Is this something that libertarians support?

[Natural Citizen]

Last year the MPAA and RIAA teamed up with five major Internet providers (https://torrentfreak.com/isp-six-strikes-anti-piracy-scheme-120803/) in the United States to launch the Center for Copyright Information (CCI). The parties agreed on a system through which subscribers are warned that their copyright infringements are unacceptable. After several warnings ISPs may then take a variety of repressive measures to punish the alleged infringers.

Thus far the participating Internet providers have refused to comment to the press on any of the details including the launch date. But, leaked internal AT&T training documents obtained by TorrentFreak provide a unique insight into the controversial plan.
The documents inform AT&T staff about the upcoming changes, beginning with the following overview.

“In an effort to assist content owners with combating on-line piracy, AT&T will be sending alert e-mails to customers who are identified as having been downloading copyrighted content without authorization from the copyright owner.”

“The reports are made by the content owners and are of IP-addresses that are associated with copyright infringing activities. AT&T will not share any personally identifiable information about its customers with content owners until authorized by the customer or required to do so by law.”

The papers further reveal the launch date of the copyright alerts system as November 28. A source connected to the CCI previously confirmed to TorrentFreak that all providers were planning to start on the same date (http://torrentfreak.com/isps-and-tracking-company-ready-to-start-six-strikes-anti-piracy-scheme-120928/), which means that Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon are expected to have a simultaneous launch.

The training documents also give insight into the measures AT&T will take to punish those who receive a 5th and 6th alert.
When repeated infringers try to access certain websites they will be redirected to an educational page. To lift the blockade, AT&T will require these customers to complete an “online education tutorial on copyright”.

The training does not give any information on what sites will be blocked temporarily, but it’s mentioned that “access to many of the most frequently visited websites is restricted”. What the copyright education tutorial entails remains a mystery.


http://i0.wp.com/torrentfreak.com/images/att-alert.jpg?resize=550%2C387


Under the agreement Internet providers were free to choose how to punish repeated infringers. The above confirms that AT&T decided to implement a targeted website blockade combined with a copyright course, as opposed to other repressive measures such as throttling the connection speeds of subscribers.

While there are worse punishments one can think of, AT&T worryingly notes that the alerts may eventually result in a lawsuit.
“After the fifth alert, the content owner may pursue legal action against the customer, and may seek a court order requiring AT&T to turn over personal information to assist the litigation,” AT&T explains.

As we reported previously (https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-riaa-ponder-suing-persistent-bittorrent-pirates-120618/), under the copyright alert system Internet providers have to inform copyright holders about which IP-addresses are repeatedly flagged. The MPAA and RIAA can then use this information to ask the court for a subpoena, so they can obtain the personal details of the account holder.

While there’s no concrete indication that repeated infringers will be taken to court, the clause would not have been included in the agreement if the copyright holders aren’t considering it.

Meanwhile, TorrentFreak is getting reports from VPN and proxy providers (http://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-providers-really-take-anonymity-seriously-111007/) who have seen a significant uptick in new subscribers from the US. Presumably, a large percentage of these new subscribers are signing in anticipation of the “six strikes” scheme.
Source: AT&T Starts Six-Strikes Anti-Piracy Plan Next Month, Will Block Websites (http://torrentfreak.com/att-starts-six-strikes-anti-piracy-plan-next-month-will-block-websites-121012/)

[Feeding the Abscess]

No, because copyright is a government construct. If there were no government copyright construct, the ISPs would be free to do this, and absolutely nobody would care - because whichever one decided not to do it would make billions from new customers.

[Tpoints]

No, because copyright is a government construct. If there were no government copyright construct, the ISPs would be free to do this, and absolutely nobody would care - because whichever one decided not to do it would make billions from new customers.

but you are assuming they would not make more by teaming up with copyright holders.

Where do people get this idea that copyright is a government construct any more than property is (or for the matter, right to sue)?

[jj-]

Llibertarians believe in the protection of life, private property, and enforcement of contracts. Copyright is none of this.

[thoughtomator]

but you are assuming they would not make more by teaming up with copyright holders.

Where do people get this idea that copyright is a government construct any more than property is (or for the matter, right to sue)?

Copyright is a legal concept instantiated in law and having no existence outside of law. In the natural state of affairs nothing of the sort exists.

[Natural Citizen]

I was more so wondering about the idea of placing the infrastruture itself into place. I understand the need or want to protect one's own property but don't quite think that's what this is about in scope. Perhaps an easy in as far as putting it into place and having folks warmed up to the idea of corporate policing of other areas of free speech where these little things like intellectual property are removed from the heart of the matter. As we all are aware "security" business is boomin. I mean, you take the guy who was in business with the naked body scanners for instance. He made a fortune on the old it's fer yer safety gag and even wrote the rule that said you had to comply and conforming to his business model to boot. Kind of a problem, reaction, solution gimmick. Created his own supply and demand, he did. A big issue that I have with this is that the folks lobbying for the music industry are scribbling the rules but don't quite see that the majority comprehend the scope of it all. They seem to want to often refer to the notion in a manner that sells it like they are protecting the consumer and we all know what happens when one gives up liberty for security....in scope...beyond a bootleg cd or whatever.

[thoughtomator]

It's better than the existing regime (mass John Doe lawsuits), but the real problem in copyright today is the eradication of the public domain.

[Cabal]

The concept of copyright is derived from the concept of intellectual property, a concept that is traditionally at odds with libertarian ideology.

[Natural Citizen]

The concept of copyright is derived from the concept of intellectual property, a concept that is traditionally at odds with libertarian ideology.

Yeah, I don't care for that language. "Intellectual Property", that is.

[Tpoints]

Copyright is a legal concept instantiated in law and having no existence outside of law. In the natural state of affairs nothing of the sort exists.

any more than any other forms of property or legal rights privileges?

[Tpoints]

It's better than the existing regime (mass John Doe lawsuits), but the real problem in copyright today is the eradication of the public domain.

what eradication of public domain? What has become public domain or due to, and was stopped due to copyright abuse?

[Tpoints]

The concept of copyright is derived from the concept of intellectual property, a concept that is traditionally at odds with libertarian ideology.

what is your basis for this claim? Is it because you derive libertarian ideology authority from Mises.org?

[mad cow]

Like Ron Paul,I am a Constitutionalist.

Article one,Section eight:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Get an amendment ratified or conduct a successful revolution if you want to change this.

[The Free Hornet]

any more than any other forms of property or legal rights privileges?

There is a distinction between you holding a bushel of corn and the idea of you holding a bushel of corn.

The entrepreneur sees you and thinks, "I could make some corn like that too and be very successful!".

