Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft

[stuper1]

I don't even think that artists' work needs to be viewed as IP to take my view. It's more like an implied contract. If somebody creates a song/movie/etc. and offers it for sale at a certain price, and I come along and say that the price is too high, so therefore I'm just going to rummage around to find where I can get the material for free instead, I'm certainly not acting in a moral way. If I don't want to pay the set price, then fine, I should just go without enjoying the content. I'm not being enslaved by not getting to enjoy a song or movie that I didn't pay for anyway.

I think it's a matter of whose view is the default. For the entirety of human history until extremely recently, creativity was done without any expectation of "owning" it. Haydn wrote his music because somebody paid him to, for example.

The idea of a creator preventing somebody else from singing his song or playing his music would have been the one considered immoral.

In fact, we'd do well to remember that the stated reason for IP laws is to encourage the creation of works of art in order for them to pass into the public domain.

For the entirety of human history, until the invention of the printing press, there was no way to sell multiple copies of a creative work. Once the printing press was invented, how is an author going to make a living if he can only sell one book and then it gets freely copied by a shameless thief who prints copies at a lower price than the original price? I would argue that society likely made a choice that copyright was a good idea. Apparently others would argue that it was not a good idea and was just giving an unwarranted monopoly to the original author and publisher. Well, it doesn't seem unwarranted to me. It seems like the creator of a work (book, song, movie, software, etc.) should be the one who gets to decide the terms of its sale. If people don't want to buy it, then fine, I'm sure they can live their lives quite well without enjoying that particular work.

[dualstow]

If people don't want to buy it, then fine, I'm sure they can live their lives quite well without enjoying that particular work.

^This makes a lot more sense than, If you don't want to be copied, you have the right to find another line of work.

I don't know who has the burden of proof, but the concept of intellectual property is pretty well established and protected in the west, and far I am unimpressed with arguments as to why it should be dissolved.

[nskinsella]

My point is that we live in a system of laws set up as a communal society. We have the ability to influence those laws. Obviously you are trying to do that with your work. God bless you if you can get some reasonable changes enacted. However, until that happens, people who unilaterally decide that it's okay to take artists' work without paying for it are still stealing and immoral.

Actually, this is incorrect. It is literally not "stealing" to infringe copyright, and it is certainly not immoral. Just because something is decreed illegal by the state does not mean it is immoral. And it is not "stealing" or "theft" even under current positive law, to violate copyright--it is "copyright infringement." The Supreme Court itself has recognized this: “interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ‘[…] an infringer of the copyright.'”

http://falkvinge.net/2013/12/23/reminde ... eme-court/

I don't even think that artists' work needs to be viewed as IP to take my view.

It's not actually clear what "your view" is. You seem to be just repeating some positive law things that other people repeat a lot.

It's more like an implied contract. If somebody creates a song/movie/etc. and offers it for sale at a certain price, and I come along and say that the price is too high, so therefore I'm just going to rummage around to find where I can get the material for free instead, I'm certainly not acting in a moral way. If I don't want to pay the set price, then fine, I should just go without enjoying the content. I'm not being enslaved by not getting to enjoy a song or movie that I didn't pay for anyway.

Actually, you cannot at all justify IP rights (which are "in rem") based on contract ("in personam") rights, as I have already explained *in detail* (see the section responding to Rothbard in my Against Intellectual Property. This is a complete confusion. IP has literally nothing to do with contract (or fraud, or plagiarism). If it did, you wouldn't need IP law, since we already have contract law. Think about it.

[nskinsella]

For the entirety of human history, until the invention of the printing press, there was no way to sell multiple copies of a creative work. Once the printing press was invented, how is an author going to make a living if he can only sell one book and then it gets freely copied by a shameless thief who prints copies at a lower price than the original price?

You are doing here where I've seen done a thousand times: you pose a question (which is actually not a sincere or genuine question, but a rhetorical one, posed in the form of a question, but really loaded to engage in question-begging), as if it's an argument. It's not. Just because you are confused about or even curious about how people will find ways to profit off of creative endeavors in a free society, *is not an argument*. Just think about it. Suppose someone says "we should abolish slavery because it's so appalling and immoral." And some Joe Blow pipes up, "But gee, golly gee, ... who will pick the cotton?" I mean is that question supposed to substitute for a serious argument?

