'land' and 'land' is finite. There is less 'land' then ocean even. Now, when you buy your house, you are also buying this thing called 'land'. Now, those neighbors you talk about also own 'land'. Therefore, what you are talking about, is not a restriction on how you handle YOUR 'land' but the refusal of the neighbor to allow you building on THEIR 'land'. As such, actual ownership matters, as it is the ownership of this 'land' that provides the restriction of building.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't have to put that disclaimer. your comment doesn't even seem to have anything to do with IP law specifically, but more about the difference between the taking of other's physical goods and creating your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One point that Kaye misses is that no right is absolute, and property rights certainly are not. If you own a car, that doesn't mean you can do with it *whatever* you want - you have to obey traffic rules. If you own a gun, that doesn't mean you have the right to kill people.
There's much to be discussed on the limits to IP. But sheer disqualification doesn't seem the best way to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While I think some IP is OK, I think that most IP needs to disappear and the length needs to be substantially reduced for both patents and copywrong privileges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That said, you mention gun ownership. I honestly cannot think of a flaw in that one, though I am sure there is someway to come to the conclusion your usage is depriving them of their usage of their life or some such. After all, you are seeking to destroy something they 'own', in violation of their right. Although a life allowed to be owned? Ach, no matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This one is more reasonable. However, while you own the car, you do not however, own the road. It is the owner of the road setting the rules on the usage of said property that puts rights of ways and speed limits into place. I THINK that if you own your own property and road, you are not bound by speed limitations, otherwise all racetracks would be havens of motor vehicle violations. I am sure someone else can correct me on this one.
That said, you mention gun ownership. I honestly cannot think of a flaw in that one, though I am sure there is someway to come to the conclusion your usage is depriving them of their usage of their life or some such. After all, you are seeking to destroy something they 'own', in violation of their right. Although a life allowed to be owned? Ach, no matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apr 14th, 2010 @ 8:31am
> There's much to be discussed on the limits to IP. But sheer disqualification doesn't seem the best way to do it.
The sense that it is about property is what needs sheer disqualification. The term 'Intellectual Property' is a just linguistic trick, like an advertising slogan. But it is a meme that has become so rooted as to distort everyone's thinking.
There is a single core question for copyrights and patents: do they increase production enough to compensate for decreased distribution? That may indeed be debated (though it is substantially about objective evidence) but everything else is pointless and/or nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libertarian Stumble Points
What is perhaps extremely ironic are those ersatz Libertarians who believe in IP. They are all for small government and keeping the government out of one's private life except when it comes to IP. All of a sudden they demand a big government police state to protect their IP!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libertarian Stumble Points
I hate labels, but for what it is worth that doesn't sound very libertarian. If the rights to swing a fist stop at another persons face then the right to lie stops at the knowledge that lie will cause harm. If cheating is OK then so is lying about safety procedures or any number of other things that may cause harm. Even the vast majority of anarchists wouldn't suggest that dog-eat-dog is acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Libertarian Stumble Points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your right. If I own a car that doens't mean I can do whatever I want with it because eventually I will cross a line called public safety.
However I can repaint it, I can add NOS to it, I can change the tires, I can raise it or lower it, I can drop in a HEMI, .... on and on and on. I have changed the RP to something that is not what it was origionally sold as.
But what if I did the same thing to an album... no i'm not talking about dropping in twin turbos on an album. What I'm talking about is taking the origional songs, remixing them or slowing the tune down and making it a country song or turning it into industrial music.
Whats the difference?
At one point in time both the design of the auto and the lyrics and notes of the cd were somebodies IP, now in RP form. Why can I change one and not the other?
The root of the problem is that at one point in time all things were IP. Then somebody somewhere was pissed that somebody else took their idea of say the (getting hypothetical) catapult and made a better one. What does the originator do? He gets the king to make a law that only allows people to make catapults that fall within the design of the original and has to have permission to do so. Flash forward a few millenia.... does this mean that the US Army would have to ask permission to not only change the design of the original catapult but also ask permission to build one? (The tank being a descendent of the catapult.)
So simply put... This is about one person wanting to be more special then everybody else because they think the output from their brain is more special then the output of anybody else's brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should be "which could violate"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Importantly, Mr. Mossoff is not a "pro-IP" individual as some seem want to believe. His focus is much broader and pertains to the concept of "property" in general. What is it? Is the position denominated as the "right to exclude" a sufficient basis upon which to hang the appelation "property"? In his work what he is attempting to do is present what he believes is a "unifying" theory broader in scope than the right to exclude, and to then let the chips fall where they may under the unifying theory he proposes.
