From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Mon Jun 17 2002 - 08:04:11 MDT
Randall Randall wrote:
>
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > Randall Randall wrote:
> >>[SNIP]In case it was
> >>unclear, I am not saying that the State determines who owns things, but that
> >>people themselves determine this, by agreement.
> >
> > While I am saying that individuals establish ownership by a) posession,
> > AND b) improvement via labor. Does a squatter own the land they squat
> > on? Under certain circumstances, they do, in fact, do so. They must
> > first improve it in some way: build a permanent structure, clear it for
> > farming, landscape it for appearance, dig it for mining, etc... and then
> > occupy it for some period of time.
> >
> > A squatter who merely occupies the land without improvement is
> > committing theft of services, just as a Napster user commits theft of
> > services by using music they did not pay for, or distributing to others
> > copyrighted music they purchased knowing it was copyrighted.
>
> I agree that the squatter is committing theft if the (possibly previous)
> owner objects. However, the chief reason that we need to establish
> ownership of land is that it is a real, physical thing, which can therefore
> only be controlled by one person at a time.
>
> I think that it is an interesting argument that since information can
> be used by more than one person at a time, it is not necessary to establish
> property rights in it. However, I think that both you and those who make
> that argument (at least Lee Daniel Croker and at one time myself) are making
> a category error. There is no such thing as a "piece" of information.
> There is no book without substance, and I agree that that substance can be
> owned. I just don't think that it is any more useful to say that one can
> own all instances of a type of thing than it is to sell the rights to
> "red cars". People value the book or CD so much more for the information
> that we tend to lose track of the fact that the information is only a
> property of the matter, not a thing in and of itself.
Ah, but a novel is not a book, it is a story. Before books were
invented, novels were memorized and passed on by oral means. There is no
legal restriction against you memorizing "The Stand" and going around
reciting it to people. You don't need to pay any money to Stephen King
or his publisher either UNLESS you use a printed form of his novel as an
aid, OR record your recital for reproduction and sale. The map is not
the territory.
>
> > The dogmatism of the anti-IP movement tries to confuse the issue by
> > treating IP as a material good rather than a service.
>
> Ah, but I'm saying that IP doesn't exist, except in the way that "red"
> does. Is red something that can be bought, sold, and owned?
Just as Georgists insist that real estate doesn't exist. That doesn't
make you right.
>
> > The services concept fits far better to IP. For example, if I rent a
> > hotel room, I am paying not for ownership of real estate, but for the
> > service of a well kept place to sleep. If I then sublet that hotel room
> > to six other people, I am committing theft of services, since the rate I
> > paid was based on single person occupancy.
> >
> > Like IP, the hotel still has its hotel room, I've just 'reproduced' the
> > experience for more people. That's fair, ain't it?
>
> Ah, but you have violated a specific contract. When I download music from
> napster, I have signed no contract, and no one has any less than they have
> had, so I cannot have stolen anything.
You received a counterfeited copy from someone who DID agree to a
contract (signatures are not necessary, verbal contracts are valid in
cash and barter exchanges), making you an accessory to their crime under
the interaction where you agreed to accept their counterfeit data.
Furthermore, knowing as you do that Napster is used specifically for
purposes of counterfeiting, you don't even need to know specifically
whether the data you accept is or is not counterfeit if you had a high
expectation that it would be so.
>
> >>IP law is much like taxation, I'm sure you'll agree, in that it seeks to
> >>remove from my possession matter I've worked for if I arrange the matter
> >>in forbidden patterns.
> >
> > But it doesn't. While this is a common claim by those against IP, that
> > isn't what it does at all. I can build any item ever patented, and I can
> > play any music or read any work of literature ever copyrighted, for my
> > own personal use, without paying a cent to anybody. I can even play a
> > tune or read a book to others, or let them use my device, so long as
> > nobody profits from it. Libraries wouldn't exist if IP worked the way
> > you claim it does.
>
> If the publishers and RIAA had their way, libraries could not legally exist.
> That is indeed the logical conclusion of your arguments.
But libraries DO exist, and IP law is not what the publishers and RIAA
would *like* it to be. You are interpreting IP law not according to
accepted practice. THerefore your entire argument folds.
>
> >>I believe that others here (including myself), are actually arguing that
> >>they should be allowed to make copies themselves of things that *they*
> >>have purchased with the fruits of their labor. This literally has nothing
> >>to do with the person who first arranged things in that way, and no one
> >>is claiming that that first person should somehow be obligated to make
> >>copies at her own expense for others. Indeed, I would expect the first
> >>person to charge very highly for the first copy.
> >
> > Ah, but the individual buying the first copy is being provided a service
> > (i.e. the previously printed book) in which is specifically printed the
> > contract under which the purchase is made.
>
> Contracts must be specifically agreed to by both parties in order to be
> valid. The publisher cannot remove the step where I agree to the contract
> simply because they expect I won't notice that I'm supposed to have signed
> something. I have no problem with actual contracts which specify conditions
> for the sale of books, CDs, etc. However, such contracts cannot create a
> binding obligation on those who have not signed them.
Contracts must be agreed to, but contracts are not reqired to be printed
and signed, especially for cash or barter transactions. Furthermore,
under common law and UCC precedent, any commercial transaction that
occurs without a contract is still subject to legal strictures like
caveat emptor. In handing over cash for an object or item you are
specifically agreeing to any terms printed on the item or object, just
as you agree to any terms in a contract whether or not you actually read
that contracts fine print. If a book you buy says 'copyright' in it, it
is copyrighted and you are agreeing to that legal restriction if you
complete the sale. If an item says "patented", "Patent Pending", or
"Patent No. #######" on it, you agree to the legal restrictions of
patents if you complete the sale by paying for the item. It is your
responsibility as the purchaser to do due diligence in inspecting the
item, as you would any contract, for covenants like copyrights, patents,
or other use licenses, to protect yourself against agreeing to any
action which would be considered conspirace to commit a crime. This is
exactly what caveat emptor is about: "buyer beware".
>
> > If you don't like copyrights,
> > don't buy copyrighted books, or music, etc. If you buy a device that
> > says "Patent #########" or "Patent Pending",
>
> In what way does "Patent ..." bind me as a valid contract? You cannot
> simply specify that when you say you have applied for a State monopoly,
> it binds me contractually to some behavior, any more than I can assert
> that when I say "have a nice day" it binds you to prepare web pages for
> me.
If it is printed on an item accepted by completion of a commercial
transaction, it is a binding contract. This is why deed covenants on
real estate are so important to be aware of. Most people aren't aware of
the covenants on their deeds on their homes and other property, and I'll
bet that at least one or more members of this list have covenants on
their homes that preclude them from selling their homes to blacks, jews,
or other minorities. It is irrelevant if such actions are illegal or
unconstitutional. If you bought the house with a covenant on it like
that, you have entered into a conspiracy to commit the action which is
considered illegal.
>
> > In digital IP, the cost of production is always less than the additional
> > utility gained by a new user, so supply never decreases. Software prices
> > are therefore not set by cost/price considerations, but by cost/market
> > estimates. If piracy is rampant, the market for software is miniscule,
> > and new software doesn't get produced. Ask me why the software industry
> > in China sucks.
>
> Yes, this is exactly why the most used open source operating system, Linux,
> is so much worse than the most used proprietary operating system, Windows.
>
> Oh, wait.
Yes, show me how Linux is given away on CD for free, is easily installed
by a computer illiterate, and said illiterate is provided the same level
of support as commercial operating systems for free.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:51 MST