The thief sees you and thinks, "I'm gonna jack that corn!".

The IP troll sees you and thinks, "people should pay me a fee/tax for every bushel of corn...".

[muzzled dogg]

founders were wrong about IP law

[Tpoints]

There is a distinction between you holding a bushel of corn and the idea of you holding a bushel of corn.

The entrepreneur sees you and thinks, "I could make some corn like that too and be very successful!".

The thief sees you and thinks, "I'm gonna jack that corn!".

The IP troll sees you and thinks, "people should pay me a fee/tax for every bushel of corn...".

There is a difference between holding a cold and the idea of it. But they are enforced the same way, if you infringe, somebody will come after you, whether the owner or his hired gun. The thief is only a criminal when there is a state because property either didn't exist or wasn't enforced without a state, any speculation you give me of property being enforced, can just as well be used to enforce "intellectual property".

[The Free Hornet]

Like Ron Paul,I am a Constitutionalist.

Article one,Section eight:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Get an amendment ratified or conduct a successful revolution if you want to change this.

The Constitution is not a premise for political philosophy discourse. Why let it be a mental roadblock? Ron Paul doesn't think everything constitutional is a good idea - quite the oppose. Unlike you, Ron Paul is a libertarian and a Constitutionalist.

Constitutionality is a necessary but not sufficient condition for legislative action.

[Victor Grey]

It's better than the existing regime (mass John Doe lawsuits), but the real problem in copyright today is the eradication of the public domain.

This. Things should go public domain much faster than currently.

That and whole vague realms of an idea, or process, shouldn't be able to be patented.

The whole point, of IP laws was to give people a greater incentive to invent, innovate and conceptualize. That in turn benefiting society. In many examples of it's use, it does the exact opposite.

The first guy to discover animation shouldn't get a cut from Mickey Mouse.
Mickey Mouse shouldn't get a cut from Speedy Gonzales.

And Monsanto shouldn't have a patent on corn genes. Especially, not for long.

[alucard13mmfmj]

I find intellectual property quite counter productive. If company A made something that no one else knows how, then that company A may or may not improve the product further or make more innovations. But if company B knows how to make that something (legally), then it forces company A to further innovate and improve or decrease prices.

[dillo]

Are libertarians in favor of Massive corporations colluding to infringe on peoples privacy? No

[mad cow]

The Constitution is not a premise for political philosophy discourse. Why let it be a mental roadblock? Ron Paul doesn't think everything constitutional is a good idea - quite the oppose. Unlike you, Ron Paul is a libertarian and a Constitutionalist.

Constitutionality is a necessary but not sufficient condition for legislative action.

Do you subscribe to a living,breathing,Constitution,where you can ignore the parts of it you disagree with?
It is a popular position these days.

[Tpoints]

Do you subscribe to a living,breathing,Constitution,where you can ignore the parts of it you disagree with?
It is a popular position these days.

Cherry picking is what makes the Apple Pie so American.

[Tpoints]

Are libertarians in favor of Massive corporations colluding to infringe on peoples privacy? No

Wait, what?

What are "massive corporations"? Some monster you pulled out of a hat? Some government agency? No, they're people, groups people, free people, just like you.

"Privacy"? What privacy do you have and was infringed?

[Cabal]

what is your basis for this claim? Is it because you derive libertarian ideology authority from Mises.org?

No. But, I would say that disregarding one of the most influential and widely-known libertarian organizations of modern times, whose scholars and authors have complied a veritable library of libertarian literature on a wide range of topics, is a mistake.

You can just examine tenets of libertarian philosophy and follow them through to their logically consistent end.

IP law essentially restricts what one can do with rightfully acquired property, and thus the concept itself is necessarily at odds with a property rights--a fundamental component of libertarian ideology. Then, of course, there's the whole issue of market intervention, coercive monopolization, and so on. So yeah, not really compatible with traditional libertarian ideology even in theory.

Though, I must say I am impressed by your ability to create a straw man out of an appeal to authority. I mean, that's just a whole new level of fallacy right there, so congratulations on that accomplishment.

[Tpoints]

IP law essentially restricts what one can do with rightfully acquired property

Every law restricts what a person can do with his otherwise rightful property, time, body, resources and energy. Rightfully acquired is almost irrelevant, because the fact you own a weapon or vehicle never has, and never does, mean you are completely free of restrictions on how to use it.

[Acala]

Property rights in real property are every bit as abstract as intellectual property. If you hold otherwise, I invite you to come to my house and show me the property line. It has no corporeal existence. It is a legal concept only. It exists only in symbols. How about an easement? Show me the corporeal existence of an easement. Hold it in your hand and show me. You can't.

[Tpoints]

Property rights in real property are every bit as abstract as intellectual property. If you hold otherwise, I invite you to come to my house and show me the property line. It has no corporeal existence. It is a legal concept only. It exists only in symbols. How about an easement? Show me the corporeal existence of an easement. Hold it in your hand and show me. You can't.

exactly! it's entirely hypocritical for people to acknowledge property but deny intellectual property. The only difference is how easy to is to infringe, protect, enforce, and perhaps, how many people agree it should be enforced (most likely based on their personal benefits). It is otherwise just as artificial, just as government enforced.

[Natural Citizen]

No. But, I would say that disregarding one of the most influential and widely-known libertarian organizations of modern times, whose scholars and authors have complied a veritable library of libertarian literature on a wide range of topics, is a mistake.

You can just examine tenets of libertarian philosophy and follow them through to their logically consistent end.

IP law essentially restricts what one can do with rightfully acquired property, and thus the concept itself is necessarily at odds with a property rights--a fundamental component of libertarian ideology. Then, of course, there's the whole issue of market intervention, coercive monopolization, and so on. So yeah, not really compatible with traditional libertarian ideology even in theory.

Though, I must say I am impressed by your ability to create a straw man out of an appeal to authority. I mean, that's just a whole new level of fallacy right there, so congratulations on that accomplishment.

But there is a different concept of sorts relevant that nobody ever considers in political environments. Meaning the science of the matter. May find that opposition will be more prominent from that community. Perhaps even success. Science of the matter is a natural phenomenon. A way of thinking, so to speak. Those laws trump man made ones by default. Getting back to Intellectual property.

I don't Know. Was just wondering what kind of responses would be had from a purely political perspective. Political science isn't the real stuff. When these corporations (in this instance meaning the third party hired to police speech on the web) begin to give themselves the gift of personhood then obviously "ideas" are discussed under different circumstances. Circumstances they themselves want to scribble up. They don't eat, drink, walk or talk or any of that stuff.