I, for one, will wait until his paper is presented for public scrutiny before forming any opinion on its strengths and/or weaknesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is nothing that can be owned without some limitation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOSS friendly legislation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if i pay you anything for it
as YOU are not GOD you cannot put any further restrictions on what i do with it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents are blatant theft
Imagine if you owned property with trees on it and decided to harvest some and sell them--and then somebody comes along and tells you that harvesting trees is patented so you can't. He's telling you what you can do with your property. Patents are the same. They tell you want you can do with ideas you come up with if somebody thought of it and patented it. Or, in the case of the ridiculously broad patents, they didn't think of it but can claim their patent covers it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents are blatant theft
Imagine if you owned property with trees on it and decided to harvest some and sell them--and then somebody comes along and tells you that harvesting trees is patented so you can't. He's telling you what you can do with your property. Patents are the same. They tell you want you can do with ideas you come up with if somebody thought of it and patented it. Or, in the case of the ridiculously broad patents, they didn't think of it but can claim their patent covers it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i dont put copyrights on food do i, or a END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT that states you cant eat this food on tuesday except in the month of October and you can have more then two on a plate at once. YEA see when we boil down the essence of copyright its truly insane, those that are for it are just greedy and lazy and wish to screw everyone they can to afford the next yacht
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If you don't believe in slavery, don't buy a slave"
Precisely. It's like arguing "if you don't believe in slavery, you don't have to buy a slave." The problem is, the very claim to "property" in a slave involves imposing constraints on the rights of OTHERS that the others don't recognize as legitimate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "If you don't believe in slavery, don't buy a slave"
I used to think comparing slavery with copyrights patents was a little over the top, but when you put it that way it makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "If you don't believe in slavery, don't buy a slave"(correction)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's why in order to defend intellectual property, you have to come up with something that trumps someone's right to do what they will with their own property. You can't just say, "Because it makes me a lot of money." And of course, the constitution defines it as such. And congress has gone well beyond any such benefit to society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tangible vs. Intangible goods
Instead of going along with this, opt for the terms 'tangible goods' and 'intangible goods' if you really want to help preserve clarity in distinctions between them. 'Goods' is a very broad term, after all, and one widely used in relation to intangible qualities and benefits, as well as physical objects with commercial value.
'Property', on the other hand, has none of this neutrality. The term is heavily weighted towards the tangible realm, and freighted with meaning stemming from its original application to considerations of land and livestock.
Avoidance of a deliberately confusing term is a great way to avoid confusion about the things that term describes. It's also an excellent way to advance conversation about the very real problems that attend the production of intangible goods, especially in a world that can't widely or easily recognize them for what they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tangible vs. Intangible goods
When lawyers talk about "property," at least in modern jurisprudence, they are referring to a "bundle of rights." That bundle generally includes the right to exclude others from use. It may include some rights to use and assign. None of those rights existed for, say, music recordings until 1970, and arguably they still do not. Referring to a copyright in a sound recording as "intellectual property" was, thus, a clear misnomer until very recently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tangible vs. Intangible goods
I would advise you to actually look up the legal definition of "property" before continuing to blather on any further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rights
This is certainly true of real property. The property has no particular use to me if everyone can use it without limitation. Now, give me a small army of gunslingers and I can make my land worth something.
Until someone comes along with a bigger army, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: rights
Rights ideally stem from necessity. If you are imposing unnecessary restrictions on something to make it valuable to you then you are violating other peoples rights, not asserting yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as the anti-intellectual property side argues from a position that purports that all ownership is automatically equal, there is no real discussion to be had in regards to copyright reform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What was an easy concept, is the nauseating feeling I got the first time I realized I was actually purchasing a limitation of my own rights (i.e. First Amendment rights) when I last bought a CD. Legal costs included in purchase price, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You never purchased a limitation of your own rights. You entered into a transaction with specific conditions of your own volition. The seller of a product has the right to set terms. You don't have to participate if you don't care for the terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So we are in agreement, IP laws are at least somewhat difficult to understand.
I agree that is how IP laws and licensing works, I disagree that the terms are valid under the protection of the First Amendment. I also disagree that a contract is valid unless all parties understand their obligations prior to executing the agreement. Your average person on the street, IMO, does not understand what limitations on their rights they have purchased.
We are, once again, in agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When we BUY music, it is like RENTING a car?