What you are doing here is implicitly adopting the utilitarian idea that the point of law is to have a bunch of elected legislators solemnly make decrees (laws) that the courts will enforce, to ... I don't know, to "incentivize authors writing books." The hidden premise here is that legislation is valid and a good way of making law, and that the purpose of law is to ... incentivize... whatever you happen to think needs ... incentivizing. this is not what law is about. Law is a system of property rights created in response to the fundamental fact of scarcity and aimed at finding *just* ways to resolve disputes amicably. I.e., the point of law is justice, respect for rights--not "incentivizing authors to write Dr. Seuss books".

I would argue that society likely made a choice that copyright was a good idea.

Well, you "would", but you haven't. And os what if some people think copyright or patent law is "a good idea"? We already know this. the question is, IS IT a good idea. I mean some people think racial segregation, war, the drug war, killing Jews, whatever, is a "good idea." So what?

Apparently others would argue that it was not a good idea and was just giving an unwarranted monopoly to the original author and publisher. Well, it doesn't seem unwarranted to me. It seems like the creator of a work (book, song, movie, software, etc.) should be the one who gets to decide the terms of its sale. If people don't want to buy it, then fine, I'm sure they can live their lives quite well without enjoying that particular work.

So your argument boils down to what it "seems" to you. I have provided *detailed* arguments and explanations for why it's unworkable, immoral, unfair, unjust, and destructive for the law to give rights to patterns of information. I've yet to see anyone rebut it.

[nskinsella]

If people don't want to buy it, then fine, I'm sure they can live their lives quite well without enjoying that particular work.

^This makes a lot more sense than, If you don't want to be copied, you have the right to find another line of work.

I don't know who has the burden of proof, but the concept of intellectual property is pretty well established and protected in the west, and far I am unimpressed with arguments as to why it should be dissolved.

So in other words you are in favor of the status quo, whatever it might be. One could say the same of the drug war or chattel slavery (in its time). Whatever the law is, is just. I.e., might makes right. Let's stop ever having normative discussions. Whenever someone says "this should not be the law" the answer can always be "but it is the law, so stop whining."

[yankees60]

If people don't want to buy it, then fine, I'm sure they can live their lives quite well without enjoying that particular work.

^This makes a lot more sense than, If you don't want to be copied, you have the right to find another line of work.

I don't know who has the burden of proof, but the concept of intellectual property is pretty well established and protected in the west, and far I am unimpressed with arguments as to why it should be dissolved.

So in other words you are in favor of the status quo, whatever it might be. One could say the same of the drug war or chattel slavery (in its time). Whatever the law is, is just. I.e., might makes right. Let's stop ever having normative discussions. Whenever someone says "this should not be the law" the answer can always be "but it is the law, so stop whining."

I was going to ask you what you thought the "standard" position of libertarians would or should be regarding copyrights and intellectual property.

I remembered in the past few days you'd posted a URL here for something regarding yourself. At the time I just glanced at it but remembered seeing "anarcho-capitalist" on the page. I just went to do a (Bing) search for it but, instead, came to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan_Kinsella.

Reading what is there I can clearly see that you are a Libertarian. Therefore the question I was asking was is no longer what you thought those who are libertarian would answer but I'm now asking the question of an actual libertarian.

Super impressed with the education: "he attended Louisiana State University where he earned Bachelor of Science (BS) and Master of Science (MS) degrees in electrical engineering, and a Juris Doctor (JD) from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center (formerly known as LSU Law Center). He also obtained an LL.M. at the University of London."

The combination of all of that tells me that you are primarily driven by pure facts and the logic of those facts and the conclusions to be drawn from all of that.

Vinny

[dualstow]

So in other words you are in favor of the status quo, whatever it might be

Is that what I said?
I said I haven't seen a satisfactory argument to change it.
I thought you were going to give us a brief rundown of why you changed your mind, like CT-Scott did, but so far It's just mild hostility to the idea that we should continue to protect IP. And now, a strawman.

I noticed you attacked both "this feels right" and at the same time put these words in my mouth: "stick to the status quo, whatever it might be."
You're going to have to pick one or the other criticism, b/c they are opposed to each other. I'd go with the one I actually said.

[nskinsella]

If people don't want to buy it, then fine, I'm sure they can live their lives quite well without enjoying that particular work.

