 Okay, I'm recording now. Hey, this is Stefan Kinsella and you're Alexander Baker. Is that right? That's right Hi, it's nice to meet you virtually you Okay, so I'm just got a little warning from my recorder there, okay We've never met in person, but we've been chatting a little bit. Why don't you? Let me explain the purpose you and I have been chatting and I think you and I went back and forth a little bit on IP and you were kind of anti IP at first and then you sort of started During the other way, but unlike most IP Libertarians, I've talked to you actually seem to be honest and sincere about it. So I don't want to sound condescending, but it's Maybe you don't agree with me, but I find it hard to find anyone who is not completely anti IP who is Sincere and honest about this because the arguments are so bad and they're so dishonest usually Anyway, that's been my experience. I've been working this 20 years Why don't you tell people tell me who you are what you do and What you're thinking right now about the IP issue Sure. My name is Alexander Baker my day job so to speak is I I write and produce music for a Big multinational entertainment corporation, so I'll lay my my bias if there is one out on the table I do earn a certain amount of my income from exploiting copyrights. So I think you're just going to Yeah, so do I so I totally understand that yeah, um, you know, I think that's part of the problem with you know, perhaps Disingenuous arguments or non arguments on IP. It's just self-interest I mean, you know people have you know, they know where their bread is buttered. So yeah, although most most people that I've seen argue for IP They don't really make any money from it. I mean, they're like want to be novelist or whatever, right? So they have this idea that they're going to be rich someday off of Selling music or movies or books, but they don't you know Most of them really actually are not profiting in a financial sense from it in the first place from what I've seen But anyway, go ahead. Sorry. It didn't mean an or two. So anyway, so that's all I'm You know, I come to that from you know, I come to it from from that perspective, but I'm also a libertarian Thanks in large measure to the Mises Institute and they're amazing website I've done a lot of study of Austrian economics. I'm really interested in in economics and so I And of course, I'm familiar with your work and some of the other libertarians who've done a lot of work on IP and At first I Sort of accepted the anti IP argument sort of grudgingly going, okay Well, I you know, I guess it it really doesn't exist But I started doing some work on it myself and just trying to I thought maybe I could contribute to the Conversation and maybe build up the the argument one way or the other just by looking into it I'm sort of a freelance intellectual. I guess you could call me in my spare time a gentleman scholar Yeah, what state what state are you in by the way? Where are you looking? I'm in Southern, California. Okay. Okay, cool so and I started looking into it and I've In working through this come to the conclusion that that IP does exist and my my process in doing this was and getting back to what you started out by saying the other thing that I think makes the Arguments on IP sort of fuzzy and confusing. It's just the nature of IP itself They have intangible of sort of getting your head around Intangible objects is a little bit tricky because they're intangible And we can't really see it or feel it or touch it the way we can with Physical objects and so that's what led me to come up with this concept of intellectual space intellectual space is the it's the title of my my work a book in the future and I've been putting up what I have been writing at my blog which is Homestead IP dot blog spot dot com So the idea of intellectual space is to first of all intellectual space is just a theoretical array of unique locations but then I I postulate intellectual matter which I would define as that which can be understood through language and That will be analogous to physical matter. I define an intellectual object as a Bounded pattern of intellectual matter and that will be analogous to a physical object and then My process is to then try to take the existing theory of property in general as given by the austral libertarians of Rothbard and Hans Hoppe and then Try to work up the case the positive case for intellectual property Using the exact same methodology by substituting in these intellectual matter and intellectual objects and in going through that I come up with a definition of intellectual property and it is a non-trivial Homesteaded rivalrous intellectual object that substantially functions as productive capacity So that's what I've got is my definition. What do you mean by trivial or non-trivial? well it would be a Subjective human assessment as to whether this thing be it physical or intellectual is Substantial enough complex enough Big enough to Rightly be property to be to be worth protecting in other words. It's not so yeah I understand so like in a physical situation if you have two neighbors with Tracks of land that border on each other they might not worry about whether the the property line is Here or here one inch apart because it's too it's too small of a matter to worry about so they build their houses 10 feet away from the property line just to be sure right just it's a gray area kind of issue Exactly, and it's what I call the the fuzzy boundary problems You know the example when I was talking to to Stefan Malinu the other day You know he brought up the example you go into somebody's house and some dust of their dust goes on your clothes And you walk out. Well, that's it's too trivial now. Yeah, yeah I don't I don't disagree with that approach in terms of things that are clearly defined So for example in the left libertarian situation, I've had some left libertarians argue that My disagreement for example with mutualism right with the idea that if you're not using property That you can lose it to someone who else who a cyber squad I'm in a squatter or whatever they say that that's just the far extreme of the abandonment notion And I disagree with that. I think that you could have fuzzy boundaries over what constitutes abandonment but if you actually own property and you put a boundary around it and you explicitly tell everyone I'm constantly maintaining this thing. I'm supervising it I'm checking on it and I do not abandon it. You can't really say you can't squeeze that into the abandonment idea You can't say I'm abandoning it because abandonment is a presumption is a default presumption when someone just disappears And you you have to make a decision at some point about whether what what happens with the resource But but let me back up a second before we go into the details Because you know if I was to argue with a socialist or a central planner or a wealth maximizer It would be different than a libertarian. So Let's see what we agree on. I mean, you're a libertarian you say, right? Yes, and I mean, are