From: Randall Randall (wolfkin@freedomspace.net)
Date: Sun Jun 16 2002 - 23:08:26 MDT
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.
> 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?
> 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.
>>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.
>>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.
> 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.
> 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.
-- Randall Randall <randall@randallsquared.com> Crypto key: randall.freedomspace.net/crypto.text ...what a strange, strange freedom: only free to choose my chains... -- Johnny Clegg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:51 MST