The issue is that statutes themselves are theoretical constructs.
The words in Title 17 that have been enacted into law are not some theory. They have the force of law behind them. Those words actually control the scope of copyright rights. When the CTEA added 20 years to copyright terms, actual people's rights were actually affected. People actually got 20 more years of protection.
When Mike changes values in his theoretical models, nothing in the real world changes. His models are meaningless theories. If all economists and their theories were put on an island and nuked, copyright would be exactly the same since Title 17 has not been amended. Destroy all economists with nuclear bomb = no change to copyright. Change even one word in Title 17 = change copyright. Doesn't get any realer than the law on this one. Sorry.
Because they allegedly violated criminal laws. You guys don't make a lot of sense. They are accused of being criminals, i.e., violating criminal laws. Those crazy Hollywood folks are called the victims. You guys act like you've never seen anyone get prosecuted before. There was an investigation and a grand jury and an arrest warrant and everything. Just like every other criminal prosecution that happen everyday to thousands of people. Crazy, I know.
By the most commonly understood definitions of "property" copyright isn't property at all because it's about an intangible, practically infinite, non-rivalrous and non-excludable thing.
On May 2nd, according to the Journals of the Continental Congress, “The committee, consisting of Mr. [Hugh] Williamson, Mr. [Ralph] Izard and Mr. [James] Madison, to whom were referred sundry papers and memorials from different persons on the subject of literary property, being persuaded that nothing is more properly a man’s own than the fruit of his study, and that the protection and security of literary property would greatly tend to encourage genius, to promote useful discoveries and to the general extension of arts and commerce,” moved for a resolution that recommended the States pass statutes protecting copyright.
Copyright has been commonly considered to be property from early on. It was once called "literary property," but today is called "intellectual property." Note the word "property."
The point is that you cannot make an intangible set of words or ideas which are not inherently scarce, rivalrous, or excludable into something scarce, rivalrous, and excludable just through pretense or calling it by a certain term.
Title 17 makes copyright excludable. It's not de facto excludable, but it is de jure excludable. Note the word "excludable."
You're not aware of how criminal prosecutions work. It's been what, just short of a year, and so far, no trial? Still arguing over the extradition, while the business lies shuttered?
He's delaying the trial by fighting extradition. If he wants a trial, he should stop doing everything in his power to avoid the trial. You aren't making much sense.
But, the idea that the US government, at the urging of Hollywood, should just take down a business, without letting the site owner even express their side, is so extreme as to be laughable.
Are you unaware of how criminal prosecutions work? Sometimes the victim complains to the government, and then the government prosecutes the alleged criminal. You're acting like this is something new. I really cannot fathom what you're getting at. The government prosecutes criminals on behalf of their victims every single day.
Well, I guess that explains why you keep wading into *economics* discussions and trying to turn them into semantic discussions about *legal* definitions, despite that having zero impact on the economics.
Let me ask you this: Is your view that property necessarily presupposes natural scarcity the minority or the majority view amongst economists?
I don't think your models matter one iota to actual copyright, but I'm curious if your views on this point are the norm or not in economic academia.
Well, I guess that explains why you keep wading into *economics* discussions and trying to turn them into semantic discussions about *legal* definitions, despite that having zero impact on the economics.
I absolutely knew you were going to chime in with some childish put down. I knew it the moment I hit "submit." You are so terribly predictable. I put my cards on the table. I always have. I don't pretend to be what I'm not. I admit that economics is not my strong suit. That doesn't mean that I can't recognize that your economic definitions aren't relevant in the real world.
I understand that in your theoretical economic models you choose to define property a certain way. There are many other economists who think you're totally wrong to use that definition, and they use a different definition. Go ahead and run your models, but don't pretend that they are real. If every theoretical model of the economics of copyright were to disappear tomorrow, copyright would still remain exactly the same as it is today. Why? Because your models are just models. Copyright is a legal issue if there ever was one. Take away the legal parts and there is no copyright.
I understand that you think the legal meanings have zero impact on your theoretical models that compete with many other theoretical models, every economist thinking all the other economists are wrong. Have fun with that mental gymnastics. But in the real world, talking about actual copyright as it actually exists and affects real people, it is a legal issue. Copyright is defined by the law, not your meaningless models that could disappear and have no effect on copyright.