you an anarchist or just a minarchist or do you know or what do you think about that? I would call myself an anarcho-capitalist in the Rothbardian Hunts-Hoppian tradition So you believe in property rights and so you definitely you and I agree on this that if there's a scarce resource out there in the world That there ought to be property rights in that resource so that people can use the resource productively you would agree with that, correct? Absolutely, and that is it is this idea of Scarcity and rivalrishness that that gives rise to the very need for for property in general Yeah, so would you agree that if someone proposed a rule that undercut that that that would at least be Problematic in other words if they said well, I believe that there should be property rights and scarce resources But in some cases we can take the resources away from those people and give it to the poor I mean, it's just the taking of property Absolutely, but I would You know the the first thing that gets Problematic is that the the concept of scarcity Gets elusive for example if you start thinking about manufactured goods, you know You know our our pencils scarce I mean we're at the point now where we can manufacture Plenty enough pencils to satisfy everybody's desire for number two, you know wooden pencils, you know and I think George Riesman in in his book capitalism does a good job of of getting getting to that about what what scarcity really means and it really has to do with the Unlimited nature of human wants and desires correct You know he gives the example of well once upon its time scarcity and food means starvation, but then get agriculture It means Just not enough meat and then when we produce start producing meat It means well, you know not enough sirloin steak correct and and so on and so on so I really prefer And I think you agree to really focus on rival risk. Yes, right rivalry, you know is is this thing that we're talking about something that And of course that requires a definition, you know, what what do we really mean by rival risk? Yes And what what I like to use is pretty simple. It is that The use by one person interferes with use. Yes, I agree with that. I agree with that. So so so given that Let me ask you this Here's how I view it and you tell me where you disagree or where you think I'm off track It seems to me that if you have this view of property then Forget about what other things should be property, but we agree that there should be property rights, which is legally recognized exclusive rights of control in scarce resources or rival risk resources, which you which you said, right? So if there's if there's a particular scarce resource or a rival risk resource Then we ask the question who has the right to control this thing and you and I I think would agree that we can decide this question By pointing to some property rules, right? Like we can say well Who's got the best who's got the best title to this thing and We would say it's the guy who first started using it or it's the guy who Purchased it by contract from a previous owner I mean, do you disagree in general with that sort of approach? No, I think property means three things. It's the right to to use this thing It's the right to Transfer ownership to somebody else and it's the right to exclude others from yeah in a way I don't know if I agree with you. I actually think it's only the last I don't know if it's the right to use or the right to exclude or the right to transfer To me property means The right to give permission or to deny permission to others to use this thing that's all because The right to a property can't mean the right to use because if it meant the right to use then you could You know Shoot your gun. It's someone else's body. So it's not unlimited, right? So it's not a right to use But to me it's just the right to exclude and that's what patents by the way are and copyrights It's just the the right to tell someone they can't do something if you have a patent on a process or an invention You can't use it. I mean doesn't give you the right to use it, right? I know it just gives you the right to tell people they can't do this Right, but you might you might be infringing someone else's patent by practicing your own patented invention. So I Mean that's not how I can see what property property is just the right to exclude You're the person the actor with the legally recognized right to have a say so and who can Who can enter invade the borders of or use or interfere with as you say this resource? I mean, I think it's the same idea. It's the same idea. I just think that your right to use is not unlimited It's mainly the right to exclude other people from using this thing That's why you can say I can invite you to my house for dinner or I can say you can't come to my house For dinner because I have I own this house. I can say you can't use it, but I can't use my house as a nuclear bomb Factory that's going to blow up the neighborhood, right? I mean, of course. I mean, that's just it I mean, that's another way of saying, you know, my property ends where yours begins I mean, you know, you can use your price the right to use but you know There's going to be limitations on that depending on where other people's property rights begin Yeah, so I totally agree. So the fundamental problem with IP as I see it is that it Let me set up this example and tell you tell me where where we diverge let's say you and our neighbors and we want to have a neighborhood where there's no commercial industrial activity and no pig farms and no Garish colors on the houses because we all want to live in a neighborhood that's Residential and we don't want to reduce our property value or whatever so I Assigned to you a property right in my house Which is a restrictive covenant, right or an easement which says I Am not permitted. I can use my house for whatever I want to use it for Except my neighbors can veto my use of my house as a pig farm Or to have a purple a purple pink color on the house Homeowners Association exactly home or restrictive covenant that kind of idea so There's nothing Unlibertarian or wrong about that at all This is just a contract among people or a property rights assignment among people, right? but my point is that Unless I'm using my property in a way that interferes with your property You don't have the right to stop me unless I've signed a contract with you So if I've signed a contract with you like restrictive covenant Where I've given you the right to veto my use of my property as a pig farm Then you don't have the right to stop me from using my property as I see fit as long as I don't interfere with your property I mean would you agree with that as a general libertarian principle? I'm not absolutely correct. So the problem is as I see it in a lecture property is basically what I would call a negative servitude it Basically grants my neighbors or fellow citizens in my community the veto right over how I use the Scarif resources that I have a better claim to than they do so for example If you