So Mike needs to admit copyright is property, but his models cannot?
He can define monkeys to be rainbows in his secret models. That doesn't change the fact that in the real world monkeys are not rainbows.
You seem to want to debate, yet you criticize Mike for debating with theoretical models.
If he wants to use his models to suggest changes to copyright, I say "Go for it." Seriously. I think Mike has great ideas. But he should stop pretending like somehow these secret models implode if copyright is called "property" therein. The labels shouldn't matter to the models. What matters is whether it's excludable or rivalrous. Period. He should admit that in the real world copyright is commonly thought of as "property." His secret models can call things whatever he wants, but to pretend like those models control how the real world actually uses the term is silly--it doesn't.
Which theoretical models? He has plenty of case studies showing that certain models can be successfully utilized, unless they do not fit your standard of your "real-life" in which case, you don't have to be here.
Case studies are great too. Crank 'em out, let's look at the data. Woohoo.
None of that shows though that copyright must not be called "property." What theoretical model gets so hung up on labels rather than looking at the actual nature of the right at issue? What model precisely would fall apart?
anyone who ignores those non-property like attributes -- as AJ has done consistently -- is building a strawman by ignoring economic realities in the fundamental attributes of the market.
Please name even one single "non-property like attribute" that I have "consistently" ignored. You can't name even one, because you are completely making that up to discredit me. Prove it, Mike. I won't hold my breath.
I recognize that copyright is not naturally excludable or rivalrous. I also recognize that the law makes it excludable. Do your secret economic models take that into account? Where are these models anyway? And why do they break down when the label "property" is used? Are your models really that sensitive to labels on things vs. their actual de facto/de jure nature?
I noted that for the purpose of the due process clause, some courts have judged copyright to be property in the legal sense.
Good, so you admit that in a very real context where it actually matters whether or not copyright is actually "property," "some courts" have said that it is. I assume you know of none that have said it's not, right? THIS IS A WATERSHED MOMENT, FOLKS. MIKE ADMITS THAT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION COPYRIGHT IS "PROPERTY."
What I have never said is that copyright is property in any real or economic sense.
Yes, in a theoretical economic model, you should properly look at the fact that it's nonrivalrous. I'm still waiting to see how your model handles the excludability issue. Where are these models? And why is your model better than all the other theoretical models?
And more importantly, just because in these secret models you focus on how copyright is not like tangible property, why do you insist that in the real world where copyright actually is excludable and considered to be "property" that we use your theoretical definitions (that you can't be bothered to even prove exist)? Don't you see how silly it is to pretend like your secret theoretical meaning of the word should control how we use the word? And don't you think it's silly to pretend like there aren't other contexts all around you where people freely think of it as property? What makes your secret model so special?
That he then uses it to argue a meaningless point
It's not meaningless. Whether copyright is property matters very much to you, obviously. What you can never explain is why these secret models that don't actually represent the real world that we actually live in matter so much when people discuss "property." It's not naturally rivalrous and excludable. Everyone knows this. You pretend like your secret economic insight sees things that none of us can see. We all see that too, Mike.
Don't forget to please name even one single "non-property like attribute" that I have "consistently" ignored. I await your answer.
The theoretical models are for debate. To come here and say it's dumb to debate copyright in theoretical models is kind of pointless, unless it makes you that angry.
Bring on the theoretical models. Woohoo. Mike never actually cites these economic models he insists upon. I'm pretty sure these secret models only care about copyright's natural nonrivalrous and noexcludable nature and don't turn on whether something is labeled "property." I'd like to see why these models can't handle something as basic as the difference between de facto excludable and de jure excludable. In the law, it doesn't matter how something became excludable, because the law is only concerned with the reality of whether it is excludable under the law. But I get that copyright is not rivalrous and is not de facto excludable. What I don't get is why these models break down as soon as the label "property" comes out. Where are these secret models anyway?
And where is this confirmed in the real world?
