Intellectual Property

[Kawlinz]

 

 

 Yes IP requires a container, but when I copy that information into a container I own, is that theft? 

 

This is one of the CRUCIAL points that I am going to make. The "copying = theft" construction is wrong, and has been a source of endless wrong thinking on all side of this debate forever. Are you ready? (Clears throat . . . )

 

Copying is trespass, not theft.

(This holds for physical as well as intellectual property).

Both types of property can be stolen, both types can be trespassed upon.

Imagine you owned a piece of land with a factory on it.
Uninvited, I come to your factory, and study all the machines you have
operating. I then go to my own piece of land, and build my own factory, which
is an exact copy of yours. Consider the following questions.

 

Have I violated your physical property rights? Yes, I
trespassed. By definition, a property owner has the right to exclude others.
Does my copy of your factory deprive you of the use of your factory? No, you
still have your factory. Does the fact that I copied your physical objects
somehow prove that physical objects are not scarce, and thus eliminate the need
for property rights? No, physical objects are scarce, despite the fact that they can be copied.

 

If the ability to copy physical objects does not invalidate
the concept of physical property, then why should the ability to copy
intellectual objects invalidate the concept of intellectual property? Therefore,
the argument stemming from “copying is not theft” is a non-sequitor founded on
a faulty analogy.

 

Can IP be stolen?

 

Yes. As discussed, copying per se is not theft, it is
trespass. But IP can in fact be stolen, further supporting the proposition that
IP is property.

 

Suppose you are a computer programmer and have worked long
and hard developing some code. I am your competitor, and I hack into your
computer system, copy your code and save it onto my own hard drive, and then I
delete the code from your hard drive, and I delete all of your backups too.
Have I violated your physical property rights? Specifically, have I stolen any
of your physical property? No, your computer hardware is still right there
where it was before, available for your use. And yet, because of my actions,
you no longer have use of your computer code. Only by recognizing a property
right in IP can we conclude that copying and deleting your code is theft.

 

 

For the first point, what if you were invited?

And for the second, if i come into your house uninvited and turn all of your furniture upside down, disconnect all the power plugs, pipes, throw valuables on the floor, unscrew all the lightbulbs, but don't take or break anything, have I violated your property rights?

[Alexander]

 

If you come onto my property per my invitation, you have not violated my property rights. This holds for both types of property.

If you come onto my property without invitation, you have violated my property rights, even prior to the time when you begin rearranging my property. Your rearranging my property IS damage, despite your claim otherwise, and would be relevant to the issue of your liability for my damages. This holds for both types of property.

 

[ribuck]

Copying is trespass, not theft

Copying is copying.

Example 1: You see your neighbor making a new type of chair, and you make one too (by copying the process that you saw).

Example 2: You hear your neighbor performing a new piece of music, and you perform it too (by copying the sounds that you heard).

In neither case was there trespass, nor theft.

[ribuck]

If the ability to copy physical objects does not invalidate
the concept of physical property, then why should the ability to copy
intellectual objects invalidate the concept of intellectual property?

Sorry, this doesn't help. As argued, it may be true but it misses the point.

If I copy something, it doesn't invalidate the concept of property (physical or otherwise). You still own the original piece of property, and in addition to that I now own a copy of your property.

You can't really make useful analogies between physical and "intellectual" property, because the term "physical property" is used to refer to one instantiation of the item, whereas the term "intellectual property" refers to any number of instantiations of the same idea/creation/process.

[Alexander]

 

 

Copying is trespass, not theft

Copying is copying.

Example 1: You see your neighbor making a new type of chair, and you make one too (by copying the process that you saw).

Example 2: You hear your neighbor performing a new piece of music, and you perform it too (by copying the sounds that you heard).

In neither case was there trespass, nor theft.

 

You are simply making assertions founded on your initial assumption that there is no intellectual property. In a following post, I give a step-by-step example explaining how copying of property is trespass. I will grant you that one could also copy something that is not property, which would not be trespass. In your above examples, it is not clear whether I have or have not homesteaded and established my property rights in either the physical or intellectual objects.

 

[ribuck]

 

 

 

Copying is trespass, not theft

Copying is copying.

Example 1: You see your neighbor making a new type of chair, and you make one too (by copying the process that you saw).