^This makes a lot more sense than, If you don't want to be copied, you have the right to find another line of work.

I don't know who has the burden of proof, but the concept of intellectual property is pretty well established and protected in the west, and far I am unimpressed with arguments as to why it should be dissolved.

So in other words you are in favor of the status quo, whatever it might be. One could say the same of the drug war or chattel slavery (in its time). Whatever the law is, is just. I.e., might makes right. Let's stop ever having normative discussions. Whenever someone says "this should not be the law" the answer can always be "but it is the law, so stop whining."

I was going to ask you what you thought the "standard" position of libertarians would or should be regarding copyrights and intellectual property.

I remembered in the past few days you'd posted a URL here for something regarding yourself. At the time I just glanced at it but remembered seeing "anarcho-capitalist" on the page. I just went to do a (Bing) search for it but, instead, came to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan_Kinsella.

Reading what is there I can clearly see that you are a Libertarian.

Not to be persnickity, but I'm a libertarian. Capital-l "Libertarian" means "member of the Libertarian Party."

Therefore the question I was asking was is no longer what you thought those who are libertarian would answer but I'm now asking the question of an actual libertarian.

Yes, I think the definitive libertarian view is that patent and copyright law should be abolished. I've managed to help persuade a good chunk of us libertarians of this view in the last 20 or so years but not everyone yet, since the influence of Ayn Rand (who was pro-IP) and utilitarians (who have no principles) is vast.

[nskinsella]

So in other words you are in favor of the status quo, whatever it might be

Is that what I said?
I said I haven't seen a satisfactory argument to change it.

So, yes, it is what you said--or implied. When you say you don't see an argument to "change it" you are assuming that the status quo is the default position and someone arguing against a given law has the burden of changing it. You don't assume that the burden of justifying an extant law is on the person supporting it. This is because everyone nowadays has an empirical mindset.

I thought you were going to give us a brief rundown of why you changed your mind, like CT-Scott did, but so far It's just mild hostility to the idea that we should continue to protect IP. And now, a strawman.

I am happy to do that if you want, but I have already done this in hundreds of lectures, interviews, articles, already. I already pointed you and others to some of this. If you want more details let me know. In the meantime see A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP which is here. I don't see why my personal journey is relevant but the long-short is that as a libertarian I was searching for a good argument for IP since all the arguments for IP that I read were horrible. And when I started practicing IP I redoubled my efforts. Finally I realized why I kept failing in my attempts--because I was trying to justify the unjustifiable. I finally realized that patent and copyright law are utterly and completely horrific and unustifiable and destructive of human life and liberty itself--and I seriously do not mean to exaggerate when I say this. IP law is a total abomination, maybe the worst mistake humanity has ever made.

I have given many reasons for these conclusions. If you want, I'm happy to elaborate or provide more references, but I think by now anyone reading this thread and genuinely curious and open minded and sincere has plenty of material to follow up on. I don't need to re-type all of my previous essays here, do I?

[stuper1]

Let's just look at a simple hypothetical. If I create say a movie which is meant for public consumption, do I get to have any say in how it gets sold? I mean I was the one who went to the effort to make the movie. Say I decide that it is going to get distributed through HBO, and together with HBO, we decide that anyone who wants to watch it has to pay $5. Then, some third party decides that no, they are going to pay the $5, record the movie, and put it up on an alternate platform and only charge people $2 to watch it. So naturally millions of people pay only the $2, and I get nothing after putting my blood, sweat, and tears into the movie. Are you saying that it is okay for the third party to do that according to natural law?

[yankees60]

Let's just look at a simple hypothetical. If I create say a movie which is meant for public consumption, do I get to have any say in how it gets sold? I mean I was the one who went to the effort to make the movie. Say I decide that it is going to get distributed through HBO, and together with HBO, we decide that anyone who wants to watch it has to pay $5. Then, some third party decides that no, they are going to pay the $5, record the movie, and put it up on an alternate platform and only charge people $2 to watch it. So naturally millions of people pay only the $2, and I get nothing after putting my blood, sweat, and tears into the movie. Are you saying that it is okay for the third party to do that according to natural law?

In the example you use...could we take it to this logical conclusion?

If it so easy for that third party to charge $2 for it, why doesn't a fourth party come in and take away all the third party's business by charging $1.99 for it...then a fifth party comes in and charges $1.98....and then we get down to a 200th or so party charging $.01 or $.00 for it (because of who knows what other reasons).