You yourself have mentioned an example of where it actually matters to a person as to whether copyright is property or not, and that is in the context of the Due Process Clause. There, you have admitted that copyright is property. So we can easily imagine an actual situation where in a real person's life it would actually matter whether copyright is property. If they were deprived of their copyright interests without due process of law, they could argue in court that since copyright is property they should have gotten due process. In that situation, it actually would matter in an actual person's life whether copyright is property.
You have not mentioned even one situation where how you define property in your theoretical models that could disappear tomorrow actually affects an actual person's life.
I think your intellectual move to say that we shouldn't call it property because in your theoretical models that other economists think are totally wrong it's not property. Who cares what your models say? No matter what your models say, it has no bearing on copyright as it actually exists and as it actually applies to actual people's lives. I don't have to be able to say intelligent things about marginal costs or dead weight losses to know that it's just a bunch of academics arguing about theories. The law, on the other hand, deals with the actual rights that people have and their enforcement. It actually affects actual people in an actual way.
So your ploy to say "it's economics, so nothing else matters!" fails to address the fact that it's your economics that don't matter. It fails to address the fact that tons of other economists think your models are shit. You're just trying to ignore the reality that it is considered to be property in many contexts that are actually relevant to people's lives. And let's be honest, you're trying to get people to not call it property in every context, not just with theoretical economic modelling. You don't think it should ever be called property ever, right?
As an aside, I think it's strange in your other article you're citing Prof. Bell as saying that copyright is not subject to a Takings Clause claim. If you admit that it's property under the Due Process Clause, then why wouldn't it be property under the Takings Clause too? Do you really think the word property, which is used twice in the Fifth Amendment, means different things each time?
What's he making are normative, minority-view arguments, and you're presenting them as descriptive, majority-view arguments. I often wonder if you do this intentionally. Do you understand the difference? It appears from the outside looking in that you just subscribe to whichever argument you like the result of without noting that it's normative/descriptive or minority-view/majority-view. A lot of the reason I think you're intellectually dishonest is because you just cite the views you like but you don't admit it when those views are considered to be "outside the box." Given your own "outside the box" views, it's not surprising that you don't want to go there, but it still seems like the lie of omission.
It's OK to cite dissenting views. But it's intellectually dishonest to not note that they are not the majority view.
Of course they do. Lease an apartment for a year. You have property rights in that apartment (right of use, possession, etc.). Those rights expire when the lease expires. Property just means your rights in a thing.
I don't think I'm the person to have this conversation with. I took one semester of economics as an undergrad. I spent two days reading the text right before the exam, took the exam, then forgot it all. Sorry, but you'd have to explain things to me like "subjective marginal utility" means.
To clarify, if you believe that another's property can be "created" by rearranging your own property, then surely you must believe that rearranging this property again is comparable to the destruction of property that is not your own (a seemingly more outrageous crime!).
You're going to have to give me something more concrete than that. I think I understand what you're getting at, but I'm not sure.
I believe an argument could be made that 'to promote the progress' implies 'to maximally promote the progress'.
You can make that argument, but it's legally a nonstarter--meaning that in real life, while talking about copyright as it actually exists, it will get you nowhere. The Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear that "promote the progress" means whatever Congress says it means. And in no way does it mean that some function must be maximized. Prof. Lessig tried that argument in Eldred, as argued in the famous amicus brief from the economics professors, and the Court rejected it outright.
Where the rubber hits the road is in what Congress defines copyright to be. That's reality. The actual rights that copyright represents are what Congress say they are. All of these competing economic models that Mike is pointing to are a bunch of intellectual masturbation. They're interesting, but they do not actually represent what copyright actually is.
It's cracking me up that some are pretending like some theoretical model that some economists agree with but that many others don't somehow represents what's real, while the law--which actually in real life defines copyright--is somehow theoretical and not real. Copyright is a creature of statute, not a creature of some economic model.
"In law school, I was taught that there are two types of property: real and personal. End of story."
Oh god, you've done it now. AJ who is STILL in law school is going to flip his lid over this comment and go off on you too til you are forced to respond just to get him to quit derailing threads.
Cute. I learned it two different ways.
