Alexander

You do agree that clouds are made of water, right? You also believe people can own water, right? I don't see why owning water in cloud form is such a big deal for you. If there an equal prohibition against owning ice or plasma? Why is the liquid form of water the only permitted state for owning? Are all gasses off-limits, or is it just water vapor? To whom do you say it? That's a pretty big part of the question. If you're all by yourself, you can validly claim ownership of the whole of the universe. Who would ever know? In fact, as there are no other people, you cannot violate the NAP or self-ownership. Under your definition, if there is exactly one person in existence, they cannot make an invalid ownership claim. Well, you've explained to me that ownership (a property right) is "a legitimate exclusive moral claim of authority to exclude others from use of property". "Legitimate" means "that which does not violate the principles of self-ownership and the Non-Aggression Principle". So, if the claim to exclude others from the 25,000 square mile plot doesn't violate the NAP or self-ownership, then it must be valid. Alternatively, if it violates the NAP or self-ownership, it must be invalid. You've already established rules for answering this question. Well, if they both have claims which, when exercised, do not violate self-ownership or the NAP, then both of their claims are valid. Alternately, if their claims are mutually exclusive, then the first claim which is made has priority. That is, the entire purpose of homesteading is get there first. Thus, by the homesteading rule, the first one to make a claim which does not violate NAP or self-ownership has the valid claim. See, you describe homesteading as "the process of transforming an un-owned object in a manner that creates value, thereby establishing a legitimate property right". By that definition, the first claim transforms a property from unowned to owned. An ownership claim cannot be advanced against an owned property. Thus, the first guy to transform the unowned property into an owned property wins the territorial dispute. It's pretty easy to see who got there first and made the claim of ownership. If you arrive somewhere and there's already someone there, you weren't first. If you arrive somewhere and no one's there, you might be first. That's pretty objective. Which is exactly the reason I feel confident in my claim of ownership over the symbols 'r' and 'R' and the word "Alexander". Nobody else had claimed them and my claim doesn't violate self-ownership or NAP. I've discussed the qualities of the properties which make them ownable. I'm really quite certain that I've gotten-in on the ground floor of this new land rush for intellectual properties. Ownership is not about the chemical elements in the substance! The reason you can't own a rain cloud is because you can't bring it under control in a way to make it useful to people.That is a defining characteristic of property. It's not about what exact molecule it is made from. The moon is made of dirt (or whatever). What it's made of doesn't matter. You can't own it, because you can't bring it under control. You're absolutely right that if you are alone in the universe, there is no need for property. You're not thinking deeply enough about my 25,000 mile question. A property right in land DOES confer the right to use force in excluding a trespassor. A trespassor on your land is intitiating force against you. The question, again, is: Where are the boundaries? Isn't it clear that property requires arbitrary judgments about boundaries?

Ok, you think you can own a rain cloud. Let's just agree to disagree on that. I don't think we agree about the nature of physical property, which was a pre-condition of the discussion really. Ok, so a fence is not required to establish ownership of physical property. Great. So I homestead a piece of land by planting a new little crop on 1/4 acre, and build a small house, and I say that I now own the surrounding 25,000 square miles. Is this valid? If not, why not? Suppose two neighbors have both validly homesteaded 1 mile apart from each other, and they honestly disagree about where the property line is between them. How do we objectively decide? I don't think we can objectively decide. I think there are fuzzy bondaries. I think property requires arbitrary decisions about boundaries.

Dominion and control are part of homesteading, and an essential part of property. Check Carl Menger's definition of "goods". (sufficient control to make the thing useful). I will modify my definition to make this more explicit, thank you for identifying it. I'll try to pin down your position a little: Is it your position that a homesteader MUST build a fence to establish rightful property? Is it your position that building a fence automatically entitles the builder to ownership of all within? Is it your position that a homesteader who marks his territory on a map automatically owns everything within his marked borders? Is it your position that a rain cloud can be owned? (not "water", a rain cloud).