Example 2: You hear your neighbor performing a new piece of music, and you perform it too (by copying the sounds that you heard).

In neither case was there trespass, nor theft.

 

You are simply making assertions founded on your initial assumption...

 

OK, let me re-phrase my statement as "I see neither trespass, nor theft". That statement is free of assumptions. If there is trespass or theft in either of those examples, feel free to explain it to me.

[Alexander]

 

If the ability to copy physical objects does not invalidate
the concept of physical property, then why should the ability to copy
intellectual objects invalidate the concept of intellectual property?

Sorry, this doesn't help. As argued, it may be true but it misses the point.

If I copy something, it doesn't invalidate the concept of property (physical or otherwise). You still own the original piece of property, and in addition to that I now own a copy of your property.

You can't really make useful analogies between physical and "intellectual" property, because the term "physical property" is used to refer to one instantiation of the item, whereas the term "intellectual property" refers to any number of instantiations of the same idea/creation/process.

 

 

Absent a consideration of the Doctrine of Intellectual Space, Matter and Property, what you say here is correct. Considering the Doctrine, what you say is incorrect. There are not, and cannot be multiple "instantiations" of an intellectual object. Each is unique.

If I write a song, I have transformed previously unowned intellectual matter in a way that is useful, thus homesteading a new piece of property. This piece of intellectual property exists in a unique location in intellectual space, distinct from every other object and every other location in intellectual space. Regardless of how many copies of the song are made in the physical world, the intellectual property cannot be duplicated.

Thinking that there could possibly be multiple instances of a piece of intellectual property makes no more sense than saying that there could be multiple instances of a piece of property located at some particular geographical coordinates. The coordinates specify a unique location in phsyical space. An intellectual property object exists at a unique location in intellectual space.

[ribuck]

...This piece of intellectual property exists in a unique location in intellectual space, distinct from every other object and every other location in intellectual space...

If we are going to make progress, you will need to convince me that "intellectual space" exists and that it has "locations". Then you will need to explain to me how you can know that multiple copies of the same song occupy the same location in intellectual space.

[Alexander]

 

...This piece of intellectual property exists in a unique location in intellectual space, distinct from every other object and every other location in intellectual space...

If we are going to make progress, you will need to convince me that "intellectual space" exists and that it has "locations". Then you will need to explain to me how you can know that multiple copies of the same song occupy the same location in intellectual space.

 

I think the answer must be that we know intellectual property exists because humans act as though it does, specifically they voluntarily contract about it. But let's work through it.

The same "existence" problem occurs in the physical realm too, of course. Please give me your answer to an existentialist, or a quantuum physicist who denies that physical matter exists. My (dare I say original) approach to intellectual property, as you know, is always to ask the same question about physical matter, answer it, then substitute intellectual matter. How do we know physical matter exists?

 

 

[ribuck]

How do we know physical matter exists?

I can measure the physical characteristics of matter (mass, charge, momentum, color, density, etc). This tells me that physical matter is indistinguishable from something that physically exists. That's good enough for me.

 

[Alexander]

 

How do we know physical matter exists?

I can measure the physical characteristics of matter (mass, charge, momentum, color, density, etc). This tells me that physical matter is indistinguishable from something that physically exists. That's good enough for me.

 

 

First, note that you are using physical aparatus to measure physical things. You must assume the existence of the physical things prior to measuring the physcial things. You must assume certain characteristics about the physical apparatus. If you're measuring the length of an object, you must assume that your ruler stays the same length and doesn't spontaneously change shape on you. The basis for the whole thing is an apriori assumption that what appears to be the case to our physical senses is in fact the case. I am willing to make that assumption with respect to physcial things, indeed, we must.

But then you must allow the same type of assumptions for intellectual matter. If our physical senses can be trusted to understand and conceptualize physical matter, then our intellectual senses can be trusted to understand and conceptualize intellectual matter. Therefore . . .

I can measure the intellectual characteristics of intellectual matter (melodic shape, harmonic structure,  plot structure, character development, overall complexity, internal consistency, objectivity, etc.).  This tells me that intellectual matter is indistinguishable from something that intellectually exists. That's good enough for me.

[Kawlinz]

I don't think intellectual property even means anything. To me, and of course I could be wrong, that intellectual property is just the name we call a re-arranging of physical objects, or things in the real world. ideas can't exist without a brain, a representation of a song can exist in a brain, on a CD, a cassette, or on  a hard drive. Without the physical matter, there is nothing to call intellectual property. So why not just deal with the physical?