In the common law, there are two kinds of property: real and personal. Copyright falls under the rubric of personal property (specifically intangible personal property).
In the civil law, there are three kinds of property: common, public, and private. Copyright falls under the rubric of private property (specifically incorporeal movable private property).
Respect would mean not misrepresenting me so consistently.
I don't ever consciously misrepresent you. If I'm purporting to state your position and you think I'm getting things wrong, just realize that it's an honest mistake and correct me under that assumption. This might save us both some grief. Appreciate the response, though.
So, we seem to be in agreement here, except for one point. We agree that content is neither rivalrous nor excludable, but that copyright imposes such an artificial excludability upon it. We agree that this creates *a* market, though you have made no statement on the efficiency of the market. We agree (and have all along) that in legal contexts, copyright has some aspects of property, and thus can be considered property in some areas. We disagree on the areas where copyright is not considered property (for example, copyright is generally not considered "community property" such as in the case of a divorce, and standard property rights have no such thing like the termination rights of copyright law... but we'll leave that aside).
I appreciate the thoughtful reply. Yes, we agree that it is not naturally rivalrous or excludable, and that the law makes it excludable. You say I have "no statement on the efficiency of the market." My reply is that your supposition seems to be that the market should conform to some theoretical model where inefficiency is minimized. As I have said many times, there is command that copyright must be maximized. You just want to maximize functions. That's fine, but don't pretend like they must be maximized. The Constitution says "promote the progress," it does not say "maximize some function that some economists agree is the proper model but that many other economists don't agree is the proper model."
Of course it's not a maximized function for economic modeling. It's intentionally artificially scarce. It's intentionally not a maximized function by design. You're ignoring WHY we intentionally set up this inefficient system. That's fine if you want to disagree with whether progress is being promoted in the way that you think it should be, but it's bootstrapping to argue that we should do it differently because it's maximally efficient to just not have copyright. Take a step out of theoretical land and come back to the real world where we intentionally make it an inefficient, artificial scarcity for a reason. Disagree with that reason, but don't pretend like the inefficiency is reason enough to change course. That's not a strong argument.
The short of it is though that I just don't understand why because in some economic model it's not property we should pretend that in the real world (as in the law that actually defines copyright and the Constitution that protects our property interests in it from government intrusions) it's not property. It seems a bit strange to claim that our everyday use of the word should be governed by a theoretical use of the word that some economists subscribe to because some economists want to maximize functions that don't even need to be maximized and that even if maximized there'd be another group of economists who disagreed. You say I'm not in the real world. I'm sorry, but this theoretical economic modeling is not the real world. In the real world, copyright is defined by laws, not economic models.
What you're leaving out is all the nuance. You subscribe to a school of economics, right? Which school are you in? I think it's important for you to acknowledge that your views are but those of one camp of economists, and there are many economists who think you're wrong. You make it sound like economics is a hard science and there is but one economic view and you represent that. That's not how it works. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that your views are the minority view within economic circles. Your views are certainly the minority view in issues of law. That's fine that you believe what you believe, but don't pretend like your views are necessary the right ones, especially if they're not even the majority consensus.
Here's an academic paper mentioned in today's Copyhype article: http://personal.bgsu.edu/~faracid/ip/scarcity.pdf The paper starts out: "There is a common view, dating back at least to Hume (1739), that property rights presuppose scarcity—i.e., that a good’s being scarce is a condition of its legitimately being property." That's just what you said--there can be no property without actual scarcity because property is only about resolving conflicts between competing parties. The paper then goes on to argue that that view is wrong. It's an interesting read. It goes to show that there is disagreement amongst the different camps. It is suggested that your view that property necessarily presupposes scarcity is not the majority view. I don't know if that's true, but as I said, it wouldn't be surprising given other views of yours that are not majority views.
Anyway, I have a lot more to say, but I'm pressed for time. I really do appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me. I mean it. I think we're actually getting somewhere. The reason I give you such shit is not just because I hate your guts and want to embarrass you, but it's also because I respect you and am genuinely interested in your points of view. Let's have productive discussions like these more often.
" THIS IS A WATERSHED MOMENT, FOLKS. MIKE ADMITS THAT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION COPYRIGHT IS "PROPERTY.""