Technically one could fix the problems with the 14th amendment with this shortcoming on their part. But not from the political field, I don't think. Would need to become a project for the genuine science community. Of course, perhaps it has already.

[Aldanga]

exactly! it's entirely hypocritical for people to acknowledge property but deny intellectual property. The only difference is how easy to is to infringe, protect, enforce, and perhaps, how many people agree it should be enforced (most likely based on their personal benefits). It is otherwise just as artificial, just as government enforced.
The difference is the fact that so-called intellectual property infringes upon the property rights of another. I cannot arrange letters in a particular order because of someone else's supposedly legitimized claim on what is an idea. That makes intellectual property and tangible property eternally at odds.

[erowe1]

I didn't see anything non-libertarian in the OP.

State protection of intellectual property would not be purely libertarian. But private means of protecting it via contracts is something libertarians would say people should be free to do.

[erowe1]

Every law restricts what a person can do with his otherwise rightful property, time, body, resources and energy. Rightfully acquired is almost irrelevant, because the fact you own a weapon or vehicle never has, and never does, mean you are completely free of restrictions on how to use it.

Did you miss the part in the question about libertarians?

[cubical]

I would say intellectual property is one of the more dividing topics among libertarians. I can see both sides.

[Tpoints]

The difference is the fact that so-called intellectual property infringes upon the property rights of another. I cannot arrange letters in a particular order because of someone else's supposedly legitimized claim on what is an idea. That makes intellectual property and tangible property eternally at odds.

No, it doesn't. No more than laws against murder infringes on the rights of a knife owner. You cannot use a knife in way which infringes on a person's claimed/alleged/legitimized right to live or freedom from bodily harm. The only difference is, YOU CONCEDED and don't contest he has such a right. Property rights have always been at odds with certain rights. Property lines restrict where you can walk, right to life restricts your use of weapons, fraud prevention laws restrict how a person can "arrange letters" or "speak freely".

[Tpoints]

I would say intellectual property is one of the more dividing topics among libertarians. I can see both sides.

Yeah, unlike abortion, borders, immigration, and war. Those things we're totally united on.

One pattern I seem to notice when arguing with anti-intellectual property people, is that, like anti-property communists, they're typically utilitarian and have no IP of their own. Obviously a person who benefits from lack of an enforcement or has no benefit from having a law enforced, would seek to abolish it. If less people owned houses, I bet you more people would support anti-house ownership arguments.

[Tpoints]

I didn't see anything non-libertarian in the OP.

State protection of intellectual property would not be purely libertarian. But private means of protecting it via contracts is something libertarians would say people should be free to do.

Yeah, sounds like you can say that about ANY LAW.

[erowe1]

Yeah, sounds like you can say that about ANY LAW.

You probably can.

[Cabal]

Property rights in real property are every bit as abstract as intellectual property.

What difference does abstraction make, exactly? Mathematics is abstract, so what? It's also objective.

[itshappening]

Once again the market has stepped in. VPN/PROXY from overseas can cost $5-10/month.

I suspect most of the heavy torrent users will have vpn/proxy subscriptions.

[erowe1]

Like Ron Paul,I am a Constitutionalist.

Article one,Section eight:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Get an amendment ratified or conduct a successful revolution if you want to change this.

The question was about what libertarians support. Not everything in the Constitution is libertarian.

[Tpoints]

What difference does abstraction make, exactly? Mathematics is abstract, so what? It's also objective.

The argument was that, intellectual property is somehow too artificial, too subjective, or can't exist without government. All of these are either false, or no different when it comes to physical private property. So that was the difference it makes.

But no, mathematics is not objective (especially when it's abstract). Mathematics is only objective to the extent of which people agree on the language and symbols .

[Tpoints]

The question was about what libertarians support. Not everything in the Constitution is libertarian.

and that was his probably answer, he's a Constitutionalist before he is a libertarian. And he never claimed to speak for any libertarians.

[mad cow]

The question was about what libertarians support. Not everything in the Constitution is libertarian.

If you judge by the number of authors at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute who have renewed copyrights,not just copyrighted their work for the first time because they had to,I would say a lot of libertarians support copyright laws.

[erowe1]

If you judge by the number of authors at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute who have renewed copyrights,not just copyrighted their work for the first time because they had to,I would say a lot of libertarians support copyright laws.

If they do support copyright laws, presumably they have better reasons than simply that they're constitutional.

[Tpoints]

If you judge by the number of authors at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute who have renewed copyrights,not just copyrighted their work for the first time because they had to,I would say a lot of libertarians support copyright laws.

WTF? who are they? Why would they do such a thing?! Is it because those are works which are not available for free download? Otherwise what would be the point?

I know people can profit without copyright, but I don't think I've heard of people who use copyright but don't seek to profit or control.

[mad cow]

Well Murray N. Rothbard would be one, there are many,many,MANY others.
Man,Economy and State,for instance,was copyrighted by Rothbard in 1970,then renewed by him in 1993 and then renewed by the Ludwig Von Mises Institute in 2004,2007 and 2009.

I was informed in a previous thread here that by not copyrighting a work,someone else could then copy it word for word,copyright it and then sue the original author for copyright infringement.
That does not explain renewing a copyright though,unless you agree with the process.

[Tpoints]

I was informed in a previous thread here that by not copyrighting a work,someone else could then copy it word for word,copyright it and then sue the original author for copyright infringement.
That does not explain renewing a copyright though,unless you agree with the process.

That is incorrect as far as I know. But if true, would be great ammo for people who perpetuate the idea that "copyright is only enforced and can only be enforced when registered with US Copyright office". US system is not "first to file", or else, there would not be the old myth of "mail it to yourself" (it's a myth because it's ineffective, but it is accurate in that it does not depend on "first to register".)

Even Stephan Kinsella, the most cited authority for anti-copyright and anti-IP arguments can tell you, copyright is not a verb. A person needs not register or colloquially "copyright" his own work. His copyright is his the minute he writes it (best to make it known ASAP to prove it).
http://archive.mises.org/9240/copyright-is-very-sticky/

I’ve pointed out to such people innumerable times, to little avail, that copyright is a noun, not a verb–that you don’t “copyright” something–you have a copyright in your original works of authorship as soon as you write them, automatically, courtesy of federal law. No copyright notice is required. No copyright registration is required. You have the right, whether you like it or not.

Well, then, why don’t you just “make it public domain,” some then, a bit unreflectively, retort. The problem is, there is no clear and good way to do this.If you use a Creative Commons license, you are actually employing the copyright the state grants you–you are putting conditions or limitations on what others may do with your works. Even if you use the least restrictive type, “Attribution,” you are requiring others to do something to avoid being liable for copyright infringement.

