Read this before having an opinion on economics - page 4.

stillfire

full member

Activity: 124

Merit: 101

Quote from: NghtRppr on May 03, 2011, 06:59:00 PM

Then there's the loss of goodwill towards doing business with someone that reserves the right to torture/execute you. Who writes a book that is that good?

That would have to be quite an astonishing book. I hear there is at least one book promising to burn you in an eternal inferno which is rather popular.

Quote from: NghtRppr on May 03, 2011, 06:59:00 PM

Also, if Bob is the only buyer of Alice's book, it's fairly obvious who leaked it. When Alice sells millions of copies, which is the point of copyright after all, it becomes a lot harder.

Yes, although digital watermarking is becoming more and more commonplace. I recently read that the FBI claimed to have a solid lead on who among the Academy peers leaked The King's Speech.

Either way, loss of goodwill does not seem to have stopped the current media industry juggernaut from suing countless people. Or calling an appropriate punishment for private infringement $1.92 million dollars (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars).

Here's to the vain hope that book reading contracts in a future libertarian world don't contain punishments for disclosure in the range of millions of dollars.

Edit: changed "earmarking" to "watermarking".

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: stillfire on May 03, 2011, 06:54:29 PM

Surely, the original contract would contain a clause to discourage this eventuality, e.g. "If Bob allows a copy to be made, he hereby requests to be hung, quartered and drawn." (Which incidentally is probably where today's punishments for copyright infringement seem to be heading.)

I doubt anyone would agree to those terms since there's always the small chance that Bob could be the victim of theft or fraud. The only way it would work is if you included a clause that it must be intentional. Proving intent would be pretty difficult.

Then there's the loss of goodwill towards doing business with someone that reserves the right to torture/execute you. Who writes a book that is that good?

Also, if Bob is the only buyer of Alice's book, it's fairly obvious who leaked it. When Alice sells millions of copies, which is the point of copyright after all, it becomes a lot harder.

stillfire

full member

Activity: 124

Merit: 101

Quote from: NghtRppr on May 03, 2011, 06:31:08 PM

What if the copy isn't a hard copy but rather a PDF? The PDF never changes hands. There is a PDF on Bob's computer and then a PDF is created on Carol's. Even if we can agree that Alice owns Bob's PDF, why should she own Carol's?

I think this particular argument boils down to "what if Carol was the one who made the copy by observing the bytes on Bob's computer?"

I don't see a way to close that particular loophole by contract.

Surely, the original contract would contain a clause to discourage this eventuality, e.g. "If Bob allows a copy to be made, he hereby requests to be hung, quartered and drawn." (Which incidentally is probably where today's punishments for copyright infringement seem to be heading.)

But this would only be unfortunate for Bob and it would still leave Carol in the clear, as you say.

I think there is a case to be made that while you can't completely derive copyright from property rights through this form of contract, you can at least have something quite similar. You can allow people to view your material while essentially holding them at legal gunpoint should they fail to protect it. Once the information is out you have no rightful claim on it, but that requires that the last party in the chain of contracts is ready to suffer the consequences.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: stillfire on May 03, 2011, 06:27:37 PM

Let's imagine a library agreement like this one: "Bob may possess the book on the condition that he returns it on Friday. Furthermore, Bob agrees that should he make a copy of the book, he hereby transfers ownership of such copies to Alice."

What if the copy isn't a hard copy but rather a PDF? The PDF never changes hands. There is a PDF on Bob's computer and then a PDF is created on Carol's. Even if we can agree that Alice owns Bob's PDF, why should she own Carol's?

stillfire

full member

Activity: 124

Merit: 101

Let's imagine a library agreement like this one: "Bob may possess the book on the condition that he returns it on Friday. Furthermore, Bob agrees that should he make a copy of the book, he hereby transfers ownership of such copies to Alice."

Now if he sends a copy to Carol, he's sending Alice's property to Carol. The ownership of the new copy was permanently established due to Bob's binding contract.

Bob could argue that he "broke" the contract and therefore does not recognise that the copy is Alice's property. But if merely saying so was sufficient to break a contract, we wouldn't have contracts.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Let's assume that Alice writes the contract as follows: "Bob owns the book as long as he doesn't make a copy. If he makes a copy, he has to return the book and destroy any copies he makes."

However, if he sends a copy to Carol, she isn't bound by the contract and Bob has no legal right to force Carol to destroy her copies even though Alice does have the legal right to force Bob to destroy his copies.

If you have a better way of wording the contract, let me know. I'd hate to attack a straw man argument.

stillfire

full member

Activity: 124

Merit: 101

Quote from: NghtRppr on May 03, 2011, 04:13:52 PM

You can only steal property but if you're treating ideas as property then that obviates the need for a contract in the first place.

For the sake of this argument I am not treating ideas as property. Rather, I am attempting to frame the proceeds of use of stolen physical property as belonging to the owner of the original physical property, be it a physical copy or interest.