I'm not sure if you are aware, but there are air rights, water rights, and mineral rights. In fact, the concept of property can be extended to any object which physically exists. True, one person doesn't own all the world. However, all the available land is constantly being converted to property and subdivided. There is no physical object which cannot be owned. To include: clouds, air, and water. Water rights. If I own the water, it doesn't matter if it becomes displaced. My car is not, somehow, less my car because it moves over a parking space. By the same token, my water is not any less my water because it changes containers. If my ownership claim is valid, you're in the wrong for stealing my water. Farmland. Do you know how large Disneyland is? Have you ever seen a private animal reserve? There are a ton of extremely-large, privately owned plots of land. If my ownership claim is valid, I can own the whole world. Diamonds are sold in extremely small sizes. So are microchips. There are a number of micro and nano objects which are privately owned. Steal a diamond, see what happens. You are still trespassing on my property without an explanation. You're ignoring the element of dominion and control. Yes, small or large things can be owned, if they are sufficiently definable, controllable. A diamond, yes. A nanochip, yes. A raincloud . . . no. If you can learn how to reliably control it, and deliver it above my garden on a regular basis, then yes. Otherwise, no. You're ignoring the element of arbitrary judgment. Suppose I homestead some unowned land and make a farm and a farm house. I'm putting the land to use, and transforming it, so my homestead is valid. Does my house have to be exaclty next to my crops, or can I leave some land in between as my front yard? If so, how much front yard? 10 ft? 1000 ft? 100 miles? I'd like a back yard for my kids to play in. That's a valid use of land. How big is my back yard? 1 square foot? 1000 sq. ft? 1000 sq. miles? How deep does my ownership of the land go? All the way to the center of the earth? Suppose you want to build a useful tunnel underneath my crops. Does my property end at the bottom of the roots of my crops? Or somewhere deeper? Isn't it absolutely clear that establishing boundaries requires arbitrary, subjective judgments by people? Does this invalidate physical property?

Let's just compare it to land. I claimed ownership of argumentation, which I will now refer to as a piece of land. I claimed this piece of land and you walked all over it against my express permission. You then claimed that the land could not be owned because there was some type of mineral (it was actually a process, which is unownable) on it. I excepted your definition that land with that mineral was unownable (process are conceptually fuzzy and cannot be sufficiently defined to be owned). I claimed some symbols and a word...which I will now refer to as a piece of land. This land is free of the mineral which creates an exception to your moral rule (it's pretty tough to claim the symbols 'r' and 'R', as well as the word "Alexander", are either conceptually fuzzy or a process). You are now walking all over my land without my express permission. So, I'm waiting for you to either respect your own moral principle and get off my land, or explain the next arbitrary exception to your "moral argument". It sounds as though you are attempting to assert ownership over that which is not own-able. This problem is not unique to IP, the same problem occurs with physical things. You might try to claim ownership of a rain cloud, and send me a bill for the nice soothing rain that befell my thirsty garden. You might try to say your homesteaded land extends to the horizon, as far as you can see. You might try to claim ownership of a single speck of dust, and prosecute me for theft upon discovering the dust on my jacket. Property, physical OR intellectual, requires arbitrary judgments about boundaries and sufficiency. If this "fuzzy boundary" problem inavalidates IP, then it invalidates physical property. I begin with an assumption that physical property is valid, therefore the fuzzy boundaries do not invalidate IP.

