Sharing Intellectual Property is amoral

[kcq]

I was talking with a friend about intellectual property, one thing lead to another and i did not know how whether IP is moral or immoral, i thought if it is amoral even though i don't feel that it is in the realm of aesthetics.

 

i don't feel there is a distinction between Music albums, Movies & TV series, Books, when it comes to inherent moral reasoning.

 

 

So what would be strong arguments and counter arguments if you happen to think intellectual property is amoral?

[cab21]

how is intellectual property to be protected?

are we talking about contractual arangements, and if those contracts ought to be honered and protected?

 if i make a product, and a condition to sell it to you, is that you don't share, sharing would be violating the contract and violating such a contract is immoral, not amoral.

if someone is employed, by contract with conditions of not sharing  some information, sharing the information is breaching the contract.

[LifeIsBrief]

I agree with cab, that under our current system, sharing intellectual property is immoral.  I've encountered several people my age, with perfectly adequate incomes who suggest "I don't buy music any more", as if that was a perfectly acceptable moral choice.  I almost always respond, "Well then, you don't support the creation of artwork, and you're a bit of a petty thief, aren't you?".  It tends to get an interesting conversation started.

 

That said... I would also argue, that if you are not freely sharing and giving away your intellectual property, you're making a huge mistake.  If people enjoy your work, they will eventually pay you for it.  Sharing, is the new advertising.

[TheRobin]

Just because the state practically forces copyright onto artists and producers doesn't mean it becomes immoral to share stuff.

 

The other question would maybe also be, what if your not the guy who breaks the contract (assuming there is a valid one to beign with). What if your the 100th guy who makes a copy of a copy of a copy... would you stills ay it's immoral then?

[cab21]

1 premise

 consent of the owner

 

does person 100 ask

do i look at if person 99 is sharing, or do i look at if the owner consented to the sharing in the first place? if person 99 does not own it, and the owner does own it, looking to the consent of the owner , rather than the consent of the nonowner is preferable

 

under consent of the owner

the owner chooses what to share and how to share it.

 

plenty of owners do share their music, on the terms of the owners.

such as having a album for stream on downloand from the official website or a business partner or business agreement

 

how smart it is  to share or not share is not a moral question

the choice to share or not share is a moral question

[kcq]

the distinction lies in sharing vs consuming.

 

to consume shared intellectual property is amoral.

but to share intellectual property without consent is immoral.

 

Did i get that right?

[WorBlux]

I was talking with a friend about intellectual property, one thing lead to another and i did not know how whether IP is moral or immoral, i thought if it is amoral even though i don't feel that it is in the realm of aesthetics.

 

i don't feel there is a distinction between Music albums, Movies & TV series, Books, when it comes to inherent moral reasoning.

 

 

So what would be strong arguments and counter arguments if you happen to think intellectual property is amoral?

Define your terms!

 

Intellectual property has been used to refer to a hodgepodge of stuff, for copyright, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets.

 

All of the things you mention fall under copyright, which is statutory bugaboo and there is no moral reason as to obey such bugaboo.

 

What I will say is that it is good to affirm your individuality as it manifests in your tastes and desires by sharing, performing or being a patron of the arts you like. How it manifests should be an act of discretion, there is no one true way in this matter.

[HasMat]

argument by assertion /too ignorant to know better

 

scarcity is not applicable to information. neither harm nor expenditure. information also has no intrinsic worth. if you tell someone the world is round they will likely say 'Duh!'. If you start talking about your astrophysics degree when a mugger stabs you it won't help. info's entire value is context based. its only ever activated by intention. Who knows about it, who has access to it, what situations does it apply to. information is nonlocalized, universal, and independent. If its forgotten or remembered, its still the same. If its discovered or arcane, its still the same. Its constant. if its true, false, or dont not compute, it still doesnt even care. 1 + blue = unicorn. its scarcity and existence lie outside the bounds of human control and/or causation.

 

applying basic concepts of theft to a 100% non-scarce, non-consumable, non-harmable commodity is immoral. applying concepts of theft to metaphysical assertions is immoral.

 

why info is metaphsycial:

its existence or non-existence is PURELY in the eye of the beholder. atoms exist, the color purple does not. a purple shirt exists, and its existence has zero dependence on anyone recognizing or copying that data. if we were to argue on whether the color purple existed I submit it would quickly diverge to a metaphysical discussion, like string theory: its core is untestable assertions.

 

there are only TWO real situations where a person can claim info is 'owned'. that is privacy (access) and reputation (fraud). these considerations simply dont apply to commercial products (in the context of IP law).