[Alexander]

 

I don't think intellectual property even means anything. To me, and of course I could be wrong, that intellectual property is just the name we call a re-arranging of physical objects, or things in the real world. ideas can't exist without a brain, a representation of a song can exist in a brain, on a CD, a cassette, or on  a hard drive. Without the physical matter, there is nothing to call intellectual property. So why not just deal with the physical?

 

That's the "container" argument, which I answered up-thread. I can't figure out how to link to specific posts, although my email notifications prove it is possible.

You're arguing that if X requires a physical container to be useful, then X cannot be property. Try applying that argument to gasoline or orange juice, and see what you come up with.

[Kawlinz]

 

 

I don't think intellectual property even means anything. To me, and of course I could be wrong, that intellectual property is just the name we call a re-arranging of physical objects, or things in the real world. ideas can't exist without a brain, a representation of a song can exist in a brain, on a CD, a cassette, or on  a hard drive. Without the physical matter, there is nothing to call intellectual property. So why not just deal with the physical?

 

That's the "container" argument, which I answered up-thread. I can't figure out how to link to specific posts, although my email notifications prove it is possible.

You're arguing that if X requires a physical container to be useful, then X cannot be property. Try applying that argument to gasoline or orange juice, and see what you come up with.

 

I'm not saying intellectual property needs "a container". I'm saying that I don't see how you distinguish intellectual property from anything other than "a specific configuration of matter" - they seem like synonyms to me.

[Kawlinz]

 

 

If you come onto my property per my invitation, you have not violated my property rights. This holds for both types of property.

If you come onto my property without invitation, you have violated my property rights, even prior to the time when you begin rearranging my property. Your rearranging my property IS damage, despite your claim otherwise, and would be relevant to the issue of your liability for my damages. This holds for both types of property.

 

 

 

Right, so for number one, you show that it is possible to copy someone's machine and not violate their property rights if you are invited onto their property, or you can see it without needing to be on their property.

 

For number two, you are saying that there is a violation of property right, even if no theft occurs. Comparing it to your example, if someone hacks your system and "deletes (re-arranges the 1s and 0s on your comptuer)" your files, there is a violation in property right. We don't need to invent a term called intellectual property when property works just as well.

 

Am I missing your point?

[Alexander]

 

I'm not saying intellectual property needs "a container". I'm saying that I don't see how you distinguish intellectual property from anything other than "a specific configuration of matter" - they seem like synonyms to me.

 

I'm the one who said IP needs a container. When you say the above, you're really just stating a definition. According to you, property is, by definition, physical. You simply define IP out of existence. You're free to do that, but consider the following hypothetical and questions if you please.

__________

Suppose you are a computer programmer and have worked long
and hard developing some code. Assume that the code is very useful, and that
many people will be very eager to pay to use it, but you have not yet released it in any form. I am your competitor, and from
my own home I hack into your computer system, copy your code and save it onto
my own hard drive, and then I delete the code from your hard drive, and I
delete all of your backups too. I then proceed to successfully market the code, and I make $1 million.

 

1. Have I violated your physical property
rights? Specifically, have I stolen any of your physical property?

2. Have I done anything wrong at all? If yes, what would you call it?

3. Are you entitled to any form of remedy at law? If yes, under what theory?

 

[Alexander]

 

 

 

If you come onto my property per my invitation, you have not violated my property rights. This holds for both types of property.

If you come onto my property without invitation, you have violated my property rights, even prior to the time when you begin rearranging my property. Your rearranging my property IS damage, despite your claim otherwise, and would be relevant to the issue of your liability for my damages. This holds for both types of property.

 

 

 

Right, so for number one, you show that it is possible to copy someone's machine and not violate their property rights if you are invited onto their property, or you can see it without needing to be on their property.

 

For number two, you are saying that there is a violation of property right, even if no theft occurs. Comparing it to your example, if someone hacks your system and "deletes (re-arranges the 1s and 0s on your comptuer)" your files, there is a violation in property right. We don't need to invent a term called intellectual property when property works just as well.

 

Am I missing your point?