get a patent on a new mousetrap, let's take rock bars example then The patent would and I know you're not a favor of the status conception of patent law We can talk about that second but in any conception you can think of if you have any kind of property right over the The method of making the mousetrap or the way the mousetrap is configured then that really means you can tell me as the owner of my property I can't use my property in this kind of way So you have basically a negative servitude like the restrictive covenant or the neighborhood Association thing you can tell me not to use my property in a certain way, but I never agreed to that Unlike in a restrictive covenant or in a neighborhood where I did agree to it I never agreed to it and I never committed a trespass. So by what right do you have to tell me? I cannot move around and Physically manipulate and engage in transactions. Okay, let's say I want to make a million of these mousetraps and sell them to people These are bilateral contracts with willing buyers Mm-hmm. I Can't see how by any of these actions I performed I've invaded your property I've not committed a trespass now. I know you have this idea of intellectual space But what have I done to invade what you and I both agree is your property? What gives you the right to veto my activities here? Well, the short answer is is it is a trespass You know in order to say that by By using my intellectual property, you have not trespassed You have to assume that there's no property right there, which would be just assuming the conclusion. Well, but hold on a second Let's who do you think the burden of proof is on? Ah, well that I mean that's that's a whole interesting question. Yeah, but but I think it's key I think it's key here because This whole thing turns on that I mean I agree and in my in my work I'm trying to do both the the positive case building up the the positive case for for intellectual property and also criticizing and The the anti IP case. I'm trying to do both. So I Think I would agree that there would be a burden of Proof to prove the positive case for IP if that's what you if that's your question is that's that's fantastic To backtrack just a little bit your example was having to do with patent and let me just interject that I Believe that what I'm gonna find through my method is that Copyright does exist and is valid intellectual property, but patent is not okay and that I Know you you you know this and you can you can flesh this out you as a as a patent attorney But I think in general on a copyright is just that it is the right to copy some finished work Whereas a patent is a has to do with a method of producing something. So in my view a a copyrighted work is It's it's a finished work Whereas a patent has to do with a method by which you you might create a finished work Okay, that's and that's the distinction and that I think is the key distinction because What I find missing in in a lot of these a lot of these debates that I think is absolutely key is to distinguish between Consumer goods and producer goods Okay, and one of the very interesting things about let's say a digital media file We use that example of I write and record a song and it now exists as a as a file a digital media File on my hard drive and that file Can of course it can what can do two things? I can listen to it For entertainment and that is its consumer use but also I can Make copies of that digital media file. Yes, and in that so that is the good thing Do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing just in general? I don't know that I need to put a value judge mind What is what good or bad that people that they can be copied files can be copied easily with a very low cost or no cost Well, it's it's absolutely. It's good. Okay. It's good. No, I mean it and you know, I mean we can go to to Karl Manger's You know goods character. I definitely I know that's like snow. No, I wasn't talking about economic goods I just mean do you actually think it's a good thing or a bad thing? Do you agree with that? But that that's what economic goods are no economic goods are things that have to be economized, right? They have to be economized Economic goods have to be economized. That's what that's why we put economic in front of them In other words, if you use it you you're gonna run out of it You have to decide where you're gonna use it, but a recipe or knowledge can be used over and over again They don't have to be economized Well, okay, but see then you need to you need to look at The general case versus the specific case like the universal versus the specific You know is you know aluminum is Physical stuff. Okay, and it's okay. It's a physical good and it's physical property. Okay, but consider for a second that the Supply of aluminum is infinity. We will never ever run out of aluminum period I mean just to put some numbers on it the quantity of aluminum in the earth's crust in measured in tons Is a one followed by 22 zeros? Okay, so it just to put that in in perspective if we all of humanity Increased our consumption of aluminum by a million fold Okay, and that million times use went on for the next one billion years At that time we still would have not expended one One trillionth of the amount of aluminum that we know is there well Okay, so you have to distinguish whether you're talking about I mean Do you have to expend effort to acquire the aluminum of that's the point and and so in in In the the humanly meaningful and of course This is the point that that Ludwig von Mises takes great pains to point out and in his work Is that what's relevant to humans is our our human connection to it the connection to human action and and I address this in in answering the question our intellectual objects real and And and Mises confronts the problem of whether Physical objects are real of course philosophers for centuries have pointed out that What we know about physical objects in the physical world really is just through perceptions in our mind What we see what we hear what we can feel and taste and touch You know so do do physical objects really exist or are they just perceptions in our mind? And the way Mises attacks that is in saying what we know physical objects are real Because they have the power to condition the outcome. Yeah many events. I agree with that Okay, and so and so and so do intellectual objects. Okay, so that's that's how we know they're real as far as this Inexhaustibility hold on a second. Let's back up. I mean look No one can seriously deny that there's a reality, right? I mean You have to be a realist just have a discussion Um When you say condition the the the outcome of actions, I mean knowledge Well, that's that's little fun Mises. I'm just yeah Yeah, but Mises Distinguished the role of knowledge and scarce means in action. I mean would wouldn't you wouldn't you agree with that? I mean Mises says that you rely on your knowledge to make decisions But scarce means play a causal role in trying to affect the outcome of an action They're different. That's