And you don't see why we're upset???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is a discernible benefit to the customer. Cheap art. That's nothing to be upset over.
If you want full rights, they're often available. But you have to pay a more reasonable price to gain full rights. And that's something most people will not want to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Time-shares are mutually beneficial contracts made by agreement. Copyright, in contrast, is no longer mutually beneficial and was never an agreement. Time-share contracts exercise people's rights to use their property, they don't impose restrictions on those rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright certainly can be mutually beneficial. Just because you fail to notice the benefits does not mean they do not exist. Also: Time-Share contracts certainly do come with specific restrictions on how and when you can use your property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You made your strawman out of a strawman accusation?! I'm dizzy. The discussion is about IP, hence the comparison to copyright.
"Copyright certainly can be mutually beneficial. Just because you fail to notice the benefits does not mean they do not exist. Also: Time-Share contracts certainly do come with specific restrictions on how and when you can use your property."
The restrictions on a time-share contract are agreed by the owners of the property under the time-share. The ability to time-share kinda makes the point that there isn't any restrictions on how you can use physical property, when compared to IP. If you tried to time-share a digitally distributed movie I think you'd be accused of copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the restrictions placed upon intellectual property are outlined for the consumer.
"The ability to time-share kinda makes the point that there isn't any restrictions on how you can use physical property, when compared to IP."
One: Again, I never compared it directly to IP. Two: If you try to draw a direct comparison between the two, of course they are going to come up different.
But the fact is, you can "own" physical property and still have your usage rights restricted, under certain circumstances that are usually stipulated at the time pf purchase. The person I was responding to claimed otherwise, and the Time Share is an example of limited or restricted ownership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But not agreed by. The agreement law itself, which was largely decided a long time before I was born.
"One: Again, I never compared it directly to IP. Two: If you try to draw a direct comparison between the two, of course they are going to come up different."
And again, no one claimed you compared it to IP. As for 'of course they are going to come up different', meh. I'm all typed out for pointless explanations.
"But the fact is, you can "own" physical property and still have your usage rights restricted, under certain circumstances that are usually stipulated at the time pf purchase. The person I was responding to claimed otherwise, and the Time Share is an example of limited or restricted ownership."
Copyright isn't limited or restricted ownership though. When you buy something with copyrighted material on it, you own the medium and are granted the right to the material. You don't own that copyright in any way whatsoever, you own the physical medium.
The funny thing is, I agree with you that physical property can have restrictions. Your time-share example just fails to make that point because the restrictions are a voluntary agreement made by normal means of ownership. Planning permission is an actual restriction on physical property. Various laws about dangerous substances, or weapons, are others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe the disconnect here is that I believe that purchasing materials under copyright equates to limited ownership, within the context of the conversation at hand. Technically you are correct. There is no actual ownership beyond the physical item you purchase. But where I tend to disagree with many people is that purchase of that physical object does not translate to complete freedom of the contents of the physical object. If you buy a book, the physical copy is yours. But the story contained within is not yours to reproduce and redistribute simply because you purchased the book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The question is: do particular rules make any sense?
For intellectual monopoly it all comes down to the simple basic fact: abstracts are infinitely copyable -- they are not limited like physical things, so restricting their freedom is basically foolish, like throwing away a natural resource.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm curious, where exactly do you draw the line with lifting said restrictions? Because a world without any artificial constraints (in regards to putting a cost on an intangible good) means zero cost to the consumer at every level. You might consider that positive. But I fail to see how imposing your world view on how an artist should or should not choose to monetize their efforts encourages the development of art.
Currently, it's each artists choice on how to distribute their work. Why should any external viewpoint dictate an artists choice? If I want to release a book for free, I can. If I want to ask a million dollars for a copy of my book, I can. No one has to buy my book if the price seems unfair. But no one is entitled to a copy for free if they refuse to pay the asked for price.
Art is not a natural resource. It takes time and effort to create. It is not owned by anyone other than the person who chooses to spend the time and effort to create it, unless they willingly choose to transfer their rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Precisely.
However, the fact that you had to explain something so simple is rather depressing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"All Rights Reserved
Copyright 1989
No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher."
I see this alot. Claims that this information has somehow been withheld from the innocent public. It has not. The information that you are not purchasing universal rights to a given book/game/movie/ect have always been posted clearly and concisely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True that it's there, and we all have come to expect it, and also not read those pages. But that's like concert tickets that you buy, and then when the tix arrive, all kinds of conditions are printed on the back. Not really a two-way street kind of agreement.
