Intellectual Property and Libertarianism | Stephan Kinsella

[SkormFlinxingGlock]

Is the anti-IP stance considered orthodoxy in Austrian economic philosophy?

[BrytaPlanka]

@unfortunateboner I think we are not allowed to harvest someone else's crops, just as we are not allowed to chop down a tree to use as a christmas tree without asking the owners of the land for permission first. But I do think we are allowed to stroll around on a cropfield and travel over it if we don't destroy the crops on it. I'm not exactly sure of the impact on a cropfield that's needed for it to be considered a damage to the cropfield, but that's the legal limit as far as I know at least.

[damonthemoney93]

Stephan Kinsella is awesome 

[KevZen2000]

I am glad he is talking about the mythology of Intellectual Property, just another doctrine of the statist religion.

[Joke9972]

Property and identity are partly linked by 'trust' (or lack of it). The misinterpretation of 'I have, therefore I am' is too much around within the individualized reality of our self-defined identity (at least in the West, it is). Of course, our skin barrier defines 'I', and no matter how much we want to expand the control within our skin barrier to objects around us by means of legislation within the term 'our property', in the end the 'our' becomes more and more a burden,rather than a virtue.

[Hashishin13]

@Joke9972 So you want someone else sleeping in your bed? How about eating your food or spending your money? Get rid of property and you can't plan for the future.

[Joke9972]

Depending from the moment in which we position ourselves, we just might both be right, somewhere. A long time since have seen such interesting perspectives as on this vid. Very nice. Thx.

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@Joke9972 indeed because we are both pieces of a greater machine, perhaps like cells of a brain (if these cells can act of their own accord let them be free as well).

[ekpil2000]

Wouldn't the theory of contract mentioned invalidate renting, lending, and insurance that didn't include a security deposits equal to the value of the property? In essence buying and reselling.

[Joke9972]

Does each person own his mind? Yes if no intrusion is implicated. But if the intrusion is implicated to correct than it should be accepted. No intrusion would mean no conditioning, and that is virtually impossible, because that would mean no impressions. Accepting the system of intrusion is a process to conciously grow into an adult. Accepting that is the start to commitment to an ideal, knowing that this ideal is temporarily implemented into the 'impression's conditioning'.

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@Joke9972 you own your mind because you do indeed control it. you choose to be conditioned, it is not thrust upon you; your perception of the universe is yours alone, and your environment is not separate from the device you use to observe it (the mind). to claim on the basis of "intrusion" that you do not own your mind is to say that you have no control of your own perceiving apparatus, and that the operation of your body is conducted solely by environmental factors. on the contrary, it is ALL U

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@Joke9972 ....(continued) but that's just my stupid opinion : )

[Joke9972]

I beg to differ here. Quality property (home), vs car eg. The affection to the type of property is as important as its need, but not necessarily in the interpretation of the owner. 'Basic rights and duties'. I don't like this 'joke' to his ego referring to his potential insecurity within his success. This would lead me to uncertainty, that's why i would need a lot of advisors as from now. Half listening half intervening. No decision might get out if it (as I see it now), interesting man.

[Joke9972]

I beg to differ here. Quality property (home), vs car eg. The affection to the type of property is as important as its need, but not necessarily in the interpretation of the owner. 'Basic rights and duties'. I don't like this 'joke' to his ego referring to his potential insecurity within his success. This would lead me to uncertainty, that's why i would need a lot of advisors as from now. Half listening half intervening. No decision might get out if it (as I see it now)

[Shrunkenhead61]

I can't believe how awesome this video is. There are a HELL of a lot of legal implications and leaks he gives. I am just not aware of all of them.

That's the thing about this country. You should learn to speak as a lawyer would speak and find out how this gauntlet is made. It isn't ONLY in patents. This is a fraction but helps the others at the same time.

Education is the primary resource. I am sure it is the most hidden thing in this world. It's so damn powerful.

[Shrunkenhead61]

I am only 22 minutes in.

It's a little vulgar but see if I get it. It's simplifying but bare with me.

If you work to give someone an orgasm... that orgasm is not yours?

So, if you work to make music and people like it. You can't own their liking it?

Or if you create an MRI machine you can't own their benefiting of the MRI?

