Intellectual Property

[Alexander]

 

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.

 

Only property can be the subject matter of a contract. If I don't own it, I can't sell or license it to you. If I sell or license you a DVD, but I do not enjoy a property right in the pattern of ideas embodied therein, by what contractual language could I prohibit you from duplicating the pattern while utilizing  your own physical property?

 

 

[Libertus]

Only property can be the subject matter of a contract.

I don't think so. What about non-disclosure agreements (NDA)? What if I'm having an affair and the girl and I sign a contract not to tell my wife? What if you and I do business, and as a provision for said business you and I agree never to do business with let's say Wal Mart?

If I don't own it, I can't sell or license it to you.

Not all contracts are about items being sold or licensed. I offered many examples for contracts that are about keeping a trade secret or not doing X (which can be done without any property being involved).

If I sell or license you a DVD

Hold on. If you sell me a DVD, it's mine. If you grant me license (in a free society) to using the content of a DVD but in order to obtain the license I am prohibited from, say, making a copy, that would be part of the underlying contract. The contract between you and me, that is, not with a third party.

but I do not enjoy a property right in the pattern of ideas embodied therein, by what contractual language could I prohibit you from duplicating the pattern while utilizing  your own physical property?

Alexander and Libertus agree to the following: Alexander hands Libertus a copy of his latest film and in exchange Libertus pays Alexander the sum X and agrees to not share the contents of the film with anyone or make copies, or do X, do Y. Libertus agrees that if he gets caught violating the terms of this contract he will pay Alexander the sum of X*10 in gold.

That would be a contract between parties who give their consent to honor your 'intellectual property' or however you want to call it.

The difference between arrangements like these and the concept that we call
intellectual property today is that 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 a concept called 'intellectual property' and
who want to bind themselbes to a contract saying so, is your decision
alone. But it's not synonymous with any sort of IP law we know today. I don't object to you calling it ip, but I see where it gets confusing.

[Libertus]

Kinsella:

However, in order for IP to work, it has to bind not only seller and
buyer, but all third parties. The contract between buyer and seller
cannot do this — it binds only the buyer and seller.

IP and Statism

One final problem with IP can be mentioned. And that is that IP
rights are statutory schemes, schemes that are constructed only by
legislation. A patent or copyright code could no more arise in a
decentralized, case-based legal system in a free society than the
Americans with Disabilities Act could. In other words, IP requires both a
legislature and a state. For libertarians who reject the legitimacy of the state or legislated law, this is yet another defect of IP.

[Alexander]

 

Only property can be the subject matter of a contract.

I don't think so. What about non-disclosure agreements (NDA)? What if I'm having an affair and the girl and I sign a contract not to tell my wife? What if you and I do business, and as a provision for said business you and I agree never to do business with let's say Wal Mart?

If I don't own it, I can't sell or license it to you.

Not all contracts are about items being sold or licensed. I offered many examples for contracts that are about keeping a trade secret or not doing X (which can be done without any property being involved).

If I sell or license you a DVD

Hold on. If you sell me a DVD, it's mine. If you grant me license (in a free society) to using the content of a DVD but in order to obtain the license I am prohibited from, say, making a copy, that would be part of the underlying contract. The contract between you and me, that is, not with a third party.

but I do not enjoy a property right in the pattern of ideas embodied therein, by what contractual language could I prohibit you from duplicating the pattern while utilizing  your own physical property?

Alexander and Libertus agree to the following: Alexander hands Libertus a copy of his latest film and in exchange Libertus pays Alexander the sum X and agrees to not share the contents of the film with anyone or make copies, or do X, do Y. Libertus agrees that if he gets caught violating the terms of this contract he will pay Alexander the sum of X*10 in gold.

That would be a contract between parties who give their consent to honor your 'intellectual property' or however you want to call it.

The difference between arrangements like these and the concept that we call
intellectual property today is that 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 a concept called 'intellectual property' and
who want to bind themselbes to a contract saying so, is your decision
alone. But it's not synonymous with any sort of IP law we know today. I don't object to you calling it ip, but I see where it gets confusing.

 

I repeat, only property can be the subject of contract. Period. Non-disclosure and non-competition contracts are agreements about what will not be said, and what will not be done. In both cases the subject matter is the human body, which is owned by the contracting party. Such contract is valid, but if I tried to make a contract prohibiting some other person from saying something, it would be invalid because I do not own the other person's body.