What if I want to photocopy one pretty illustration from the book I bought because my kids liked it. And I put it on the wall in their bedroom? Is that really a violation of the law? Seems like maybe it should not be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A certain amount of pre-existing expectations must be allowed for. I knew of and understood these restrictions when I was still a young child. They're pretty straight forward and can be found in almost every publication in some form or another.
And no... you didn't "rent" it. You bought it, with certain well known restrictions to your usage.
In regards to concert tickets, my experience is that the terms and conditions can usually be found out before hand. Personally, I make a habit of researching terms and conditions one anything before I make a purchase. For the most part, a small amount of research before you commit money will will yield informative results.
There is nothing wrong with expecting due diligence on the part of the consumer. If you are as concerned as you suggest about your usage rights, you have a responsibility to investigate the restrictions involved in your purchase.
If you want to photocopy one image for your kids bedroom, it's technically a violation. Although speaking as someone who works specifically with publishing kids books, most publishers and authors will not care. Even if they knew. Which they won't. It is possible to send a letter requesting use. I have received several of those in the past and usually respond with some form of original artwork, as well as whatever permission I can extend.
Where this breaks down is when people use imagery (in the context of this example) to decorate a commercial buisness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The music/books/games are relatively cheap because the marginal cost of production was low. And today it's near zero. In a competitive market, Price = MC. It's from Econ 101.
The market doesn't care - never had, never will - about anyone's cost of production. It cares about supply and demand. However, the fact that I had to explain something so simple is rather depressing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh. Okay. I see you're going to be arrogant about this. As long as we're clear on who set the tone.
You seem unable to grasp a very simple concept. Production cost is not simply a calculation of reproduction costs. Production costs are all encompassing. Pretending that they are not serves zero purpose other than to establish that you really don't understand the topic.
It should be obvious to anyone that if our market was truly supply and demand based, there would be zero cost on all intangible media. Because supply is obviously not an issue. But no matter how much you might believe that this is how things should be, you might notice that this is not actually how things are. And that's because supply and demand is only one small part of the overall economics that exist in the real world.
While you are correct that the average person does not care about the true cost of production, it turns out that the individuals responsible for the cost of production DO care. If Company A is releasing a game, and that game costs one million dollars in production, it doesn't matter if reproduction is practically zero. Company A still needs to recoup their expenses or the game will be considered a financial failure. It isn't terribly difficult to ascertain what happens to a company that makes zero dollars. For most of us, anyway.
Now, if the public finds the necessary costs applied to a product to be prohibitive, they won't buy it. And Company A will fail to recoup their losses. So it benefits said company to break the cost of their product up amongst multiple customers. This is why what you are typically sold is a single use right. So that the company can attempt to split the cost up amongst a larger group of people. So that you don't end up paying that full million dollars for the game.
In other words: It is unreasonable to expect a product that costs a million dollars to make to be sold for fifty dollars without some restrictions.
By the way, this is also from Econ 101. Try to keep up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"However, the fact that you had to explain something so simple is rather depressing."
You must have though that was for you.
That said, I still disagree with you. The components of fixed costs you discuss do have an effect on the market price, but only so much as they affect the supply curve. Supply and Demand still determine market price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And then all you fuckers are upset when we stop buying the pointless limited rights.
Idiots.
Rather obvious why the recording industry has losses year after year while the overall music industry is doing better and better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If, after the fact, I am being told that I actually just RENTED the music, I think that's false advertising. But maybe it's to be expected from and industry that also confuses "copy" and "steal".
When you rent, the object is not yours and you have to give it back. When you buy, you ostensibly own something of value and get to keep it, using it as you see fit. Basically, your car rental analogy isn't a good fit - or maybe it is, but actually argues against your point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"All Rights Reserved
Copyright 1989
No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher."
In what way is any of this unclear?
And yes, the car analogy is not perfect. No analogy ever will be. To be clear, I never stated that a book/game/movie was a rental, but instead that you are not purchasing universal rights. It's not at all an identical process to renting. It is it's own equally valid process with clear rules dictating specifically how it operates. So I don't see how you can claim false advertising when the terms of sale have always been posted clearly.
And in case you miss the other post: Again, sorry for the unwarranted tone in my earlier response. I was being a dick, and misunderstanding who you were responding to. Apologies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The clarity of a rule is not a justification. The familiarity of a rule is not a justification.