I can give where credit is due but it isn't entirely theirs?

Plus, they are manipulating something already inherent?

Ore to knife is just reconfiguring the ore?

[Eikus89]

@alexandersydney He says quite clearly why no-one has the right to

claim ownership of information in the video, so I won't get into that. But

I will say that there are other ways to gain money off of your creations.

One is merchandise, which vloggers sell all the time (and cheap

copies are easily avoided since buyers get information about the

products from the vloggers themselves). Another is to ask for donations

before you start a project and not start the project until enough money

is made.

[TearsOfWar1]

I thought my mom owned my body since she made me XD

[Mardal]

Does anyone know what Stephan Kinsella views are on the trademark law?

[ReligionIsACrutch]

@Mardal Yes, he explains it in his book. If I sell you a soda and claim that it's a Pepsi, the victim isn't Pepsi but rather you are the victim. I've committed fraud against you by misrepresenting a soda as something that it's not.

[alexandersydney]

You forget that people who invent smth should be entitled to gain from it, financially, not socially. The knowledge to smth once in the public domain is free for all to know... but to gain from it is exclusively the right of the inventor, for a given period. otherwise how is someone compensated for their invention?

[ethnopunk]

Ownership and control over the body is one of the rights in the South African constitution, but I disagree with the inferences made that Plato was right. The Body is not a Resource as in Utility, the Body is an Instrument which may even be extended but should never be diminished except via death, Kinsella sounds like he is advocating a system based upon corpses and espousing a worse form of capitalism than the system we have now. At least I own my own mind to some extent.

[pilatech]

It's pretty funny to see someone use verbal wordplay to make the distinction between being your body and owning your body, and then turn it around to attack the objection that making that distinction is mere verbal wordplay by saying that saying that is mere verbal wordplay.

Things exist in the world, ownership of them is a concept we make up in our minds, insofar as we assign words to represent these concepts all talk of ownership amounts to wordplay.

He's generally right though, IP is BS

[LoklarYsera]

@djzacmaniac

If you buy a CD and hand it to your friend, you're sharing. If you make a copy of it, you're breaking a contract.

Just because I buy a bottle of coke doesn't mean I have the rights to the entire distribution network of Coca Cola Inc. It just means I have a coke, can drink it or give it to my friend.

Buying a CD it doesn't give me the right to decide how the songs get made, copied and distributed throughout the world. It just gives me the right to enjoy it as per the contract.

[undri]

@LoklarYsera Let's take the coke as an example, if you buy a coke, figure out how to make another one from your own personally owned materials for a friend. Are you then a criminal ?

What about cars ? Can't afford one, make your own from cheaper materials, but get sued because someone else made that kind of car first ? It looks too much like some other car ?

There's no difference between this or any other crafting you could do that copies another design. And can you really justify that ?

[LoklarYsera]

When you buy a CD you are entering a contract. Part of that contract may be that you won't make copies of it. It's a contract between the creator (or someone who bought the rights from the creator) and the buyer. The state isn't involved.

Now if you draw a Mickey Mouse on your companies ads, that's another thing altogether. And I guess under libertarian philosophy that's ok.

[djzacmaniac]

@LoklarYsera If you friend gives you that same CD, that she purchased, you didn't enter into a contract with the original seller. No third party protection. I personally think that SHARING IS CARING

[libertarianjury]

@21:00 what if you carve a statue out of your own marble, and someone takes a 3-D set of photos of that statue, plugs it into their machine, and cranks out a thousand copies? You labored pointlessly to create a finite resource that could be reasonably predicted to have a certain value, and that value was stripped from you by 3-d modelers. What incentive is there for people to make marble statues then? ...None

[djzacmaniac]

@libertarianjury Nothing was stripped from you. Do you not still have your statue? Do you own my 3-D modeling machine? My camera? Do you own my thousands of photos? You cannot reasonably predict the value until you have a potential buyer, which you have not been denied in your scenerio.

[libertarianjury]

What incentive is there for people to murder people who walk around their statues with cameras, photographing them from all angles? A: Whatever the sale price of the statue is.

[libertarianjury]

If I leave skin cells behind, and you grow a brainless replica of me, and make a video of brainless me sucking big black cock, and then tell everyone it's me, have you violated my property rights? I wasn't using those skin cells I left behind. Their appropriation by you is a theft of my apparent identity, right? I don't really know.