Maybe I'm asking if your argument is a valid hypothetical?

Vinny

[dualstow]

So, yes, it is what you said--or implied. When you say you don't see an argument to "change it" you are assuming that the status quo is the default position and someone arguing against a given law has the burden of changing it. You don't assume that the burden of justifying an extant law is on the person supporting it. This is because everyone nowadays has an empirical mindset.

What I stated explicitly is that I don't know who has the burden of proof.

(DS) I thought you were going to give us a brief rundown of why you changed your mind, like CT-Scott did, but so far It's just mild hostility to the idea that we should continue to protect IP. And now, a strawman.

(NK) I am happy to do that if you want, but I have already done this in hundreds of lectures, interviews, articles, already. I already pointed you and others to some of this. If you want more details let me know.
...

No, of course you don't have to retype an entire essay. But, could you provide a link to one of the more on-target essays that isn't pages and pages, because it looks like the burden of homework is on me. Not an essay that is about other things but "touches on this briefly." Something that says "Here's why I am now against IP law." And preferably something in writing, please. Not a video.

[stuper1]

Let's just look at a simple hypothetical. If I create say a movie which is meant for public consumption, do I get to have any say in how it gets sold? I mean I was the one who went to the effort to make the movie. Say I decide that it is going to get distributed through HBO, and together with HBO, we decide that anyone who wants to watch it has to pay $5. Then, some third party decides that no, they are going to pay the $5, record the movie, and put it up on an alternate platform and only charge people $2 to watch it. So naturally millions of people pay only the $2, and I get nothing after putting my blood, sweat, and tears into the movie. Are you saying that it is okay for the third party to do that according to natural law?

In the example you use...could we take it to this logical conclusion?

If it so easy for that third party to charge $2 for it, why doesn't a fourth party come in and take away all the third party's business by charging $1.99 for it...then a fifth party comes in and charges $1.98....and then we get down to a 200th or so party charging $.01 or $.00 for it (because of who knows what other reasons).

Maybe I'm asking if your argument is a valid hypothetical?

Vinny

Maybe it's not a valid hypothetical. I'm not sure. In the real world, to me it seems like the choice is between paying whatever the legitimate provider is charging, or paying nothing at all by just finding a free version of the movie on the internet.

[yankees60]

Let's just look at a simple hypothetical. If I create say a movie which is meant for public consumption, do I get to have any say in how it gets sold? I mean I was the one who went to the effort to make the movie. Say I decide that it is going to get distributed through HBO, and together with HBO, we decide that anyone who wants to watch it has to pay $5. Then, some third party decides that no, they are going to pay the $5, record the movie, and put it up on an alternate platform and only charge people $2 to watch it. So naturally millions of people pay only the $2, and I get nothing after putting my blood, sweat, and tears into the movie. Are you saying that it is okay for the third party to do that according to natural law?

In the example you use...could we take it to this logical conclusion?

If it so easy for that third party to charge $2 for it, why doesn't a fourth party come in and take away all the third party's business by charging $1.99 for it...then a fifth party comes in and charges $1.98....and then we get down to a 200th or so party charging $.01 or $.00 for it (because of who knows what other reasons).

Maybe I'm asking if your argument is a valid hypothetical?

Vinny

Maybe it's not a valid hypothetical. I'm not sure. In the real world, to me it seems like the choice is between paying whatever the legitimate provider is charging, or paying nothing at all by just finding a free version of the movie on the internet.

In the real world, probably at least 99% or more of the population either does not know how to find the free version, does not know it even exists, or finds it somewhat an inferior experience in some way--too much work or risk involving in obtaining that "free" version?

Many people ARE willing to pay a fair amount of money for the convenience factor. And, quite willing to just chose the path of least resistance. Or, the least amount of time or "work" required to acquire the experience.

Vinny

[nskinsella]

Let's just look at a simple hypothetical. If I create say a movie which is meant for public consumption, do I get to have any say in how it gets sold?

what do you mean, "do you get to have any say"? This way of wording it is vague and ambiguous. You can do whatever you want dude. But if you release information publicly, no, you can't complain about how other people use this information. If you want to keep your ideas to yourself, keep them to yourself.

I mean I was the one who went to the effort to make the movie.