Courts, including unanimous Supreme Court decisions calling copyrights property. Congress. The executive branch. The commentary. Seems like the member nations of WIPO don't mind the moniker. Even Mike when he's being honest and answering the question of whether copyright is "property" as that word is used in the Constitution. For an academic look at how copyright has been recognized to be property, I recommend this: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=934869
Uh, you wanna cite his treatise where he contradicts himself? Besides it doesn't take away from the fact that what he says is true, the entertainment industry uses that same loaded language (language you've accused Mike of using for "effect" and language you seem to swear by) to sway people to their side and distort the true nature of things.
Yep, people on both sides of the debate use words for effect. Some more than others.
Mike's not pretending, he's debating theoretical situations.
If the situations are theoretical, then they do not represent the real world nearly as well as actually looking at the real world meaning of copyright and property.
You're still too ignorant to see how beneficial that can be because you're hung up on your ego.
I'm all for looking at the competing theoretical models. Mike can make his case for why his model is better than the hundreds of other such models. In the meantime, those models are just that, models.
I've specifically heard him say in reference to you that copyright shares some qualities with property, but is not specifically property.
Yes, in his theoretical models that do not actually represent copyright as it actually defined in the real world, he claims that copyright is not property. He hasn't cited even one economics text for the point, but yes, he claims that. I'm saying that in the real world, looking at the copyright that actually does exist, it's property. Mike admits this elsewhere. Why won't he admit it here? Hmmm.
And yet he is still aware that using the phrase "copyright is property" is asinine.
So the academic who has no problem with recognizing that it is property in his treatise also thinks it's asinine to call it what it actually is? Hmmm. And I think you're missing that Mike is the one making claims about it's nature as property. Of course, Mike has to pretend like economic models represent reality more than the actual laws that actually define copyright. But why let that get in the way of a good take down.
But, when you look at copyright as an economic property right it, kind of falls down. Remove the law (or the laws get ignored by everyone) and copyright falls apart.
Where does one look up this "economic property right" that exists independent of the law? How does one enforce it? You can't and you don't. You're talking about fantasy land, where economic models maximize a given function and all the camps argue about whose model is better. Meanwhile, in the real world, copyright is purely a creature of statute. Not economic model. Statute. People like Mike use an economic approach to setting policy goals. I get that. There are many models other than Mike's, and I'm sure they all have merit. So what? The Constitution doesn't say that the economics of the situation have to be maximized. "Promote" the progress, not "maximize" it based on one camp's economics model.
I talk about the economic definition of copyright, because *that is the only thing that matters* if we are seeking to maximize economic benefit. . . . .
Yes, economists can sit around and create models where the economic benefit is maximized. And what you aren't saying is that there are different camps of economists, and each camp thinks the other is wrong. There is bickering and debate about whose economic model is correct. And there is bickering and debate about whose studies use the best methodologies. Etc. But none of that reflects the real world. Copyright is defined by Congress, and its metes and bounds shaped by the courts. Does economic theory play a part in some of those decisions? Sure. Are all decisions made based on these economic theories? Not even close.
So what you're talking about is fantasy land, whereas I'm talking about actual copyright as it actually is defined and as it actually exists and as it's actually enforced. In the real world that actually exists, copyright is not defined by economic models. It is defined by the law.
That you can add *legal* limitations to that, via government-mandated monopoly privileges is meaningless -- which is the point of the examples in the post. Again, under your definition, the pizzaright and the airright discussed in the article are a form of "free market capitalism" because under your *legal* focus, those would be a form of "property." But, clearly, that makes no sense economically speaking. No one would reasonably argue that a market of air rights is a free market form of capitalism.
I didn't say anything about free market capitalism. I think that whole argument is dumb too, but let's stick to your argument that some theoretical economic model is the only thing that matters with copyright--even though in no actual way does that theoretical model actually represent what copyright actually is.
That's about marketing, not economics. So, not sure your point.