There ya go, you've won.
Now you can go back to being somewhat constructive.
It matters because Mike is admitting that in a real world, concrete situation where it actually matters whether copyright is considered to be "property" it actually is "property." This is 180 degrees the opposite of the claim that he is trying to make, which is that in his secret models that are really sensitive to how things are labeled, it's not "property." Which one actually matters more in the real world? The Constitution and the courts that determine real things in real life, or Mike's secret models that compete with hundreds of other models and don't actually determine anything real?
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The words in Title 17 that have been enacted into law are not some theory. They have the force of law behind them. Those words actually control the scope of copyright rights. When the CTEA added 20 years to copyright terms, actual people's rights were actually affected. People actually got 20 more years of protection.
When Mike changes values in his theoretical models, nothing in the real world changes. His models are meaningless theories. If all economists and their theories were put on an island and nuked, copyright would be exactly the same since Title 17 has not been amended. Destroy all economists with nuclear bomb = no change to copyright. Change even one word in Title 17 = change copyright. Doesn't get any realer than the law on this one. Sorry.
On the post: MPAA To USTR: More Shutdowns Like Megaupload, Please
Re: Re:
Because they allegedly violated criminal laws. You guys don't make a lot of sense. They are accused of being criminals, i.e., violating criminal laws. Those crazy Hollywood folks are called the victims. You guys act like you've never seen anyone get prosecuted before. There was an investigation and a grand jury and an arrest warrant and everything. Just like every other criminal prosecution that happen everyday to thousands of people. Crazy, I know.
On the post: Republican Study Committee Dumps Derek Khanna, Author Of Copyright Reform Brief, After Members Complain
Re: Re: Re:
Simply shocking!!!
Dude, you just don't get it. Mike isn't a journalist. He's just a guy that does journalism. Duh.
On the post: Republican Study Committee Dumps Derek Khanna, Author Of Copyright Reform Brief, After Members Complain
Re: Re:
He's a rock star to the "break the internet" crowd. Maybe Mike can help him sell t-shirts.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: This Isn't Supposed to Be About Semantics
I don't think that's true at all. Copyright was considered to be property quite commonly by the Framers. See, e.g., http://www.copyhype.com/2012/05/myths-from-the-birth-of-us-copyright/There's plenty more where that came from. I recommend: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=934869
Copyright has been commonly considered to be property from early on. It was once called "literary property," but today is called "intellectual property." Note the word "property."
The point is that you cannot make an intangible set of words or ideas which are not inherently scarce, rivalrous, or excludable into something scarce, rivalrous, and excludable just through pretense or calling it by a certain term.
Title 17 makes copyright excludable. It's not de facto excludable, but it is de jure excludable. Note the word "excludable."
On the post: MPAA To USTR: More Shutdowns Like Megaupload, Please
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: MPAA To USTR: More Shutdowns Like Megaupload, Please
Re: Re:
He's delaying the trial by fighting extradition. If he wants a trial, he should stop doing everything in his power to avoid the trial. You aren't making much sense.
On the post: MPAA To USTR: More Shutdowns Like Megaupload, Please
Are you unaware of how criminal prosecutions work? Sometimes the victim complains to the government, and then the government prosecutes the alleged criminal. You're acting like this is something new. I really cannot fathom what you're getting at. The government prosecutes criminals on behalf of their victims every single day.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @joe
Let me ask you this: Is your view that property necessarily presupposes natural scarcity the minority or the majority view amongst economists?
I don't think your models matter one iota to actual copyright, but I'm curious if your views on this point are the norm or not in economic academia.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @joe
I absolutely knew you were going to chime in with some childish put down. I knew it the moment I hit "submit." You are so terribly predictable. I put my cards on the table. I always have. I don't pretend to be what I'm not. I admit that economics is not my strong suit. That doesn't mean that I can't recognize that your economic definitions aren't relevant in the real world.
I understand that in your theoretical economic models you choose to define property a certain way. There are many other economists who think you're totally wrong to use that definition, and they use a different definition. Go ahead and run your models, but don't pretend that they are real. If every theoretical model of the economics of copyright were to disappear tomorrow, copyright would still remain exactly the same as it is today. Why? Because your models are just models. Copyright is a legal issue if there ever was one. Take away the legal parts and there is no copyright.