Exactly. And here we have the commie Lockean/Marxian labor theory of property/value rearing its head. In physics you don't do work if you push against a wall; you need to move it. In capitalism or free markets, you are never entitled to the "value of your labor" or a reward for your effort. You can trade things with other people.

Say I decide that it is going to get distributed through HBO, and together with HBO, we decide that anyone who wants to watch it has to pay $5. Then, some third party decides that no, they are going to pay the $5, record the movie, and put it up on an alternate platform and only charge people $2 to watch it. So naturally millions of people pay only the $2, and I get nothing after putting my blood, sweat, and tears into the movie. Are you saying that it is okay for the third party to do that according to natural law?

yes, it's "okay". But maybe the HBO model would not be the one that would emerge, in the face of rampant copying. So what. Lots of creators don't get paid much, or do it as a hobby. Do poets make a lot of money? Landscape painters? They are a dime a dozen dude. Think of the millions of youtube videos people record, produce and upload for free. I mean we can imagine some ways some creators might make money sans copyright-- see e.g. http://c4sif.org/2012/01/conversation-w ... e-society/ . But the point is no one is entitled to money. As the saying goes, your failed business model is not my problem.

[nskinsella]

So, yes, it is what you said--or implied. When you say you don't see an argument to "change it" you are assuming that the status quo is the default position and someone arguing against a given law has the burden of changing it. You don't assume that the burden of justifying an extant law is on the person supporting it. This is because everyone nowadays has an empirical mindset.

What I stated explicitly is that I don't know who has the burden of proof.

Well if you believe in liberty and property rights, free markets, competition, freedom of speech and the press, civil liberties, and innovation, which most decent people do, then... a law expressly designed to impede and harm those things and that facially does so, is prima facie illegitimate, and the burden would be on someone to justify those laws. That's the situation we face with patent and copyright.

(DS) I thought you were going to give us a brief rundown of why you changed your mind, like CT-Scott did, but so far It's just mild hostility to the idea that we should continue to protect IP. And now, a strawman.

(NK) I am happy to do that if you want, but I have already done this in hundreds of lectures, interviews, articles, already. I already pointed you and others to some of this. If you want more details let me know.
...

No, of course you don't have to retype an entire essay. But, could you provide a link to one of the more on-target essays that isn't pages and pages, because it looks like the burden of homework is on me. Not an essay that is about other things but "touches on this briefly." Something that says "Here's why I am now against IP law." And preferably something in writing, please. Not a video.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I have written so many things, and it's hard to know what is the right one for different audiences. For engineers/laymen/non-libertarians, the simpler ones are usually better. I tried to list some of my "greatest hits" here: "A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP"
http://c4sif.org/aip/ . I can't tell which one would be suitable for you. If you want to dip your toe in the water, of a few that are not too complicated or detailed, try some of these (available at the previous link or http://c4sif.org/resources/ ):

I'll list a few for you in order of my suggested preference given what I assume about you (for the most in-depth, my monograph Against Intellectual Property is most comprehensive):

1. How Intellectual Property Hampers the Free Market
2. Jacob H. Huebert, “The Fight against Intellectual Property“
3. “Intellectual Property and Libertarianism,”
4. “Intellectual Freedom and Learning Versus Patent and Copyright,”
5. The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide,
6. There’s No Such Thing as a Free Patent,

give some of those a try and feel free to come back to me with any questions.

I want to assure you that all this argumentation and my views are motivated by my love of human freedom, ingenuity, innovation, profits, capitalism, free markets, individual liberty, civil liberty, free speech and freedom of the press, combined with my understanding of IP law and basic economics and basic legal theory. I know they are contrary to the prevailing views but you should realize that I come by these views totally sincerely and honestly and driven by a love of human liberty and a hatred of institutions, laws, that suppress these things and that harm actual human beings and their rights. i really think patent and copyright law are two of the worst legal institutions humanity has managed to impose on the populace--it's up there with the drug war, public schools, taxation, central banking, and war. In some ways, it's worse than any of these, since it flies under the banner of "property rights", which is a malicious, fallacious lie.

[stuper1]

Let's just look at a simple hypothetical. If I create say a movie which is meant for public consumption, do I get to have any say in how it gets sold?

what do you mean, "do you get to have any say"? This way of wording it is vague and ambiguous. You can do whatever you want dude. But if you release information publicly, no, you can't complain about how other people use this information. If you want to keep your ideas to yourself, keep them to yourself.