right. And so, you know in trying to Decide whether a particular intellectual object is or is not Ownable as property I think we have to get to the point where we look at whether or not That intellectual object will function as a productive capacity as a as a producer good Um the way that like a digital media file will you know, well, but but but but but but we agree already that there should be property rights in scarce resources That's right And we agree that scarce resources is a coherent concept and we can agree on like my body My house my land my capital equipment These are all scarce resources what you agree with me should be owned according to some kind of Roughly libertarian lock in rule or do you not agree with that? No, I I do agree with that and um, that's you know, I think we have to look at the homesteading principle I think unowned property Becomes initially owned through the homestead principle, which and I think you my reading of your Book tells me you somewhat disagree with this, but I I'm more in the lock in tradition of mixing one's labor No, no, no, no, I agree with law. I agree with the mixing labor. I just don't agree You have to say that labor is owned to to make that argument. I I don't disagree with the labor uh metaphor or the labor argument, but You said earlier that you were talking about you disagree with patent, but you agree with copyright but I cannot imagine you would disagree that Copying in general is is some kind of trespass No, that's that's exactly what it is Uh, many and no, hold on. Do you think if you copy things it's trespass per se? Um, I think if you Copy a file Which um an original creator not to say a file. Let's just talk about normal human activity Let's say people interacting in the world and I observe you doing something in the market Or in society and I emulate or learn from what you're doing and copy that. Is that trespass? To learn. Oh No, not necessarily. No, so so so so I think you would have to agree that the burden of proof is on you to show that What type of copying is A trespass and what type is not because you have to you have to admit some some copying is legitimate Yes So what type of copying is wrong and what is what is not wrong? Okay, and why? Okay, um I like to use the analogy of I'll use a song as my intellectual Object and I use a bicycle as a physical object and and compare the two and I like that because of Nina Paley's song copying is not theft. She uses that that bicycle example. Yep. And uh, so copying is not theft You know and it's true if you make You know if I steal your bicycle you you don't have the bicycle anymore Uh, but if I just copy your bicycle we we each have one. So how is copying theft? Well, well, but do you agree with that? Do you agree that if I could look at your bicycle and conjure up a copy that it wouldn't Violate your property rights. Do you If you could buy magic, I mean if you want to talk about magic I I don't know. I'm not aware that magic exists. So I don't know I agree with you But I mean I'm just saying if if I could examine with an x-ray lens the inside of your body and copy your kidney Let's say your kidney is a really good kidney And I could manufacture a perfect duplicate of your kidney and insert it in myself to have a kidney You know replacement surgery. Would that be a violation of your rights? Let's Let's use the example of a bicycle because this is something that's in the real world That um that we actually can can think about I don't know about a magical kidney reproducing machine, but there really are such things as bicycle factories And that's how we how we actually copy bicycles is that first somebody through capital expenditure builds a factory and there's an assembly line and Once that productive capacity is in place it becomes much more efficient much less expensive To crank out copies economy economies of scale, etc Right to make copies of bicycles. So Not copies, but I know what you mean, but they're they're making new bicycles They're they're they're they're making new instances of what they're doing They're taking resources that they own like metal and plastic and rubber Right and they're transforming them into certain new shapes and configurations that have a more more valuable use A more they're more useful. They're creating wealth. That's right. Um, but Before they were able to do that now you you can Make a bicycle from scratch without a factory But it's much more difficult much more costly, etc to to do that And so actually so you need you need two things you need raw materials and preferably you need like, uh, you know An assembly line where you can reduce the economies economies of scale, but you need information too, right? You need all these things for successful action Would you agree with that? Right and you need and why you need time and you need energy Yeah, you time energy motivation lots of things you need but you need information or knowledge And you need the raw materials right so Now so i'm not saying that there's necessarily an intellectual property right in the production of a bicycle design, you know, they're they're Maybe but that would get more into like a patent kind of an idea and i'm I'm not that's not what i'm i'm using that as my example of a physical object. Okay, an intellectual object. Okay But when I write and record a new song Okay, I have in effect Built a factory Um, yes, I agree in effect. You could you could make an analogy. I don't disagree with that Because somebody, um, you know, somebody out there in the world who who Wants to listen to a song They want to be entertained by a song they could if they wanted to Write and record their own song just like they could if they wanted to you know build build their own bicycle But it would be a lot easier for a person who just wanted a bicycle to Sneak into the bicycle factory At night when nobody was there and run the assembly line And and make their own bicycle off of that existing that existing productive capacity But that would be a trespass that we both agree it seems to me correct. Correct. Exactly That is a trust but we agree on that so and so when when somebody uses The productive capacity That has been created and therefore homesteaded by somebody else. No, no, no, no, no, you can't you can't say You can't say productive capacity has been homesteaded. That's the problem with your argument How so well, how can productive capacity be homesteaded? Oh, because you you are transforming previously unowned Uh material into something that is more useful to him I think material is not a productive capacity. I mean How do you own a productive capacity? This is this is question begging. He seems to me May how does somebody own a factory by by no, they they own the factory because it's a scarce resource We both agree on that we don't disagree But now you're saying that the factory is a productive capacity and there is a capital. It is a capital good Yeah, just just because we agree that you can own a scarce resource And it happens to be a productive capacity or whatever