 

Yes, you're missing the point. I may invite you onto my physical property without inviting you onto my intellectual property, and vice versa. I could say, "come on to my land and hang out, but don't you dare copy my machine".  I could say "Here's the schematic for my machine, you have my persmission to copy it, but don't come to my house". Making a physical copy of something embodying my intellectual property without permission requires that you trespass upon my unique, homesteaded intellectual property. Only by assuming that Intellectual objects cannot be property can you avoid this.

As to #2, there's no such phsycial thing as a "1" or a "0", these are intellectual concepts. What is "on" a hard drive is patterns of magnetism, so you're arguing that magnetism is physical. That's a bit of a stretch, given the current lack of understaning about quantum mechanics, but let's change the example slightly to drive the point home.

Instead of a hard drive, let's consider the eletromagnetic spectrum. Patterns of information can be transmitted in the form of radio waves. I would argue that the property is in the pattern. Are you prepared to argue that the electromagnetic spectrum is something physical?

 

 

[Kawlinz]

 

 

I'm not saying intellectual property needs "a container". I'm saying that I don't see how you distinguish intellectual property from anything other than "a specific configuration of matter" - they seem like synonyms to me.

 

I'm the one who said IP needs a container. When you say the above, you're really just stating a definition. According to you, property is, by definition, physical. You simply define IP out of existence. You're free to do that, but consider the following hypothetical and questions if you please.

__________

Suppose you are a computer programmer and have worked long
and hard developing some code. Assume that the code is very useful, and that
many people will be very eager to pay to use it, but you have not yet released it in any form. I am your competitor, and from
my own home I hack into your computer system, copy your code and save it onto
my own hard drive, and then I delete the code from your hard drive, and I
delete all of your backups too. I then proceed to successfully market the code, and I make $1 million.

 

1. Have I violated your physical property
rights? Specifically, have I stolen any of your physical property?

2. Have I done anything wrong at all? If yes, what would you call it?

3. Are you entitled to any form of remedy at law? If yes, under what theory?

 

 

If you're the one who's saying that IP needs a container, then why did you equate my statments to the container argument and say you addressed it when I wasn't making the container argument? And I haven't defined IP out of existence. I've stated that I don't see how it's anything other than a synonym for matter configured in a specific way. If you can make a distinction, then go for it.

(btw, to link to individual posts, there's "in reply to" link in the blue border of the post on the right hand side, which is difficult to see)

 

1. You've already answered that yourself. If you come into my home and unplug all my lights and rearrange my furniture, then you've violated my property rights. If you access my HD and rearrange the information on it, you've violated my property rights. Have you stolen anything? No.

2. yesm you've done wrong, you've violated my property.

3. Current law, probably. In "a free society" I don't really feel like speculating.

 

And with regards to your statement above

But then you must allow the same type
of assumptions for intellectual matter. If our physical senses can be
trusted to understand and conceptualize physical matter, then our
intellectual senses can be trusted to understand and conceptualize
intellectual matter. Therefore . . .

I can measure the intellectual characteristics of intellectual matter
(melodic shape, harmonic structure,  plot structure, character
development, overall complexity, internal consistency, objectivity,
etc.).  This tells me that intellectual matter is indistinguishable from
something that intellectually exists. That's good enough for me.

What are 'intellectual senses' and 'intellectual matter'? Can one make the same claim for using spiritual senses to understand and conceptualize spiritual matter? how about using our magic senses to understand and conceptualize magical matter?

[Kawlinz]

Yes, you're missing the point. I may invite you onto my physical property without inviting you onto my intellectual property, and vice versa. I could say, "come on to my land and hang out, but don't you dare copy my machine".  I could say "Here's the schematic for my machine, you have my persmission to copy it, but don't come to my house". Making a physical copy of something embodying my intellectual property without permission requires that you trespass upon my unique, homesteaded intellectual property. Only by assuming that Intellectual objects cannot be property can you avoid this.

As to #2, there's no such phsycial thing as a "1" or a "0", these are intellectual concepts. What is "on" a hard drive is patterns of magnetism, so you're arguing that magnetism is physical. That's a bit of a stretch, given the current lack of understaning about quantum mechanics, but let's change the example slightly to drive the point home.

Instead of a hard drive, let's consider the eletromagnetic spectrum. Patterns of information can be transmitted in the form of radio waves. I would argue that the property is in the pattern. Are you prepared to argue that the electromagnetic spectrum is something physical?