I mean I was the one who went to the effort to make the movie.

Exactly. And here we have the commie Lockean/Marxian labor theory of property/value rearing its head. In physics you don't do work if you push against a wall; you need to move it. In capitalism or free markets, you are never entitled to the "value of your labor" or a reward for your effort. You can trade things with other people.

Say I decide that it is going to get distributed through HBO, and together with HBO, we decide that anyone who wants to watch it has to pay $5. Then, some third party decides that no, they are going to pay the $5, record the movie, and put it up on an alternate platform and only charge people $2 to watch it. So naturally millions of people pay only the $2, and I get nothing after putting my blood, sweat, and tears into the movie. Are you saying that it is okay for the third party to do that according to natural law?

yes, it's "okay". But maybe the HBO model would not be the one that would emerge, in the face of rampant copying. So what. Lots of creators don't get paid much, or do it as a hobby. Do poets make a lot of money? Landscape painters? They are a dime a dozen dude. Think of the millions of youtube videos people record, produce and upload for free. I mean we can imagine some ways some creators might make money sans copyright-- see e.g. http://c4sif.org/2012/01/conversation-w ... e-society/ . But the point is no one is entitled to money. As the saying goes, your failed business model is not my problem.

I never said that I was entitled to a reward for my effort. This is what CT-Scott accused me of earlier, either in this thread or another one. I said something distinctly different. I said that nobody else is entitled to a reward for MY effort. Nobody else should profit off the years I spent to create a book, movie, song, software, etc. If what I created is valuable, then people will pay me for it. If it's not valuable, then nobody will pay me for it, and that's my own fault not the fault of anyone else.

Suppose I create say a book or a song. Suppose people are willing to pay me for it, even under the present situation where their purchase comes with a condition that they are not supposed to make copies of the book or song and give them freely to other people. If they don't want to abide by that condition, then fine, they don't need to buy my book or song. It's that simple. Nobody is entitled to my book or song if they won't abide by the terms of the sale. If they are willing to pay for my book or song, then doesn't that indicate that my book or song has some value (i.e., is worthy of some sort of legal protection)? This seems to be the crux of Libertarian666's argument, if I understand it correctly. Just because someone can steal my bicycle, rather than paying me the asking price, doesn't mean that it's okay to steal bicycles.

[dualstow]

ok, I’ll give all of that list a try this weekend.
Thanks!

[Libertarian666]

ok, I’ll give all of that list a try this weekend.
Thanks!

If you're interested, my position is in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10689. It's a quick read.

[dualstow]

ok, I’ll give all of that list a try this weekend.
Thanks!

If you're interested, my position is in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10689. It's a quick read.

I am, thanks.

[CT-Scott]

...So naturally millions of people pay only the $2, and I get nothing after putting my blood, sweat, and tears into the movie. Are you saying that it is okay for the third party to do that according to natural law?

I'll give you the short answer: "Yes."

A longer answer, is that I feel like we've covered this already, and you either didn't "get" what I've already written, or you just don't *want* to get it.

I want to assure you that all this argumentation and my views are motivated by my love of human freedom, ingenuity, innovation, profits, capitalism, free markets, individual liberty, civil liberty, free speech and freedom of the press, combined with my understanding of IP law and basic economics and basic legal theory. I know they are contrary to the prevailing views but you should realize that I come by these views totally sincerely and honestly and driven by a love of human liberty and a hatred of institutions, laws, that suppress these things and that harm actual human beings and their rights. i really think patent and copyright law are two of the worst legal institutions humanity has managed to impose on the populace--it's up there with the drug war, public schools, taxation, central banking, and war. In some ways, it's worse than any of these, since it flies under the banner of "property rights", which is a malicious, fallacious lie.

I just wanted to quote this entire block to say "Ditto."

This is a subject I'm very passionate about. I haven't written numerous essays or given tons of speeches on the subject. As Stephan indicated, he's got tons of essays, speeches, etc. available on his sites that anyone can read.