I understand that you think the legal meanings have zero impact on your theoretical models that compete with many other theoretical models, every economist thinking all the other economists are wrong. Have fun with that mental gymnastics. But in the real world, talking about actual copyright as it actually exists and affects real people, it is a legal issue. Copyright is defined by the law, not your meaningless models that could disappear and have no effect on copyright.
You yourself have mentioned an example of where it actually matters to a person as to whether copyright is property or not, and that is in the context of the Due Process Clause. There, you have admitted that copyright is property. So we can easily imagine an actual situation where in a real person's life it would actually matter whether copyright is property. If they were deprived of their copyright interests without due process of law, they could argue in court that since copyright is property they should have gotten due process. In that situation, it actually would matter in an actual person's life whether copyright is property.
You have not mentioned even one situation where how you define property in your theoretical models that could disappear tomorrow actually affects an actual person's life.
I think your intellectual move to say that we shouldn't call it property because in your theoretical models that other economists think are totally wrong it's not property. Who cares what your models say? No matter what your models say, it has no bearing on copyright as it actually exists and as it actually applies to actual people's lives. I don't have to be able to say intelligent things about marginal costs or dead weight losses to know that it's just a bunch of academics arguing about theories. The law, on the other hand, deals with the actual rights that people have and their enforcement. It actually affects actual people in an actual way.
So your ploy to say "it's economics, so nothing else matters!" fails to address the fact that it's your economics that don't matter. It fails to address the fact that tons of other economists think your models are shit. You're just trying to ignore the reality that it is considered to be property in many contexts that are actually relevant to people's lives. And let's be honest, you're trying to get people to not call it property in every context, not just with theoretical economic modelling. You don't think it should ever be called property ever, right?
As an aside, I think it's strange in your other article you're citing Prof. Bell as saying that copyright is not subject to a Takings Clause claim. If you admit that it's property under the Due Process Clause, then why wouldn't it be property under the Takings Clause too? Do you really think the word property, which is used twice in the Fifth Amendment, means different things each time?
What's he making are normative, minority-view arguments, and you're presenting them as descriptive, majority-view arguments. I often wonder if you do this intentionally. Do you understand the difference? It appears from the outside looking in that you just subscribe to whichever argument you like the result of without noting that it's normative/descriptive or minority-view/majority-view. A lot of the reason I think you're intellectually dishonest is because you just cite the views you like but you don't admit it when those views are considered to be "outside the box." Given your own "outside the box" views, it's not surprising that you don't want to go there, but it still seems like the lie of omission.
It's OK to cite dissenting views. But it's intellectually dishonest to not note that they are not the majority view.
On the post: Why Copyright Shouldn't Be Considered Property... And Why A Return To 1790 Copyright May Be Desirable
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intellectual Property
Of course they do. Lease an apartment for a year. You have property rights in that apartment (right of use, possession, etc.). Those rights expire when the lease expires. Property just means your rights in a thing.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: @joe
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: @joe
You're going to have to give me something more concrete than that. I think I understand what you're getting at, but I'm not sure.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not sure what I'm missing. It's hard to follow posts on TD. The lines make it worse somehow.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can make that argument, but it's legally a nonstarter--meaning that in real life, while talking about copyright as it actually exists, it will get you nowhere. The Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear that "promote the progress" means whatever Congress says it means. And in no way does it mean that some function must be maximized. Prof. Lessig tried that argument in Eldred, as argued in the famous amicus brief from the economics professors, and the Court rejected it outright.
Where the rubber hits the road is in what Congress defines copyright to be. That's reality. The actual rights that copyright represents are what Congress say they are. All of these competing economic models that Mike is pointing to are a bunch of intellectual masturbation. They're interesting, but they do not actually represent what copyright actually is.
It's cracking me up that some are pretending like some theoretical model that some economists agree with but that many others don't somehow represents what's real, while the law--which actually in real life defines copyright--is somehow theoretical and not real. Copyright is a creature of statute, not a creature of some economic model.