I'm glad you're willing to admit your definitions are wrong. I relinquish my invalid claim over argumentation. You'll need to change "Intellectual Matter - That which can be understood through language." to read "Intellectual Matter - That which can be understood through language, except anything which can be regarded as a process, or is not a finished work." Let's try another two and see if we can find all the arbitrary exceptions to your definitions. I own the symbols 'r' and 'R'. Both are explainable through language, neither can be regarded as a process. The symbols are fully drawn, there is no more production required for them, both are finished products. Each is highly distinct when compared to the millions of other symbols. I have used both, and claim ownership of them. Using either of these intellectual objects without my express permission is trespass, as I have a legitimate, exclusive, moral claim of authority to exclude others from use of these properties. I own the word "Alexander". It is clearly explainable through language. It cannot be regarded as a process. It is highly distinct from the millions of other words. The word is complete, as no additions are required, and is a finished product. I just used it to make this statement, and I claim ownership over it. Using this intellectual object without my express permission is trespass, as I have a legitimate, exclusive, moral claim of authority to exclude others from use of this properties. STOP STRAWMAN! You're confusing matter with property. Read the definitions carefully. "Intellectual Matter" is one thing, "Intellectual Object" is another thing, "Intellectual Property" is yet another. All Intellectual Property is composed of Intellectual Matter, but not all Intellectual Matter is rightful property. OK? Please read carefully: Intellectual Space - An abstract, yet objectively understandable theoretical array of unique locations. Intellectual Matter - That which can be understood through language. Intellectual Object - an ascertainable bounded pattern of intellectual matter, temporally stable and cohesive such that it can be reliably identified and distinguished from surrounding intellectual matter. Intellectual Property - a previously un-owned intellectual object that has been transformed into usefulness and declared owned by a human. Object – that which exists within objectively discernable boundaries Property – a valuable object which is legitimately owned. Property Right – a legitimate exclusive moral claim of authority to use, to exclude others from use, and to transfer ownership of an object. Homesteading – the process of transforming an un-owned object in a manner that creates value, thereby establishing a legitimate property right. Legitimate – that which does not violate the principles of self-ownership and the Non-Aggression Principle. Value – a subjective individual human assessment that the possession or use of an object is preferable to non-possession and non-use. Owner – a person with a legitimate property right over an object. Law – a practical body of rules designed to allocate the legal right to use contestable or or rivalrous scarce resources. Scarce – the quality of being limited in abundance Rivalrous – the concept that use by one person interferes with use by another

Are you aware that you're switching your position midstream and saying that intellectual property can be duplicated, whereas before you said that it can't be?And i disagree with this explanation. If I eat a carrot, it's gone. I can't "eat" a song. When I copy the song without your permission, I am creating my own carrots on whatever land I may have. Saying I'm trespassing on a song would mean I'd literally have to extract it from your brain, which I don't. If you play the song, whoever hears that song is getting a carrot, and what someone does with that carrot is up to them. Unless I sign a contract before I get the carrot, there aren't any restraints on how I'm allowed to use the carrot. If I want to plant the carrot top, there's nothing wrong with doing that. Food is what's called "non-durable" goods - you eat it, it's gone. A car is a durable good - you drive it, and it's still there. Durability is a distraction from the issue here. Eating a carrot and driving a car are both examples of consumption. A song copy is a durable good, so we can use the example of a car factory instead of a carrot farm, if that will be less distracting. To respond to the carrot analogy, if you plant a carrot top into your own land, you are not trespassing on my property, and you are free to that. The intellectual equivalent would be if you bought a copy of my song, listened to it, then wrote your own different song, then made a copy of your own song. You are incorrect to say, "Unless I sign a contract before I get the carrot, there aren't any restraints on how I'm allowed to use the carrot." You may not take the carrot and stab someone in the eyeball with it. All property rights, including the use of your own physical body, are limited in scope by other people's property rights.

Excuse me, you have trespassed on my intellectual object of argumentation. By trying to make a claim about some arbitrary exclusion from the definition of intellectual matter, which you established, you have trespassed into argumentation. Argumentation is understandable through language and, as you have stated, intellectual matter its that which can be understood through language. Argumentation is distinct from not-argumentation, and so it is an intellectual object. Any unowned intellectual property only needs to be used and claimed to be owned. I am arguing and I claim to own argumentation. As we discussed earlier, there is no public property, remember? Argumentation was unowned until I claimed it, just now. I'm afraid that I must use my legitimate exclusive moral claim to exclude you from arguing. If you continue to argue, I will assume you are not interested in keeping to the NAP or respecting property rights. I would characteize "Argumentation" as a process, not a finsihed work, and not subject to copyright. However, the general point you are making is what I would call a "fuzzy boundary" problem. When is an intellectual object sufficiently large / complex / transformed / ascertainable / controllable enough to be rightly claimed as property? There are subjective, arbitrary decisions that must be made with respect to the location of borders around homesteaded property. This is of course true with physical property as well as intellectual. If the fuzzy boundary problem does not invalidate physical property, it does not invalidate intellectual property.