[erowe1]

I was informed in a previous thread here that by not copyrighting a work,someone else could then copy it word for word,copyright it and then sue the original author for copyright infringement.
That does not explain renewing a copyright though,unless you agree with the process.

That seems like a good explanation. How does it not explain renewing a copyright?

[mad cow]

I can see copyrighting a work if you don't believe in IP if the alternative is getting sued,however why renew it?
Just put it out there in the public domain with all the other books whose copyrights have expired.

[truelies]

No, because copyright is a government construct. ......................

Nope intellectual property represents Property every bit as real as virgin forrest cleared and tended to make a fertile farm.

[mad cow]

Stephan Kinsella has two books for sale at Amazon where he is the sole author.They are both copyrighted by Stephan Kinsella.
Neither book is old enough yet for the original copyright to expire.I don't know copyright law,but why else would someone who is anti-IP copyright a book?

[truelies]

............................ In the natural state of affairs nothing of the sort exists.

Yeah and cannabalism does, soooooo whats yer point?

[truelies]

.................
IP law essentially restricts what one can do with rightfully acquired property, ..........................

Nope because anyone with half a brain understands that when you purchase say a book- you have purchased THAT book, NOT an unlimited right to produce knock-offs.

This is not terribly different from renting a plot of farmland for use in 2012 and expecting to show up in 2013 & plant again without paying another rent.

[truelies]

BTW do any of you have even a clue as to how large a portion of the price of a complex manufacture product such as an automobile is tied up in intellectual property?

R&D/Component design/tooling/styling/marketing strategy

[Victor Grey]

Yeah and cannabalism does, soooooo whats yer point?

Statistical outliers prove little. Just saying.

[Cabal]

Nope because anyone with half a brain understands that when you purchase say a book- you have purchased THAT book, NOT an unlimited right to produce knock-offs.

You just reiterated the point.

You try to confuse my ownership of the book with renting of property, but it's not at all the same. When I purchase the book, I am not checking it out from the public library, I am purchasing that book to own--all of its materials and contents are effectively mine to do with as I please.

I can read that book, thereby digesting its contents, and owning those ideas in my mind. I can lend that book to a friend, letting them do the same. I can tear out the pages of that book, or burn it, or wipe my ass with those pages. I can use that book to prop up an uneven table or chair, or I can place it on or within any of my other property.

Thus, I own the paper of the book, I own the ink printed on that paper, I own the binding and covering of that paper. If this is all true, and for all intents and purposes it is, then how is it I do not also own the collection of content printed in that ink on those pages?

Intellectual property is the idea that someone may have a property right in an idea, but this is only true so long as that idea remains contained within that person's property--such as their brain, or in other tangible goods owned by them. Once that idea is shared with others, it becomes a shared idea that is contained within the brains of those others it is shared with. If you write some words on a page, sell me that page, and I read that page--those ideas are now in my brain, you have no ownership of my brain, and therefore no ownership over the ideas contained therein. Granted, I cannot truthfully say I thought of this exact idea that you have shared with me before you did, as you can present evidence of how you've reproduced it in tangible reality first, but that does not mean I can not reproduce it just as you did. I have not taken your idea from you, you still have your idea--nothing has been stolen. The ideas existing in my mind, even if identical to yours, do not rob you of those ideas existing in your mind, nor do they rob you of being able to transfer those ideas into tangible reality.

[erowe1]

BTW do any of you have even a clue as to how large a portion of the price of a complex manufacture product such as an automobile is tied up in intellectual property?

R&D/Component design/tooling/styling/marketing strategy

What are you getting at here? Does this mean that IP is a good or bad thing or what?

[The Free Hornet]

Do you subscribe to a living,breathing,Constitution,where you can ignore the parts of it you disagree with?
It is a popular position these days.

That is a stupid question. I promoted liberatarianism in that post and generally promote that and the freedom philosophy (by whatever label).

First, the "living,breathing" notion is not about ignoring portions but changing them without limit and, generally, contrary to the limited notions of government.

Second, as we are engaged in political discourse and not Supreme Court fellatio, there is no motivation for anybody here to support or promote aspects of the Constitution they disagree with. It is my duty to change the Constitution to my liking, not to support it like a mindless Judge Roberts. I have sworn no oath to uphold the Constitution nor am I paid to uphold it. So why would I give a fuck in this context? The IP clause has zero bearing on the worth of IP law. Besides, per SC rulings "limited" can mean whatever Congress wants. 'infinity minus a day' or as little as two seconds, i.e., Congress can eliminate it or extend it indefinitely and a "Constitutionalists" has no input. Literal and 100% legal interpretations can be at odds with intent. More so, intent itself can be at odds with freedom.

Third, BS on "It is a popular position these days" unless you mean 200+ years.

If you are supporting whatever has been deemed Constitutional over the years, you are not advocating a freedom philosophy and just trolling here. The only Constitutionalists worth a damn are those who support it because of and to the extent of its support for liberty.

[mad cow]

" The only Constitutionalists worth a damn are those who support it because of and to the extent of its support for liberty."

Yep,that would be me.
Some think that we would have more liberty under anarchy,I disagree,I think that anarchy involving more than a very few people has a half-life that can be measured in days before it devolves into something much worse.

I believe that Governments are instituted among men to secure their unalienable rights to Life,Liberty and property.

I also believe,as did the Founders, that intellectual Property is Property.

[Natural Citizen]

" The only Constitutionalists worth a damn are those who support it because of and to the extent of its support for liberty."

Yep,that would be me.
Some think that we would have more liberty under anarchy,I disagree,I think that anarchy involving more than a very few people has a half-life that can be measured in days before it devolves into something much worse.

I believe that Governments are instituted among men to secure their unalienable rights to Life,Liberty and property.

I also believe,as did the Founders, that intellectual Property is Property.

So, you think Einstein could have patented E=mc2 and Newton the Laws of Gravity? What about if a biotech company has a patent on products ingested by humans that they don't have to tell them about that change their dna from a natural state? Does the human then become the property of the corporation (who really isn't a person per se but just on paper)? This is something that would be worthy of support?

Also, would you consider the U.S. a developing country at this point? I would.

[Cabal]

" The only Constitutionalists worth a damn are those who support it because of and to the extent of its support for liberty."

Yep,that would be me.
Some think that we would have more liberty under anarchy,I disagree,I think that anarchy involving more than a very few people has a half-life that can be measured in days before it devolves into something much worse.

I believe that Governments are instituted among men to secure their unalienable rights to Life,Liberty and property.