The point is that theoretical economic models do not actually control what copyright is. The law does. And under the law, copyright is property. That everyone accepts that copyright is property is evidenced in the common term "intellectual property." It's not marketing. It's evidence that your narrow, theoretical views are not the norm.
Not sure I get it. Is it some kind of existentialist point? My philosophy is rusty. Theft is different than infringement, I agree. These differences are noticeable in the fact they are called different names and are delineated under different laws. I know some people use a broader meaning of theft that includes infringement. That's not the common law meaning of theft traditionally, but the meaning of words change over time (for example, property means much more today than it did 300 years ago). "Theft of services" comes to mind as an example of theft that isn't about taking material objects. I think the word has different meanings.
You consistently talk about how he is "intellectually dishonest", yet you consistently use the phrase "copyright is property."
Even Mike admits that copyright is "property" as that word is used in the Constitution. But he refuses to admit it on his blog. Hmmm.
William Patry has said on his blog that, "describing copyright as property is a rhetorical device used to get to particular results, results that I think can in particular cases be too unbalanced."
That's funny, because in his treatise on copyright, Patry has no problem with recognizing copyright as "property." See, e.g. 2 Patry on Copyright § 4:74 ("Section 202 of the Act makes a distinction between the physical embodiment of a work of authorship and the intangible intellectual property.").
The only one using it as a rhetorical device is Mike when he pretends that because in some theoretical economic sense that he can't even cite to it isn't property, then we can ignore all of the real world sense where it is property. Ever heard of the phrase "intellectual property." Hmmm.
On the respect thing, my point is: If you want to speak to Mike, then contact him per mail and set up a physical meeting or find another way to get in contact with him (facebook, twitter, phone). You really do not do yourself a favour by posting comments in the discussion-section of his "blog" without actually engaging in the discussions. Also making actual observations apart from trying to discredit the written articles is a better ground for discussion than just being mean (ad hominem, poisoning the well, trapping questions etc.).
I believe I've engaged with more people and defended myself in more detail than any other poster on TD that I've seen in the past 2.5 years. So I don't agree with you that I am not "actually engaging in the discussions." Your point is otherwise noted. Thanks.
And you seem to be ignoring the fact that economists and legal scholars use the term "property rights" differently.
From Wikipedia:
The concept of property rights as used by economists and legal scholars are related but distinct. The distinction is largely seen in the economists' focus on the ability of an individual or collective to control the use of the good. For example, a thief who has stolen a good would not be considered to have legal (de jure) property right to the good, but would be considered to have economic (de facto) property right to the good.
Right. Mike wants to talk about copyright as part of some theoretical, abstract, economic model. That's not the real world. Copyright is not defined by economic models. In the real world, copyright is defined by the law. In the U.S., turn to Title 17, Section 101 et seq. That's where real life copyright is defined. It is defined by an Act of Congress, not an economist's theoretical model. And in the real world, copyright is property.
Shorter version: Is it called "intellectual property" or "intellectual artificial scarcity"? That should tell you which side won this debate.
If he (1) has to go back 300 years to find support for his definition of a word, and (2) has to ignore other meanings that have developed in the interim and have gained universal acceptance, then yeah, he's not being quite honest here.
Sorry you lost respect for me, but fighting off all the sycophants and sock puppets gets old. I would rather just discuss this with Mike directly. He's the one writing articles about how copyright is property. He's the one that should stand behind that claim.
We make it artificially scarce so as to give authors a property right. This property rights works to incentivize the creation of new and better works. By giving authors a marketable right--the artificial, de jure right to exclude--we give them an incentive to invest the time, energy, money, and self into new works. Thus, by first giving a benefit to authors--the exclusive rights--we in turn benefit the public at large who get access to these works. It's a quid pro quo. So yes, it's obviously non-naturally scarce, but we make it scarce artificially because that serves a private purpose that in turn serves a public purpose.