How do you invite someone 'onto' intellectual property? I know you haven't read my last post prior to making this reply (which happens on boards sometimes) but it's like saying I've invited you onto my spiritual property. I have no Idea what that means, nor what being invited onto intellectual property might look like or what it means to you.

And I understand that there are no 1's and 0's, and that a HD is just an arangement of (or pattern) matter. I don't see how that makes a difference to the point I made. Instead of if someone hacks your system and "deletes
(re-arranges the 1s and 0s on your comptuer)" your files it would read if someone hacks your system and "deletes
(re-arranges the matter on your ard drive)" your files

And I have no idea how the electromagnietic spectrum works so I wouldn't be prepared to argue anything about it.

[Alexander]

We really should contemplate the electromagnetic spectrum, because there's currently a vast amount of information there, and the contemplation will help our understanding. Think of it like water. First imagine that the water is very still, glassy on top. Toss one pebble in, and watch the wave ripple from the center outward in all directions. The water is matter, molecules of H2O. But is the wave matter? The wave is flowing through the water, but the individual molecules of water do not travel along the wave. Not at all. The wave is a phenomena, and it is something different than the water.

Now imagine that you create a pattern in the waves. A big one, then a little one, then two big ones. You see? You can encode information in the waves. Are water waves matter? No, not really. And radio waves are certainly not matter. Honestly, we don't know actually what the electromagnetic spectrum "is". But we know that it propagates waves.

Now go back to the crucial aspects of property. For something to be property, it must be ascertainable, controllable, and useful. The only thing ascertainable in the electromagnetic spectrum are the patterns of information flowing through it. The patterns are there, we can objectively, scientifically measure them, distinguish them, control them, predict them, and most importantly, we VALUE them. We can buy them, and sell them. And yet, there is nothing remotely physical about them.

[Alexander]

Is intellectual property meaningless like "spiritual property" or "magical property"?

No. The best evidence for the existence of intellectual property is also the same best evidence for the non-existence of God and magic. Are you ready?

We know intellectual matter and a property rights to it exist because people act like it exists. In particular, people voluntarily contract for it, and are routinely satisfied with the performance of the contract. And if you get right down to it, human action is the fundamental way we know phsycial matter exists.

Don't people act as though God exists?

No, they really don't. Sure, many people SAY they believe in God.  But I've yet to become aware of a person who contracted in reliance on a miracle.

[Kawlinz]

What you're writing seems like you are agreeing with me in one sentence and disagree in the next. The molecules don't need to travel along the wave to be in a different configuration before and after the pebble gets tossed in. If the molecules didn't move at all, there would be no wave. The only reason we can call it a wave is because the water molecules have moved, regardless of any specifics.

Can you make a distinction between "intellectual property" and "a specific configuration of matter". I still don't see a distinction in your explanation, and when you explain what's happening physically, it seems to support this synonym.

 

--

 

And people act as if the state exists, and people contract with it. People think that state property exists and will act on that belief.This doesn't mean that state property actually exists, would you agree?

And not everyone acts as if IP exists, so only some people will voluntarily contract for it.

Also to clarify, there are people who have contracted on the reliance of miracles (and even the ability to perform them), the james randi million dollar challenge being one of them.

 

 

[Alexander]

First let me express how much I appreciate this dialog. I don't mean to frustrate you by being inconsistent. I'm here to test, argue, modify, possibly even abaondon my theory completely.

Second, let me admit that my starting point for my entire thesis is nothing more than a gut feeling about what is right and wrong. It is my sympathy and empathy at work, which are wholly subjective human emotions. Of course, that is the starting point for physical property. We sympathize and empathize with victims of aggression, and wonder if maybe there's something called ethics that might allow us to label certain human actions as "right" and "wrong".

I'll work on a rigorus definition of IP, that will actually have to be the grand conclusion of the thesis. I'm limited in time today, in fact I have final exams. For now, let's contemplate the difference between the brain and the mind, while I attempt a rough draft of the definitions.

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.

 

[Rudd-O DragonFear]

 

I appreciate the reply, I'm not sure your item is different than the one I called "IP is not libertarian".The point of that item is to say that IP necessarily places limits on the physical property rights of others, including self-ownership, which is what I think you're trying to say in your item.