One aspect to all of this that I don't think we've discussed much (I think I touched upon it in an earlier post) is the fact that the ability/freedom for someone to "build upon" the ideas/inventions of others who came before them is a wonderful thing, and is critical for improving on these ideas. If the inventor of the first wheel was allowed a patent on that, and was a "jerk" who wasn't even willing to sell licenses to others to do so (which, if IP is real property, he should be allowed to do), then no one could ever make, or improve upon, that first wheel, other than the original inventor.

Let's consider some more examples, if we sincerely treat IP as being the same as real/physical property...

- I come up with a very creative name for my child, that no one (as far as I can discover) has ever used before. Shouldn't I be able to own the rights to that word? If not, why not?

- I'm the first person to hold down a particular combination of keys on my piano (a chord). I'm the first person to think to combine those keys together, so I patent it (or whatever the appropriate thing would be). That should be perfectly acceptable thing to do, right? If not, why not?

- I sing a song to you that I wrote. It's catchy and you find yourself humming or singing some of the verses later. I tell you that that's not acceptable and I own all rights to it. You're not allowed to ever sing (recreate) it. See anything wrong with that?

- I create a recipe for a special kind of chocolate chip cookie, where I've added some extra ingredient that no one else before me has ever thought to add. I patent it and don't allow anyone else to ever make that recipe, without express written permission by me. Even if you were only planning to make a dozen for yourself and not resell them. Nope, not allowed. I created the recipe, and I get to dictate the terms. Don't like those terms? Fine, you can live your life without ever making/eating my cookie recipe.

Those are simplistic examples. But some complicated algorithm that you wrote into some software you developed isn't really any different. One day that "complicated" algorithm you wrote will seem as simplistic as the first wheel.

[dualstow]

(to stuper) Let's consider some more examples, if we sincerely treat IP as being the same as real/physical property...

- I come up with a very creative name for my child, that no one (as far as I can discover) has ever used before. Shouldn't I be able to own the rights to that word? If not, why not?

Because your child is not a brand and you're not prostituting him/her out for profit in any way, shape or form.

If other companies started calling themselves Nestlé, however, that would hurt the company.

[CT-Scott]

Because your child is not a brand and you're not prostituting him/her out for profit in any way, shape or form.

I think you're getting caught up on it being my child. What if it's my name? Maybe I change my name to some new word I've invented. I should get to own all rights to that word and prevent anyone else from using it without my permission. After all, it's an invention, and thus IP, and thus property, and should have all the same rights as actual/physical property, no? If not, why not?

[dualstow]

Because your child is not a brand and you're not prostituting him/her out for profit in any way, shape or form.

I think you're getting caught up on it being my child. What if it's my name? Maybe I change my name to some new word I've invented. I should get to own all rights to that word and prevent anyone else from using it without my permission. After all, it's an invention, and thus IP, and thus property, and should have all the same rights as actual/physical property, no? If not, why not?

It's nearly impossible for everyone to have a unique name. George Foreman named all of his sons George Foreman.
If a young magician starts going around calling himself David Copperfield, that would probably violate a trademark of the established magician of that name. If however, a slide guitarist went by the stage name David Copperfield, or another musician dubbed himself John Wesley Harding, that shouldn't hurt anyone's business.

I do think it's weird that Budweiser (of the U.S.) won its case against the similarly named brewer in the Czech state, named after the ancient placename. I am not aware of a universal law. The devil seems to be in the details, and I guess that's why a court has to decide.

EDIT: Actors do have to have a unique name when they register in the, whatever, the screen actors guild? Or some registry. I'll edit in the most recent example I came across. Can't remember it at the moment. \James Roday

[CT-Scott]

The devil seems to be in the details, and I guess that's why a court has to decide.

And that's one of the big problems with IP. Proponents of IP laws want to say that "it's just another type of property." But it's not like real/actual/physical property at all. If it was, we could define very clearly when property rights apply and when they don't. Instead, it's all very subjective. One group of people may decide that you're particular invention is "worthy" of being protected as property, while another group may decide the opposite. If I own a bicycle, all sane people will agree that it's my property. I can choose to keep it, pass it on to my daughter, and she can choose to pass it on to her child, forever and ever. It's obvious to everyone that it's my "property" and property rights apply to it. The fact that it's not in the least bit obvious whether certain ideas/inventions (like a word/name I invent) should be given some type of property rights protection shows that it's not "property" at all. If we can agree on nothing else, perhaps we can at least agree that ideas/inventions should be considered something other than "property."