The song is a pattern of ideas, that is a unique intellectual object that resides at a unique location in intellectual space. Assuming I have homesteaded, the song is my rightful property. No matter how many copies are made, and no matter who makes the copies, there is one song, and it is a unique intellectual object at a unique location in intellectual space. Think of "the song" like a patch of farmland. When I make copies, I am growing carrots on my farmland. When I distribute copies, I am distributing carrots. When you listen to the song for your entertainment, you are eating a carrot. When you copy the song without my permission, you are coming on to my farmland, planting your own seeds, and growing your own carrots, and walking off with them. Although you may believe those new carrots rightly belong to you because you used some of your own effort and your own seeds to grow them, you would be wrong becuase you had to trespass.

If each is unique and can't be duplicated, then what are you actually making a pro IP argument for? How can you trespass on someone's intellectual property if every "intellectual object" is unique? If you played an original song on the sidewalk at 2 pm and I walk by, then the intellectual object in my head when I hear this song is unique and completely seperate from the one that was in your head. Then the one I think about at 2:02 is different again. Then I go home and make a recording of the song in my head, which is another unique object, and the next day I press up some CDs and sell them on the corner. I play a CD on my boombox (abother unique intellectual object), and you walk by to hear the song (another unique object).What would your response to hearing this song while I attempt to sell it? What grounds could you possibly have to say that I'm doing something wrong? If I have properly homesteaded the object, the song is my intellectual property. From this property can be manufactured products, just as a factory churns out widgets from the assembly line. The use of a "song" for listening pleasure is completely different than the use of a "song" for making copies. They require different hardwares, different softwares, different human labor, different time, and, most importantly of all, they are distinct economic functions. Use of a "song" for listening pleasure is a consumer good, use of a song for making copies is a capital good. Therefore, the song in your head will be one of these two types of objects, depending on what you are using it for at that time. If it is for your your listening pleasure, it is a conumser good, like a widget. If it is for making copies, it is a capital good, like a factory. The widget is your property, and you may do as you wish with it. The factory is my property, stay away without my permission. Your first question does not appear to be written in English, so I can't respond. Inetllectual objects are scarce and rivalrous, therefore rightful property. Copying without persmission is trespass. Trespass is wrong.

Are saying intellectual matter is a kind of UPB? Actually, I think that, by your definition, UPB is an element of intellectual matter. If I follow you correctly, all arguments are intellectual matter... In fact, the process of arguing must also be a kind of intellectual matter. So, I'm justified in using force against anyone who argues against my using force against them...because they are trespassing on my intellectual property by arguing. BTW, I own arguing, don't try to use my property to prove I don't own it. In fact, unauthorized quoting may be met with deadly force. Theft will not be tolerated. I believe this is the first time I've heard a serious argument for the moral validity of being a grammar Nazi (you wouldn't want people misusing your property). Intellectual Matter is the "raw stuff", analagous to atoms and molecules. Intellectual Property is comprised of Intellectual Matter, but not all Intellectual Matter is necessarily property. I defined "Intellectual Matter", "Intellectual Object", and "Intellectual Space" upthread. Just as physical objects must be sufficiently large, controllable, ascertainable, etc to be homesteaded into property, so too with IP. I don't think a "process" or "method" can be homesteaded into IP the way a finished work like a "song" or a "movie" can be. I believe that my theory will conclude that copyright is valid IP, while patent is not. Attempting to homestead the concept of argumentation will fail the homesteading test. I hadn't yet considered what is the intellectual equivalent of a phsyical element. I shall ponder that. I think that it will turn out that concepts like "objectivity", "humor", "thought provoking", etc. will be analogous to the chemical elements like "carbon", "oxygen", "iron", etc. Thank you for stimulating that consideration.