You also said "because IP does not exist . . ." which would be an assumption of anti-IP's attempted conclusion. That's so easy to knock down that if I used it, I'd be accused of making a strawman argument.

And then you said that "enforcement" is like "the initiation of force". Yes, force is like force, but that's a bit of a tautology. Not sure it adds.

 

 

 

II think to say intellectual property does not exist is trivially true because it is observably true. you cannot point to me anything that is called intellectual property in the real world. Intellectual property is then entirely a conceptual thing. Thus your analysis needs to start identifyling what property IS at a very sundamental level. If property is a MORAL CLAIM (as I understand it to be), then it is a concept rather than a physical object, and it needs to be demonstrated as sound, which i believe is possible to do for physical property, but not for intellectual monopolies.

[Alexander]

 

 

I appreciate the reply, I'm not sure your item is different than the one I called "IP is not libertarian".The point of that item is to say that IP necessarily places limits on the physical property rights of others, including self-ownership, which is what I think you're trying to say in your item.

You also said "because IP does not exist . . ." which would be an assumption of anti-IP's attempted conclusion. That's so easy to knock down that if I used it, I'd be accused of making a strawman argument.

And then you said that "enforcement" is like "the initiation of force". Yes, force is like force, but that's a bit of a tautology. Not sure it adds.

 

 

 

II think to say intellectual property does not exist is trivially true because it is observably true. you cannot point to me anything that is called intellectual property in the real world. Intellectual property is then entirely a conceptual thing. Thus your analysis needs to start identifyling what property IS at a very sundamental level. If property is a MORAL CLAIM (as I understand it to be), then it is a concept rather than a physical object, and it needs to be demonstrated as sound, which i believe is possible to do for physical property, but not for intellectual monopolies.

 

 

Yes, property is a moral claim, that it its sole purpose. Property means "My use of this is right, and if you use it, it's wrong, and I have remedy against you". Property therefore is compleley a "conceptual thing", whether applying to physical or intellectual objects. Using the term "intellectual monopolies" is a bit loaded. Yes, property is the exclusive (i.e. monopolistic) control over the subject. This is true of physical property rights as well as intellectual. I enjoy a monopoly on the use of my land and house, for example. I don't like using the term "monopoly" in this context however,  because it has another important definition in economics.

I'll work on a definition of property that will hold.

 

[Alexander]

Stephan Kinsella has argued that IP stifles innovation and dis-coordinates the economy. In other words, enforcement of IP has the opposite effect from enforcement of physical property rights, says Kinsella. In the current statist model, IP holders may abandon their copyrights and / or patents, as some have. The vast majority, however, have not.

Is it fair to say that most intellectual creatives believe THEY are better off with an enforcement of IP?

How might a motion picture be financed and financially explotied in a world without copyright?

[Arius]

How might a motion picture be financed and financially explotied in a world without copyright?

Financed is easy, documentaries find money all the time.  How do you suppose Zeitgiest was funded?  What about Thrive?  Hell, Alex Jones can get backers for his crazy movies.  Financially exploited is another thing altogether.  If you mean "used to produce revenue", then the answer is simple: by public exhibition.  I don't know if you've noticed, but movies at the theater make tens of millions of dollars in profit.  Even with my rampant piracy, those studios still manage to earn a living.

Is it fair to say that most intellectual creatives believe THEY are better off with an enforcement of IP?

Those who hold IP are better off.  I don't think anyone argues that holding a patent isn't financially advantageous.

[Mister Mister]

 The problem with intellectual property rights is they have to be supported with claims on pieces of paper and enforced with a system of laws.  If one caveman discovers fire, does he have the right to extract a fine from all other cavemen who discover fire?  History is full of people coming up with similar ideas at similar ideas in very different places.  The story of Tesla and Marconi both racing to patent the radio, or Graham Bell and someone else with the telephone comes to mind.  It is ludicrous to think that because Marconi got to the patent office first, Tesla should not have been able to manufacture and sell his invention legally.  Because they can get a drawing on a piece of paper declared their "intellectual property" by the men with guns, no one can benefit from a similar idea without their permission.  This has been used to hold back technological progress, GE and many other companies are just sitting on patents that would threaten their fuel monopolies. 

[Alexander]

 

How might a motion picture be financed and financially explotied in a world without copyright?