The question, as always, is *why* should we have rules that restrict the flow of information? -- such rules have obvious faults: conflicts with more primary rules (property), impracticality of implementation, and lack of evidence for effectiveness and efficiency . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the record, I favor copyright reform. But just because the system has flaws does not mean the system doesn't have existing strengths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All that IP nonsense
It seems the vocation of a miser or a bureaucrat. They either seek to deny others benefit, though it costs nothing to them; or they seek to burden everyone with worthless rules and regulations, though such things produce nothing at all. If they seek payment for labour, a simple fee or other direct exchange would do. If it is rightful recognition or esteem for their work, that requires no price to be exacted from anyone else. It would be lessened if it did. The cultural value of a work is rewarded by honor and acclaim, not by royalty.
Fundamentalist intellectual monopoly, besides not being credible, is not respectable. Any reasonable person should entirely discard it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All that IP nonsense
Simple. To the laborer, go the fruits, thus incentivizing the continuation of labor.
You, on the other hand, preach the gospel of the parasite, the counterfeiter, the freeloader, the coat-tail-rider, the Johny-come-lately. At its most simple, the gospel of the undeserved.
Your type of mindset would be right at home in the middle of a bustling Shanghai flea market where fraudulence is the cornerstone of success. Had you been born a flea instead of a man I have no doubt you would have been the reddest and most engorged of your peers, your amazing bloodsucking prowess renowned and routinely discussed by all of the other tics, lice, and tapeworms, from head to tail, on whatever unfortunate creature it was you all decided to exert your "right to liberty" on.
"To the best exploiters, go the spoils" the anti-IP crowd endlessly chants, no doubt quietly holding their own exploitative ability in high esteem (evidenced by how popular this sentiment is in tech circles where the financial potential for unencumbered IP exploitation is currently the greatest). But what most of them fail to realize, or at least fail to admit, is that such a dogma ultimately incentivizes exploitation rather than creation, and the inherent unsustainability of that is the very thing our founding fathers wisely sought to correct.
With few exceptions, opponents of IP do not seek to adjust the scales but rather to invert them utterly for their own financial benefit. To make these predacious motives more palatable for the uninformed they dress them up in a bunch of self righteous rhetoric only to end up looking no more convincing than the dress and bonnet clad wolf in "Little Red Riding Hood". It is my sincerest hope that as time presses on, more and more people upon hearing such thinly veiled rhetoric will interrupt the spiel to remark: "My, what big teeth you have..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All that IP nonsense
That is the practical argument, not the arcane philosophical fundamentalist kind.
Ask yourself: why should labor be incentivized?
Any individual makes their own incentive, they need nothing external: if they need something they just work to produce it for themself. A law preventing copying doesn't help them at all: they already have motive, and they don't need protection since copying can't remove anything from them.
The incentive of intellectual monopoly is to benefit the broader community; that is its whole underlying purpose. That is a perfectly reasonable argument, but it has nothing to do with giving absolute, intrinsic 'ownership' to anyone -- its ultimate intent is, in a way, almost the complete opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Fallacy and Ownership including IPR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The parable of the secret fishing spot.
One year the fourth of July fell on a Wednesday so, Bill decided to head out to his secret spot and found Sam and Mike fishing and drinking beer. Bill was livid. How could Sam violate his agreement and let Mike fish here on weekdays? Nothing Mike had to offer was good enough to assuage Bills anger. Bill spilled the beer, kicked over the bait and called the police.
Being and intellectual property lawyer Bill was prepared to win in court. He presented his case. But Mike presented the Deed to the property with the secret spot.
And that is the difference between real and intellectual property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ownership...
As most of you receiving this know, New Orleans residents are challenged often with the task of tracing home titles back potentially hundreds of years. With a community rich with history stretching back over two centuries, houses have been passed along through generations of family, making it quite difficult to establish ownership. Here's a great letter an attorney wrote to the FHA on behalf of a client that was priceless!!
A New Orleans lawyer sought an FHA loan for a client. He was told the loan would be granted, if he could prove satisfactory title to a parcel of property being offered as collateral. The title to the property dated back to 1803, which took the lawyer three months to track down. After sending the information to the FHA, he received the following reply
( letter):
"Upon review of your letter adjoining your client's loan application, we note that the request is supported by an Abstract of Title. While we compliment the able manner in which you have prepared and presented the application, we must point out that you have only cleared title to the proposed collateral property back to 1803. Before final approval can be accorded, it will be necessary to clear the title back to its origin."