I also believe,as did the Founders, that intellectual Property is Property.

How many constitute a very few people?

How many days?

Define much worse.

That's quite a lot of vague assertion to draw a conclusion from.

Moreover, your conclusions about anarchy seem to be refuted by the perseverance of humankind, unless you're suggesting that a State has always existed in every human community since the dawn of mankind.

Why do you refer to the founders as if they share some collective consciousness? You do realize they were all individuals who often disagreed with one another about many things, yes?

Why does what 'the founders' supposedly believed have any bearing on what is right or true? But if their thoughts on the subject are that important to you, here's one of the more iconic founders...


If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

That's Jefferson, btw. And this directly relates to your last bit. Jefferson, to name one such founder, never conceded that IP was property as it relates to natural law and property rights. He made a clear distinction that if IP exists at all in any nation, it exists as a social law only--not to be confused with the idea of inalienable property rights.

[The Free Hornet]

I also believe,as did the Founders, that intellectual Property is Property.

There is no fucking way the founders believed this... they were mostly dead:


Modern usage of the term intellectual property goes back at least as far as 1867 with the founding of the North German Confederation whose constitution granted legislative power over the protection of intellectual property (Schutz des geistigen Eigentums) to the confederation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

As the founders spoke English and we speak English too, perhaps you can source what they say rather than making stuff up. Also, you know how embarrassingly ridiculous the current IP regime is? The abuses are legendary on the internet. Why hang a hat here? You are tossed in with Disney, Monsanto, big pharma, the RIAA... why???

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Just weighing in here...have a look at my avatar.

Copyright law, in its current form, is bullshit - as is the flawed business model governing so-called "Intellectual Property."

I have nothing else to say.

[mad cow]

Also from Jefferson but later than your quote.

But by 1789, Jefferson's firm opposition had weakened. Writing to James Madison, Jefferson said he approved the Bill of Rights as far as it went, but would like to see the addition of an article specifying that "Monopolies may be allowed to person for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding --- years, but for no longer term and for no other

Monopolies may be allowed to person for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts=IP.
He wanted to put it in the Bill of Rights,he favored 14 years which sounds good to me.
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/patents




There is plenty in the Constitution I would like to change,the 17th amendment for instance.How this is done is by getting an amendment ratified or by a successful revolution as I already stated,or by????

The Founders disagreed on many things,what they came up with and ratified was the Constitution.

Do you know of any successful Anarchist societies in recorded history of greater than 5000 people,say,to pick a number?No Chief,no ruling council,no priests carving out living hearts with obsidian knives?

My only purpose here for the last 5 years was to help get Ron Paul elected President of the United States and now to get Liberty minded politicians elected to office where they can swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and/or their States Constitutions.I assumed that this was the purpose of this site.
If I/we fail at that then I will cross that bridge whenI get to it.

[Tpoints]

I can see copyrighting a work if you don't believe in IP if the alternative is getting sued,however why renew it?
Just put it out there in the public domain with all the other books whose copyrights have expired.

That's a good point, first of all, I don't buy the premise that copyright registration is to protect yourself from the reverse abuse (or that it's necessary to prevent it), but even if so, exactly, if your intention isn't to profit, why not release it to the public domain, effectively making it impossible or invalid for somebody to claim copyright over it (and especially against you).

[Tpoints]

Stephan Kinsella has two books for sale at Amazon where he is the sole author.They are both copyrighted by Stephan Kinsella.
Neither book is old enough yet for the original copyright to expire.I don't know copyright law,but why else would someone who is anti-IP copyright a book?

They don't need to expire if the author releases it, or at the very least, give out for free.

How nicely would he take it if somebody claimed authorship, didn't sue him ,but either undermined his profits or sold it at greater profits?

One possible answer is : his propaganda is on par with most of Mises stuff, nobody wants to read it except the cultists, so he may benefit more from people reading it for free than if they paid to read it.

[Tpoints]

Nope because anyone with half a brain understands that when you purchase say a book- you have purchased THAT book, NOT an unlimited right to produce knock-offs.

This is not terribly different from renting a plot of farmland for use in 2012 and expecting to show up in 2013 & plant again without paying another rent.

It actually takes a little more than half a brain, you might have to live in a society that makes the enforcement of those laws the norm.

[Tpoints]

You just reiterated the point.

You try to confuse my ownership of the book with renting of property, but it's not at all the same. When I purchase the book, I am not checking it out from the public library, I am purchasing that book to own--all of its materials and contents are effectively mine to do with as I please.


No, you are not. While buying a book is not the same as renting a book, it's also not the same as being able and allowed to use it as you please. Whether you buy or rent a gun does not change whether you are allowed to shoot an innocent person with it.

[Tpoints]

Thus, I own the paper of the book, I own the ink printed on that paper, I own the binding and covering of that paper. If this is all true, and for all intents and purposes it is, then how is it I do not also own the collection of content printed in that ink on those pages?


Again, I can ask you. Why is the fact you own a gun, all parts of it, and the ammo, not sufficient to establish that you can shoot anybody, anytime, using your property? Don't you own it? Or why is the fact you own your car, all parts of it, not sufficient to establish you can move it anywhere, anytime, in any form, at any speed as you please?

The laws restricting how you can use a gun, a book, or a vehicle are in effect, restrictions on use of your property, but that does not mean it's an infringement on your ownership or right to use (or if it is, it's because another's rights are in conflict, and one takes priority).

[Tpoints]

So, you think Einstein could have patented E=mc2 and Newton the Laws of Gravity?

Two things wrong with this argument. But it's ok, it's common.

1. Discovery of scientific knowledge is different from invention, scientific theorems are not patentable.

2. Even if they were, they expire. So the idea that one has to pay a royalty every time he uses a formula or rolls a wheel, has long been debunked for anybody who cares to look around him.

Patents are designed to protect inventions, usually things which cannot be protected as trade secrets and are either effective uses based on laws of physics, or what eventually will be discovered.

Creative works are protected by copyright, they are for entertain and profit. Thus, knowledge is not copyrightable. (not all information are categorized into these 2 realms)

Trademarks are intended to identify traders, the same way names are used to identify people. When people complain that it's draconian or insane to criminalize arrangement of letters, they often forget that they are happy to punish fraud, or certain forms of speech, which is precisely that.

[Natural Citizen]

Two things wrong with this argument. But it's ok, it's common.

1. Discovery of scientific knowledge is different from invention, scientific theorems are not patentable.

2. Even if they were, they expire. So the idea that one has to pay a royalty every time he uses a formula or rolls a wheel, has long been debunked for anybody who cares to look around him.