If you will allow me to contract regarding that which is not my property, then I'd like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

How can I contract with you to not copy the pattern of ideas of my DVD, if I do not own the pattern of ideas? In your anti-IP world, suppose I sell you a DVD and you agree not to copy the DVD. You make a copy of the movie on a Flash Drive. Have you violated our agreement? The flash drive is in no physical sense a duplicate of the DVD. The only thing duplicated is an abstract understanding of the intellectual content.

 

[Libertus]

I repeat, only property can be the subject of contract. Period.

I repeat, I don't think so. And you're not helping your case, you're just repeating your assertion.

Non-disclosure and non-competition contracts are agreements about what will not be said, and what will not be done. In both cases the subject matter is the human body, which is owned by the contracting party. Such contract is valid.

Not. at. all. The subject matter of a non-disclosure agreement is the disclosed information, not the human body that could be, doesn't necessarily have to be, used to share that information. I'm getting the feeling you're redefining common terms as we speak to make them fit.

but if I tried to make a contract prohibiting some other person from saying something, it would be invalid because I do not own the other person's body.

No, but the other person does and so he can agree to do or not do stuff with it. People do that all the freaking time.

How can I contract with you to not copy the pattern of ideas of my DVD, if I do not own the pattern of ideas? In your anti-IP world, suppose I sell you a DVD and you agree not to copy the DVD.

By that contract, I would agree not to copy the contents to another medium. It doesn't necessarily have to be a DVD, no.

You make a copy of the movie on a Flash Drive. Have you violated our agreement? The flash drive is in no physical sense a duplicate of the DVD. The only thing duplicated is an abstract understanding of the intellectual content.

Which I can agree not to copy to another medium or share with anyone.

[ribuck]

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?

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.

[ribuck]

... it is very difficult for me to imagine the existence of recorded entertainment without IP ...

Stores sell a lot of bottled water, even though people can get it almost for free from the tap, or can collect rainwater.

Restaurants sell plenty of spaghetti bolognese, even though you can cook the same thing at home without any IP problems.

Hairdressers cut plenty of hair, even though families can cut each other's hair for free.

In the absence of IP laws, there will still be DVDs for sale. You can be successful in business by giving the customer what they want, when they want it, in the format they want it, for the price they are willing to pay.

In the absence of IP laws, there will still be blockbusters made. I can think of a couple of business models, and I'm sure there are many entrepreneurs who will find additional profitable business models.

For example, tickets to watch the movie on the day of release might be priced very high, and it would become a bit of a status symbol to see a new blockbuster before others have seen it. Or, the movie distributor might simply announce that screenings will start when the first million seats have been pre-sold. Or perhaps the producer won't even make the blockbuster until the first million seats have been pre-sold. Who knows what ingenious ways people will come up with to fund blockbusters.

[Arius]

If you go to kickstarter, there are, right now, dozens of internet-only films that are more than 100% funded.  Even if it was impossible to control distribution of movies, and even if there are no customers who perceive any utility in going to a movie theater, there are still means of acquiring financiers and consumers for films.  The "Movies will go broke" argument is been made every time a new recording media is developed.  Hell, does anyone remember when the Warner Brothers executives testified before congress that the VCR would bankrupt the entire movie industry?

Did you know that DVD sales don't cannibalize theater ticket sales?  The two aren't considered substitute products by the consumer base.  Did you know that Netflix doesn't cannibalize DVD sales?  There is no evidence the movie-viewing public is ready to consider downloading movies as a substitute product for theater-viewed movies.

 

 

[Alexander]

 

Kinsella:

However, in order for IP to work, it has to bind not only seller and
buyer, but all third parties. The contract between buyer and seller
cannot do this — it binds only the buyer and seller.

IP and Statism

One final problem with IP can be mentioned. And that is that IP
rights are statutory schemes, schemes that are constructed only by
legislation. A patent or copyright code could no more arise in a
decentralized, case-based legal system in a free society than the
Americans with Disabilities Act could. In other words, IP requires both a
legislature and a state. For libertarians who reject the legitimacy of the state or legislated law, this is yet another defect of IP.