you want to call it That doesn't mean that you can own any productive capacity In other words, it doesn't mean you can own any ingredient that contributes to Productiveness like ideas or information or knowledge I mean, how does that follow? Well, it follows because you have to make an assessment as to whether This object this intellectual object itself Functions completely or or or substantially as the productive capacity itself And in the case of digital media files, they do with yeah, you also need, you know a computer But that's something that basically everybody has by now And the file itself functions not only as the consumer good for listening for entertainment purposes But also as a capital good for mass production So when it's functioning as a capital good, it's not like a bicycle. It's like the bicycle factory and Making a copy of that Digital media file is like sneaking into the factory and running somebody else's productive capacity Even if it's light, but you say it's like that that's the problem with your art. You say it's like you're using analogies Correct. My mind that's that's exactly right. My entire my entire piece is an analogy between intellectual objects and physical objects Let me ask you a question here. Okay, I don't want to interrupt you because I think I know where you're going, but If we had had from the beginning of the world, let's say from early human history say a hundred thousand years ago Some kind of copyright and let's say it lasted forever. Okay so You do realize that right now you and I wouldn't be able to do anything You wouldn't be able to cook your food You wouldn't be able to do anything without getting permission from someone else, right? The errors of the first guy that came up with the idea of cooking food with fire Or the first guy that came up with the idea of building a house with a logs and making a log cabin or whatever so Do you realize that if we really implemented this kind of general idea in a broad way with no limits that we would Basically all be dead No, I I I don't realize that. I mean I I um I um, I would say that that one could and in fact Socialists and and communist types make exactly the same kind of argument for physical property. They say, you know Um, well one percent of the people are gonna own everything. No, no, no. I'm not no I'm not I'm not I'm a monopolist. I'm saying that If every action you performed could potentially violate the ip rights of millions of people You would have to get their permission to perform any action How do you get around that? Well, how do you get around the idea that if one person owned every physical object or or some small group of people? Hold on hold on a second. I'm not saying it's the same No, I'm not saying one person. I'm saying that there's a dispersed mass of ownership rights like The right to cook food over a fire is owned by this group of people The right to do this is owned by this group of people So basically every action you want to perform in a modern world It's prohibited unless you get permission from a million people Right nothing to do with the communist the argument that yeah, okay. No, I see what you're saying. Yeah, I don't think um You know, I do not support ip rights in In, you know, just raw ideas or in in methods of doing things Yeah, but should they do you think they should expire at a certain time or do you think they should last forever or? Um, I I think if you have to be consistent, I think if it is a property, right Um, I think it it has to be forever. I know just like physical. Yeah, that's the problem I have with it is people that are consistent Or basically advocating the abolition of humanity because no come on. No, I'm 100% serious. I don't think we could live You could not live if you had to give permission for every action you performed Well, yeah, but I don't agree that that's the result of of a rightly understood intellectual property Okay, so they get back to the so you think You agree with me earlier. I think that the burden of proof is on people who propose ip so And you're you're an answer. So you're an anarchist. You don't believe in the current patent and copyright system So would you be happy or? Upset if tomorrow the patent and copyright act were abolished Uh gosh, I'd uh uh Well, and then in in in favor of what I don't know. This is like uh, just this is like if if you know, but I'd be happy If martians, you know came down and no, come on. This is a real question. I could say if tomorrow congress Lower the the marginal tax rate from 43 to percent to 22 percent. Would you be in favor of that or opposed? I mean, it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a coherent question Oh, okay. So you're you're saying okay. So nothing else changes just that one thing all all of a sudden, um, all of my All of my copyrights. I can't I cannot enforce anymore. I'm not trying to trap you But I'm trying to I'm trying to get the idea whether whether you believe that the current patent and copyright system Are some kind of rough rough Simulation of what you think would be put in place by a contractual or private property system Or whether you think you have some other idea in mind I'm just trying to get an idea of what you are in favor of Right. So would you be would you be in favor of abolishing patent and copyright or not? Uh, I favor the free society Um, and I believe that on it on a free society There would be intellectual property rights as I've described. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Let's back up But let's take it one step at a time Would you be in favor of the federal government abolishing patent and copyright tomorrow? Um, I I don't mean to try to avoid your question. I just you know, that's okay. If you don't know I just want I just want to understand it so that I can be that's fine. That's fine So you're saying everything else is the same all they do is they're abolishing they repeal the the patent and copyright statues um Would I be in favor of it? Would you be happy or sad? I mean, I don't know how to put it. I mean, would you be pro or con? um Well, I mean from a purely self-interested point of view. No, but as an anarchist or as a libertarian Right. Gosh, I mean we would still be so far from anything resembling, you know, free world Well, but why because you believe that in a private society we we could emulate some aspects of copyright by Some kind of contract system or whatever and we do have contract law right now So why couldn't people just have negotiations and just do whatever you think they would do in a private society? Anyway, I mean I don't understand what the big Uh Objection to abolishing patent and copyright would be for an anarchist I think okay. Okay um Yeah, the the short answer is that you that a concept of property has to pre exist contract I I agree of course. Well in one sense on the other sense the contract the concept of agreement is the antecedent of property right because Property arises when civilized people come together and they agree with each other in a sense to