This issue came up because I said that one can only contract with that which is property. Yes. A NDA is a "forebearance to act" in legalese, and is valid. In libertarian theory, we would find the validity of the NDA agreement in self-ownership, a property right in one's own human body. I believe it was you who was trying to maintain that property was not a requirement in contract.

You must have an odd definition of "socialist"! The linked article is not socialist, and if you click "About the Author" the text starts with "Free Software Engineer, Freediver, Free Thinker and everything related to freedom in general". Maybe you consider everyone who rejects IP to be a socialist. LOL.

ROTFLMFAO. ribuck says "IP doesn't work out economically", then links to an article by a socialist. If you are not a libertarian, who accepts the validity of property, I will not converse with you.

Yeah, that's what you're assuming. Begging the question. If IP is rightly property. Which is the very thing you're trying to prove. It doesn't really make your theory credible if this conclusion is the axiom on which it rests upon. That's begging the question. Sorry, you misunderstand philosophy. I am not assuming my conclusion. What I am assuming is the validity of physical property, and the argumentation ethic. I am using that valid structure as an OBJECTIVE TEST to see if IP behaves as property, or not. Here's an example. Suppose I have an object on my table, X, and I'd like to prove it's made of iron. Others say that X is not made of iron, it must be something else. I would proceed as follows. Assume as valid the existing knowledge about iron - specific density, color, magnetic properties. If X is rightly iron, then it will behave correctly under scientific analysis. I measure the density (by weighing it and measuring the volume), measire the color with a neutral light source, experiment with electricity and note whether it magetizes. Did I assume that X was made of iron? No. I hypothesized it was made of iron, and I tested based on the exisiting framework. @ Libertus: If you are not willing or able to accept standard philosophical methodology, our conversation is over. If you are not willing to accept the argumentation ethic as valid, our conversation is over. In fact, this thread has been helpful to me, and I appreciate the challenges that have been raised.

Recent letter to Stephan Kinsella: Stephan, Help! I thought I would analyze IP and find it non-scarce and non-rivalrous, but I'm concluding the opposite. The problem is that, to me, IP looks like a capital good, not a consumer good. I get the argument. Property rights are necessary because physical goods like farmland and carrots, factories and cars, are scarce. If I work the farm land, you can't. If I eat the carrot, you can't. Physical property is rivalrous (or "subtractive"). Every carrot I eat means one less for you. The owner's self interest is served by preventing others from exploiting the property as he wishes to exploit it. IP is held to be non-scarce and non-rivalrous. If I write a book, a million copies can be made. Your reading (i.e. "consuming") the book does not interfere with my or anyone else's reading the book. While the physical paper in the book may be scarce, the intellectual content is not. Thus IP is held to be a non-rivalrous consumer good. The approach of the above analysis does not make sense to me. Following is what does make sense, so you'll see why I'm having a problem. -Alex _______________ Example 1. I homestead a piece of previously un-owned land. It is now my rightful property. It is scarce because there is only one piece of land like this, and only so much land altogether. It is rivalrous because my self-interest is served by preventing others from exploiting it as I wish to exploit it. On my land, I grow 1000 carrots, they too are now my property. The carrots are also scarce and rivalrous. Taking one carrot means one less for someone else. I sell 1 carrot to each of 1000 customers. The eating of one carrot by one customer does not interfere with the eating of another carrot by another customer. However, it would be incorrect to conclude that carrots are non-scarce. Each carrot may only be eaten by one person. It would also be incorrect to say that the customer is a consumer of the farmland. The customer is a consumer of a carrot. My farmland is a scarce, rivalrous capital good unrelated to the consumer analysis. Example 2. I homestead a piece of previously un-owned land and build a factory. It is now my rightful property. It is scarce because there is no other factory just like it, and only so many factories altogether. It is rivalrous because my self-interest is served by preventing others from exploiting it as I wish to exploit it. In my factory, I make 1000 cars, they too are now my property. The cars are also scarce and rivalrous. Taking one car means one less for someone else. I sell 1 car to each of 1000 customers. The use of one car by one customer does not interfere with the use of another car by another customer. However, it would be incorrect to conclude that cars are non-scarce. Each car may only be driven by one person at a time. It would also be incorrect to say that the customer was a consumer of the factory. The customer is a consumer of the car, my factory is a scarce, rivalrous capital good unrelated to the consumer analysis. Example 3. I write a long story, which is the homesteading of previously un-owned intellectual property. It is scarce because there is no other story just like it, and only so many stories altogether. It is rivalrous because my self-interest is served by preventing others from exploiting it as I wish to exploit it. On this property, I make 1000 books, they too are now my property. The books are scarce and rivalrous. Taking one book means one less for someone else. I sell 1 book to each of 1000 customers. The use of one book by one customer does not interfere with the use of another book by another customer. However, it would be incorrect to conclude that books are non-scarce. Each book may only be read by one person at a time. It would also be incorrect to say that the customer was a consumer of the intellectual property. The customer is a consumer of the book, my intellectual property is a scarce, rivalrous capital good unrelated to the consumer analysis.

