I'd be very interested in an expansion of your thesis that "... 'intellectual property' is also a contradiction in terms." This has been a very "lively" topic elsewhere, with some prominent libertarian thinkers holding strongly differing positions. I infer that your position is that the words written and published as a book cannot be considered as property and that the author cannot seek recourse if those words are used by others either for monetary gain or merely presented as their own?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
"I infer that your position is that the words written and published as a book cannot be considered as property and that the author cannot seek recourse if those words are used by others either for monetary gain or merely presented as their own?"
You infer incorrectly.
An actual physical book is made up of scarce, rivalrous resources like paper, and is therefore property. A compact disc is made of scarce rivalrous resources like plastic, and is therefore property. A computer's hard drive is made of scarce, rivalrous resources resources like aluminum, gold, silver, copper, etc., and is therefore property.
However, the patterns imprinted on the pieces of paper within the book are not a scarce, rivalrous resource because reproduction of these patterns doesn't consume or devalue the original pattern. Patterns are therefore not property as they can not exist independent of some media. Same goes for the compact disc and the computer's hard drive. The physical medias on which patterns are imprinted are scarce, rivalrous resources; the patterns imprinted on the physical medias are characteristics of the physical media. Characteristics are not scarce, rivalrous resources. For example, if you own a blue Corvette, you own the car and you own the paint on the car (both of which are scarce and rivalrous), but you do not own "the color blue". You own the thing; not the characteristics of the thing.
When someone copies something, they are therefore changing the characteristics of scarce, rivalrous resources that they presumably already owned (like a compact disc or a hard drive). This doesn't effect the physical media on which the pattern was originally imprinted and it doesn't affect the integrity of the pattern itself. "Copying" isn't "theft". When theft occurs, the original owner no longer has the original. The same can't be said about copying. When someone copies something, the owner still has the original. There's no way to demonstrate damages when someone copies you because no one is entitled to projected future profits. To seek IP protection is therefore to seek protection from market competition. To enforce "IP laws" is to take real accumulated capital from people and redistribute it to a market loser who couldn't figure out how to benefit without the initiation of aggression and physical force. How is this behavior any different than a bank seeking a bailout?
"This has been a very "lively" topic elsewhere, with some prominent libertarian thinkers holding strongly differing positions."
I suspect that the underlying for reason this is that several prominent libertarians have a conflict of interest in that they can't image a way in which they could be compensated for their services absent monopoly protectionism. I don't see why that creates obligations on other people to not use their own property how they see fit. The original "IP" legislation was called "monopoly law" and it was designed to prevent competition in the printing industry. "IP" is literally a euphemism for "government protected monopoly on patterns of information". Given that enforcement requires the use of force against people who haven't harmed the bodies or property of anyone, "IP" is inherently anti-libertarian.
Forgive my 'density', but it seems to me that after you say that I inferred incorrectly, you proceed to agree with my inference.
As to the second pull-quote, I assure you that said libertarians would disagree that "monopoly protectionism" is their goal; rather they seek to protect the fruits of their labors from theft.
Note, please, that I do not have a dog in this fight. I'm just an interested observer.
Perhaps I thought you were asking if the book itself was "intellectual property".
Let's approach this using the Socratic method. How does the hard drive on my computer become the fruit of someone else's labor if I use it to copy information that doesn't deprive them of the physical media on which the pattern is originally stored? How does my accumulated capital become the fruit of someone else's labor? Doesn't the act of copying require one to expend accumulated capital/do work? How is a non-scarce resource the product of labor? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the fruits of their labor were whichever media they originally imprinted the pattern on? How could a pattern exist absent a physical media? How could someone own something that doesn't tangibly exist in the physical world?
Because they didn't create the physical media, they created the IP
That's irrelevant to the issue at hand. The copies are not valuable because of the medium they're in, the copies are valuable because of the original IP.
It doesn't have to.
It's called intellectual property. That's how. All ownership is an abstract construction, so your physicalist argument is irrelevant.
Well you might want to rephrase that, because it's obviously false. The patterns, aka words in this case, definitely have great monetary value, much more than the paper they are printed on. Making reproductions greatly devalues the original. If there are 1000 copies of a very popular story, those copies will be worth a ton. If there's 1000000 copies, they will be worth far less.
This is not an accurate analogy. You didn't invent the color blue. If you create a piece of writing or music, you are inventing that pattern.
Things don't "have" value. Value is an expression of subjective preference that happens on an individual by individual basis. I value happiness but happiness isn't property. I value love but love isn't property. I value warm summer days but warm summer days aren't property.
Hmmm that's a really cool perspective. In my mind, it creates an implication that - if things don't have value, but can still be valued, it means the individual is the one with value, and they choose to give it out on a case by case basis. That's pretty awesome.
It takes more than a value judgment to make property. Also, the producer of a good isn't the decider of value; the consumer is. Thing are only worth what consumers are willing to pay.
Except "IP" isn't a consumer good because, as I've demonstrated, it's not even property
I don't think you did demonstrate that IP isn't property.
I reject the idea that the Consumer OR the Producer of a good decides the value. Emotional value, sure, but monetary value, no. It's not an OR situation. The producer gives it a value, and if their goal is to sell it, they may or may not lower the value to match the consumer's valuation.
Can you demonstrate a difference between emotional and monetary value given that value judgments happen in the minds of the observer? As I said earlier, value isn't "in" things; it's in the mind of the observer. I get "emotional value" from using cannabis, but it still costs money. The fact that I'm willing to part with the money in exchange for the cannabis means I get more "emotional value" from the cannabis than I do from the money.
Again I don't see how there's a difference given that assigning something a "monetary value" is the same as saying you value it more than that amount of money. I think you've made a distinction without a difference.
"That's not an accurate analogy."
It wasn't even an analogy. It was a practical example of the principles discussed.
Can you explain how ALL the Earth's resources are the property of whomever can TAKE them from under whoever is living on the land from which they need to be extracted, and violently enforce their claim?
I don't think the Earth's resources, especially air and water, can be property, or should be privately owned.