Live in that live, right? Like I'm gonna respect what you do you respect what I do and we're gonna Cooperate with each other live in a society with division of labor. So in a way agreement Which is a proxy for copyright. I mean for contract Agreement is the antecedent for property, but I agree that property and contract and agreement all go together Well, they not only go together, but but one half, you know, it's like, uh, you know, Pierre Prudence, you know, uh famous Socialists maximum property is theft. Yes, and and the the criticism of that is to say well Theft is completely meaningless Yes Absent a concept of property and so property they not only go together, but property has to come first I totally agree. I do I think I think I think I would say Sorry go ahead I will say the exact same thing about contract um contract is simply a A promise or a set of promises that the law will enforce as a as a duty And there will be law in a free society. There'll be a free market law. Yes and and but One can only contract with that which is property You know, I can sell you my car, but I can't sell you that car because I don't own that car. Yes, but but you and I agree We we already agree that scarce resources should be protected by property rights So the question is should non scarce resources be protected by property rights No, and again, I prefer I prefer to use the term rival risk Um, but I and that's part of you know, my definition the intellectual property non trivial homesteaded rival risk intellectual object that substantially functions as productive capacity So I think that pretty much rules out patent stuff Wait, hold on a second. So are you saying that you don't have a property right in something unless you can Show that it's got some kind of productive capacity Is that a condition of having property rights in some resource? You I'm sorry Well, are you you mentioned? No, no, it wouldn't no it wouldn't necessarily apply to to any resource But that is the way to show That it is a a a separate object than the consumer object Okay, I don't know. What's what's an object and what's the relevance of something being an object? Um, I'm not sure if I'm not sure if I understand your question Well, you're mentioning it being an object, right as if that's a relevant thing to mention So what's the relevance of it? Well of doing something as an object To show that it to show that it exists to so what does that mean from first But earlier you were saying that property didn't even exist like scarce bodies. I mean It seems why okay. Yeah. Why is it rivalrous? That's what you're getting at. Yeah, but but but really there's Do you really think there's a big dispute? Do you think that there's a dispute at all about whether an idea or a pattern of information is rivalrous? I mean, do you believe are you saying that? The recipe to build a house in a certain way Is rivalrous? Are you saying that I don't think I don't think so but the the the the the test Is going to be the test does that in the test for what the test for whether it's rightly property Is going to come down to is it rivalrous and here's here's how I attack that okay Wait, so you just will you agree or disagree with that? Uh, I think you think rivalrous you think non rivalrous things can be property or should be property I think a recipe most likely is not rivalrous, but let me let me just get no, but do you think it should be property? If it's not rivalrous it cannot be property But here's what we have to do to try to get at that we have to define rivalrous and we agreed It means use by one interferes with use by another Yes, but then then we have to when we're looking at some particular intellectual object We have to ask what is its use Give me an example of an intellectual object that you're talking about that you think there's a property right in that's not rivalrous so that Should be reclassified as rivalrous. I'm kind of Unconfused on are you saying that anything? that Only things that are rivalrous should have property rights in them, but that some Things that are now called ip ought to be viewed as rivalrous is that what you're saying Yes, okay, so give give me an example the clearest example You can think of of an ideal, which is what tom palmer calls it an ideal object Which is rivalrous, although most Well, I would say every economist on the face of the earth would say is not rivalrous. So give me an example of a actually rivalrous pattern or recipe or a An original song that exists as a digital media file. Okay a song. Okay So the song is rivalrous. Why? It's rivalrous because It's use Okay, not the consumer use, but the capital goods use of that digital media file is to mass produce copies and to exploit a scarce and limited supply But why do you why do you why do you say that's its use? You're just stating that like it's like it's uncontroversial Okay, yeah, I mean hold on hold on in the pot. All right. That's a great question. Couldn't I say um, if I had a monopoly to produce playing cards in england in 1612 that That monopoly right is us is a rivalrous resource because So long as people respect it. I can sell playing cards at a monopoly price and make a lot of money so And couldn't I say that someone who has a Medicare or social security Payment or income or a veteran's welfare veteran's pension or whatever Don't they have a stream of income that they value. I mean, so what I don't understand why a government Grant of some income stream or protection from competition That you can profit from means that there's a property right in that which is what it seems to me all you're saying No, no, no, no, no It's not oh come on. That's not what I'm saying I'm simply saying that You you in order to decide whether something is or is not rivalrous You have to start with the definition of what rivalrous is Which is something that I do include in my book is something. I actually frankly found Not in in your book. Okay, which was But in its use by one interferes with use by another so obviously then the next question you have to ask is What is the use and I think one of the the big contributions of Austrian economics Is to understand that all valuation is subjective and and that's what we're talking about When something is useful hang on. Okay. No, no, I'm just saying I agree. I'm agree. Go ahead When when something is useful when something is valuable, it means it's useful. That's really just the same thing usefulness is is value and what what I value and find useful might very well be different than what you value And what you find useful and so when you have Say a song that I created that I wrote and that I recorded And I find it useful. You have to I you know You know, the consumers out there might find it useful for entertainment purposes But that's not why I find this digital media file useful I find it useful because I can use it to mass produce new copies of that and sell them Only as copyright only as copyright law Stefan let me finish my sentence. Okay, please. Okay. That's how I find it useful And it's clear