What is common is your answer. And it's unfortunate because it's the wrong one. Of course, it's the answer that is needed in order to see forward too so...very good. But that too depends on the rest of society to open up their eyes and see. I'm not attacking you. Just want to make that clear. I'm not. I'm glad you answered my question.

But I'm going to just stick with my assessment that this is an issue (the nuts and bolts of it, that is) better left for those outside of the standard paradigm of politics to tackle based upon that answer which is actually the common misconception. Consumerist speak.

But just know though that you won't be making any apple pie from scratch unless you first invent the Universe.

[Lindsey]

Time to change carriers.

Why do these carriers think they can sell high-bandwidth Internet plans?

[PierzStyx]

Copyright is a legal concept instantiated in law and having no existence outside of law. In the natural state of affairs nothing of the sort exists.

So your assertion that a person's belief that they should be paid to have their work copied and used my multiple people is somehow a construct of government? What a stupid argument. Its an interpetation of property rights. Of all arguments against copyright laws yours is the weakest.

[angelatc]

The argument was that, intellectual property is somehow too artificial, too subjective, or can't exist without government. All of these are either false, or no different when it comes to physical private property. So that was the difference it makes.

But no, mathematics is not objective (especially when it's abstract). Mathematics is only objective to the extent of which people agree on the language and symbols .

But that's like saying that property rights are only objective to the extent of which people agree on the definition of property rights.

[angelatc]

Two things wrong with this argument. But it's ok, it's common.

1. Discovery of scientific knowledge is different from invention, scientific theorems are not patentable.


Amazon One-Click. Amazon is the only website that allows you to check out with a mere single click of a button, because they own the right to that idea. I have no beef with artists who want to get compensated when their song gets used in a commercial application, but come on...it's a beast that has grown out of control.

[truelies]

You just reiterated the point.

You try to confuse my ownership of the book with renting of property, but it's not at all the same. .......................

For the IP yes you are just renting. Try making copies in any form without consent of the IP owner & you are a thief.

[truelies]

There is no fucking way the founders believed this...................

Hmmm, then just why did they enshrine copyright & patent in the Constitution.

[Tpoints]

But that's like saying that property rights are only objective to the extent of which people agree on the definition of property rights.

Yes, it is like saying that. I will go one step further and say in effect, property rights don't exist unless there is either an enforcement mechanism, or convention of rules/ definitions.

[Tpoints]

Amazon One-Click. Amazon is the only website that allows you to check out with a mere single click of a button, because they own the right to that idea. I have no beef with artists who want to get compensated when their song gets used in a commercial application, but come on...it's a beast that has grown out of control.

No, they don't own the right to that idea. They own they exclusive exploitation opportunity on websites to use it until the patent expires. I may agree with you some patents and inventions are too obvious to be granted, but that has nothing to do with musicians, and doesnt mean there should be none at all.

[erowe1]

For the IP yes you are just renting. Try making copies in any form without consent of the IP owner & you are a thief.

You're a thief according to the government, but not according to any natural law.

[Acala]

You're a thief according to the government, but not according to any natural law.

Why would an intangible interest in real property be protected by "natural law" but an intangible interest in intellectual property NOT be so protected?

[erowe1]

Why would an intangible interest in real property be protected by "natural law" but an intangible interest in intellectual property NOT be so protected?

Ownership doesn't just imply an intangible interest in something. Thieves have intangible interests in the things they steal as much as the rightful owners do.

But when you own something, and a thief steals it, then you don't have it any more. Your rightful use of that thing, whatever it is, has been taken away. This can't happen with mere ideas.

At any rate, if IP is to be defended, then it should be defended on the basis of objective moral standards, not just on some law that a bunch of politicians made up.

[Tpoints]

Ownership doesn't just imply an intangible interest in something. Thieves have intangible interests in the things they steal as much as the rightful owners do.

But when you own something, and a thief steals it, then you don't have it any more. Your rightful use of that thing, whatever it is, has been taken away. This can't happen with mere ideas.

At any rate, if IP is to be defended, then it should be defended on the basis of objective moral standards, not just on some law that a bunch of politicians made up.

I agree with you that information and ideas are as easily stolen or deprived, or, it isnt when it's copied. However, theft is not the only waytoviolate property, think trespass. Must one prove monetary loss or damage to sue or recover or penalize?

[erowe1]

I agree with you that information and ideas are as easily stolen or deprived, or, it isnt when it's copied. However, theft is not the only waytoviolate property, think trespass. Must one prove monetary loss or damage to sue or recover or penalize?

I think that before you can use the analogy with trespassing, there needs to be some clarity on what trespassing is, if it's really wrong, and what makes it wrong.

Land ownership has some of the same problems as IP. The government might make some arrangement with somebody that it will recognize them as the owner of some plot of land and enforce prohibitions of others trespassing on it. But the government's saying it's so doesn't make it right.

[Tpoints]

I think that before you can use the analogy with trespassing, there needs to be some clarity on what trespassing is, if it's really wrong, and what makes it wrong.

Land ownership has some of the same problems as IP. The government might make some arrangement with somebody that it will recognize them as the owner of some plot of land and enforce prohibitions of others trespassing on it. But the government's saying it's so doesn't make it right.

If you agree land ownership is equally problematic and artificially government propped, we have nothing to fight about.

[erowe1]

If you agree land ownership is equally problematic and artificially government propped, we have nothing to fight about.

I don't know if it's equally problematic or not. I think they have similar problems, but also some differences.

I have a problem with someone being able to cordon off some plot of land they're not using just as an investment to sell to someone else later, or just for them exclusively to use for hunting, while not allowing trespassing on it, with no basis for that claim other than some piece of paper the government has. But if somebody builds a home, then they have a right to exclude others from it, which necessarily means excluding them from the land its built on.

[Acala]

It seems to me that rights in real property and rights in intellectual property are both merely conventions that are enforced by government. Neither is more "natural" than the other. Real property rights are older, but that doesn't make them better necessarily.

I would say property rights in personal property ARE natural rights in that they are recognized by essentially all animals (try taking a bone from a dog) and have probably always existed among humans.

Saying that intellectual property rights are no more "natural" than real property rights doesn't answer the question "SHOULD we recognize intellectual property?" But it seems to me that it DOES undermine the argument that intellectual property isn't property in the same sense as other forms of property that most libertarians consider to be essential.

I also think the argument that innovation is not scarce is demonstrably false.