Quote from: NghtRppr on May 03, 2011, 04:13:52 PM

If Carol steals Alice's money with the aide of Bob then he's an accessory to the crime, no contracts need be involved. The entire point in involving a contract is to go above and beyond what property rights already allow for.

The point of the contract is to allow Bob to hold the book legally but conditionally so that the property may instantly cease to be his for legal use should he break the contract. Without the contract, I could not make my argument.

The example with money was not there to illustrate the need for a contract but again that proceeds from thievery do not become the property of the thief.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: stillfire on May 03, 2011, 04:07:16 PM

I believe Mr. Rothbard argues that there are two things which must be forbidden in a libertarian, natural rights, property-rights theory: theft and implicit theft. Again, "...the defendant stole the former’s creation by reproducing it and selling it himself in violation of his or someone else’s contract with the original seller." Carol is an implicit thief.

I don't think this logic applies in the case of intellectual property. When possessing stolen goods, you are depriving the rightful owner of their use. When possessing non-contractually copied information, you are not depriving the rightful owner of their use, but rather his claim to control their use. If it is to apply, I feel it must be shown that such deprivation is equivalent in harm, and thus that one does have a right to control the use of such information.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: stillfire on May 03, 2011, 04:07:16 PM

Carol is an implicit thief.

You can only steal property but if you're treating ideas as property then that obviates the need for a contract in the first place. If Carol steals Alice's money with the aide of Bob then he's an accessory to the crime, no contracts need be involved. The entire point in involving a contract is to go above and beyond what property rights already allow for.

stillfire

full member

Activity: 124

Merit: 101

Quote from: NghtRppr on May 03, 2011, 02:07:44 PM

That's incorrect. If Alice and Bob have a contract between them whereby Bob agrees not to make copies of Alice's work but Bob breaches that contract anyways and sends a copy to Carol, Bob has violated that contract and legal recourse may be taken against Bob. However, Carol now has a copy of that work, isn't bound by any contract and can do whatever she pleases with it, including sending a copy to anyone she wishes.

Indeed. Here my attempt to play the devil's advocate will become more stilted because I happen to agree.

Still, I will give it a try for the sake of argument. I believe Mr. Rothbard argues that there are two things which must be forbidden in a libertarian, natural rights, property-rights theory: theft and implicit theft. Again, "...the defendant stole the former’s creation by reproducing it and selling it himself in violation of his or someone else’s contract with the original seller." Carol is an implicit thief.

It would be similar to if Carol ran a thievery house and her guild member Bob stole money from Alice. Bob made interest on the money and then returned the stolen money to Alice (or not, it does not particularly matter), but gave the interest to Carol. Even that Carol never directly held any of Alice's monies - only Bob did that - Carol does not own the interest monies she received and her actions must be made illegal for the rights of property to hold.

(Of course I might be getting Mr. Rothbard's opinion entirely wrong since the case of the third party is not particularly discussed in the chapter. It's rather focused on the difference between copyright and patents. http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10e.asp#7._Patents_Copyrights)

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

Quote from: NghtRppr on May 03, 2011, 02:07:44 PM

In other words, a contract between two parties isn't automatically binding on a third party. Once the cat is out of the bag, there is no putting it back in.

This is the point I was trying to make.

Quote from: stillfire on May 03, 2011, 02:03:21 PM

Only to the extent that you do not bypass the contract by illegally entering my property or handling physical property, such as a book, which does not belong to you.

I agree with this.

Quote

For instance, earlier in the thread someone spoke of using binoculars to examine the material. This would be fine, assuming a copyright owner would be so foolish as to let the book lie open in plain sight.

But even taking the book of the shelf in a library would be wrong unless you first have permission to do so. And again such permission will not be forthcoming unless you agree to the contract.

I have to disagree, the library would have a contract with authors allowing loaning of their books out to library members, perhaps in exchange for having membership rules against copying. If a member copies a book, he is breaching of the rules of his membership, but not any contract with the author. If an author believes a library is not enforcing the rule, he can sue the library for breach of contract or just invalidate it altogether.

At least, that's one idea of how a library could work without intellectual property laws.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: stillfire on May 03, 2011, 12:00:40 PM

But you will never have access to the particular physical rendition required for you to make a copy without first agreeing not to make a copy.

That's incorrect. If Alice and Bob have a contract between them whereby Bob agrees not to make copies of Alice's work but Bob breaches that contract anyways and sends a copy to Carol, Bob has violated that contract and legal recourse may be taken against Bob. However, Carol now has a copy of that work, isn't bound by any contract and can do whatever she pleases with it, including sending a copy to anyone she wishes.

In other words, a contract between two parties isn't automatically binding on a third party. Once the cat is out of the bag, there is no putting it back in.

stillfire

full member

Activity: 124

Merit: 101

Ah, it seems like you added this part after I responded.

Quote from: BitterTea on May 03, 2011, 11:55:48 AM

If it is merely voluntary - by contract - then bypassing the contract and obtaining the information through alternative channels is not morally wrong.

Only to the extent that you do not bypass the contract by illegally entering my property or handling physical property, such as a book, which does not belong to you.