I have a better claim than latecomers, maybe, but was I using those cast away pieces of DNA? No. Therefore, you "homesteaded" them.

Patterns are the key here.

[undri]

@libertarianjury Why speculate about impossible scenarios ? Bring something realistic to the table.

[LoklarYsera]

@undri

Don't be retarded. Just because you buy a Ford doesn't mean you can now make Ford cars and start selling them at your own Ford dealership.

You can make cars, sure. You can make other cars, better cars. But you can't copy their car and start selling them on your lot.

Why? Because part of contract for buying a car, or music, is a no-copying clause. That's what copyright is. To do otherwise would be a breach of contract.

[undri]

@LoklarYsera That's a bit insulting, especially considering I'm one of the most intelligent people on the planet right now. However that no-copying clause is exactly what I disagree with, and find insulting. Someone, somewhere, using the government to tell me what I can or can not do with my own materials is just plain wrong on so many levels. If I make an exact copy of someone else's car, why can't I sell it ? How do you justify telling me that if I sell it you can take my money away by force?

[mechanicaltruck]

@LoklarYsera #1 a contract that has not been signed is irrelevant.

The act of buying a product, in and of itself, in no way binds you to a contract of not copying the product and selling the replicas.

Your statements are void of logic and completely senseless. Just plain ridiculous.

[LoklarYsera]

@mechanicaltruck Just because you say a thing doesn't make it so. Contracts are enforced by the state. We could have a system where signed contracts weren't enforceable. It is up to the courts to decide how and when a contract is agreed upon.

Is a signed contract legal? What about a verbal one?

Our laws have already determined that whenever there is a free exchange a contract is possible, it doesn't need to be signed. Google "meeting of the minds," it explains how and when contracts are formed

[LoklarYsera]

@mechanicaltruck

Just to be clear

1) You don't need a signature for something to be a contract.

2) If you willingly engage in commerce with someone a contract IS possible. Like if you sit in a barber's chair, you agree to a haircut, you don't need to sign anything.

3) Contracts are created and enforced by the state.

4) Therefore it is possible to have a no-copying clause in the products you buy.

If we were to take your logic I could put my name on War and Peace and sell it as though I wrote it.

[mechanicaltruck]

@LoklarYsera Without a signature or AGREEMENT, a contract has no meaning.

That is the sole purpose of a contract, as a formal AGREEMENT to described conditions between the consenting parties.

The POSSIBILITY of a contract, in and of itself, does not make the contract valid.

Contracts are created and abided by those who consent to the contract.

Buying something from someone doesn't default you to a contract.

There is no logical, practical, or moral validation in a contract that is not agreed

[libertarianjury]

An advanced artificial intelligence says "We need the space you are occupying. We will upload an exact copy of you to a perfect earth simulation, and then vaporize you and your planet." Your right to exist has not been harmed, because you are still you, and still alive, even though the inessential atoms have been destroyed. Your thoughts/patterns are still there.

The essence of libertarianism is contrarianism and the urge to pointlessly argue in theoretical philosophical arenas.

[truevoice08]

OK now I realize that libertarian legal theory is much more complex than its economics. So what if I print somebody else's book but replace the author with my own name??? Can I do that since there are no copyright laws??

[fdoric6]

The turn to the Austrian school of economics and Libertariansim as a solution to inequality and the economic crisis, is akin to giving a patient with skin cancer, bowel cancer as a remedy.

[CurtHowland]

Can you explain why you think well understood market incentives cannot counter the destruction reaped by government intervention and the perverted motivations it engenders?

What I find interesting is that you use the same phrase, "cancer", for both individual responsibility and government limited liability.

This points to either extreme ignorance, or willful misrepresentation.

[BrytaPlanka]

Here in Sweden we have something named "allemansrätt". It basicly says that everyone have the right travel, camp, climb, pick flowers, berries and mushrooms and simular everywhere in the Swedish nature, no matter who the owner is. But none have the right to pollute or destroy the nature. This applies to any land property that is not your lawn. This system works perfectly well and everyone loves it, just wanted to tell you that. I agree with the libertarian immaterial rights point of view though

[CurtHowland]

I think the success of "allemansrätt" is a demonstration that different societies at different times come up with different answers to problems.

