Discussion of the legitimacy of Intellectual Property

[Paco Bedejo]

Along with some of you other libertarian-minded folks, IP is one of the few areas where I see a lot of gray. I do pirate some films, songs, and games which I want to check out - but I purchase many others either upon media or via subscription/add-supported services.

Video games, for example, are typically $50-$60 each & often do not have a legal evaluation avenue. Once purchased, they cannot be returned. Therefore, I go ahead & download a copy, check it out, and then decide whether I would purchase it or not. Personally, I'll only purchase the game if I think it will deliver sufficient entertainment at around $0.25/hr. I have several games I play which come in under this cost.

I'm not a music connoisseur & typically listen to streaming services like Pandora or Slacker when I do desire music. If I wish to listen to a song on-demand, perhaps to point out some funny or poignant lyrics to a buddy, I'll quickly pirate it. I do not archive music, so that song would be deleted shortly after the single demonstration. I refuse to pay the going-rate & deal with the current distribution schemes for such a purpose.

With movies & TV shows, I'll exhaust all reasonably priced legal avenues before I choose to pirate something. Episode 201 of South Park (the Mohammad episode) is a shining example. I can watch all other episodes of South Park from their official website which is supported by ads. This one episode has been removed, so I pirated it. I use Hulu.com & my Netflix subscription to find most of my passive entertainment. Hulu is paid by me watching advertisements. Netflix gets a monthly subscription fee out of me.

I do occasionally greedily pirate some items, such as PC games my friends may want to play which do not meet my $0.25/hr mark, low-brow movies which come nowhere near being worth $15-$20 & cannot be viewed using Hulu or Netflix, or a few bits of music for single-time-usage.

Ultimately, all of these items are streams of 0s & 1s which are infinitely reproducible. I use my dollars to vote for the ones I wish to see sequels/improvements of & withhold my dollars from the ones I can easily live without. I only pirate the items which fall in-between & aren't accessible in an ad-supported format.

As far as non-media applications of IP law; I believe that a few years (3ish?) should be more than an adequate amount of time in order to take your invention to market & become the most efficient producer. Giving exclusive rights to an assemblage of parts/ingredients for an entire generation is ridiculous, counter-productive, and stifling in my opinion.

However, I think the issue most people focus upon isn't caused by the duration of patents, but rather by how willy-nilly they are doled out & how many of them are granted. User-interface patents are a great example. Apple (I think?) has a patent on pinch-zoom. Someone else holds a patent on scroll-wheels. Touch sensitive screens are another. I don't mean the method of manufacture or anything either, I'm talking about the features themselves. Most of these are not things I would call "innovative" and in many cases they would be quite obvious to anyone in the industries.

So...to sum up my ramblings...

• Digital media copyrights are unenforceable & media companies should instead use a blend of copy-protection & reasonably priced, conspicuous, and convenient distribution methods.
• Patents last too long & should only be used to grant a very limited jump-start to the market.
• Patents are given out like gold-stars in kindergarten. They need to be relatively rare & given only for truly innovative ideas. Not a new shape for screw-heads (screw you Torx!)

 

[homeless]

The hard-core Libertarians do not believe in intellectual property and believe that the intellectual essence of anything you've created can be freely used by anyone else the moment you manufacture it or express it on paper.

First off, Unless you can cite sources of a consensus of Libertarians and define the term Hard Core, this whole statement is invalid. * There is actually some debate most of it between Minarchistic and Anachrocapitalistic elements. **


The Minarchistic view being that the COTUS provides for the protection of intellectual property, and that the work of my mind is as much my property as the toil of my hands.




The Anachrocapitalistic point is that ANY government intervention into business conflicts with the free market and thus the government cannot protect intellectual property.*


These are just the two most prominent ideologies in the IP debate concerning libertarianism. **

 

[smoking357]

No you don't. Nobody poked you with anything. A discussion was started, and you used your first post to pick a fight by using needlessly inflammatory language instead of making a calm and reasonable argument.

I'll tell you what. I'll stick to being right, and you can have all the nebulous "calm and reasonable" pablum you desire.

So far you've done nothing more than construct a straw man about what you claim certain people support, make unfounded assertions about its consequences without regard for the full scope of the discussion, imply that you oppose the straw man, and claim victory.

You, Sir, are unfamiliar with the literature.

It would be far more edifying for all involved if we were to get into an actual discussion rather than an e-peen contest, but it's clear that your preference is for the latter.