 

why IP law is a misguided recoup attempt

I understand the motive behind it, its based on a desire for society to progress via artificial enhancement of self-interest. so obviously IP law has no moral basis, it modifies a means which justification is derived from an outcome frame of 'social progress' (iow ends justify means). In Stefan's Real-Time Relationships he says that a girl who dates you to look good to her friend does not value you, she values a fantasy (social recognition). you are a means to an end. It causes all kinds of problems when you negotiate with her with a belief that she values you. She doesn't. This is what IP law is doing, trying to negotiate with 3rd parties with a false assumption of value. They have no scarce product to offer once the cat is out of the bag. the thing in question is immune to scarcity. What they are selling has no instrinsic property of scarcity, consumability, harm, or even quality. its quality is derived from conditions, not itself. if better ubiquitous software was released it would have zero value.

 

This is the philosophical problem with IP. its an attempt to create voluntary contracts on uncontainable "means" with no inherent value, and with persons who arent even party to the said contract. the containment is the real product being offered, and that containment has no inherent quality to MOST buyers. in fact negation is being artificial applied, all in the name of personal greed.

 

trying to extract $ from ppl who value only an end, in exchange for the means, is fraud UNLESS you can objectively assign connection from means to end. Example: You hire me as bodyguard to keep yourself safe. A sniper shoots at you, missing, and you run away. Later you complain I didnt act and was nowhere to be found, I say I was doing a voodoo dance of safety at the local pub. It worked. Now you owe me $1 million.

 

trying to extract $ from ppl who value only an end, in exchange for the means, is fraud UNLESS you can objectively assign connection from means to end. artistic beauty and information are subjective metaphysical commodities that arent able to connect means and end.

 

Access to info can morally be sold (see linux), but information cannot.

 

information is of a different quality or fabric than goods and services. IP law is a foolish attempt to apply brick-and-mortar concepts of theft to a different category of animal.

 

in a different vein, i would also argue IP law is highly suspect because its an attempt to keep ppl from information/convert others lack of information into $. that doesnt feel like a humane cause to get caught up in. sure you can mine for info just like you can mine for bitcoins. but is there any inherent value produced by farming a bitcoin? you are a squatter, and value is 100% based on context. did you discover that bitcoin first? if not there is zero value to discovering it. doesnt sound like value is being produced, even on initial discovery. this is one of the things i find troubling about bitcoin. it creates an informational universe of scarce quantity and assigns resources via opportunity and effort, and the entire system is artibrary and elective. feels like a pyramid scheme.

 

information is a theoretical property of the universe, humans exacting value from each other for being squatters is fine IMO, but only for the first sale. thats called access.

[LifeIsBrief]

Intellectual property, is a commodity like any other.  If people refuse to value it, it will disappear in a wave of drunken, drug addled laborers.  When someone writes a song, piece of software, film, or story you value, it is immoral not to trade value for value.

 

Should creators realize that sharing, is a form of advertising, to encourage that trade?  Yes.  If they want to sell you their finished craft however, that is their right, and it should be respected.

[cab21]

Access to info can morally be sold (see linux), but information cannot.

 

what is a example of information being sold, but not access to that information?

[Wesley]

This is one of those instances where I would have preferred people to search the boards and read old threads so that everything doesn't need to be rehashed... again....

 

IP is not property because if I "take" a shirt from you, then you no longer have a shirt. If I "take" an idea from you, then you still have the idea. I have not prevented your access to the information.

 

Ideas have value, but this does not make them property.

 

I can prevent access to ideas through encryption or trade secrets, but if someone makes Coke in the exact same recipe then Coca-Cola has no right to use force against them to take their money for doing so. It was Coca-Cola's responsibility to make their formula secret.

 

The idea that me coming up with an idea similar to someone else's or finding an idea which does not prevent others to have access to the idea as being worthy of violence being used against me is a reprehensible idea.

[LifeIsBrief]

Using violence to enforce IP as law, is immoral... That said, let me give you a perfect example of why IP is property, and stealing it is immoral.

 

A brand new band, writes it's first hit song.  They're playing it in clubs with one or two hundred people, and just barely starting to scrape out a living for themselves.  U2 hears the song, and covers it instantly.  The only place the writers of the song are mentioned (if at all), is in the liner notes, or at the bottom of U2's hit music video "information" on youtube.  Now... They didn't write a hit song, it will never get on the radio, and people will always assume their band, is the one covering U2.  U2 stole their property, and possibly their livelihood, simply by listening to it.  "Just write another hit song", may sound good in theory, but how many one hit wonders have there been?  Some pretty good artists, only have a couple in them, if they lose the first one, they won't have the money to support themselves writing the second.

 

Software, music, art, and film, are all very easy to copy.  It is immoral to do so, without the artists permission.

[Wesley]

Using violence to enforce IP as law, is immoral... That said, let me give you a perfect example of why IP is property, and stealing it is immoral.

 

A brand new band, writes it's first hit song.  They're playing it in clubs with one or two hundred people, and just barely starting to scrape out a living for themselves.  U2 hears the song, and covers it instantly.  The only place the writers of the song are mentioned (if at all), is in the liner notes, or at the bottom of U2's hit music video "information" on youtube.  Now... They didn't write a hit song, it will never get on the radio, and people will always assume their band, is the one covering U2.  U2 stole their property, and possibly their livelihood, simply by listening to it.  "Just write another hit song", may sound good in theory, but how many one hit wonders have there been?  Some pretty good artists, only have a couple in them, if they lose the first one, they won't have the money to support themselves writing the second.