to me That somebody copying Interfers with that use so now you and I have agreed that the definition of rival risk is Interfers with use so now I think is pretty clear That somebody copying and if they're going to try to then commercially exploit Another copy of that digital media file. That's going to interfere with my use and therefore it is rival risk And that's why you have to look at Whether this object does or does not substantially function as a productive capacity That's going to be the key. The key is understanding the difference between producer use and consumer use between producer or capital goods and consumer goods Because you know, and if this intellectual object is functioning as a capital good Then you can say that the person who created it Homesteaded that capital productive capacity into existence and because it was an active homesteading It's rightfully owned. So that that's how I approach it. Do you see, um Do you see the need to um Further define this and to limit the boundaries of what you're talking about because otherwise Do you see the danger of this spinning out of control and in staring the world in a net of Of limits that no one could use their property for anything or do you see? Absolutely. Um, and I do and and and the exact same problem arises with physical property No, it doesn't it doesn't the exact same problem does not arise, but go ahead Sure. No, well, of course it could, you know, somebody finds a previously unowned patch of land And stands there and says um I hear by homestead as far as my eyes can see in all directions This is now my property But that's not the libertarian view the libertarian view is that you get to homestead The actual scarce resource, which is a real scarce means used in human action To the extent you actually use it and you can show Evidence of that by mixing your labor with it or putting up borders that show people the Exact borders and extent of the boundaries of your property. I I I don't see the the analogy at all I mean, you know, I I think I'm more inclined to To favor the actual use of rather than, you know, because I don't know that building a fence Necessarily is enough. I mean somebody could no, I agree the For use I think somebody builds a uh a 10 foot square fence right in some area And he says I've just put a fence around my land, but it's not it's actually not the fence What you think is inside I've actually fenced inside the entire rest of the earth On the other side on the outside of that fence. Yeah, I agree. I agree And then there's there there's all kinds of other things. Look if I It's a practical thing you're actually using a resource in a way that the society around you recognizes Is a use of this resource which human beings use For certain purposes in the real world Right. Okay. So the street is always over a scarce resource And it seems to me you're setting up a sit. I mean, would you at least agree? I mean, you've already agreed the burden proof is on you I mean, let me ask you a question. How certain are you In your mind That you could work you can make some legitimate theory out of your ip your proto and I and you're not talking about patent and copyright as they exist today although you seem hesitant to Advocate the repeal of patent and copyright. So I have to think there's some similarity. So I don't really know Whether you're really in favor of patent copyright being abolished and whether there's a similarity And whether what you're advocating is something totally different I mean, what do you think is your burden of proof of clarifying what you're advocating and How different it is from the current ip system Or what? Well, yeah, I um I think I'm I'm gaining confidence as I go forward Again, my my approach in the beginning was to first Restate the existing case for property rights as given by the austral libertarians by mesis and rothbard and haunz hoppe In theory of capitalism and socialism Um, which you cite in your book and I which I think is right on Then to postulate my intellectual space matter objects Then to build up the case for intellectual property Using exactly the same logic as the case for physical property. Just simply substituting in intellectual matter for physical matter intellectual objects for physical objects, um and and so on and I've done that and I've really there's a table that you can find on my blog Which is homestead ip dot blog spot dot com There's a table where I do a side-by-side comparison Of a song as my intellectual object and a bicycle as a physical object And I take it from the point where it doesn't exist at all to bringing it into existence to You know, what is the consumer use? What's the what's the capital good? What is the effect of copying this object? What you know and side-by-side by side step by step by step I just don't find a difference and I got into this thinking that I would find these huge differences But I but I just don't so no and I'll be honest. You're the only guy I've ever talked to who Anyway, you know what I'm saying You're the only guy I've talked to who I don't agree with on this who is not I mean, I think you're I think you're searching honestly. Um, let me ask you a couple questions I think we need to cut it off in a couple minutes, but If you believed there was a conflict between The kind of common sense libertarian property rights and scarce resources that we I think all believe in and these IP ideas would you Would you give the IP up or do you think that the other is more primary? That's one question. I have for you So let me just take one question So, um, you know, you're I think you're asking whether You know intellectual property imposes, you know the class, you know imposes restrictions on physical property, you know I write a book. I say you cannot copy it Yes, we know who am I to tell you you can't use your own physical body your own pen and your own paper and your own ink um And but I would simply point out that physical property has exactly the same kind of restrictions on it Okay, you own a gun you own bullets. You're not allowed to shoot me even though It's your body pulling the trigger and it's your bullet. Yeah, but okay, so this is um Um This is an argument that I get all the time and it it kind of drives me nuts because So what you're what you're saying is that? Because property rights are limited sometimes any limit is okay. That's how it sounds to me No, so but but then what's the relevance of the fact that I can't I mean the reason I can't shoot my gun at your head is because you have a property right in your head Right. So in other words, you're using the primacy of property rights in physical property to argue that property rights are not Are not uh, absolute or something like that. I mean, I don't even understand what that argument is supposed to prove I mean, you know, you could murder someone you could say you could say what that argument is What that argument is supposed to prove is that intellectual property behaves just like Physical property in a in a praxeological analysis. You could