I see you missed the point of my posts, entirely. If you wish to disagree on how Libertarians view IP, you're welcome to trot out some cites.

You might even advance your own argument, so I can see how it squares with the body of Libertarian thought. Further, if you'll review my posts in this thread, you'll find that I offered the best words on the subject.

 

[smoking357]

First off, Unless you can cite sources of a consensus of Libertarians and define the term Hard Core, this whole statement is invalid. * There is actually some debate most of it between Minarchistic and Anachrocapitalistic elements. **


The Minarchistic view being that the COTUS provides for the protection of intellectual property, and that the work of my mind is as much my property as the toil of my hands.




The Anachrocapitalistic point is that ANY government intervention into business conflicts with the free market and thus the government cannot protect intellectual property.*


These are just the two most prominent ideologies in the IP debate concerning libertarianism. **

You completely ignored the meta-question of whether Libertarians even accept the syntatical legitimacy of the term "intellectual property."

 

[hoosiertriangle]

The only view on Intellectual Property you have espoused is "I view that position as the outright theft of the economic output of an entire occupation in the division of labor." What would be helpful is if you could explain the principles which allow you to come to your position.

Further, if you'll review my posts in this thread, you'll find that I offered the best words on the subject.

 

[smoking357]

Except that you're not buying the song. To do so would mean that you owned the song and all rights to it. When you "buy" a song on iTunes, you're buying the non-exclusive right to play that song on that MP3 player or the computer linked to it.

Similar is true of the CD. Sure, you have the ability to copy and play it elsewhere, but if you copy it and give it to someone else without paying for another copy, that's piracy. Think of it as a book. If you buy a hard copy of that book, you can read it as much as you like. You can loan it to someone else, but then you don't have it to read yourself. You could go through and photocopy every page, but again, that would be a form of piracy.

Your argument is circular. All of the above is the subject at issue. You can't use what's at issue to prove what's at issue.

I probably don't need to tell you about the fact that if you don't pay the author/artist for the work they do, they have no incentive (and probably no ability) to create more, because they need to go work a regular 9-5 job to make a living.

I can't argue any of these points; the original artist deserves to be compensated for his or her work.

Libertarians argue that you are entitled to whatever you can sell your version for, but you can't interfere with my ability to sell versions that I produce. If someone else can take your music and make a more attractive CD with it, let the market determine winners and losers.

There's nothing prohibiting the artist from making his own CD's and charging for them.

This is the Libertarian argument, and they flatly deny that incentive is diminished in absence of IP laws.

If you don't agree... I can only guess that you've never created anything of which you are proud and for which you deserved the appropriate credit.

Blessings,
Bill

That's the fallacy of bias and a circular argument. You only think you deserve credit because you're accustomed to such a system.

If you want to attack the Libertarian position, you need to show why an artist or inventor is entitled to exclusive economic benefit of what he produces.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Why do you post? What do you want to accomplish with your posts? What Fletch, BOR, and others have tried to say is that if one of your goals is to help others see why you're right, present the information in a manner which is likely to be received by your audience.

Unless you can unpack why your "right" in your own overcrowded mind, saying your right is a waste of everyone's time and energy.

I'll tell you what. I'll stick to being right, and you can have all the nebulous "calm and reasonable" pablum you desire.

 

[smoking357]

The only view on Intellectual Property you have espoused is "I view that position as the outright theft of the economic output of an entire occupation in the division of labor." What would be helpful is if you could explain the principles which allow you to come to your position.

Indeed, but to work that out fully would result in an article that I would publish in an academic journal, not here.

The thesis line is enough to set a reader on the right track.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Please clarify for the simple minded, do you agree with "the Libertarian" view of IP or are you just taking BOR to task for his post logic?

That's the fallacy of bias and a circular argument. You only think you deserve credit because you're accustomed to such a system.

If you want to attack the Libertarian position, you need to show why an artist or inventor is entitled to exclusive economic benefit of what he produces.

 

[smoking357]

Why do you post? What do you want to accomplish with your posts? What Fletch, BOR, and others have tried to say is that if one of your goals is to help others see why you're right, present the information in a manner which is likely to be received by your audience.

Unless you can unpack why your "right" in your own overcrowded mind, saying your right is a waste of everyone's time and energy.

Just remember, it's not how you say it, but what you say that's important. The inverse is a salve for weak minds.

You must realize that I knew this thread was unsuited to this audience at its inception.