 

Software, music, art, and film, are all very easy to copy.  It is immoral to do so, without the artists permission.

No matter what the intellectual property claim is, the idea that you can make one invention or one song and then sit back on the proceeds from that exchange is exactly why intellectual property was invented- to stifle competition and protect the existing wealthy.

 

Second, a one-hit band or small band that gets covered by U2 would do wonders for their sales and people's awareness to them. Not to mention that from the internet there would be viral campaigns showing their song being released first and in order to not support the scumbags U2 (for the example).

 

Immoral means that it is ok to use force in defense of it. If you steal my car or my wallet, I am allowed to use a gun to try to get it back. (May not be recommended, but it would be defensive). If you "steal" an idea, it is not taking the idea from them and it would be terrible to use force in "defense" of something that wasn't even taken from the original owner. The fact that you would point a gun at someone for taking your car but not for listening to your song is great evidence that having an idea that someone happened to have before is not immoral.

[Pepin]

Using violence to enforce IP as law, is immoral... That said, let me give you a perfect example of why IP is property, and stealing it is immoral.

 

A brand new band, writes it's first hit song.  They're playing it in clubs with one or two hundred people, and just barely starting to scrape out a living for themselves.  U2 hears the song, and covers it instantly...

 

Software, music, art, and film, are all very easy to copy.  It is immoral to do so, without the artists permission.

 

I know this isn't the best response, but I am having a difficult time understanding why it is moral to use force against someone who violates IP. I can fully agree that it ought to be scorned upon, that it can hurt the creator in significant ways, and so on, but I am not yet able to justify the use of force against someone who violates IP. To bring it to a personal level, I don't think I could respond to an IP infraction of my own IP with force and feel like it was just. It isn't like I need to feel good about it, just as you don't need to feel good about shooting someone who attempting to murder you, but you do need to feel like it was the right thing to do. Not an argument, just a difficulty.

 

Part of my trouble is that in a free society, I think the issue would be solved primarily through non-violent methods, and also that I think people wouldn't have a much greater sense of justice with their more rational upbringing. This of course wouldn't invalidate violence being a possible solution, but it does shift my opinion. 

 

IP is something I still have a difficult time thinking about, so I'm not really comfortable in making a real argument for or against. With your example, I think it would preferable for the band to receive some sort of compensation for their work, I don't think it would need to be in full, but I think U2 ought to give them a decent sum of money for enabling such a success. But the band forcing U2 through violence to give compensation causes my mind to freeze up, especially since the ultimate threat is one of murder. Again, this isn't an argument, just an admission to the emotional barriers I am having in respect to the claim.

[LifeIsBrief]

I already said that using violence to protect it would be immoral.  If someone is in a long term monogamous relationship, cheating on their partner is immoral... but it doesn't give their partner the right to hit or kill them.  So, I guess I just disagree with this definition of immoral.  White lies are immoral, but they don't justify the use of force.  If someone tries to sell a cd, piece of software, film, or book, those are products, and stealing them, or copying them for free use, is immoral.  It's just not an excuse to get violent.  Louis CK recently self distributed two comedy albums online for 5 dollars each.  No evil distributors, corporate owned media, etc. were involved in these productions.

 

He promised never to go after anyone who steals the product, using the law.  Still, the man has been working on his craft for 30 years, and these cd's were not six months worth of work, they were the culmination of overwhelming effort for decades.  If you downloaded it for free, instead of paying the five dollars, that was an immoral act.  It would be more immoral to jail you for it, which is why he is uninterested in doing so... but it's still wrong to steal a crafted product.

[Wesley]

I already said that using violence to protect it would be immoral.  If someone is in a long term monogamous relationship, cheating on their partner is immoral... but it doesn't give their partner the right to hit or kill them.  So, I guess I just disagree with this definition of immoral.  White lies are immoral, but they don't justify the use of force.  If someone tries to sell a cd, piece of software, film, or book, those are products, and stealing them, or copying them for free use, is immoral.  It's just not an excuse to get violent.  Louis CK recently self distributed two comedy albums online for 5 dollars each.  No evil distributors, corporate owned media, etc. were involved in these productions.

 

He promised never to go after anyone who steals the product, using the law.  Still, the man has been working on his craft for 30 years, and these cd's were not six months worth of work, they were the culmination of overwhelming effort for decades.  If you downloaded it for free, instead of paying the five dollars, that was an immoral act.  It would be more immoral to jail you for it, which is why he is uninterested in doing so... but it's still wrong to steal a crafted product.

You may want to look into the differences between APA and UPB.

[Pepin]

I already said that using violence to protect it would be immoral...