 

Property binds "all third parties", i.e. everyone in the world. This is abosulutely correct, and applies to physical property just as IP. My claim of ownership of my house and my land gives me the right to exclude everyone uninvited, up to and including killing them if necessary. Property is a moral claim to exclude.

Copyright law could absolutely arise through Common Law in a libertarian world, all that is needed is to understand and accept the Doctrine of Intellectual Space, Matter and Property. Intellectual Property then arises in precisely the same fashion and for precisely the same reasons as Physical Property, Kinsella's assertions notwithstanding.

[Alexander]

 

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?

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?

 

[Alexander]

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.

 

 

[Kawlinz]

 

 

Kinsella:

However, in order for IP to work, it has to bind not only seller and
buyer, but all third parties. The contract between buyer and seller
cannot do this — it binds only the buyer and seller.

IP and Statism

One final problem with IP can be mentioned. And that is that IP
rights are statutory schemes, schemes that are constructed only by
legislation. A patent or copyright code could no more arise in a
decentralized, case-based legal system in a free society than the
Americans with Disabilities Act could. In other words, IP requires both a
legislature and a state. For libertarians who reject the legitimacy of the state or legislated law, this is yet another defect of IP.

 

Property binds "all third parties", i.e. everyone in the world. This is abosulutely correct, and applies to physical property just as IP. My claim of ownership of my house and my land gives me the right to exclude everyone uninvited, up to and including killing them if necessary. Property is a moral claim to exclude.

Copyright law could absolutely arise through Common Law in a libertarian world, all that is needed is to understand and accept the Doctrine of Intellectual Space, Matter and Property. Intellectual Property then arises in precisely the same fashion and for precisely the same reasons as Physical Property, Kinsella's assertions notwithstanding.

 

I think the only questions that need answering are these:

 

Would you shoot someone who has not made a contract with you, if they reverse engineered your IP and made that IP freely available?

Would you shoot someone if they disagreed with your stance on IP, and would not pay to people you approve of to enforce "IP laws (whatever those would end up being)"?

 

If the answer to both are "no", then we agree.

 

[Libertus]

Copyright law could absolutely arise through Common Law in a libertarian world, all that is needed is to understand and accept the Doctrine of Intellectual Space, Matter and Property. Intellectual Property then arises in precisely the same fashion and for precisely the same reasons as Physical Property, Kinsella's assertions notwithstanding.

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.

[Libertus]

This is a cost-benefit analysis, interesting perhaps, but is in no way an argument either for or against IP.

earlier you said:

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.

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

[Alexander]

 

Copyright law could absolutely arise through Common Law in a libertarian world, all that is needed is to understand and accept the Doctrine of Intellectual Space, Matter and Property. Intellectual Property then arises in precisely the same fashion and for precisely the same reasons as Physical Property, Kinsella's assertions notwithstanding.

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.

[Alexander]

 

This is a cost-benefit analysis, interesting perhaps, but is in no way an argument either for or against IP.

earlier you said:

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.

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.

 

 

[Libertus]

If you don't accept Intellectual Matter, then you will not find a rational basis for IP.

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.

ip
im
...
...
...
air
...

or what is the relation between the two? Do they mutually support each other?

ip
im
ip
im
ip
... ad infinitum? That would be circular.

[Alexander]

 

 

If you don't accept Intellectual Matter, then you will not find a rational basis for IP.

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.

 

[Alexander]

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.

[Libertus]

So yes, if you are not willing to accept and work with "intellectual matter" then my theory fails.

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?

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.

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?

[Alexander]

 

So yes, if you are not willing to accept and work with "intellectual matter" then my theory fails.

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?

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.

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. 

[Alexander]

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.

 

[Alexander]

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. 

[Libertus]

 

 

So yes, if you are not willing to accept and work with "intellectual matter" then my theory fails.

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?

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.

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.

 

Well and by ignoring each and every question you are making the point that language has no meaning to you. They are not just funny letters on a screen.

- What is the basis on which the concept of intellectual matter is based on?

- Does the validity of your concept of intellectual matter depend on my will, on what I think?

- Are you implying intellectual matter is entirely subjective, and that it's up to the individual what he believes?

- Or does your concept of intellectual matter rest on yet another concept (that I would have to just 'accept')?

