Alex is here to explore IP

[Alexander]

Hi FDR,

I'm a fellow anarcho-capitalist in the tradition of Murray Rothbard, Hans Hoppe, and Stefan Molyneux. Like Rothbard, I think intellectual property exists, and I have an original thesis supporting IP consistent with a free society.  I'm quite aware that the predominant view in libertarian circles is agaisnt IP, and I will greatly appreaciate civil discourse here, especially from articulate opponents of IP. Dialoging here should expose any weaknesses in my theory. I started a thread here on one of my first tasks, which is to clearly restate the strongest case against IP. 

Link to Anti IP Restatement Thread

-Alex

[ribuck]

I'm quite aware that the predominant view in libertarian circles is agaisnt IP

I'm not even sure if that's true. Support of IP amongst libertarians seems fairly widespread to me. To Murray Rothbard, you can of course add Ron Paul, Ayn Rand and many others.

[Alexander]

 

Support of IP amongst libertarians seems fairly widespread to me

 

Sorry, I should have been clear. I was using "liberatarian" to mean "anarcho-capitalist" as Rothbard did. Yes, minarchists tend to support IP. But their case is, of course, philosophically muddled. Either there is a justification for the state, or there isn't. I say there isn't. And I also say intellectual property rightly exists. Supporting my position will require a positive theoretical framework supporting IP, plus a comprehensive deconstruction of the alleged case against IP. 

 

[ribuck]

Either there is a justification for the state, or there isn't. I say there isn't. And I also say intellectual property rightly exists.

If your approach boils down to "In the absence of a state, we can voluntarily license our IP containers", this is going to be a big let-down after such a build-up.

[David L]

Alex, do you believe the intellect is dependent upon language for its existence? If so, it's pretty obvious language is a communal gift ---it's not somebody's exclusive private property. Such being the case, how could you claim that "your" intellect or any of its fruits are "your" personal property?

[Alexander]

Hi David,

I'm trying to take a more rigorous approach than to say things like "it's pretty obvious that . . .". I invite you onto the "Intellectual Property" thread linked above.

-Alex

[ribuck]

it's pretty obvious language is a communal gift ---it's not somebody's exclusive private property

David, this is something that fascinates me. Most people think of "language" as having an existence transcending any individual, but many people are now looking at language in a different way.

Researchers have long been aware that every individual speaks a slightly different dialect: that each person uses some words with a slightly different meaning, and in a slightly different way, and with a slightly different grammar, and with respect to a slightly different worldview. A person's own language is called an idiolect (i.e. a dialect spoken by only one person). A language, then, just happens to be the common intersection of the idiolects of a usefully-large number of people.

Naturally these people share a large number of words, and share many grammatical constructs, and share some degree of worldview. Yet each person's idiolect is truly their own individual language.

Anyway, this is tangential to Alex's thoughts about IP, but I do find it interesting.

[Alexander]

You could view "language" the same way you view "matter". Matter was given to us, strictily speaking to include the entire mass of the universe, or at least the entire mass of the earth. Humans did not create matter. Humans do, however, in such ways as they are able, transform some amount of physical matter in such a way as to make it useful. We call this transformation "homesteading", and we libertarians hold that this establishes a property right. The fact that matter pre-exited humans should not, I dare say, invailidate the concept of physical property. Thus, the pre-existence, or "gift" of language cannot be held to invalidate intellectual property.

 

 

[David L]

 

The fact that matter pre-exited humans should not, I dare say, invailidate the concept of physical property.

 

It is a rather curious position to hold that what we all emerge from (matter) should be considered completely separate and apart from us.  Indeed, what rational basis has this?

 

[Alexander]

 

 

The fact that matter pre-exited humans should not, I dare say, invailidate the concept of physical property.

 

It is a rather curious position to hold that what we all emerge from (matter) should be considered completely separate and apart from us.  Indeed, what rational basis has this?

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're saying.