On the post: Why Copyright Shouldn't Be Considered Property... And Why A Return To 1790 Copyright May Be Desirable
Re: Re: Intellectual Property
Oh god, you've done it now. AJ who is STILL in law school is going to flip his lid over this comment and go off on you too til you are forced to respond just to get him to quit derailing threads.
Cute. I learned it two different ways.
In the common law, there are two kinds of property: real and personal. Copyright falls under the rubric of personal property (specifically intangible personal property).
In the civil law, there are three kinds of property: common, public, and private. Copyright falls under the rubric of private property (specifically incorporeal movable private property).
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't ever consciously misrepresent you. If I'm purporting to state your position and you think I'm getting things wrong, just realize that it's an honest mistake and correct me under that assumption. This might save us both some grief. Appreciate the response, though.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I appreciate the thoughtful reply. Yes, we agree that it is not naturally rivalrous or excludable, and that the law makes it excludable. You say I have "no statement on the efficiency of the market." My reply is that your supposition seems to be that the market should conform to some theoretical model where inefficiency is minimized. As I have said many times, there is command that copyright must be maximized. You just want to maximize functions. That's fine, but don't pretend like they must be maximized. The Constitution says "promote the progress," it does not say "maximize some function that some economists agree is the proper model but that many other economists don't agree is the proper model."
Of course it's not a maximized function for economic modeling. It's intentionally artificially scarce. It's intentionally not a maximized function by design. You're ignoring WHY we intentionally set up this inefficient system. That's fine if you want to disagree with whether progress is being promoted in the way that you think it should be, but it's bootstrapping to argue that we should do it differently because it's maximally efficient to just not have copyright. Take a step out of theoretical land and come back to the real world where we intentionally make it an inefficient, artificial scarcity for a reason. Disagree with that reason, but don't pretend like the inefficiency is reason enough to change course. That's not a strong argument.
The short of it is though that I just don't understand why because in some economic model it's not property we should pretend that in the real world (as in the law that actually defines copyright and the Constitution that protects our property interests in it from government intrusions) it's not property. It seems a bit strange to claim that our everyday use of the word should be governed by a theoretical use of the word that some economists subscribe to because some economists want to maximize functions that don't even need to be maximized and that even if maximized there'd be another group of economists who disagreed. You say I'm not in the real world. I'm sorry, but this theoretical economic modeling is not the real world. In the real world, copyright is defined by laws, not economic models.
What you're leaving out is all the nuance. You subscribe to a school of economics, right? Which school are you in? I think it's important for you to acknowledge that your views are but those of one camp of economists, and there are many economists who think you're wrong. You make it sound like economics is a hard science and there is but one economic view and you represent that. That's not how it works. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that your views are the minority view within economic circles. Your views are certainly the minority view in issues of law. That's fine that you believe what you believe, but don't pretend like your views are necessary the right ones, especially if they're not even the majority consensus.
Here's an academic paper mentioned in today's Copyhype article: http://personal.bgsu.edu/~faracid/ip/scarcity.pdf The paper starts out: "There is a common view, dating back at least to Hume (1739), that property rights presuppose scarcity—i.e., that a good’s being scarce is a condition of its legitimately being property." That's just what you said--there can be no property without actual scarcity because property is only about resolving conflicts between competing parties. The paper then goes on to argue that that view is wrong. It's an interesting read. It goes to show that there is disagreement amongst the different camps. It is suggested that your view that property necessarily presupposes scarcity is not the majority view. I don't know if that's true, but as I said, it wouldn't be surprising given other views of yours that are not majority views.
Anyway, I have a lot more to say, but I'm pressed for time. I really do appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me. I mean it. I think we're actually getting somewhere. The reason I give you such shit is not just because I hate your guts and want to embarrass you, but it's also because I respect you and am genuinely interested in your points of view. Let's have productive discussions like these more often.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There ya go, you've won.
Now you can go back to being somewhat constructive.
It matters because Mike is admitting that in a real world, concrete situation where it actually matters whether copyright is considered to be "property" it actually is "property." This is 180 degrees the opposite of the claim that he is trying to make, which is that in his secret models that are really sensitive to how things are labeled, it's not "property." Which one actually matters more in the real world? The Constitution and the courts that determine real things in real life, or Mike's secret models that compete with hundreds of other models and don't actually determine anything real?
Next >>