[jtstellar]

initially i had a lot of trouble taking a side on this issue because it seemed like the ultimate gray area in libertarianism, much harder to grasp for me than is the 2nd amendment to some hardcore liberal-turn libertarians, but as i have observed economics over the years since my awakening and done a lot of market/commodity investment and was able to observe the market, people's behavior and the finances that arise from those activities, i am beginning to think that the violation of copyrights is just an economic sign that people cannot afford the original at the prices they were tagged at. given two products priced equally, if one is a counterfeit of another, there is no reason for the consumer not to purchase the original, if not simply for reasons of being cautious.

there was a business person or some sort of analyst i can't exactly recall, but he described china's counterfeiting problem best: "it's really just the fact that china is an emerging market and they cannot afford to purchase the brand name original, it's not just the problem of banning counterfeit products and everything will be solved". to me this is sort of like the european problem. the bailout and everything else is just a sympton, the issue is that under that system people have become unproductive and as people approach the poverty line and get close to starving, the problem manifests itself in terms of political problems. to blame issues solely on political dissonance is the behavior of a childish observer. i think this is the same as copyrights--don't you notice copyright claims exploding as economy tanks? it's just a sign that the company with the original products can no longer produce them at competitive prices and hence need to restructure or to go out of business. the form of this enforcement just comes in the form of consumers looking for alternatives, many times its counterfeit products, which is essentially the consumers telling the producer clearly: you are pricing your goods at too expensive of a price.

if one producer is able to violate copyrights and mimic another's original product completely, then it should come down to the next competition--who can produce it cheaper. the original producer should always have an edge because he alone should have the best understanding of his own product, and by the time his competitors are able to mirror him, he should well be on his way to the next improved version already. this is the case with my uncle's company as they produce very technical products, and they are always improving to beat out other competitors not only on effectiveness but also on prices. every few month they would have something improved and they don't even bother filing for copyrights because it is hard to know the exact content of their product and secondly, by the time people copy them, they would have improved the original already. but i have always told them to not get too deep into this because after a crash and reboot comes and us economy becomes competitive again, there will no doubt be a lot of new inventors starting their venture and it will become hard to compete, but it will have nothing to do with copyright laws.

there's no reason why it is immoral to force the original inventor to compete for assembly line methods to make products more efficiently, or simply sell his ideas entirely and stay away from the production line. i am beginning to think that copyright is just a myth.

[Tpoints]

It seems to me that rights in real property and rights in intellectual property are both merely conventions that are enforced by government. Neither is more "natural" than the other. Real property rights are older, but that doesn't make them better necessarily.


well said. Add to that : more people benefit from physical property or land ownership, so its easier for more people to recognise.

[TheGrinch]

Not this again. I remember a conversation with anarchists where they cited Rothbard as being against copyrights, when in fact he said the exact opposite.

Rothbard opposes patents, but favors copyrights for the simple reason that it's nearly impossible for 2 copyrighted works to be identical if independent from one another (unlike patents). Copyrights are exactly the same as property rights. If I make it, I decide who has permission to use it.

[Tpoints]

there's no reason why it is immoral to force the original inventor to compete for assembly line methods to make products more efficiently, or simply sell his ideas entirely and stay away from the production line. i am beginning to think that copyright is just a myth.

He can't sell the idea unless the next person can have it protected, as they do today. Either his patent/intellectual property is protected, and worth selling, or it's not protected, and he'd have no edge to sell it (as anybody can use it without reprecussions).

In today's world, it may well be true that the first person to produce has the edge (this assumes he has the resources to find the best investors and factories). However, the fact he may choose not to utilize his patent or invention does not give others the right to exploit it. This is no different than saying just because you're not using your land, does not give other people the right to use your land. The exception of this rule would be when the owner voluntarily "sleeps on his rights", meaning he does not bother enforcing it. But the moment he says he intends to enforce protection, even if he makes no monetary use of his land or ideas, means everybody is barred.

[jbauer]

initially i had a lot of trouble taking a side on this issue because it seemed like the ultimate gray area in libertarianism, much harder to grasp for me than is the 2nd amendment to some hardcore liberal-turn libertarians, but as i have observed economics over the years since my awakening and done a lot of market/commodity investment and was able to observe the market, people's behavior and the finances that arise from those activities, i am beginning to think that the violation of copyrights is just an economic sign that people cannot afford the original at the prices they were tagged at. given two products priced equally, if one is a counterfeit of another, there is no reason for the consumer not to purchase the original, if not simply for reasons of being cautious.

there was a business person or some sort of analyst i can't exactly recall, but he described china's counterfeiting problem best: "it's really just the fact that china is an emerging market and they cannot afford to purchase the brand name original, it's not just the problem of banning counterfeit products and everything will be solved". to me this is sort of like the european problem. the bailout and everything else is just a sympton, the issue is that under that system people have become unproductive and as people approach the poverty line and get close to starving, the problem manifests itself in terms of political problems. to blame issues solely on political dissonance is the behavior of a childish observer. i think this is the same as copyrights--don't you notice copyright claims exploding as economy tanks? it's just a sign that the company with the original products can no longer produce them at competitive prices and hence need to restructure or to go out of business. the form of this enforcement just comes in the form of consumers looking for alternatives, many times its counterfeit products, which is essentially the consumers telling the producer clearly: you are pricing your goods at too expensive of a price.

if one producer is able to violate copyrights and mimic another's original product completely, then it should come down to the next competition--who can produce it cheaper. the original producer should always have an edge because he alone should have the best understanding of his own product, and by the time his competitors are able to mirror him, he should well be on his way to the next improved version already. this is the case with my uncle's company as they produce very technical products, and they are always improving to beat out other competitors not only on effectiveness but also on prices. every few month they would have something improved and they don't even bother filing for copyrights because it is hard to know the exact content of their product and secondly, by the time people copy them, they would have improved the original already. but i have always told them to not get too deep into this because after a crash and reboot comes and us economy becomes competitive again, there will no doubt be a lot of new inventors starting their venture and it will become hard to compete, but it will have nothing to do with copyright laws.

there's no reason why it is immoral to force the original inventor to compete for assembly line methods to make products more efficiently, or simply sell his ideas entirely and stay away from the production line. i am beginning to think that copyright is just a myth.

From a consumer standpoint why wouldn't I buy the cheapest wigit? IP comes down to this should we allow company A to invest money into coming up with a product only to allow company B to copy company A's product without the R&D expense? If company B can do just that why would company A do anything in terms of R&D when they can vampire off of another?

[Tpoints]

Not this again. I remember a conversation with anarchists where they cited Rothbard as being against copyrights, when in fact he said the exact opposite.

Rothbard opposes patents, but favors copyrights for the simple reason that it's nearly impossible for 2 copyrighted works to be identical if independent from one another (unlike patents). Copyrights are exactly the same as property rights. If I make it, I decide who has permission to use it.