Financed is easy, documentaries find money all the time.  How do you suppose Zeitgiest was funded?  What about Thrive?  Hell, Alex Jones can get backers for his crazy movies.  Financially exploited is another thing altogether.  If you mean "used to produce revenue", then the answer is simple: by public exhibition.  I don't know if you've noticed, but movies at the theater make tens of millions of dollars in profit.  Even with my rampant piracy, those studios still manage to earn a living.

Is it fair to say that most intellectual creatives believe THEY are better off with an enforcement of IP?

Those who hold IP are better off.  I don't think anyone argues that holding a patent isn't financially advantageous.

 

I believe those documentaries were funded through charitiable donations, I don't think they were profitable. Let's assume that for discussion. Unprofiability doesn't make the financing "easy", as a business venture it makes it "impossible". Yes, some people are willing to spend money on artisitic or educational projects that do not return an investment, but this is a hobby or recreation, not a way to earn a living. People have to earn a profit somehow before they have money to spend on hobbies. A lack of IP appears then to threaten the viability of artistic and educational projects as a business model.

"Public exhibition" means showing a movie in a movie theater. Let's be clear on terms. A movie theater is private property, in a free society there is no "public" property.

Would not the movie company require patrons of the theater to agree not to bring recording devices into the theater?

Does a no-recording agreement represent an infringement of the physical property rights of the movie patron?

imagine a world of no IP-enforcemnt, where copying a DVD is perfectly legal. Suppose further that the movie maker attemps to "copy protect" the DVD with some sort of technological solution. To explore this, let's consider the two extreme cases. In one scenario the copy-protect works perfectly and, even though copying is legal, would-be copiers are simply unable to do so. In the other scenario, the copy-protect is a failure, and users are easily able to copy the movie.

Is it fair to say that successful copy-protection would allow for profitability of movies released on DVD, and failed copy-protection would mean DVD movies could not possibly be profitable?

Is the success or failure of a copy-protect solution something that can be rationally assessed?

If IP does not exist, on what basis can the success or failure of copy-protect possibly be assessed? In other words, what does copy-protect seek to protect?

 

[Kawlinz]

 

 

How might a motion picture be financed and financially explotied in a world without copyright?

Financed is easy, documentaries find money all the time.  How do you suppose Zeitgiest was funded?  What about Thrive?  Hell, Alex Jones can get backers for his crazy movies.  Financially exploited is another thing altogether.  If you mean "used to produce revenue", then the answer is simple: by public exhibition.  I don't know if you've noticed, but movies at the theater make tens of millions of dollars in profit.  Even with my rampant piracy, those studios still manage to earn a living.

Is it fair to say that most intellectual creatives believe THEY are better off with an enforcement of IP?

Those who hold IP are better off.  I don't think anyone argues that holding a patent isn't financially advantageous.

 

I believe those documentaries were funded through charitiable donations, I don't think they were profitable. Let's assume that for discussion. Unprofiability doesn't make the financing "easy", as a business venture it makes it "impossible". Yes, some people are willing to spend money on artisitic or educational projects that do not return an investment, but this is a hobby or recreation, not a way to earn a living. People have to earn a profit somehow before they have money to spend on hobbies. A lack of IP appears then to threaten the viability of artistic and educational projects as a business model.

"Public exhibition" means showing a movie in a movie theater. Let's be clear on terms. A movie theater is private property, in a free society there is no "public" property.

Would not the movie company require patrons of the theater to agree not to bring recording devices into the theater?

Does a no-recording agreement represent an infringement of the physical property rights of the movie patron?

imagine a world of no IP-enforcemnt, where copying a DVD is perfectly legal. Suppose further that the movie maker attemps to "copy protect" the DVD with some sort of technological solution. To explore this, let's consider the two extreme cases. In one scenario the copy-protect works perfectly and, even though copying is legal, would-be copiers are simply unable to do so. In the other scenario, the copy-protect is a failure, and users are easily able to copy the movie.

Is it fair to say that successful copy-protection would allow for profitability of movies released on DVD, and failed copy-protection would mean DVD movies could not possibly be profitable?

Is the success or failure of a copy-protect solution something that can be rationally assessed?

If IP does not exist, on what basis can the success or failure of copy-protect possibly be assessed? In other words, what does copy-protect seek to protect?