I would very much like to prove him wrong, thus the requests for debate. You are correct about that. I do believe I can point out his errors if only he would actually engage me on the merits. Humiliating him would bring me pleasure because I think he's intellectually dishonest and deserving to be outed as a fake and a loud mouth. I think he knows I can out him, hence the personal attacks and the refusals to ever just discuss something on the merits. You don't need a degree in psychology to this out.
Wouldn't it be foolish then to jump the gun and say it is property?
What's foolish is pretending like it's a monopoly in the economic sense of that word. I'm often surprised that Mike espouses this nonsense. You have to define the market to be the market for that very work. That's not a monopoly. If I write a book, you can write a book about the very same subject as me and compete directly in the same market with me. If I had a monopoly, you couldn't compete with me. But Mike chooses to use the inaccurate word "monopoly" for much the same reason he refuses to admit it's "property"--he's going for effect. He's trying to manipulate the debate, so he's insisting that words be used in his silly, narrow definitions. The overwhelming consensus is that copyright is "property." It's not even debatable except for perhaps by a few academics. The fact that everyone calls it "intellectual property" should tell you someone about it's place as property qua property.
Once again, you conflate two different concepts, and once again I suspect you shall run away once called on that fact.
A copyright as property (under, say, the due process clause) is not the same thing as copyright as a property right. And I suspect you know that.
The Due Process Clause protects interests in property, i.e., property rights. You guys don't seem to understand that the word "property" just refers to a bundle of rights in a thing. The government cannot deprive us of our bundle of rights in a thing without due process of law. Whether that thing is tangible or intangible is irrelevant. What matters is the existence or nonexistence of the property right.
One of the biggest problems with AJ's attempts is he's attempting to coax an answer from Mike he believes will discredit him. That's most likely why he insists on asking him the same question in the comments, instead of having a private conversation.
And every response of Mike's is obviously for his reader's benefit and not to just address the issue at hand. All he has are games and foot stomping. He won't just get down in the comments and actually debate things in a productive manner. It always turns into talking about talking about it, rather than actually just talking about it.
Copyright is purely a statutory construct. Without the law, there is no copyright. Pretending like because it is not property-like because it is not naturally excludable begs the question of where does it say that something must be de facto excludable before it can be deemed property? The meaning of "property" has come a long way since Hume walked this earth. To ignore the reality that copyright is property is just to play word games.
When trying to paint Mike into a corner and prove your point, it really doesn't help to make reference to AJ. Especially not given his behavior for the past few days or the comments he's been making. Besides, he didn't actually rake anyone over any coals. He twisted what Mike said and then ran with that, which you appear to be doing to. And if you can't read, Mike quite clearly stated what is and isn't non-property-like in the last article if memory serves me correctly. Of course, reading the articles in order to get said information isn't quite as lovely as the feeling I'm sure you and AJ feel when you demand answers to your questions and Mike sees fit not to reply to children. But hey, to each their own.
Mike starts with erroneous suppositions that he is unwilling and unable to explain. He has to pretend like the last 300 years didn't happen to the meaning of "property." He has to pretend like, even though copyright is purely the product of a statute that is defined and enforced through the law, that it's not at all legal issue. That makes no sense. Nor can Mike explain what the legal meaning of the word misses that the Humian meaning doesn't. We all know that it's not naturally rivalrous or excludable. The law fully understands that. The law also makes it excludable. Yes, the exludability is de jure, not de facto, but that is irrelevant. The law catches all of the nuances that he seems to think completely fool everyone. It's rubbish. Just admit that it's "property" as that word is actually used in the 21st century, make your points about it not be rivalrous notwithstanding, and move on. He talks about "getting real." Well, get real and admit that it is property.
I know AJ raked you over the coals about your incomplete understanding of property laws before, so I'm sure you won't have an answer for me either.
That's exactly right. Mike will keep writing article after article about how copyright is not property, but he won't actually debate the point in the comments. Heck, he won't even admit that he has admitted that copyright is "property" as that word is used in the Due Process Clause. Now why wouldn't Mike want his readers to know that he secretly admits that copyright is "property" in certain contexts? Hmmmm. Anyway, you and I both know that Mike won't stand behind his own words.