I love it when I hear people say that they can "come up with it on their own" with regards to copyrighted works. (usually it's because the conflate all ideas an information together, therefore unable to distinguish a patented invention from a trademarked name from a copyrighted work). Those who say "but it's just an arrangement of words" have to tell us why counterfeit, impersonation and fraud are not acceptable if it's mere arrangement of words. Even those who say they can "come up with it on their own" on inventions, must explain why WD 40, KFC have not been duplicated despite great financial incentives.

[Tpoints]

From a consumer standpoint why wouldn't I buy the cheapest wigit? IP comes down to this should we allow company A to invest money into coming up with a product only to allow company B to copy company A's product without the R&D expense? If company B can do just that why would company A do anything in terms of R&D when they can vampire off of another?

Wait for the punchline : oh but, don't you know all the great inventions in history were without patent protection and the great written works were without copyright protection? Don't you know there are people who do things for things other than money? (Classic communist rhetoric that demonizes profiteers and thinks everybody is like them, too good to worry about property and money when they have none).

[erowe1]

It seems to me that rights in real property and rights in intellectual property are both merely conventions that are enforced by government. Neither is more "natural" than the other. Real property rights are older, but that doesn't make them better necessarily.

I assume that by "real property" you mean all kinds of physical property, both movable and immovable. If you do, then I don't agree. It seems easy to see a natural law that the person who works to produce something has a right to what their labor produced. But this doesn't apply to the land itself. Nor does it apply to other peoples' imitations of the thing they produced.

[Natural Citizen]

How come nobody has mentioned anything relevant to the notion of letting third party corporations do the policing of the web or maybe figgerin on what comes as a result of that? Do you see what's being drawn as acceptable through simply ignoring the larger matter? It's the same way many libertarians helped the agribusiness and Big Pharma industry get by with blocking prop 37. You can't keep allowing the larger tyranny to maneuver itself into common practice by opening the front door for it to walk through. My gosh.

And there really does need to be an honest assessment of what exactly a Free Market is. We don't have on in scope. We don't. We have the remnants of one but not like it was scribbled to be.

[erowe1]

From a consumer standpoint why wouldn't I buy the cheapest wigit? IP comes down to this should we allow company A to invest money into coming up with a product only to allow company B to copy company A's product without the R&D expense? If company B can do just that why would company A do anything in terms of R&D when they can vampire off of another?

It sounds like you're saying that IP laws distort the financial incentives companies have, such that they have greater incentive to pursue R&D for things they can get protected by government IP laws than they would have without that government interference in the market.

But it's not simply obvious to me that those distortions are good things. As with all government interferences, we have to reckon with not just the seen, but also the unseen. Absent the incentive to pursue certain things in light of IP laws, what other things would all of that manpower and capital have produced instead, and in response to what other incentives and market demands? I trust the invisible hand to get it right more than I do the government.

[jbauer]

It sounds like you're saying that IP laws distort the financial incentives companies have, such that they have greater incentive to pursue R&D for things they can get protected by government IP laws than they would have without that government interference in the market.

But it's not simply obvious to me that those distortions are good things. As with all government interferences, we have to reckon with not just the seen, but also the unseen. Absent the incentive to pursue certain things in light of IP laws, what other things would all of that manpower and capital have produced instead, and in response to what other incentives and market demands. I trust the invisible hand to get it right more than I do the government.

Couldn't disagree more. I don't think government has anything to do with this at all except the enforcement of a contract made by a person purchasing work from another. Unless I'm mistaken its almost always content owners going after people rather then the government on its own deciding to take up such an effort. The unseen hand is this case would be that company A would quit trying to make better wigits and go into lobbying, financial services or the food and beverage industry.

If you want better stuff we need a way to compensate companies or people for doing it. Frankly whats the difference between a Liberitarian wanting shit done for them for free and a welfare recipient? Answer: Not a damn thing.

[erowe1]

Couldn't disagree more. I don't think government has anything to do with this at all except the enforcement of a contract made by a person purchasing work from another. Unless I'm mistaken its almost always content owners going after people rather then the government on its own deciding to take up such an effort. The unseen hand is this case would be that company A would quit trying to make better wigits and go into lobbying, financial services or the food and beverage industry.

If you want better stuff we need a way to compensate companies or people for doing it. Frankly whats the difference between a Liberitarian wanting shit done for them for free and a welfare recipient? Answer: Not a damn thing.

If it all comes down to people keeping the promises they make in contracts, then I agree with you. I have more of a problem with the idea that it's possible for someone who has not entered such a contract to be guilty of theft for copying something.

It's not about wanting something done for free. It's a given that without IP laws the products available to us as consumers would be different than those available to us with IP laws. But it isn't a given that the latter scenario is better than the former.

[Tpoints]

How come nobody has mentioned anything relevant to the notion of letting third party corporations do the policing of the web


Because the web is third party private property to begin with?

[Natural Citizen]

Because the web is third party private property to begin with?

Says Who? Last I checked, it's basically a device. Which has a specific definition being a tool, appliance, instrument and a machine, but also a technique, plan and/or a symbol.

[Tpoints]

Says Who? Last I checked, it's basically a device. Which has a specific definition being a tool, appliance, instrument and a machine, but also a technique, plan and/or a symbol.

No, it's not a device.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8XSo0etBC4

[Natural Citizen]

Y'all are nuts...

Whenever a brave young attorney does step up to the plate it's going to be sooo easy.

And you still didn't say who says. Still some citizenship to straighten out there as far as what gives them the right...besides themselves

[Acala]

I assume that by "real property" you mean all kinds of physical property, both movable and immovable. If you do, then I don't agree. It seems easy to see a natural law that the person who works to produce something has a right to what their labor produced. But this doesn't apply to the land itself. Nor does it apply to other peoples' imitations of the thing they produced.

"Real property" is the legal term for land.

[Natural Citizen]

Still working on the legal term for person, btw.

[compromise]

Libertarians tend to be split on intellectual property. I'm personally unsure.

[Tpoints]

Libertarians tend to be split on intellectual property. I'm personally unsure.

the biggest predictor of what side the person is on : which side benefits him most (this takes care of the old crock that "I'm a musician and I support sharing" because those just happen to be artists who benefit from sharing and people listening for no monetary cost).

Nobody LIKES to pay for what they don't have to. Whether it's another person's labor, gold or time. So it doesn't matter if you're the consumer or the merchant, it ultimately turns on whether you as a merchant benefits more from copyright, or lack of it (and add to thank, holders can always abandon and choose not to exercise their privileges, not vice versa)