 

[David L]

 

 

It is a rather curious position to hold that what we all emerge from (matter) should be considered completely separate and apart from us.  Indeed, what rational basis has this?

 

I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're saying.

 

Well, if we all come from matter, how is it that we can claim there is a complete separation between ourselves and the matter we come from? 

Material property rights are based upon the idea that there is an inherent separation between "us" and the "material property" we possess or don't possess.

Take food for example, which we consider private property.  We think we are separate from food, yet food constitutes the very atoms of our own bodies!

 

Hope that's clearer.

 

[SimonF]

I see no reason why a DRO (in a free society) could not theoretically apply rules on IP just like a state court can now.

However, if DROs are in fact to be used solely to obtain restitution (as they have been historically), then what loss has there really been when a pattern has been duplicated without an actual loss of physical property? Not making a potential gain and making an actual loss are not the same. A statist judge minded to punish "law breakers" may enforce this IP BS, but I doubt a DRO would function similarly (but it could).

[Alexander]

 

I see no reason why a DRO (in a free society) could not theoretically apply rules on IP just like a state court can now.

However, if DROs are in fact to be used solely to obtain restitution (as they have been historically), then what loss has there really been when a pattern has been duplicated without an actual loss of physical property? Not making a potential gain and making an actual loss are not the same. A statist judge minded to punish "law breakers" may enforce this IP BS, but I doubt a DRO would function similarly (but it could).

 

What restitution is owed to a rape victim? Is it your position that a free-market DRO would be unable to provide remedy to a rape victim?

 

 

[SimonF]

 

What restitution is owed to a rape victim? Is it your position that a free-market DRO would be unable to provide remedy to a rape victim?

 

I don't know that we need to discus details, you can either explore the Xeer system of the Somalis or the Brehon Laws of the Celts.

My guess for a rape victim is that at least they would be owed money for therapy, loss of earnings, medical expenses and emotional distress. There could be more damages on that as well.

Demostrating that the offence took place could be challenging as it is now unless there is unequivable supporting evidence of some kind.

[Alexander]

 

 

What restitution is owed to a rape victim? Is it your position that a free-market DRO would be unable to provide remedy to a rape victim?

 

 

My guess for a rape victim is that at least they would be owed money for therapy, loss of earnings, medical expenses and emotional distress. There could be more damages on that as well.

Demostrating that the offence took place could be challenging as it is now unless there is unequivable supporting evidence of some kind.

 

Assume in the rape case that 10 people saw it happen, plus there is a DNA match on the perpetrator. But also assume that there was no bruising or bleeding or any other apparent physical damage to the rape victim's body. Forumlate a method by which a private DRO can first establish that rape is a violation of the victim's right to self-ownership, then a method by which the DRO could determine damages. I think that you will conclude that rape is a form of trespass. Now assume intellectual property exists, and that unauthorized use of a victim's IP is trespass. Arrive at an answer to your question on private IP enforcement by the same method.

Make sense?

 

[SimonF]

 

Assume in the rape case that 10 people saw it happen, plus there is a DNA match on the perpetrator. But also assume that there was no bruising or bleeding or any other apparent physical damage to the rape victim's body. Forumlate a method by which a private DRO can first establish that rape is a violation of the victim's right to self-ownership, then a method by which the DRO could determine damages. I think that you will conclude that rape is a form of trespass. Now assume intellectual property exists, and that unauthorized use of a victim's IP is trespass. Arrive at an answer to your question on private IP enforcement by the same method.

Make sense?

 

Does not compute.

Violence against a person causes damage to their peace of mind (at least), leaving the person unable to function normally. Whatever the cost of that 'unable to function normally' is at least the value of the damages to be awareded. A psychological assessment could be done to determine some degree of trauma and an award made on that basis.

When I duplicate someones DVD they are probably not even aware that it happened, have lost nothing, so how can they have any legitimate grievances to redress?