It echoes the American idea of "easement".

Statute law prevents people from coming up with such interesting and generally agreeable answers, by forcing a "one size fits all" answer that may answer nothing at all.

[adambant]

@BrytaPlanka those concepts were established in the Bible over 3000 years ago.

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@BrytaPlanka seems kind of vague. some would interpret "pollute or destroy nature" as taking anything away from it in its untouched (by human) state. for example, picking a flower entails killing it; merely stepping on a blade of grass could result in the destruction of a living organism, and thus be considered by some to be in essence mutilation of nature (possibly rightly so, America almost lost the buffalo due to this "tragedy of the commons"). words are one downfall of law. they r subjective

[BrytaPlanka]

@umbilicaltapeworm Its true that is is vague to define, and its even vaguer when I try to summarize it in a youtube comment. ;) But it still works! The boundaries are set in several laws and rules. For example: "allemansrätt" doesn't give you the right to make a campfire in the forest, it only gives you the possibility to do it under safe conditions. Safe conditions is defined elsewhere. Disturbing animals or humans is not allowed. The boundaries for "disturb" with snowmobiles is set elsewhere.

[umbilicaltapeworm]

@BrytaPlanka is the minority in Sweden as happy with government aggression as the majority (with whom the power lies in a democracy)? as a part of this minority here in the U.S I believe that aggression by law can never compete with peaceful education for the hearts and minds of individuals. e.g you don't get people to stop smoking marijuana (or whatever prejudice you may hold) by putting them in jail, and you can't be charitable with stolen money.

[BrytaPlanka]

@umbilicaltapeworm No, but pretty much everyone think "allemansrätten" is good. I've actually never heard anyone argue for abolishing it. There is some criticism about berrypicking companies taking advantage of it, since allemansrätten never was meant to make others have commercial use of the land. But thats more of a debate on how to fix that particular situation, then argument against having an allemansrätt. If someone in Sweden oppose allemansrätten, he or she isn't very good at speaking up.

[andyissemicool]

@BrytaPlanka: I think this is a great system for dealing with the problem of public land. Thank you for sharing this.

[BrytaPlanka]

@andyissemicool Sure, you're welcome. Thanks for thanking me! :)

[BrytaPlanka]

I agree with most things he said. One question I have with libertarianism is how the filosofy deals with problems at a global scale, like enviromental issues and simular. Basicly, I dont want people to have the right to poison and destroy earth. So, im kind of a enviromental libertarian at the moment.. (still searching I guess) Lets say a factory dumps poison in the lake against everyone elses wish. How will libertarianism deal wihth that situation?

[godaftonjuice]

If I kick you in the balls, you can go to court with me and win. If I shoot you, you can go to court with me. If I steal from you, you can go to court with me. If I poison your lake you can go to court to me. Etc.

[BrytaPlanka]

No one owns the lake, the sea or the sky. Well, perhaps someone owns the lake on paper, but claiming a huge lake as your own is ridiculous in my point of view.

[CurtHowland]

Property "rights" is the mechanism that society has evolved to deal with scarce resources.

The "Tragedy of the Commons" only happens where those rights have been abrogated by government, removing ownership.

A lake might be owned by one person, or by everyone who owns property adjacent to that lake. So any owner can take any polluter to task for their destructive acts. Any owner who damages the lake is guilty of trespass on every other owner as well.

[Merakon]

The owner/owners of the lake will sue him for damages to their property, just as if they had dumped the poison on land.

[rumco]

I guess the owner of the lake can sue the factory for invading their property.

[undri]

@BrytaPlanka Does the factory own the lake in it's entirety? Does the poison affect areas that are not property of the factory owner? Who is harmed by the factory's action? If nobody is harmed and it's their land what they're doing is irresponsible, but difficult to tackle without attacking their freedom to own land. If the poisoning of the lake affects nearby rivers and land that the factory owner doesn't own he is directly affecting the owners against their will and that is wrong.

