Presented by Stephan Kinsella at the 2009 Mises University. Recorded 30 July 2009 at the Ludwig von Mises Institute; Auburn, Alabama.
SeminarWealth.com
Learn to be Wealthy with Property, Shares, Finance, Business and Internet Articles…
Presented by Stephan Kinsella at the 2009 Mises University. Recorded 30 July 2009 at the Ludwig von Mises Institute; Auburn, Alabama.
It’s pretty funny to see someone use verbal wordplay to make the distinction between being your body and owning your body, and then turn it around to attack the objection that making that distinction is mere verbal wordplay by saying that saying that is mere verbal wordplay.
Things exist in the world, ownership of them is a concept we make up in our minds, insofar as we assign words to represent these concepts all talk of ownership amounts to wordplay.
He’s generally right though, IP is BS
@djzacmaniac
If you buy a CD and hand it to your friend, you’re sharing. If you make a copy of it, you’re breaking a contract.
Just because I buy a bottle of coke doesn’t mean I have the rights to the entire distribution network of Coca Cola Inc. It just means I have a coke, can drink it or give it to my friend.
Buying a CD it doesn’t give me the right to decide how the songs get made, copied and distributed throughout the world. It just gives me the right to enjoy it as per the contract.
@libertarianjury Nothing was stripped from you. Do you not still have your statue? Do you own my 3-D modeling machine? My camera? Do you own my thousands of photos? You cannot reasonably predict the value until you have a potential buyer, which you have not been denied in your scenerio.
@LoklarYsera If you friend gives you that same CD, that she purchased, you didn’t enter into a contract with the original seller. No third party protection. I personally think that SHARING IS CARING
When you buy a CD you are entering a contract. Part of that contract may be that you won’t make copies of it. It’s a contract between the creator (or someone who bought the rights from the creator) and the buyer. The state isn’t involved.
Now if you draw a Mickey Mouse on your companies ads, that’s another thing altogether. And I guess under libertarian philosophy that’s ok.
@21:00 what if you carve a statue out of your own marble, and someone takes a 3-D set of photos of that statue, plugs it into their machine, and cranks out a thousand copies? You labored pointlessly to create a finite resource that could be reasonably predicted to have a certain value, and that value was stripped from you by 3-d modelers. What incentive is there for people to make marble statues then? …None
What incentive is there for people to murder people who walk around their statues with cameras, photographing them from all angles? A: Whatever the sale price of the statue is.
If I leave skin cells behind, and you grow a brainless replica of me, and make a video of brainless me sucking big black cock, and then tell everyone it’s me, have you violated my property rights? I wasn’t using those skin cells I left behind. Their appropriation by you is a theft of my apparent identity, right? I don’t really know.
I have a better claim than latecomers, maybe, but was I using those cast away pieces of DNA? No. Therefore, you “homesteaded” them.
Patterns are the key here.
If I leave skin cells behind, and you grow a brainless replica of me, and make a video of brainless me sucking big black cock, and then tell everyone it’s me, have you violated my property rights? I wasn’t using those skin cells I left behind. Their appropriation by you is a theft of my apparent identity, right? I don’t really know.
I have a better claim than latecomers, maybe, but was I using those cast away pieces of DNA? No. Therefore, you “homesteaded” them.
Patterns are the key here.
An advanced artificial intelligence says “We need the space you are occupying. We will upload an exact copy of you to a perfect earth simulation, and then vaporize you and your planet.” Your right to exist has not been harmed, because you are still you, and still alive, even though the inessential atoms have been destroyed. Your thoughts/patterns are still there.
The essence of libertarianism is contrarianism and the urge to pointlessly argue in theoretical philosophical arenas.
The flaw in your response is that you feel wronged because someone took something from you alas that could not be claimed as you still have your story in your possession untouched thus it’s logically impossible to claim anything has been stolen from you. Copying something clearly does NOT take it away from you.
Regardless of how you feel it simply can’t be argued anything was stolen from you. You clearly still have your story in your possession and it’s unharmed and untouched.
Correct.
So, even if he’s in jail, I would have no claim to say that he “stole” anything from me. As is argued, you can’t Steal something that can’t be owned. But, like everyone here, I would be very angry and I would feel wronged if someone took my story from me and released it, used it, without my permission. If it were “real” property, I would get it back or be compensated. In this case, I have Lost nothing (or so is argued), so I have zero claim to compensation. This feels clearly unjust to me.
I was simply responding to ” Want to protect your “idea?” Hide it, or show it on written contractual agreement only.” My scenario illustrates how it can’t be protected by contract. I feel like you’re missing the point, though. Let’s say I write a story. I protect it by never releasing it to Anyone. Someone breaks into my house, copies the story (leaves what it was written on) and sells the story under his name. It would seem that the Only charge against him would be trespassing, right?
No only don’t release ideas you want to remain a secret. In short keep your secrets to yourself if you want them to remain a secret. There’s nothing complicated about that…
Let’s assume this true. So I make a contract with you that says “DO NOT COPY OR REDISTRIBUTE THIS SONG WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.” So, you break the contract and redistribute it all over youtube UNDER YOUR NAME. Let’s say I have legal action to take against you for breaking the contract. But what about the next guy who sees it on youtube, copies it, and sells it under his name. Do I have a right to go after him? With this argument, no. What you’re basically saying is “NEVER RELEASE AN IDEA!”
Kinsella, here, is saying that regardless of the outcome, intellectual property is unlibertarian, and purely on the consequences of them the evidence is currently unclear as to whether or not they help. It might be in SOME cases that some people wouldn’t do well without them, but on the whole we could be better off. Not to mention that there are certain regulations in place that increase the costs of entry into a market and thus make intellectual property necessary to recover startup costs.
I guess the owner of the lake can sue the factory for invading their property.
I agree with you, but I guess Mr. Kinsella would say that the inventor will be famous enough to generate income through seminars. This is a very interesting topic worthy of much discourse. For now, I still support intellectual property.
OK now I realize that libertarian legal theory is much more complex than its economics. So what if I print somebody else’s book but replace the author with my own name??? Can I do that since there are no copyright laws??
I think the success of “allemansrätt” is a demonstration that different societies at different times come up with different answers to problems.
It echoes the American idea of “easement”.
Statute law prevents people from coming up with such interesting and generally agreeable answers, by forcing a “one size fits all” answer that may answer nothing at all.
Property “rights” is the mechanism that society has evolved to deal with scarce resources.
The “Tragedy of the Commons” only happens where those rights have been abrogated by government, removing ownership.
A lake might be owned by one person, or by everyone who owns property adjacent to that lake. So any owner can take any polluter to task for their destructive acts. Any owner who damages the lake is guilty of trespass on every other owner as well.
Can you explain why you think well understood market incentives cannot counter the destruction reaped by government intervention and the perverted motivations it engenders?
What I find interesting is that you use the same phrase, “cancer”, for both individual responsibility and government limited liability.
This points to either extreme ignorance, or willful misrepresentation.
The turn to the Austrian school of economics and Libertariansim as a solution to inequality and the economic crisis, is akin to giving a patient with skin cancer, bowel cancer as a remedy.
Here in Sweden we have something named “allemansrätt”. It basicly says that everyone have the right travel, camp, climb, pick flowers, berries and mushrooms and simular everywhere in the Swedish nature, no matter who the owner is. But none have the right to pollute or destroy the nature. This applies to any land property that is not your lawn. This system works perfectly well and everyone loves it, just wanted to tell you that. I agree with the libertarian immaterial rights point of view though