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:
He can define monkeys to be rainbows in his secret models. That doesn't change the fact that in the real world monkeys are not rainbows.
You seem to want to debate, yet you criticize Mike for debating with theoretical models.
If he wants to use his models to suggest changes to copyright, I say "Go for it." Seriously. I think Mike has great ideas. But he should stop pretending like somehow these secret models implode if copyright is called "property" therein. The labels shouldn't matter to the models. What matters is whether it's excludable or rivalrous. Period. He should admit that in the real world copyright is commonly thought of as "property." His secret models can call things whatever he wants, but to pretend like those models control how the real world actually uses the term is silly--it doesn't.
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:
Case studies are great too. Crank 'em out, let's look at the data. Woohoo.
None of that shows though that copyright must not be called "property." What theoretical model gets so hung up on labels rather than looking at the actual nature of the right at issue? What model precisely would fall apart?
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:
Please name even one single "non-property like attribute" that I have "consistently" ignored. You can't name even one, because you are completely making that up to discredit me. Prove it, Mike. I won't hold my breath.
I recognize that copyright is not naturally excludable or rivalrous. I also recognize that the law makes it excludable. Do your secret economic models take that into account? Where are these models anyway? And why do they break down when the label "property" is used? Are your models really that sensitive to labels on things vs. their actual de facto/de jure nature?
I noted that for the purpose of the due process clause, some courts have judged copyright to be property in the legal sense.
Good, so you admit that in a very real context where it actually matters whether or not copyright is actually "property," "some courts" have said that it is. I assume you know of none that have said it's not, right? THIS IS A WATERSHED MOMENT, FOLKS. MIKE ADMITS THAT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION COPYRIGHT IS "PROPERTY."
What I have never said is that copyright is property in any real or economic sense.
Yes, in a theoretical economic model, you should properly look at the fact that it's nonrivalrous. I'm still waiting to see how your model handles the excludability issue. Where are these models? And why is your model better than all the other theoretical models?
And more importantly, just because in these secret models you focus on how copyright is not like tangible property, why do you insist that in the real world where copyright actually is excludable and considered to be "property" that we use your theoretical definitions (that you can't be bothered to even prove exist)? Don't you see how silly it is to pretend like your secret theoretical meaning of the word should control how we use the word? And don't you think it's silly to pretend like there aren't other contexts all around you where people freely think of it as property? What makes your secret model so special?
That he then uses it to argue a meaningless point
It's not meaningless. Whether copyright is property matters very much to you, obviously. What you can never explain is why these secret models that don't actually represent the real world that we actually live in matter so much when people discuss "property." It's not naturally rivalrous and excludable. Everyone knows this. You pretend like your secret economic insight sees things that none of us can see. We all see that too, Mike.
Don't forget to please name even one single "non-property like attribute" that I have "consistently" ignored. I await your answer.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bring on the theoretical models. Woohoo. Mike never actually cites these economic models he insists upon. I'm pretty sure these secret models only care about copyright's natural nonrivalrous and noexcludable nature and don't turn on whether something is labeled "property." I'd like to see why these models can't handle something as basic as the difference between de facto excludable and de jure excludable. In the law, it doesn't matter how something became excludable, because the law is only concerned with the reality of whether it is excludable under the law. But I get that copyright is not rivalrous and is not de facto excludable. What I don't get is why these models break down as soon as the label "property" comes out. Where are these secret models anyway?
And where is this confirmed in the real world?
Courts, including unanimous Supreme Court decisions calling copyrights property. Congress. The executive branch. The commentary. Seems like the member nations of WIPO don't mind the moniker. Even Mike when he's being honest and answering the question of whether copyright is "property" as that word is used in the Constitution. For an academic look at how copyright has been recognized to be property, I recommend this: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=934869
Uh, you wanna cite his treatise where he contradicts himself? Besides it doesn't take away from the fact that what he says is true, the entertainment industry uses that same loaded language (language you've accused Mike of using for "effect" and language you seem to swear by) to sway people to their side and distort the true nature of things.