[BrytaPlanka]

@undri Well, all animals living in, or connected to the lakes local ecosystem for sure... When come to think about it.. What does libertarianism think about animal cruelty? If libertarianism accept animals to be "mistreated" - then libertarianism is ethically unfit to be a guiding legal and political philosophy in my opinion.

[undri]

@BrytaPlanka It's an interesting thought, and the same question can be asked about children? What I as a libertarian want is for adults to be free to make their choices regardless of what others feel they should or should not do. That each man's life is his own. The dealings of animals, or children for that matter are a different story and must be dealt with separately from the issues of consenting adults. Animal rights and age of reason for example are more philosophical debates, harder to pin.

[leafwatch]

@BrytaPlanka Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It does not replace religion or spiritual guidance, but does allow the greatest freedom of religious/spiritual expression. It does not forcibly impose ethics but rests on natural law -- positive, life-affirming. We who care about all animals and the earth must first care for humans. If we don't respect human individuals, animals are unlikely to be respected also. If people are abused, coerced, unfree negatives result

[leafwatch]

@BrytaPlanka Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It does not replace religion or spiritual guidance, but does allow the greatest freedom of religious/spiritual expression and enlightenment. It does not forcibly impose ethics, but rests on positive, life-affirming natural laws. We who care about all animals and the earth must first care for humans. If we don't respect human individuals, but support abuse, coercion, violation of individual freedom -- can you imagine animals respected?

[leafwatch]

@BrytaPlanka Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It does not replace religion or spiritual guidance, but does allow the greatest freedom of religious/spiritual expression and enlightenment. It does not forcibly impose ethics, but rests on positive, life-affirming natural laws. We who care about all animals and the earth must first care for humans. If we don't respect human individuals, but support coercion and violation of individual freedom -- can you imagine animals respected? How?

[enotdetcelfer]

I would have to disagree with him because through his lens, only physical property matters. He would ignore the scarce resource of my time and effort. The inventor labors through thought and calculation. Although we cannot control what others do with their property, I believe inventors can make a partial claim on increased profit that results from their innovation. Invention and innovation homesteads ideas that were previously not conceived. Otherwise others are making claim on my time & energy.

[truevoice08]

I agree with you, but I guess Mr. Kinsella would say that the inventor will be famous enough to generate income through seminars. This is a very interesting topic worthy of much discourse. For now, I still support intellectual property.

[stealthswimmer]

Kinsella, here, is saying that regardless of the outcome, intellectual property is unlibertarian, and purely on the consequences of them the evidence is currently unclear as to whether or not they help. It might be in SOME cases that some people wouldn't do well without them, but on the whole we could be better off. Not to mention that there are certain regulations in place that increase the costs of entry into a market and thus make intellectual property necessary to recover startup costs.

[carlosjhr64]

More thoughts... Within sites like YouTube, it's probably easy for producer members of YouTube to enforce (c) within YouTube, and then YouTube enters into (c) agreements with other large sites... that's the anarchistic model, right?

[BeatTheBanks]

I tend to agree with Mr. Kinsella, but I nonetheless believe that intellectual property (especially patent and copyright, the only monopoly licenses contemplated in the Constitution).

It lies in Mr. Kinsella's original division. One essential attribute of man is that he lives in a world of bodies, external objects, and ideas. I personally think deceit and fraud are valid legal claims, justifiable in terms of property. So too defamation, which violates a property right in the human personality.

[joeseth05]

This is the best monologue of principles I've heard in a long time and it resonances well with several of my own ideas.

[nskinsella]

Thanks!

[carlosjhr64]

Given how hard (c) is to enforce on the internet, I'm thinking we might as well accept this model on the internet. For actual books (and other physically distributed media), I think there's room for (c) property in L phisophy. After all, the effort of on individual in creating information makes that information feel like property to the individual. Our aknowlegement of the fuzzyness of all this is reflected in the fact that this property is not held in perpetuity.

[picapauengracado]

Yep, besides copyright can be thought of as a contract. You buy the book under the condition not to go to fabricate copies of it while the author is still maintaining it in the market.

[DoomHippie]

Well, okay. But as a programmer, I still intend to make my work uncopyable.

[stratvic]

Uncopyable is not the same as replicable.

Others can develop a work to provide the same or similar functionality through writing their own code. Unless you seek the violent protection of the idea/solution to a problem and prevent someone from acting on what they might learn through observation, communication, or experience.