[Alexander]

 

 

Assume in the rape case that 10 people saw it happen, plus there is a DNA match on the perpetrator. But also assume that there was no bruising or bleeding or any other apparent physical damage to the rape victim's body. Forumlate a method by which a private DRO can first establish that rape is a violation of the victim's right to self-ownership, then a method by which the DRO could determine damages. I think that you will conclude that rape is a form of trespass. Now assume intellectual property exists, and that unauthorized use of a victim's IP is trespass. Arrive at an answer to your question on private IP enforcement by the same method.

Make sense?

 

Does not compute.

 

 

Violence against a person causes damage to their peace of mind (at least), leaving the person unable to function normally. Whatever the cost of that 'unable to function normally' is at least the value of the damages to be awareded. A psychological assessment could be done to determine some degree of trauma and an award made on that basis.

When I duplicate someones DVD they are probably not even aware that it happened, have lost nothing, so how can they have any legitimate grievances to redress?

 

 

When someone violates my intellectual property, and I'm aware of it, I
feel utterlly violated, degraded, damaged, hurt, abused, angry, and sad.
I cannot function normally. You have no idea of how much anger and sadness I have experienced in my real life due to exactly this occurrence. If this does not resonate with you, you lack empathy, and are
potentially a sociopath.

Whether and when I become aware of a violation against me is important, but a different issue. Is it your position that a rapist who drugs a victim unconscious has not committed an offense?

 

[SimonF]

 

When someone violates my intellectual property, and I'm aware of it, I
feel utterlly violated, degraded, damaged, hurt, abused, angry, and sad.
I cannot function normally. You have no idea of how much anger and sadness I have experienced in my real life due to exactly this occurrence. If this does not resonate with you, you lack empathy, and are
potentially a sociopath.

 

I see your point, thanks for explaining. I'm sorry to hear that IP violations have caused you upset. Why do you think you had these emotional responses?

You can still use tort laws to prosecute such a violation if there has been emotional trauma, I think you would struggle to make a case though or win much damages - how much were you upset, did you need counselling, what were your other losses? Like I said, in a DRO system it is theoretically possible that restitution for the effects of copying without consent could be effected.

Even now there are tort laws unrelated specifically to IP about mental injury. I suggest you investigate http://www.columbiaforensic.com/mental-injury-tort-law.html

 

Whether and when I become aware of a violation against me is important, but a different issue.

 

Fair point.

[Alexander]

Thanks for the link, I'm familiar with tort law as currenty pracitced in a statist regime. Though I won't get into too many details, my personal hell with IP violation referenced above was a legally complex situation involving author, corporate publisher, a corporate master owner, performance rights organizations, a corporate copyright infringer, and a sub-contractor. Although my remedies at law could theoretically have been quite large, it would have involved severing a substantial business relationship, to my extreme detriment.

The purpose here is to discuss IP in a free society. Thank you for saying that you believe violations of IP rights are compensable. I agree.

[SimonF]

 

Thanks for the link, I'm familiar with tort law as currenty pracitced in a statist regime. Though I won't get into too many details, my personal hell with IP violation referenced above was a legally complex situation involving author, corporate publisher, a corporate master owner, performance rights organizations, a corporate copyright infringer, and a sub-contractor. Although my remedies at law could theoretically have been quite large, it would have involved severing a substantial business relationship, to my extreme detriment.

The purpose here is to discuss IP in a free society. Thank you for saying that you believe violations of IP rights are compensable. I agree.

 

I imagine the origins of tort laws predate the state and they have been used to cover copyright infringement. The application under tort law would be quite different from what we know of the state and its IP rights with threats, large fines and possibly prison.

In my example if I copied a DVD and you had no other losses (no compeling evidence of emotional hurt) your damages could not conceivable be more than the DVD and most likely would be nothing. I doubt you could sue for loss of "potential income" as with existing IP laws, only for actual material losses if there were any.

It seems to me you may of suffered a fraud or substantial breach of trust in a business contract, a bit more than a trivial copyright infringement. Being in business with people that are not completely trustworthy is of course a gamble.