 

In that case you might want to work a bit on your presentation and spend some time defining your terms. I say this because to be honest, I read the post I responded to about five times and I still interpreted it as wrong. It is not pleasant for this to happen to either you or the person who replies to it.

[Wesley]

I think Wesley would agree that your posts can be easily misinterpreted and misunderstood

I am not going to affirm or deny this. I would only like to express my preference that opinions as to what I probably think are not asserted for me. Feel free to speak for yourself, but I would rather not be dragged into something I may or may not agree with.

[LifeIsBrief]

The first line is, "Using violence to enforce IP as law, is immoral"...  So I guess the words "as law" make it less precise than I would have liked.  Using violence to enforce IP is immoral.  Does that make things clearer?  I would say using violence to enforce fidelity, would also be immoral, but so is infidelity.

 

I'm pretty new here, so I haven't read UPB yet... and even more embarrassing, I don't know what APA stands for, and can't find it in a quick google or forum search.  So I assume this is what caused the confusion, I'm still a layman.

 

When I suggest something is immoral, I just mean that it harms another human being.  More precisely in the case of consuming, and enjoying a Louis CK album that cost him tens of thousands of dollars, several hours, and years of honing his craft to produce, for free... I would suggest that it is a refusal to trade value for value.  I think refusing to trade value for value is harmful to creators, and society in general.  Maybe it would be classified simply as not preferable, or amoral to some, but it seems rather destructive to me.  Personal preference shouldn't enter into philosophy though, so I have to ask... Is refusing to trade value for value amoral?

 

Edit: I just want to add... I'm making the assumption that in this example, the viewer, or listener, enjoyed the artwork, so it was of value to them.  The reason I think sharing is the new advertising, is so that people aren't forced to pay for things they don't value.  If you do value something, and don't contribute to it however, isn't that an immoral act?

[Wesley]

There are 7 categories in UPB:

 

1. It is good (universally preferable and enforceable through violence, such as “don’t murder”).2. It is aesthetically positive (universally preferable but not enforceable through violence, such as“politeness” and “being on time”).3. It is personally positive (neither universally preferable nor enforceable, such a predilection foreating ice cream).4. It is neutral, or has no ethical or aesthetic content, such as running for a bus.5. It is personally negative (predilection for not eating ice cream).6. It is aesthetically negative (“rudeness” and “being late”).7. It is evil (universally proscribed) (“rape”).

 

(Page 64 of UPB I just copied this from)

 

[Tongue- In Cheek Edit: OH NO! I think I just violated IP!]

 

"Having an idea is immoral" falls apart in any kind of logical framework. There is no objective difference between idea that someone else thought of first and ideas that no one else has thought of, thus the statement that "some ideas are immoral to have" wouldn't hold up. Ideas also cannot fit into the idea of property as my gaining an idea does not take it from you. Thus, violating "IP" does not fall under the universal good or universal evil of UPB. These categories allow force to enforce and this makes sense that we would not want to use force to enforce IP.

 

It could be in the categories of Aesthetically Negative Actions (ANA) or Aesthetically Positive Actions (APA). You may say that "People who download music for free are sleazy and I wouldn't hang out with them, but I do not think that they should be punished through force." This is not a question of morals then, but a question of virtue and aesthetics.

 

Even then, there are complications as almost every person who uses language, music, art, etc is using 99.99% work stolen from others and that last small percent is their own original cherry on top.

 

Cheating is somewhat different as being in a relationship assumes that there was some sort of contract. You would apply some sort of contract law or apply rules of fraud to the contract. I do not know exactly where this would fit as I am not the biggest expert on the subject, but I think that it would not be immoral, but aesthetically negative and should reflect on the reputation of the person who broke the contract.

 

I would highly recommend reading the book or listening to it as it is free. I do know that you cannot consider something immoral and then not allow force to prevent it. If that is the case, then either it is immoral and force can be allowed (thus not immoral to use self defense) or it is not immoral and thus immoral to aggress against them for doing it.

 

The position of "it is immoral to download a song but more immoral to throw them in jail for it" cannot stand under UPB. So that at least needs to change.

[LifeIsBrief]

Interesting...  I'm not suggesting that "Having an idea is immoral" at all.  I am saying that stealing the product of a persons ideas, is immoral.  I don't understand how, in my example, a comedy album isn't a tangible product being stolen.  I would suggest shooting a child for stealing a candy bar, is immoral as well though.  To me, copying property, that someone is selling, for free, is stealing, it just falls into the realm of petty theft.  Violence seems like an incorrect response.  Does this mean I disagree with UPB?

 

I'll listen to it today and find out I guess.

[Wesley]

Interesting...  I'm not suggesting that "Having an idea is immoral" at all.  I am saying that stealing the product of a persons ideas, is immoral.  I don't understand how, in my example, a comedy album isn't a tangible product being stolen.  I would suggest shooting a child for stealing a candy bar, is immoral as well though.  To me, copying property, that someone is selling, for free, is stealing, it just falls into the realm of petty theft.  Violence seems like an incorrect response.  Does this mean I disagree with UPB?