[DoomHippie]

Sure, they can replicate my work if they want. In fact, I would find that flattering. But I will make it hard-to-impossible for them to directly copy my code. That's my right as the programmer.

[midwestherbalist]

Well said. Do that. If you do not want your work copied then by all means create it in a medium that is not easily replicated or copied. Or just sell on written contractual basis only. I would support you if you were wronged by contractual violation.

[gtele5hev]

Very interesting lecture.

[Hatesfury08]

A private art registration service and apply to have my book and name registered with them. Let's call them Artistic Registration inc. Doing this I can make sure that I am registered as the author of that particular book. The records are open to the public and they can check to make sure that I am indeed the author. That way, someone cannot claim to be the author of my work. I am still given credit. Then if they claim to be the author, I can then prove that they are not. We do not need IP laws.

[StrafingMoose]

Sounds like some mecanism you would find in Molyneux's DRO theory, are you familiar with it ?

[Hatesfury08]

No, I am not familiar with it. What does it say?

[StrafingMoose]

It basically lays out a stateless society and how voluntary market mecanism could replace even things like cops, current court of justice, etc. DRO = Dispute resolution organization

[Hatesfury08]

Thanks, I'll definitely have to check out Molyneux 's work.

[Hatesfury08]

Doing this, I can still make a good amount of money and plus I can do things that no one else can do. For instance, if I become well known (like stephen king for instance) I can sell autographed copies, which I can sell for more than the average and some fans will pay for it. I'm the only one with my signature after all. Or I can make appearences or speeches for which I am paid to attend. So there is still money to be made without my monopolizing my book or ideas. I can also register with cont.

[Hatesfury08]

Here's my idea in all this. Say I write a book and I start selling it. We will say that it is a success. I become well known and more people want my book. Know there are people who will give my book away for free if they have the resources to distribute it. I think that most people will want to sell my book to earn money, which gives me a wider audience. Now I can still sell my book with my publisher, and find out the current market price for my book and sell it cheaper than my competition..cont

[vinnym24]

Panpiper, I would say that the idea is completely your own and you can do with it what you want until you make it known to others. You have the right to never inform anyone of your idea maintaining complete rights to it. Once it's out you cannot control it without force of government.

[awknittel]

Since an unlimited amount of people can all use the ideas to engineer iPods and no one has restricted from using the idea then there is no scarcity. The only thing that has happened is that now your original idea and the resulting engineering, marketing, distribution, salemanship etc must now compete in the market place with others who have also decided to produce iPods. It matters not that it was not their original idea because you can't own something that has no scarcity in nature (ie ideas)

[awknittel]

My iPod is therefore said to have scarcity even though there are thousands of iPods in the world. The idea of how to engineer an iPod is the opposite example. Only a few people may have the ideas needed to engineer an iPod but these ideas do not exhibit scarcity as the term is used in regards to property rights.

[awknittel]

Not because there is a shortage of iPods in the world (which there certainly is not) but because only one person can control and pick a song and then listen privately through its headphones at any given time.

[awknittel]

That is, an unlimited number of people may use the resource (the idea in this case). It is important to realize that the word scarcity in this case is not referring to a shortage of any given general resource but rather to the necessary exclusiveness of specific resources. In other words, my iPod is an example of a resource with scarcity.

[awknittel]

@Panpiper - the difference between physical and intellectual (mental) property is that the former has scarcity. Meaning that only one man or a limited number of men can use the resource at one time. The latter (IP) does not have scarcity.

[Panpiper]

There is nothing 'poor' about my comments folks. Kindly refrain from voting them thumbs down simply because they contest the thesis of the lecturer or because you disagree with them. If they are 'bad' comments deserving of a thumbs down, they would be filled with invective, or badly composed, or engaged in ad hominem attack, or of clearly bad character. Mine are not, they are clear and reasoned debate. Please leave them visible to those who care to read discussion.

[Panpiper]

Just as in a Libertarian society, it is the proper function of government to protect property against theft, it is equally just for government to protect the right to the product of one's own mind, to prevent trespass upon one's mind. I see nothing unjust with government upholding copyright laws. It is a matter of legitimate debate if those laws have perhaps gone too far, and I believe they have, but I absolutely espouse that some copyright is perfectly legitimate.