Using the same structure for IP as Physical is valid. If IP is rightly property, then it will behave correctly under philosophical analysis. If you don't accept Hoppe's argumentation ethic, go argue with him. But remember, by arguing, you prove Hoppe.

What is the basis on which the concept of intellectual matter is based on? My will? Are you implying intellectual matter is entirely subjective, it's up to the individual what he believes? Or does it rest on yet another concept (that I would have to just 'accept')? Or do you establish axioms? But aren't you assuming that intellectual property must have the same structure as physical property in order to rightfully construct the ground base for IP that way? Isn't that begging the question? You must accept that language has meaning. You cannot argue that language has no meaning, because that statement self-destructs.

Intellectual Space - An abstract, yet objectively understandable theoretical array of unique locations.Intellectual Matter - That which can be understood through language.Intellectual Object - an ascertainable bounded pattern of intellectual matter, temporally stable and cohesive such that it can be reliably identified and distinguished from surrounding intellectual matter.Intellectual Property - a previously un-owned intellectual object that has been transformed into usefulness and declared owned by a human.Object – that which exists within objectively discernable boundariesProperty – a valuable object which is legitimately owned.Property Right – a legitimate exclusive moral claim of authority to exclude others from use of property Homesteading – the process of transforming an un-owned object in a manner that creates value, thereby establishing a legitimate property right.Legitimate – that which does not violate the principles of self-ownership and the Non-Aggression Principle.Value – a subjective individual human assessment that the possession or use of an object is preferable to non-possession and non-use.Owner – a person with a legitimate property right over an object.Law – a practical body of rules designed to allocate the legal right to use contestable or or rivalrous scarce resources.

Yes, 'intellectual matter' (why call it matter if it's not made from matter?!?) seems to be a necessary condition for your pro-IP argument. I agree, if people already go "wait, what?!?" when you bring up 'intellectual matter', there's no sense in going any further. Maybe 'intellectual matter' (im) is what should be introduced and accepted first, because it's right at the basis of your framework. I just don't see how you can hope to support 'ip' with 'im' while 'im' is not being accepted as common ground. To me it seems like you're building a house on a platform that floats in mid-air. Like a magic trick. Yes, the intial assumptions and postulations go right at the beginning of the thesis (but not necessarily at the beginning of a forum thread). The acceptance of "intellectual matter" is simply the acceptance that a pattern of ideas can exist. Of course IM doesn't physically exist, but it exists in the same sense that mathematics exists. It can be rationally understood and practically applied, like mathematics. The reason I use the terms "intellectual matter" , "intellectual space" , "intellectual objects" is to contruct the ground-up case for IP with the same structure as the case for physical property. Doing so exposes, among other things, the false analogies present in the anti-IP argument. So yes, if you are not willing to accept and work with "intellectual matter" then my theory fails. Hoppe's argumentation ethic fails if we don't accept physical matter. Mises' Human Action fails if we don't accept that humans exist and act purposefully. If you don't accept "intellectula matter", all you are really doing is defining property as being physical, which would be beggin the question, and assuming the conclusion. Below are some definitions I'm working with, subject to change as needed.