 

I'll listen to it today and find out I guess.

There is proportional force. I can take the CD or restrain the child until his parents come or something like that. This would be like that guy who when you say a word slightly wrong and then they blow up and go on a 10 minute rant about the failing of society. Only applied to life and death so not the best example, but you get the idea- proportionality.

 

The album itself is tangible. If I take a CD from you then you no longer have it. If I copy some data and transfer it to my computer, then your data is still perfectly in tact. It is like me pointing my "copy ray" at your shirt and making a new one for me. I have not taken your shirt but actually created a new one in a sense.

 

Saying that me copying your shirt is petty theft is incorrect as I have taken absolutely nothing from anyone.

[WorBlux]

Intellectual property, is a commodity like any other.  If people refuse to value it, it will disappear in a wave of drunken, drug addled laborers.  When someone writes a song, piece of software, film, or story you value, it is immoral not to trade value for value.

 

Should creators realize that sharing, is a form of advertising, to encourage that trade?  Yes.  If they want to sell you their finished craft however, that is their right, and it should be respected.

 

Intellectual property are by definition not economic goods. When you use them they aren't "used up", and subsequently can be used any number of times. There is no need to allocate the use of an idea between competing uses, because additional uses do not diminish the original idea. 

 

Second creative works would not disappears even if it became impossible to make a living from them. The creative drive is part of what it means to be human, and you would still have works from amateurs and those with patrons (or very tolerant spouses).  Yes you may see fewer high-quality works available but creativity wouldn't disappear.

 

While I agree that maker of a creative work has the right to sell it fixed in tangible form, it is by no means an exclusive right, and he or she may charge whatever fee a seller will agree to.  The word publish means to make public, and once you've released an idea publicly you've given up any reasonable claim of exclusivity.  It's out there for anyone to take up and fix for themselves. 

 

Let's take as an example a man who published a magnificent manual on a formal, decentralized dispute resolution method, that was able objectively to solve disputes by mutual agreement 10% of the time more than any current system.  Later this author realizes that agorists are using his method to lubricate exchanges drugs and firearms on the black market. Horrified he withdraws the manual from publication. Is it them immoral to copy it? I think not. This brings doubt into the moral thesis that the obligation is from the consumer to the creator.

 

Instead I think is the relation of the consumer to his or her own desires and self-esteem. "Yes I like this work, and have affirmed my desire by some positive action to encourage, participate in, or show appreciation of said work." Buying a discrete product offered for sale is an easy way to do this, but isn't the only way. And I don't think the morality of this is established in individual acts of consumption, but as a whole, and in relation to the means a person has available.

[Wesley]

I think one more point against IP is the limited duration. An idea becomes your property for a couple years, or 50 years after your death (or something) depending on the type of IP. However, this means it isn't actually property. If it was, it should be able to stay your property and the property of your children from now until the end of time. The idea that you magically one day lose your property rights show that IP is a false invention rather than an accurate description of reality.

[LifeIsBrief]

First, Worblux...  You and I seem to disagree completely, on this particular issue, so I would love to hear more information, from you and any board members with the time to weigh in on the subject.  My argument can be stated relatively simply and quickly.

 

1.  Intellectual property, is an economic good, because it has value.

 

2.  "Yes, you will see fewer high-quality works available, but they won't disappear"... Sounds like communism/socialism/social control, and I'm not saying that to be obtuse... but, this is exactly what happens to general labor under those systems.  Why would anyone want there to be less high quality works of art available?  Is intellectual labor, not as valuable, as physical?  By what standard?

 

3.  Homesteading... Can it be argued, that Louis CK, to go back to my previous example, did not create value by mixing his labor, with the video camera and the computer?  I don't think it can.  It seems as though, once a persons labor can be translated into ones and zero's it stops becoming property in many peoples mind... I don't understand this distinction, at all.

 

Wesley...  So, I finished UPB, and I agree with 99% of it.  In fact, as I suspected unfortunately, it was pretty much preaching to the choir.  As someone who has been an atheist since the age of 12, I had simply come to most of its conclusions on my own... Stefan, as always, put things more eloquently, and rationally than I ever could have, but as a huge fan of his work, there were no big surprises, and he didn't get into copyright.  The 1%, or really one thing I disagree with however will come into play in my response to this question.

 

Your "copy ray" example, is a bit interesting...  Did the person you're copying the shirt from create it, and design the artwork?  Did you have permission to use a copy ray, from that person, or the creator?  I think you have to think of these things in economic terms.  If I wanted to design and sell clothes for a living, and the second I sold five shirts, they would be endlessly copied, and recopied, until everyone who could possibly enjoy my shirt design, had one, and I only made one hundred dollars for the five I personally sold, I would stop making shirts.  This is an enormous loss.  I would suggest you committed fraud, an ANA, and thus damage my ability to make a living by refusing to trade value for value.  If this was morally acceptable, worldwide, no one could make a living selling shirts.