[Moragauth]

The state has no role whatsoever. Legitimate property is based on scarcity. I"P" is not scarce, ergo not property.

[Panpiper]

Scarcity is a pretty poor definer of property. Sexy available women are scarce, are they property or the basis of such? I am vastly more comfortable defining property as that which I create, and in so far as I used that which I own in it's creation, I own my creation. Given that I own my mind more assuredly than I own my body (which switches out all it's atoms within a year), a better first principle for a philosophy of life would evolve from that, no? And IP is scarce, see my previous comments.

[Moragauth]

Um, women are self-owners, so no. If they were not their being scarce would qualify them for it though, yes. That their bodies are scarce is in fact what allows them to be self-owners anyway.

And no, it isn't. Ideas are not scarce in the way physical resources are, they are not depleted upon repeated usage.

[Libertarian333]

Property can only be rationally derived from the non-aggression principle. If I try to use something which cannot be used except exclusively, and someone else is already using it, either they must voluntarily stop their use, or I must forcibly deny them their use (and thereby violate the NAP). If something can be used non-exclusively, no such contention arises, and therefore no NAP violations arise. Information, therefore, cannot be owned.

[TenseAlcyoneus]

Exactly.

[spawk1993]

Governments are funded by theft, so i find the notinot that goverments protect private proerty to be an odd one.

[midwestherbalist]

They "charge" one to protect property. Esp. in the case of I.P. It is Extortion.

[midwestherbalist]

But you trespass upon my mind by disallowing me right to exercise the use of my mind to develop by all that it has experienced. By your standard I can only use my mind to expand upon ideas that you have not paid the government to protect. You are the trespasser upon the minds of others, and you utilize the government to do so with their force. That is very unlike Libertarianism. I find you unqualified to speak with any form of authority on what a libertarian society is.

[Panpiper]

There are no studies showing that IP increases the quantity of that property? This argument is spurious. Does anyone seriously contend that there would be MORE well produced science fiction action movies if there was no intellectual property? If this philosophy gains sway in the world, we will never again see the likes of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Indeed due to piracy it is already becoming unlikely we will ever again see such an ambitious investment in the world of IP.

[Panpiper]

The notion that intellectual property is not scarce is completely fallacious. There is for instance a scarcity of well produced science fiction action movies, I want more than actually exist. If they are to be made the common property of all man kind, the producers will not be able to adequately sell access to their viewing, they will not be able to make more, and there will be an even greater scarcity. Socialism destroys the very thing it would steal.

[Panpiper]

He later further defines scarcity as: one person's use excludes another's. I produce video that I sell to those who are willing to pay. If my work becomes the common property of all mankind such that all persons may use it without paying me, I will not be able to continue to produce. All person's use ultimately will result in excluding all persons from viewing any future work. So all my future work would become infinitely scarce. And a great deal of other work as well. There IS scarcity in IP.

[TracyII77]

You are confusing ideas with presentation (use of bodies) and product (DVD's). Take symphonies for instance. Many of the songs performed by symphonies predate current copyright laws and are free to perform. The symphonies make money, because people pay to watch the symphony (group of individuals) perform those songs (ideas). The group of individuals are allowing the audience to use their bodies to produce music. The ideas are still free.

[Panpiper]

When I create a work of digital art for instance, it is my right to not allow others to view it, it is my work, it is my property. I may sell to you the right to view it. Without my selling you that right, you do not have the right to view it. If someone makes a copy of the work and gives it to someone else, that someone else has not purchased from me the right to view my work, they are in fact engaged in theft, in the theft of my rights, not simply property.

[Panpiper]

Simply because it is 'easy' to copy intellectual property does not make it right. Simply because there are no widgets expended does not invalidate property. Simply because I still possess my own original when someone copies my digital art, does not mean that they did not take from me without my consent to right to view the work of my mind, my intellectual property. My mind does not belong to you, nor does the product of my mind belong to you.

[midwestherbalist]

I would have the right to view what is visible before me. I would not have the right to trespass in order to do so. If you do not want the idea exploited then you have the right to keep it secret. You can not legislate thought. The only way you could bind another would be to contractually via signature on covenant, that agreement is made to withhold disclosure of what is seen. Want to protect your "idea?" Hide it, or show it on written contractual agreement only.