Yep, people on both sides of the debate use words for effect. Some more than others.
Mike's not pretending, he's debating theoretical situations.
If the situations are theoretical, then they do not represent the real world nearly as well as actually looking at the real world meaning of copyright and property.
You're still too ignorant to see how beneficial that can be because you're hung up on your ego.
I'm all for looking at the competing theoretical models. Mike can make his case for why his model is better than the hundreds of other such models. In the meantime, those models are just that, models.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, in his theoretical models that do not actually represent copyright as it actually defined in the real world, he claims that copyright is not property. He hasn't cited even one economics text for the point, but yes, he claims that. I'm saying that in the real world, looking at the copyright that actually does exist, it's property. Mike admits this elsewhere. Why won't he admit it here? Hmmm.
And yet he is still aware that using the phrase "copyright is property" is asinine.
So the academic who has no problem with recognizing that it is property in his treatise also thinks it's asinine to call it what it actually is? Hmmm. And I think you're missing that Mike is the one making claims about it's nature as property. Of course, Mike has to pretend like economic models represent reality more than the actual laws that actually define copyright. But why let that get in the way of a good take down.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where does one look up this "economic property right" that exists independent of the law? How does one enforce it? You can't and you don't. You're talking about fantasy land, where economic models maximize a given function and all the camps argue about whose model is better. Meanwhile, in the real world, copyright is purely a creature of statute. Not economic model. Statute. People like Mike use an economic approach to setting policy goals. I get that. There are many models other than Mike's, and I'm sure they all have merit. So what? The Constitution doesn't say that the economics of the situation have to be maximized. "Promote" the progress, not "maximize" it based on one camp's economics model.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, economists can sit around and create models where the economic benefit is maximized. And what you aren't saying is that there are different camps of economists, and each camp thinks the other is wrong. There is bickering and debate about whose economic model is correct. And there is bickering and debate about whose studies use the best methodologies. Etc. But none of that reflects the real world. Copyright is defined by Congress, and its metes and bounds shaped by the courts. Does economic theory play a part in some of those decisions? Sure. Are all decisions made based on these economic theories? Not even close.
So what you're talking about is fantasy land, whereas I'm talking about actual copyright as it actually is defined and as it actually exists and as it's actually enforced. In the real world that actually exists, copyright is not defined by economic models. It is defined by the law.
That you can add *legal* limitations to that, via government-mandated monopoly privileges is meaningless -- which is the point of the examples in the post. Again, under your definition, the pizzaright and the airright discussed in the article are a form of "free market capitalism" because under your *legal* focus, those would be a form of "property." But, clearly, that makes no sense economically speaking. No one would reasonably argue that a market of air rights is a free market form of capitalism.
I didn't say anything about free market capitalism. I think that whole argument is dumb too, but let's stick to your argument that some theoretical economic model is the only thing that matters with copyright--even though in no actual way does that theoretical model actually represent what copyright actually is.
That's about marketing, not economics. So, not sure your point.
The point is that theoretical economic models do not actually control what copyright is. The law does. And under the law, copyright is property. That everyone accepts that copyright is property is evidenced in the common term "intellectual property." It's not marketing. It's evidence that your narrow, theoretical views are not the norm.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: @joe
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even Mike admits that copyright is "property" as that word is used in the Constitution. But he refuses to admit it on his blog. Hmmm.
William Patry has said on his blog that, "describing copyright as property is a rhetorical device used to get to particular results, results that I think can in particular cases be too unbalanced."
That's funny, because in his treatise on copyright, Patry has no problem with recognizing copyright as "property." See, e.g. 2 Patry on Copyright § 4:74 ("Section 202 of the Act makes a distinction between the physical embodiment of a work of authorship and the intangible intellectual property.").