 

This is where my one disagreement with UPB comes into play.  I make no distinction between fraud and theft.  Your "copy ray", is a perfect example of why.  Having fraud committed against me, as the initial creator of a t shirt company, was unavoidable, provided the "copy ray" exists.  Thus, it is not an ANA, it is a UPB violation, immoral, and a DRO, should be able to demand restitution.

 

This is identical to my example, of the Louis CK album.  Louis CK is selling the digital equivalent of a CD, for five dollars.  If you buy this CD, and record it to an MP3 player, or physical CD, you have done nothing wrong, as you traded value for value.  If you put that digital copy on bit torrent, you are creating fraudulent products, and giving them away for free.  I would suggest this is immoral, UPB suggests it is ANA.

 

If a third party, aware that Louis CK is selling the CD for five dollars, decides to download it for free, from a fraud... That is petty theft.  Instead of buying a product, they are stealing it.  The fact the product has been digitized, has no bearing on whether or not it is a physical, crafted product, that labor has been mixed with, and is now being stolen.

 

To bring this argument home, I would like to offer up a more extreme example.  Stefan wrote a book, that I very much agree with, except for the one example of fraud.  So, I download it, change that distinction, print out copies, and go sell them on Venice Beach, UPB by Dave.  That is an immoral act.  I didn't write the book, I changed a few sentences in one chapter, and then fraudulently claimed to have written it.  It is also theft, because a certain percent of the people I sell the book to, would have found it eventually, and paid for it, or donated money to Stefan for having written it.  I stole that money, through my fraud.  Now, if I had Stefan's permission before hand, and he might offer such a thing because the philosophy is more important than credit, and wealth... this would be an entirely different story.  Even in a stateless society however, if I did not get permission, he would be perfectly within his rights, to use a DRO, to demand restitution from me.  Force would be justified, because I would be committing a crime against property rights.  Putting the word intellectual in front of property, does not stop it from being property.

 

Are current copyright laws insane?  Yes.  The founding of America created intellectual property rights, that were 7 years long, and renewable, only once.  As information, and products are distributed faster, and faster in the modern world, this length should have been decreased dramatically, non increased to infinity.  Maybe 2 years renewable once would be more fair for a free state DRO.  After that time, in the past, and in my hopes, the future, the intellectual property should become public domain, allowing for derivative works to be crafted.  Also, an artist could choose to give up all intellectual property rights, and instantly give his information to the public domain, for the greater good, and simply hope for donations.  That choice however, is a right of the creator.

 

It's easy to think of "one hit wonders" in terms of pop garbage, used to make people (mostly distributors) exceedingly wealthy, under a corrupt system.  A more complex example, however, might be a band like The Mars Volta, who had only one "hit" song, "The Widow", but used that to sell three of my favorite albums of all time, because of that exposure.  I can't imagine that there will cease to be hit songs, in a stateless society.  It is very rare to create a piece of artwork that millions of people will love.  If someone is lucky enough to do that however, it should be rewarded, and it should be capable of being sold, like any other product, because it is of value.

 

Is selling the product a bad idea?  I already agreed, yes, probably... sharing is the new advertising, and it is intelligent to give your work away for free and ask for donations. That decision however is not up to me, or you, it's up to the person who mixed their labor with the piece of work.

 

That's my take on the situation, at least until I am presented with a more compelling argument. I welcome such a challenge.

[TheRobin]

1.  Intellectual property, is an economic good, because it has value.

 

I don't see how that's either true or relevant here. Things that are of value to people are not automatically economic goods (like I value sleeping out on Sundays, or going for walks in the sunlight, but neither are economic goods) though they are of value to me). 

A good talk with intersting people can be of high value, but it doesn't make the soundwaves or concepts used economic goods. Even if you pay to hear someone speak (say at conferences and such) to words and phrases and ideas don't become goods but you pay to hear them at a given time and place.

 

 

 

 

2.  "Yes, you will see fewer high-quality works available, but they won't disappear"... Sounds like communism/socialism/social control, and I'm not saying that to be obtuse... but, this is exactly what happens to general labor under those systems.  Why would anyone want there to be less high quality works of art available?  Is intellectual labor, not as valuable, as physical?  By what standard?

 I thought the emprical side is exactly the other way around and that an absence of IP laws and regulations led to more creativity and art being produced. (iirc Stef mentioned that lately on the Peter Schiff show). But I too don't see how that's relevant to whether it's fraud or not.

 

and for 3. I think the only relevant question to ask in the whole debate seems to be: Is the claim of fraud legitimate? Just because the owner might not like other people copying his work (or covering it or modifying it and re-releasing it or whatever) does that give him/her the right to forcible interfere with such actions? And by what principle do you determine it? How long does he have the right do use force and why only that long?