[snarge]

Let's assume this true. So I make a contract with you that says "DO NOT COPY OR REDISTRIBUTE THIS SONG WITHOUT MY PERMISSION." So, you break the contract and redistribute it all over youtube UNDER YOUR NAME. Let's say I have legal action to take against you for breaking the contract. But what about the next guy who sees it on youtube, copies it, and sells it under his name. Do I have a right to go after him? With this argument, no. What you're basically saying is "NEVER RELEASE AN IDEA!"

[kevindanielbrown]

No only don't release ideas you want to remain a secret. In short keep your secrets to yourself if you want them to remain a secret. There's nothing complicated about that...

[snarge]

I was simply responding to " Want to protect your "idea?" Hide it, or show it on written contractual agreement only." My scenario illustrates how it can't be protected by contract. I feel like you're missing the point, though. Let's say I write a story. I protect it by never releasing it to Anyone. Someone breaks into my house, copies the story (leaves what it was written on) and sells the story under his name. It would seem that the Only charge against him would be trespassing, right?

[snarge]

So, even if he's in jail, I would have no claim to say that he "stole" anything from me. As is argued, you can't Steal something that can't be owned. But, like everyone here, I would be very angry and I would feel wronged if someone took my story from me and released it, used it, without my permission. If it were "real" property, I would get it back or be compensated. In this case, I have Lost nothing (or so is argued), so I have zero claim to compensation. This feels clearly unjust to me.

[kevindanielbrown]

The flaw in your response is that you feel wronged because someone took something from you alas that could not be claimed as you still have your story in your possession untouched thus it's logically impossible to claim anything has been stolen from you. Copying something clearly does NOT take it away from you.

Regardless of how you feel it simply can't be argued anything was stolen from you. You clearly still have your story in your possession and it's unharmed and untouched.

[kevindanielbrown]

Correct.

[Panpiper]

If I create a work with my hands, the work belongs to me, it is my property to do with, use or sell as I will. But if I create a work with my mind, it is to be the common property of all man kind, from me according to my ability, to all according to their need. The notion that intellectual property is not private property but is rather common property, is as socialist as it comes.

[helltrackrider]

Agreed...

[midwestherbalist]

Wrong panpiper....

If you create a work with your hands you only own it if you owned all material you created the work with? Did you even listen to the lecture?

The notion that intellectual property is private property is a dictatorial as it comes. I.P. is nothing more than government sponsored extortion via government sponsored monopoly. Either you did not listen to the entire lecture or you just dont have the processing power to hash it out in understanding

Your Marxist Arg. is unfounded.

[Panpiper]

He defines property as that which derives from the transformation of matter and that therefor properties of mind are not property. I disagree with his definition. Property has nothing to do with matter, but is more a function of the addition of value. All the logic that applies to the ownership of matter and one's own body applies to the mind. I own my own mind! My intellectual property is not additional property rights, but the enforcement of the right to my own mind.

[Panpiper]

Yes, if adding value to matter, in order for it to be your property you must own the matter in the first place. But I paid my teachers. I paid for the books I read. I paid for the software I use. I paid my script writer and I paid my actors. I own the material and tools used in the creation of my property. You did not pay for those things. You do not have the right to expropriate the work of my mind for your own benefit without my permission.

[TracyII77]

You paid to use those people who are in and of themselves property. Just like a hammer is a tool, so is your actor. You owned them for the contracted hour and during that time had the right to command them. Your mind is your property, but not your ideas. For instance, I do CAD design. I am paid for the time that I devote to produce the design. The design itself is not mine.

[stratvic]

Your ideas are your property. But denying others the ability to learn from their experiences and obeservations is authoritarian. If you want to retain ideas as your own keep them private.

[TracyII77]

So long as ideas remain private, they are simply a part of your mind. The moment you share your ideas, those ideas become a part of the minds of those who were exposed to your ideas. Think about how often you hum a tune in the shower. No matter how hard you may try, you cannot remove the song from your head. So are you stealing that song every time you think about it? No. Ideas cannot be owned, but as you said, they can be withheld by remaining silent.