- Or do you establish any axioms in order to build up your theory of intellectual matter upon them?

[Libertus]

Using the same structure for IP as Physical is valid.

Yeah, that's what you're assuming. Begging the question.

If IP is rightly property, then it will behave correctly under philosophical analysis.

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.

 

 

 

[Alexander]

 

Using the same structure for IP as Physical is valid.

Yeah, that's what you're assuming. Begging the question.

If IP is rightly property, then it will behave correctly under philosophical analysis.

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.

 

 

[ribuck]

Anyway, whether it's property or not, homesteading locations in imaginary space isn't going to work out economically. It's only the "old generation" like me who even take issues like copyright seriously. Here's what the new generation thinks of it:

"Why I'm a Pirate"
http://ploum.net/post/im-a-pirate

[Alexander]

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.

 

 

[ribuck]

... then links to an article by a socialist ...

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.

[Alexander]

 

... then links to an article by a socialist ...

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.

 

[Libertus]

Sorry, you misunderstand philosophy.

...

@ 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.

This conversation has been over since the moment you decided not to respond to any of my questions which I copied and pasted into this reply for the 3rd time for your convenience (while your argument is scattered over 3 dozen replies in this 100 answers thread, what a mess. And I'm the one who doesn't understand philosophy... lol

- What is the basis on which the concept of intellectual matter is based on?

- Does the validity of your concept of intellectual matter depend on my will, on what I think?

- Are you implying intellectual matter is entirely subjective, and that it's up to the individual what he believes?

- Or does your concept of intellectual matter rest on yet another concept (that I would have to just 'accept')?

- Or do you establish any axioms in order to build up your theory of intellectual matter upon them?

 

It's not just that you haven't answered any of them, you are completely ignoring them. You could have said "these are not valid questions, because of XY" or so. But these are very basic philosophical questions which I would put forward to anyone who plans on establishing a theory that rests on a concept I am not familiar with. So, yeah, I understand you already. Why don't you go sort your stuff out and come back when you have something coherent, or when Kinsella rips you to shreds in his reply, whatever comes first. Have a great day, I enjoyed our back and forth in the beginning when you were cool.

 

Oh and one more thing, what about your point that in a non-disclosure agreement, the subject matter is the human body? Are you still maintaining that? Because I haven't seen you admitting even the slightest error, and this one was a little bigger.

[Alexander]

 

 

 

- What is the basis on which the concept of intellectual matter is based on?

Intellectual matter is essentially a naming convnetion for "that which can be understood through language". Its existence, along with the other novel forumlations are that which I POSTULATE or HYPOTHESIZE, to then be TESTED according to the accepted rules of logic, and the accepted proof of the validity of physical property. I have answered this previously.  

 

- Does the validity of your concept of intellectual matter depend on my will, on what I think?

No.

- Are you implying intellectual matter is entirely subjective, and that it's up to the individual what he believes?

No. It is abstract, yet obejctive. Like mathetmatics.

- Or does your concept of intellectual matter rest on yet another concept (that I would have to just 'accept')?

Yes. As stated repeatedly, you must accept a number of things as either self-evident, or already proven. I'm not going to prove the existence of human beings that act purposefully, for example. I'm not going to prove Hoppe's argumentation ethic as a rational basis for physical property. If you don't accept Hoppe, go argue with him.

- Or do you establish any axioms in order to build up your theory of intellectual matter upon them?

As stated, I begin by assuming the validity of physical property rights. I hypothesize intellectual space, matter and objects. I test to see if these hypothetical things do or not behave as property. The anti-IP position is based entirely on the contention that IP does not behave like property. That would be a valid condemnation of IP, if not for the fact that the analysis is deeply flawed. The flaw int the anti-IP analysis is by wrongly categorizing IP as consumer goods instead of capital goods, and then falsely concluding that IP is not scarce.

 

 

 

[Alexander]

 

 

Oh and one more thing, what about your point that in a non-disclosure agreement, the subject matter is the human body? Are you still maintaining that? Because I haven't seen you admitting even the slightest error, and this one was a little bigger.

 

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.

 

[Arius]

No. It is abstract, yet objective. Like mathematics.

 

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).

[Alexander]

 

No. It is abstract, yet objective. Like mathematics.

 

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.