If you want to have a worthwhile discussion on this subject, stop by freesteader.com and talk to some posters who are capable Libertarian practitioners.

 

[jsgolfman]

I don't think he ignored it at all. There is no consensus on the legitimacy of IP amongst libertarians. Indeed, even among those who do recognize IP, there is no consensus on what the limits are or what properly constitutes IP and distinguishes it from tangible property.

From your viewpoint, on what grounds do you defend IP? Utilitarian or natural rights?

 

[hoosiertriangle]

But you could take the additional few minutes of effort to help us understand the principles you believe to be the underpinning of your philosophy. The thesis alone is not sufficient for any of us to give independent weight to the validity of your viewpoint.

Indeed, but to work that out fully would result in an article that I would publish in an academic journal, not here.

The thesis line is enough to set a reader on the right track.

 

[smoking357]

Please clarify for the simple minded, do you agree with "the Libertarian" view of IP or are you just taking BOR to task for his post logic?

I've already stated my position, but I challenge your question, noting that my particular position is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[smoking357]

But you could take the additional few minutes of effort to help us understand the principles you believe to be the underpinning of your philosophy. The thesis alone is not sufficient for any of us to give independent weight to the validity of your viewpoint.

Fine. Ignore it.

 

[smoking357]

Indeed, even among those who do recognize IP,

Right there. That's the germ of the discussion.

How does one have a property interest in an idea?

How does one rightfully exclude another from an idea?

 

[hoosiertriangle]

I agree that the idea itself is what is important, but the idea must be communicated. Communication requires more than just mere words and their arrangement. Presentation can be a critical ingredient to precise communication. Intentionally expressing ideas to others in way which is known to cause difficulty for those receiving the communication is just lazy.

Furthermore, this thread was not intended to be a discussion of how Libertarians view IP, but as a discussion of the legitimacy of IP. The Libertarian philosophy is only one aspect of the discussion.

Just remember, it's not how you say it, but what you say that's important. The inverse is a salve for weak minds.

You must realize that I knew this thread was unsuited to this audience at its inception.

If you want to have a worthwhile discussion on this subject, stop by freesteader.com and talk to some posters who are capable Libertarian practitioners.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

I don't want to ignore it. I think you're intelligent and you think your intelligent, so I believe you probably have additional information to offer. I'd like you to share it.

Fine. Ignore it.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

The question need not be challenged, I only requested clarification. Even though your view on "the Libertarian" perspective is only tangentially related, it still helps me develop a better understanding of your thinking.

I've already stated my position, but I challenge your question, noting that my particular position is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[smoking357]

I agree that the idea itself is what is important, but the idea must be communicated. Communication requires more than just mere words and their arrangement. Presentation can be a critical ingredient to precise communication. Intentionally expressing ideas to others in way which is known to cause difficulty for those receiving the communication is just lazy.

No. "Communication" is not "discussion," and it's a non sequitur to allow "presentation" to influence an argument.

I'm content when I can be more laconic than Wittgenstein.

Furthermore, this thread was not intended to be a discussion of how Libertarians view IP, but as a discussion of the legitimacy of IP. The Libertarian philosophy is only one aspect of the discussion.

Good point. See my post preceding this. Regardless of approach, that's the essence of the discussion.

 

[Lex Concord]

Your argument is circular. All of the above is the subject at issue. You can't use what's at issue to prove what's at issue.



Libertarians argue that you are entitled to whatever you can sell your version for, but you can't interfere with my ability to sell versions that I produce. If someone else can take your music and make a more attractive CD with it, let the market determine winners and losers.

There's nothing prohibiting the artist from making his own CD's and charging for them.

This is the Libertarian argument, and they flatly deny that incentive is diminished in absence of IP laws.



That's the fallacy of bias and a circular argument. You only think you deserve credit because you're accustomed to such a system.

If you want to attack the Libertarian position, you need to show why an artist or inventor is entitled to exclusive economic benefit of what he produces.

Please define your use of the word "Libertarian". Your choice to capitalize the word implies you are referring to the "Libertarian Party" and official positions held by the same. I, however, have been unable to find any plank in the LP's platform referring to "IP", "Intellectual Property", or "Copyright".

That being the case, your use of the term must be different than usual indications would imply. Since your authoritative understanding of "the Libertarian argument" must have some basis, I would be curious to know what that basis is and what your operating definition of "Libertarian" is, sir.