earlier you said: So we will only look at benefits of IP law, because you can't ignore outcome completely, but we will not look at negative effects of IP because that is in no way an argument either for or against IP. Got ya LOL.I plead guilty to discussing utilitarian issues, and throw myself on the mercy of the court of rational ethics! The point is simply to acknowledge that humans can't help but consider practical matters, but also that cost-benefit problems cannot invalidate IP, given an apriori acceptance of physical property. My finished work will absolutely argue from first principles, and consider utility only aftewards.

Now you have stopped making your case altogether and are merely repeating your conclusions. I would argue against you, but you're not making an argument here. What if I don't accept your "Doctrine of Intellectual Space, Matter and Intellectual Property"? I thought this is the thread where you just wanted to list all common arguments against IP. Well, I gave you a couple. Have you stopped listing them and at some point made your case? I must have missed that. We're arguing in mid-air. Yes, I discussed each of the arguments against IP, and demonstrated that the same problems occur with physical property, once the false analogies are removed and the issues are framed consistently. You're right. above is a conclusion, and you're right, this thread was about deconstructing anti-IP. My postitive case came up because people asked questions. The coherence of my work will be established in the finsihed theory, not on a discussion forum. I'm here to kick it around. If you don't accept Intellectual Matter, then you will not find a rational basis for IP, just as if you do not accept the existence of physical matter, you will not find a rational basis for physical property. If you don't accept Hoppe's argumentation ethic, or something very similar, you will not find a basis for physical property. The leading opponents of IP, ie. Kinsella, do accept the argumentation ethic. My contribution is to offer a theoretical contruct under which the strict application of libertarian principles will yield support for IP. I appreciate your frustration at not currently resourcing my finsihed work. I'm working on it.

I read the article about DRM protection. It points out that copy-protect can be a double edged sword - increasing profits by guarding against piracy, but decreasing profits by making things incovenient for consumers. This is a cost-benefit analysis, interesting perhaps, but is in no way an argument either for or against IP. The exact same type of dilemma faces owners of physical property, such as a retail shop. A store will put a lock on their door to protect their property. They might consider putting iron bars over the windows. The bars increase their security, but cost money, plus this appearance can be off-putting to certain types of customers. They might even go as far as hiring expensive round-the-clock armed guards, and requiring their customers to consent to a full-body search upon entering. This would reduce both their risk of theft and their customer base down to almost zero. The fact that a business must weigh the potential trade-offs in securing property does not invalidate the concept of property.What is clear from the article is that digital content providers believe they have an intellectual property right to protect.

It's probably the other way around. A copy-protected product is an inferior product (because you can only view the movie when and how the corporation wants you to, and it might stop working if the manufacturer stops supporting the authorization scheme). As such the copy-protected product has difficulty competing with a product that can be viewed anytime on any device. Apple's music sales have increased greatly since they abandoned copy protection on iTunes music. Hmmm, yes that's a problem. Copy-protect is a great reduction in utility for consumers, copying is a great reduction in revenue to producers. To me, it sounds like the type of inefficiencies that arise when property rights are disrespected. Apple's music sales exist under the current state-enforced copyright protection. Although they lifted their previous copy-protect system (at a charge!), unauthorized copying is still illegal. What would Apple's iTunes downloads at $.99 / song look like if it were legal for me and a million others to make their entire catalog available for free on our advertising websites?