The only one using it as a rhetorical device is Mike when he pretends that because in some theoretical economic sense that he can't even cite to it isn't property, then we can ignore all of the real world sense where it is property. Ever heard of the phrase "intellectual property." Hmmm.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe I've engaged with more people and defended myself in more detail than any other poster on TD that I've seen in the past 2.5 years. So I don't agree with you that I am not "actually engaging in the discussions." Your point is otherwise noted. Thanks.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From Wikipedia:
The concept of property rights as used by economists and legal scholars are related but distinct. The distinction is largely seen in the economists' focus on the ability of an individual or collective to control the use of the good. For example, a thief who has stolen a good would not be considered to have legal (de jure) property right to the good, but would be considered to have economic (de facto) property right to the good.
Right. Mike wants to talk about copyright as part of some theoretical, abstract, economic model. That's not the real world. Copyright is not defined by economic models. In the real world, copyright is defined by the law. In the U.S., turn to Title 17, Section 101 et seq. That's where real life copyright is defined. It is defined by an Act of Congress, not an economist's theoretical model. And in the real world, copyright is property.
Shorter version: Is it called "intellectual property" or "intellectual artificial scarcity"? That should tell you which side won this debate.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry you lost respect for me, but fighting off all the sycophants and sock puppets gets old. I would rather just discuss this with Mike directly. He's the one writing articles about how copyright is property. He's the one that should stand behind that claim.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's foolish is pretending like it's a monopoly in the economic sense of that word. I'm often surprised that Mike espouses this nonsense. You have to define the market to be the market for that very work. That's not a monopoly. If I write a book, you can write a book about the very same subject as me and compete directly in the same market with me. If I had a monopoly, you couldn't compete with me. But Mike chooses to use the inaccurate word "monopoly" for much the same reason he refuses to admit it's "property"--he's going for effect. He's trying to manipulate the debate, so he's insisting that words be used in his silly, narrow definitions. The overwhelming consensus is that copyright is "property." It's not even debatable except for perhaps by a few academics. The fact that everyone calls it "intellectual property" should tell you someone about it's place as property qua property.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re:
A copyright as property (under, say, the due process clause) is not the same thing as copyright as a property right. And I suspect you know that.
The Due Process Clause protects interests in property, i.e., property rights. You guys don't seem to understand that the word "property" just refers to a bundle of rights in a thing. The government cannot deprive us of our bundle of rights in a thing without due process of law. Whether that thing is tangible or intangible is irrelevant. What matters is the existence or nonexistence of the property right.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re:
And every response of Mike's is obviously for his reader's benefit and not to just address the issue at hand. All he has are games and foot stomping. He won't just get down in the comments and actually debate things in a productive manner. It always turns into talking about talking about it, rather than actually just talking about it.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re:
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re:
Mike starts with erroneous suppositions that he is unwilling and unable to explain. He has to pretend like the last 300 years didn't happen to the meaning of "property." He has to pretend like, even though copyright is purely the product of a statute that is defined and enforced through the law, that it's not at all legal issue. That makes no sense. Nor can Mike explain what the legal meaning of the word misses that the Humian meaning doesn't. We all know that it's not naturally rivalrous or excludable. The law fully understands that. The law also makes it excludable. Yes, the exludability is de jure, not de facto, but that is irrelevant. The law catches all of the nuances that he seems to think completely fool everyone. It's rubbish. Just admit that it's "property" as that word is actually used in the 21st century, make your points about it not be rivalrous notwithstanding, and move on. He talks about "getting real." Well, get real and admit that it is property.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re:
That's exactly right. Mike will keep writing article after article about how copyright is not property, but he won't actually debate the point in the comments. Heck, he won't even admit that he has admitted that copyright is "property" as that word is used in the Due Process Clause. Now why wouldn't Mike want his readers to know that he secretly admits that copyright is "property" in certain contexts? Hmmmm. Anyway, you and I both know that Mike won't stand behind his own words.
Next >>