Theft is always wrong, your physical property doesn't expire some day and then other people can just take it if they want to, but you say yourself that IP should expire at some point, which is imo already a good indicator that it's not a valid ethical claim to make, but mere astethic preference of some people.

Like, if I own an idea, then what would make me not own it after a few years?

[LifeIsBrief]

1. Rephrasing, to be precise... Intellectual property has economic value.  If we take the economic value of intellectual property away, less people will be interested in creating it.  What you choose to do with your time, is your choice, however, it is a property that you own, and can sell.  Choosing to spend it sleeping in, or in sunshine, is an economic choice.

 

2.  This is, unfortunately empirically false.  There is more artwork being created today than at any time in human history.  Whether or not it is high quality, is up for debate, but actually irrelevant.  The only way you could make the claim that more high quality art is being produced today, would be to make a judgment that classical music is objectively better than modern music, something that can not be objectively proven.  I like classic rock and jazz, both created under stringent copyright laws.  Copying the product of another persons time, and labor, then re distributing it as your own, for free or profit, is fraud, and a theft of time and labor.  Perhaps more precisely a destruction of property, or the value of property.

 

3.  In this case I would suggest, as many artists have, that your art is like your child.  Does it magically become an adult you no longer have responsibility for at 18?  Of course not, but we must draw a distinction somewhere so we choose one.  People may choose different DRO's with different chosen dates at which the art matures, but it is still theft until you have the permission of the artist. There is a reason "tribute bands" don't make as much money, or provide as much economic value as musicians creating new art.  We all instinctively realize that they aren't producing new intellectual property, and value derivative work less.  Creating intellectual property, is a form of mixing your labor, with a recording device to improve its value.  You own that creation, and can sell it.

 

I think I can put all of this in much clearer terms now.  If I make a chair, do I get to decide how much to sell it for?  Or, does someone else?  Why would a song I write be any different?

[Kawlinz]

I think I can put all of this in much clearer terms now.  If I make a chair, do I get to decide how much to sell it for?  Or, does someone else?  Why would a song I write be any different?

 

Because a song is a concept. A chair is a thing.

 

If you want to sell your sheet paper / notepad / laptop / CD that you wrote the song with or your song is on, then you're talking about a thing, and not the song.

[LifeIsBrief]

They are both, concepts and things.  When someone copies your song from a cd, to the computer and gives it away for free, suddenly it is only a concept again?  Suddenly, they own your business of selling songs, and they set the price at 0?  I would suggest, no.  When someone buys your CD, they don't suddenly own your business of selling songs.  To pretend to, would be both fraud, and theft.

[Kawlinz]

if they put the on their website saying that they're you, sure, it's fraud.

 

How can you call it theft when you still have all your physical property?

[LifeIsBrief]

Again... I make no distinction between physical property, and intellectual property.  As a hobby, I have been learning various instruments for the last ten years.  I don't expect I'll ever be good enough to get rich from this endeavor, but... if I continue it for another decade, I may become good enough for my skill to be of economic value.  A competent musician, like any other craftsman, has the potential to create a piece of work that is of value to a large enough number of people, that they are capable of making a living. 

 

If after a quarter century of learning this craft, I try to sell my music, that is my right in a free market economy.  If that leads to me making two or three cds that a few thousand people enjoy, I now have a small business.  If someone puts those works of art, on the internet for free, as their own creation... they have not just committed fraud against me, they have stolen my business, and threatened my ability to survive on a niche market.  Back to the factory.  The same is true if I write a good book, paint a beautiful picture, or design a popular t-shirt.  So, I don't see these things as aesthetically negative, they are immoral, and threaten creativity, and innovation as a whole.

[Kawlinz]

Again... I make no distinction between physical property, and intellectual property.  As a hobby, I have been learning various instruments for the last ten years.  I don't expect I'll ever be good enough to get rich from this endeavor, but... if I continue it for another decade, I may become good enough for my skill to be of economic value.  A competent musician, like any other craftsman, has the potential to create a piece of work that is of value to a large enough number of people, that they are capable of making a living. 

 

If after a quarter century of learning this craft, I try to sell my music, that is my right in a free market economy.  If that leads to me making two or three cds that a few thousand people enjoy, I now have a small business.  If someone puts those works of art, on the internet for free, as their own creation... they have not just committed fraud against me, they have stolen my business, and threatened my ability to survive on a niche market.  Back to the factory.  The same is true if I write a good book, paint a beautiful picture, or design a popular t-shirt.  So, I don't see these things as aesthetically negative, they are immoral, and threaten creativity, and innovation as a whole.

 

Intellectual property is a contradiction in terms. Property is a thing. A concept (the intellectual part of "intellectual property") is not. Intellectual property is the equivalent of saying not property.

 

So if I have a way to copy a chair to the cubic millimeter, I've committed fraud against the carpenter who built the original?