For instance, earlier in the thread someone spoke of using binoculars to examine the material. This would be fine, assuming a copyright owner would be so foolish as to let the book lie open in plain sight.

But even taking the book of the shelf in a library would be wrong unless you first have permission to do so. And again such permission will not be forthcoming unless you agree to the contract.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: BitterTea on May 03, 2011, 11:55:48 AM

That argument assumes that individuals have a right to control the use of their ideas through the use of physical force.

Why is this so?

If it is merely voluntary - by contract - then bypassing the contract and obtaining the information through alternative channels is not morally wrong.

Plenty of things are morally wrong but still legal and rightfully so, such as cheating on your partner. I personally think it's morally wrong to obtain value from creative works without contributing some of that value in the form of many back to the creator. However, that's irrelevant because it still shouldn't be illegal.

stillfire

full member

Activity: 124

Merit: 101

Quote from: BitterTea on May 03, 2011, 11:55:48 AM

That argument assumes that individuals have a right to control the use of their ideas through the use of physical force.

It makes no such assumption.

This argument assumes the individual has the right to property, in this case the physical representation of their work in e.g. the form of a book.

The individual now refuses to give you access to their property, the book, unless you first agree to certain terms. He is exercising his right to form a contract with another consenting person.

Remember this is an argument in favour of copyright, not patents. The idea itself remains free, and should you be able to reproduce it independently, that's marvellous and it is your right. But you will never have access to the particular physical rendition required for you to make a copy without first agreeing not to make a copy.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

That argument assumes that individuals have a right to control the use of their ideas through the use of physical force.

Why is this so?

If it is merely voluntary - by contract - then bypassing the contract and obtaining the information through alternative channels is not morally wrong.

stillfire

full member

Activity: 124

Merit: 101

Since most arguments in favour for Intellectual Property so far in this discussion have been rather poor from a fundamentals perspective, let me bring forth a more interesting one.

Murray Rothbard writes on copyright: "Copyrights [...] have their basis in prosecution of implicit theft. [...T]he defendant stole the former’s creation by reproducing it and selling it himself in violation of his or someone else’s contract with the original seller."

In other words, the definition of a copyrighted work is a work with a contract attached to it. The receiver agrees not to copy the material, and to hold any other person to which the material is transferred to the same contract, or otherwise refrain from receiving or transferring it.

This engages the right to hold property and the right to enter into a contract.

Now I hear you cry, 'But I never agreed to such a contract when I found the software/music/book on a P2P network!' This is no more a defence than if you purchased a chair made out of stolen wood. Somewhere along the line a contract was broken and the transfer was illegal.

BitterTea

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 252

I was impressed by the TED video too. Have you considered that your position is self contradictory?

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 05:54:32 PM

People do have the right to defend themselves with the minimum force needed to repel the attack, and only as a last resort.

Is threatening someone with the use of physical violence as a response to their disregard of your supposed right to intellectual property the "minimum force needed to repel the attack", and "only as a last resort"?

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 06:13:40 PM

Owning someone isn't morally right. So no rightful claim.

Using actual or threatened force to prevent an individual from making use of their property on the basis that you own an idea isn't morally right. So not rightful claim.

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 06:13:40 PM

If you break the law armed men will come to your house and threaten you with imprisonment. That's not agression, thats defence on behalf of the community.

The definition of aggression is "initiation of the use of force". Theft is an act of aggression because it deprives the owner use of the property. Unauthorized copying does not deprive the original owner of the original, nor the ability to create additional copies; without further justification it cannot be considered an act of aggression.

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 06:13:40 PM

If you don't like the law you try to get it changed, or use civil disobedience, but civil disobedience means that you are willing to accept the punishment.

"Disobey civilly or we'll have to kill you!"

djoot

newbie

Activity: 13

Merit: 0

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 05:54:32 PM

People do have the right to defend themselves with the minimum force needed to repel the attack, and only as a last resort.
When did I say that people doesn't have the right to live? Please stop putting words in my mouth.

We now live in the real world where there is IP legislation.
You infringe, I find out, I send you a notice, you ignore it. ~~You are now the agressor.~~ I had a ~~rightful~~ claim that you ignored. And here you decide to go to the monopoly court, who will interpret their monopoly laws and use their monopoly on violence, escalating this violence until BitterTea complies. If money can't be extracted by any other means police will show up at your door, as a last resort. If you start shooting at the police you have a problem, as they have the right to defend themselves. Again, with minimal force.
However if you are a normal member of society things will never go that far.

Great TED video by the way.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: JA37 on May 02, 2011, 06:13:40 PM

Owning someone isn't morally right.

Since you own yourself, you have every right to sell yourself into slavery, if that's what you choose to do voluntarily. To say otherwise is to attempt to control what other people can and cannot do with their own bodies, which is involuntary slavery. What goes on between consenting adults is their business and no one else, be it sexual acts or even voluntary slavery. A contract is a contract. If you don't want to sell yourself into slavery, don't.

Topic: Read this before having an opinion on economics - page 4. (Read 25946 times)