Annoyed, the lawyer responded as follows
(actual letter)
"Your letter regarding title in Case No. 189156 has been received. I note that you wish to have title extended further than the 194 years covered by the present application. I was unaware that any educated person in this country, particularly those working in the property area, would not know that Louisiana was purchased, by the U.S. , from France in 1803, the year of origin identified in our application.
For the edification of uninformed FHA bureaucrats, the title to the land prior to U.S. Ownership was obtained from France , which had acquired it by Right of Conquest from Spain .. The land came into the possession of Spain by Right of Discovery made in the year 1492 by a sea captain named, Christopher Columbus, who had been granted the privilege of seeking a new route to India by the Spanish monarch, Isabella. The good queen, Isabella, being a pious woman and almost as careful about titles as the FHA, took the precaution of securing the blessing of the Pope before she sold her jewels to finance Columbus ' expedition.
Now the Pope, as I'm sure you may know, is the emissary of God, and God, it is commonly accepted, created this world. Therefore, I believe it is safe to presume that Godalso made that part of the world called Louisiana. God, therefore, would be the owner of origin and His origins date back, to before the beginning of time, the world as we know it AND the FHA. I hope you find God's original claim to be satisfactory. Now, may we please have our damn loan?"
The loan was approved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright is also very sticky!
And not only does copyright pit IP holders against their own customers, as Krehic notes, copyright is almost impossible to get rid of. You get a copyright whether you want it or not--the state automatically gives it to you even if you don't apply, even if you don't mark something "copyright"; and does not even provide a simple and effective way to dedicate your work to the public domain and decline copyright (see my post
Copyright is Very Sticky!).
As I explained in Intellectual Property and the Structure of Human Action, the fundamental mistake made by those who advocate IP is they treat information the same as scarce resources. IP law basically gives property rights in information--patterns, designs, knowledge, etc. When we act in the world to achieve our goals, we use scarce means (our bodies, food, tools, land, and so on), but our action is guided by various ideas and information. To successfuly act and prosper, the actor needs control of the means since these means are scarce and by their nature can only be used by one person.
That is why we need property rights in scarce things--we coudln't use them otherwise. If you take my eggs from me I can't make the cake.
But to make the cake I also need knowledge -- the recipe. I don't need to own the recipe to be able to make the cake. Millions of other people can know and use the same recipe at the same without interfering with my own cake making. There is simply no conflict to solve, no reason for property rights to arise here.
Some things in the world are (unfortunately) scarce, so we have to economize and assign owners so they can be used peacefully and productively. Luckily, information and knowledge is not scarce.
Material progress is made over time in human society because information is not scarce and can be infinitely multiplied, learned, taught, and built on. The more patterns, recipes, causal laws that are known add to the stock of knowledge available to actors, and acts as a greater and greater wealth multiplier by allowing actors to engage in ever more efficient and productive action. (It is a good thing that ideas are infinitely reproducible, not a bad thing; there is no need to impose artificial scarcity on these things to make them more like scarce resources; see IP and Artificial Scarcity.) As I wrote in Intellectual Property and Libertarianism: Granting property rights in scarce resources, but not in ideas, is precisely what is needed to permit successful action as well as societal progress and prosperity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright is also very sticky!
This makes no sense to me. Copyright is only relevant if it is enforced. You hold the copyright but choose not to enforce it. You include permission for redistribution in the original material. End of problem.
Lot's of people do this. Automatic copyright is not a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"ownership" doesn't equal "do whatever I want"
You man own the land, but you can't build there unless given permission for local authorities.
You may own the car, driving on public roads is subject to various laws and regulations.
You own cellphone, but you can't modify its transmitter without FCC permission.
And the list goes on.
With CD, you don't own the information - you own _media_ and permission to use that information (music/video/software) under certain conditions.
Copyright itself is not the problem, extreme overuse is. As anything in life, dosage is critical. You have to eat every day, but do it too match and you will suffer from overweight.
Back to your story about two friends and mysterious "third party" between them - I actually side with "evil industry" here. What if you ask your friend $5 for borrowing CD? Still fail to see the problem? Still fail to see "lost sale"?
Your claims about marginal price of digital products being $0 is nonsense. Your phone call is also have marginal price of about $0 since infrastructure is already in place. If so, why phones are not free? You know the answer - $0 figure is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "ownership" doesn't equal "do whatever I want"
Nevertheless, just because you can call for free, logic does not dictate that the phone itself free. Producing a phone (which is a physical product) requires the use of physical resources that have to be paid for. Consequently, phones are not free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]