say that slavery behaves like regular property I own a property right in the slave. I can sell him it behaves like it. So the hell what that's not the question The question is whether a given action is justified or not And if you and I both assume that people have property rights in their bodies And then things that they acquire by contract or that they appropriate from the unknown state of nature Then if someone else can tell me I can't use it in a certain way Then they have to have a good reason for that. They have to either have be the first owner of it They have to have bought it from me by contract or have a contract with me Or I have to be using my property in a way that invades their property Right, but in the case of ip none of that's happening. I am just manufacturing a new car Let's say that looks like your car or a new mousetrap or making a novel I'm printing copies of a novel. How is that invading your physical property rights that we agree on? I think you agree that it's not what you're saying is that it invades your This opportunity space kind of thing this idea that you have the I mean, I honestly don't I think I I don't think you would disagree you would have to define this a lot more clearly To set up some kind of private property rights scheme In this idea space idea you have right? I mean and I actually don't understand it because I understand ip and I don't know whether Your your conception of ip Private ip whatever you want to call it Is broader or narrower Or more restrictive or less restrictive than the current ip system. Does it apparently last forever? Unlike current ip and apparently it would cover things more than ip. I mean ip doesn't cover Food recipes or fashion designs right now or database rights Or maps I don't know if yours would cover that or not. I don't know what the general principle is It seems it seems to me that if you make a general principle out of what you're talking about You're going to choke off all human life and productivity because you're going to say Every idea we come up with that is useful in some capital good sense Then someone has a proprietary right in it Which means they have the right to stop other people from using it unless they get permission Which means everyone's got to get permission from everyone all the time For billions and billions of actions that can perform in their life And so that means you could never even ask permission because that might be copyrighted or whatever you want to call it So I just think human life would die out. I I just see nothing wrong with observing. I mean Let me ask you a simple question. Let's say on on your version of the free market There is competition And you see a guy make a new mousetrap which has an improvement Can you make a similar mousetrap and compete with him or do you think that's a violation of his property rights? Um, I I do not think it's a violation of his copy a copyright I mean a mousetrap is a is a physical object There's an intellectual design component to it and in the current patent law Maybe somebody has a patent and that might interfere with that but under my uh conception The intellectual component itself is like a recipe or a plan for how to build a better mousetrap But that recipe itself does not substantially function as a productive capacity. Why not? Why doesn't it? Why why do you say it doesn't because you still need Pieces of wood and metal and unobtainium and whatever is in this in this recipe. You can't simply take The intellectual stuff Duplicate that and sell that to consumers. So they want the better mousetrap. So in the pre-internet age You would say the same thing about a song because a song had to be put on pieces of paper, etc. Nowadays it's digital So you're saying intellectual property should not exist except in the digital age. Is that kind of what you're saying? Um No, I mean that's kind of getting to what i'm getting at. But no, I think I think there was a copyright pre digital um, you know Yes, you know to physically copy a book you need ink and paper and so forth But I think you could still say that the intellectual content Substantially functions as a productive capacity. Um, and again, I I fully agree that That that drawing these lines as to what is substantial and what is not is arbitrary and subjective I I grant that but I would just simply point out that physical property has exactly the same kinds of subjective arbitrary Um boundary issues that have to that have to be drawn. Yeah, I that's just I hear what you're saying I I do think personally there's a difference between the uh The unavoidability of gray areas, right like say between tracts of land or between gray areas of There's a clear area here. There's a clear area here in between. It's gray. I think that's unavoidable that's not the same thing is subjective and especially arbitrary and the the patent So because you and I both agree there should be a patent a property right in this tract of land And there should be one here and so then is necessarily the case that there's a border between them the problem with let's say iron rand's argument for Some patent term that's somewhere between infinity and zero say she just assumes it should be A finite number between zero and infinity And she says well And I agree with her if you assume that the patent term or the copyright term should be More than zero and less than infinity Then you've got to pick some number in the middle and it's kind of like the gray area situation of the property board as we talked about earlier But that requires assuming that zero is not as good as some finite number And I would say it's it's not a a Gaussian curve where the some some peak in the middle We're trying to reach the peak. I think it's a a monotonically decreasing curve Where the more you have the worse it gets and the optimum is a zero. Maybe it's this way I don't know but so anyway, that's a different issue. But um, I think we should kind of cut it off now I think I've let you have your say and I respect your opinion I think you should keep working on it and thinking about it and I will too And if you want to give any kind of final you shout it out your website a couple times And I think we should keep dialoguing on this because I think you're an honest and uh A sincere thinker on this issue, which is very rare and I hate to be condescending again, but very rare from your side Um So go ahead. Have your final say I really appreciate. Yeah, again, it's homestead ip.blogspot.com I uh, you know back at you, you know, I really appreciate the opportunity to uh, you know to come on dialogue with you I I absolutely agree that if ip is property then it is property And if it's not then it's not and and any of this well, yeah, but it should only last for 17 years All of that I agree. It's just fuzzy and muddled and and and so forth. So I I will continue working on this and um And uh, again, I really appreciate the opportunity to come on with you Stefan. Thank you very much Like talking to you too. We'll chat later. Okay. All right. Bye. Bye. Bye