 

 

It's completely possible that motion pictures would not be profitable without IP, but so what?

[Alexander]

 

It's completely possible that motion pictures would not be profitable without IP, but so what?

 

 

I agree, nobody has any right to profit. Businesses that fail on the free market should fail, "free market" meaning a strict observance of property rights. So again, it comes down to whether or not a pattern of ideas can rightly be property. I'm providing, or at least attempting to provide, a previously unavailable theory of IP that does not require any deviation from self-ownership and NAP. It simply requires an acceptance of a new conceptual framework, like learning algebra after you have mastered arithmetic.

In terms of persuading others to accept the philosopical correctness of NAP, with the Doctrine of Intellectual Space, Matter and Property there will now be a great advantage in NOT having to convince people that a correct ethical system means "no more movies". Might be a bit of an easier sell, don't you think?

 

 

[Kawlinz]

 

 

It's completely possible that motion pictures would not be profitable without IP, but so what?

 

 

I agree, nobody has any right to profit. Businesses that fail on the free market should fail, "free market" meaning a strict observance of property rights. So again, it comes down to whether or not a pattern of ideas can rightly be property. I'm providing, or at least attempting to provide, a previously unavailable theory of IP that does not require any deviation from self-ownership and NAP. It simply requires an acceptance of a new conceptual framework, like learning algebra after you have mastered arithmetic.

In terms of persuading others to accept the philosopical correctness of NAP, with the Doctrine of Intellectual Space, Matter and Property there will now be a great advantage in NOT having to convince people that a correct ethical system means "no more movies". Might be a bit of an easier sell, don't you think?

 

But it wouldn't mean no more movies. If movies are not very profitable, then I think the movies that get made would mean a lot more to the creators and any financers.

"I can't accept the NAP because I need a new transformer movie" is pretty weak sauce. No public schools, no centralized military and and "who would build the roads" are already difficult. If people can accept these but not "no more transformers movies" then I don't know what to tell them.

[Alexander]

 

But it wouldn't mean no more movies. If movies are not very profitable, then I think the movies that get made would mean a lot more to the creators and any financers.

"I can't accept the NAP because I need a new transformer movie" is pretty weak sauce. No public schools, no centralized military and and "who would build the roads" are already difficult. If people can accept these but not "no more transformers movies" then I don't know what to tell them.

 

Businesses that are unprofitable cease to exist. Live entertainment could still exist absent IP, but it is very difficult for me to imagine the existence of recorded entertainment without IP. I'm open to input on this.

As Stef routinely points out, the argument from morality is a more persuasive approach than the argument from effect. The core argument for a free society is and must always be: The initiation of force is wrong. But utilitarian considerations cannot be ingored completely. It is human nature to be concerned about how the future affects oneself.

I think it's fair to say that a libertarian argument for a free society in which IP exists is more persuasive than a libertarian argument in which IP does not exist, all other things begin equal. As I've said, with the implementation of my theory, IP now does not require any deviation from our core principles.

 

[Libertus]

As I've said, with the implementation of my theory, IP now does not require any deviation from our core principles.

How do you get there? You have listed a number of anti-ip arguments and did a good job if I may say so. Now I'm looking forward to reading about your unique argument pro ip, and how you deal with the arguments listed.

[Libertus]

Damn, it took to long for me to edit my message, and I was unable to retrieve the text typed. So here's the short version:

In a free society, people will voluntarily come together and possibly contract among each other to honor 'intellectual property' and agree to pay damages for breaking the contract. You can call it intellectual property if you want, but it will not be different from trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements and similar provisions we already know today. The difference between arrangements like these and the concept of intellectual property we know today is how it affects third parties, which are non-signees of the contract - in short, a contract can only be binding to its signees, and whether you want to do business exclusively among people who agree with you on honoring intellectual property and who want to bind themselbes to a contract saying so, is your decision alone. I know I won't join your club*, won't buy your music and won't watch your guys' TV, just as I'm not doing these things now. The only difference is in a free society your contracts are not binding to me and I won't be forced to subsidize your club catching people who make copies. I just won't. Let's see which group makes the better movies. And then let's see which group makes the better food, machines, medicine and smart phones and which club will be better off after all.

*'club' meaning literally 'club', or DRO, or insurance company or community. Anything voluntary where people do business which each other.