 

I'm not arguing for pretending i'm you and uploading your music to websites to collect fees. that's fraud. We don't need something called "intellectual property" to deal with that. That's not the part of your argument that I disagree with, and I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that.

 

I would say that if I say i'm me, and I'm selling your music, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

FYI I'm a musician too.

 

"how they gonna //

claim or maintain that you gotta give em funds

for arranging ohs and ones?"

 

how do you claim that? If all a download is is re-arranging your hard drive to resemble someone else's, where is the theft?

[LifeIsBrief]

You seem to be making a strange distinction here, that I simply don't understand.  "I'm not arguing for pretending I'm you and uploading your music to a website to collect fees".  Okay... but here's the thing, as a musician, you are a small businessman selling your music.  So, as a businessman, why does it matter if the person who takes your entire business, and gives it away to everyone for free on the internet admits they didn't write it?  All the potential value you could gain from selling that music, is now gone.   If they sell it it's both fraud and theft.  If they give it away, it's fraud and destruction of property, even if they admit it's yours.  They don't own your business, and have no right to give away something you're selling for free.  I'm not Louis CK, so if I start giving away his albums for free, that's fraud.  I have no right to decide what to do with his works of art.

 

You seem to be suggesting, "Well, he'll still have a copy though, so it's not theft".  He didn't spend decades honing his craft, so that he could have a copy of his voice on cd.  He did it to make a living.  If there are no intellectual property rules, or enforcement it becomes incredibly difficult for him to make that living.  To destroy intellectual property rules, would do to art, what communism does to labor.  It will make people give up.  If you can copy and print custom chairs, on your 3 d printer, people will stop designing chairs for a living, because there will be no living to be had.  I want people who have great ideas to become wealthy, that's a fundament of capitalism.  The guy who comes up with a cure for cancer, shouldn't have to beg for donations afterwards.

 

In essence what you are saying is that labor belongs to the individual, ideas and concepts belong to the collective.  I could not disagree more.  Why pay people for arranging ohs and ones?  Because, it's boring, thankless work, that most people don't want to do.  The people who design an app that lets your phone screen for cancer, will waste years staring at a computer screen arranging ohs and ones... Pay them!  Trade value for value.  I'm actually really shocked that Stef, and many anarcho capitalists disagree with this sentiment.  It seems completely contrary to the basic fundament of capitalism, that great works are rare, and they should be rewarded.  Of course, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong.

[TheRobin]

you might want to check the debate Stef had with Stepahn Kinsella on that matter. As Stef too started out accepting IP as valid iirc. (I think that's the one I mean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3AuTrCq5ws) (start around 5 minutes, where Stef uses the exact same arguements you do)(also the short case against IP http://mises.org/daily/3682 in case you haven't read that one)

 

also on the empirical side http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoSWC_6mDCk (at least from that research that's presented there your argument that IP leads to more innovation and profit seems not true)

[LifeIsBrief]

These were all interesting arguments... however, the root problem here seems to be "Well, how do libertarians deal with intellectual property if you're opposed to abuse x, y, and z?", and "Whenever I ask those questions people just say they don't know".

 

So... Quickly and without much rigor, I'll propose two free state solutions to this problem, one in which I maintain what I actually believe, that intellectual property is a perfectly valid property right which should be enforced, the second imagining that I accept these arguments that it is only an aesthetically negative action.  Keep in mind, I'm still very new to the insurance company DRO model of interaction, so I'm certain I will make some errors.

 

1.  Someone who invents, designs, writes, or composes a new piece of intellectual property, buys insurance for that property.  When someone violates that persons copyright, the insurance company tracks down the violator, and demands restitution.  The violators insurance company then encourages them to pay, if the client refuses, they must defend them to a DRO.  If defending the violator is too expensive, or they lose, the defending insurance company pays the fee, and then jack up their clients insurance costs, or drops them as a client, while at the same time recording a permanent record of their infraction diminishing their reputation.  This reputation, may then cause the violator social consequences, like losing their job.

 

2.  Someone who invents, designs, writes, or composes a new piece of intellectual property buys insurance to protect their reputation as a creator.  When someone steals the property, that insurance company goes to their employer, and says "Your employee copied work, without permission, and their reputation is being called into question... We just thought we'd let you know.  If the employee does not pay for the work he copied, we will advertise this infraction against their reputation, and through that, the reputation of this company.  The more employees violate these standard codes of conduct, the poorer you will look as an organization".

 

Despite believing that the theft of intellectual property is an immoral crime, I think the second situation would work out better in a free state.  Some companies, especially start ups, would "go rogue", and hire people with terrible reputations, reverse engineer products and steal ideas, but they would never become "respectable businesses" in the mind of consumers.  People would know that many of their products are cheap knockoffs created by employees with questionable ethical codes of behavior.  Some consumers would choose the cheap product from the sketchy company, but more would choose to buy the product from a company that actually innovated.