Copyright Infringement, Intellectual Property and Pirating

Probably. The market has provided a very good free alternative in Linux.

This is a moral question. Since I don't believe that IP is a valid form of property, .... But some of those who do, should probably have to explain how IP is somehow higher than life.

As above.

There is no shortage of hypocrisy when it comes to IP.

This my point. If IP was property, it would be scarce. You could establish ownership of it.

It is not scarce. There is no way to enforce IP on any particular "good" completely and absolutely. Hence the point about it being clonable. You can't clone my car, but you can clone my book.

The moral arguments are scary for me.

 

You raise interesting and valid points, Korr, but I don't think the examples I'm asking about are this complicated.

Books: Is it theft to copy an entire book, and hand copies of that book around - as I said, at will, as opposed to, say, telling one's friends about the book, so that they may buy it? The financial loss comes because rather than buy another book, one just copies it, or, as someone posted, writes the entire thing out at will.

CD's: Is it theft to make dozens of copies of a CD, to use as one would - at will? The financial loss should be obvious. Mention was made that if 1000 copies of the CD are made and sold, one buys (presumably, although perhaps it came from a copy someone else made) a CD and makes another 20 copies - well, you get the picture, and I would ask: is this theft?

My question wasn't whether it happens. My question was whether this is theft. Again:

Is this theft?

To your notion that music is derivative, I totally agree. I also agree that Hollywood is a whore, although there are rare times when it can achieve cinematic art.*** But then, I believe everything is derivative - this is the nature of progress. I earlier said:

And I believe this applies here.

*** Sidenote: I was once part of the IFP-West, the "Independent Feature Project." On a night with "guerilla filmmakers," which included Robert Rodriquez, George Huang, and Kevin Smith, the late J.T. Walsh said: "my enjoyment in doing a film is in inverse proportion to how much I get paid to do it."

Rodriguez's account of how he got El Mariachi in the can was a blast. Too little money to pay much of a crew, his "lighting equipment and crew" consisted of a kind of jury-rigged flying wing - with tin foil crumpled towards the lens for reflectors.

 

I find this hypocritical, for a host of reasons. Lots of poor people in the U.S., for example, who require access to medical care. Lots die by not getting it. Yet this poster had this to say:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=8034452&postcount=230

and so on. I, for one, do not appreciate being labelled as "caring more for IP than for life itself," particularly when this poster has demonstrated his views on the subject of access to healthcare quite explicitly.

To your points, Gworld, they raise some good points. Much like the issue of "property rights" themselves as "natural rights," where I have a hard time swallowing this "principle" established by the very folks who stole from my native American forebears, you are quite right that it is disingenuous to be setting a kind of "start date" with patents, given the era of imperialism and colonialism. Yet I think we agree there is a concept here - that people who work to come up with something deserve to be rewarded for what they do; our area of agreement is:

And we all need to work on how to manage these things, while also dealing with what they portend in specific instances, including the world's lack of access to protected medicines, and so forth.

 

Hypocrisy. It's always funny to see someone dodge answering a question, and instead accuse someone else of hypocrisy.

I have stated, not less than a dozen times, that I do not believe IP is property. This is consistent with separating private property ownership (which is natural), from intellectual property ownership (which is unnatural).

Whether I believe that there is should be a legal imperative to help those in need, I have always maintained that it is the moral obligation of each of us to help others. That said, it is a positive obligation, and cannot be rationally enforced by law.

One cannot force GRIM to help korr without subverting his right to free will, not to mention that it is impossible for GRIM to pass any absolute metric defining "help". Likewise, "heal", "save", "defend" etc.

So a charge of hypocrisy seems to me to not only be dishonest, but maybe even a deliberate attempt to avoid answering the moral question posed by gworld.

Those who strictly believe in IP, seem to believe that if I know how to make a medicine to save my neighbors life, and I have assembled all of the ingredients for such, I cannot produce it. I must purchase it from the IP holder, regardless of whether it will arrive after my neighbor is dead, or the price is so high we cannot afford it. I cannot use the learned/absorbed knowledge in my mind to act, because I do not own this information.

Now, repeating, I don't see IP as property, so my position is consistent. I don't approach moral hazard from my position. Can others say the same?

 

Well, an attempt, to be sure. However, it fails fantastically, in my opinion.

In part, Gworld was talking about global access to generic drugs, due to patents on medicines.

The above poster had the temerity to state that those of us who believe people who come up with useful things have a right to some kind of reward from those things - in other words, IP "is" - "care more about this than life itself." Which is, customarily, an appeal to emotionality and a complete falsehood, since I have said we need to find a way to balance the rights of creators to their work with other needs, to include the very things Gworld is talking about.

It is also inherently a hypocrisy, in my opinion, since Guerilla has quite clearly stated that despite the fact people suffer from lack of access to care - on the issue of national healthcare - it's:

and despite the fact that extensive costs are involved in pharmaceutical research - this is so obvious as to move to the ridiculous - it's:

Saying one thing before one audience and another before another is, in my book, hypocrisy. As is maligning the points of view of others along lines of "strict constitutional construction," while saying that only those parts of the constitution one agrees are kosher - again, the Founders certainly believed in the concept of intellectual property:

I must disagree with Guerilla. I have shown why.

 

Again, more false claims of hypocrisy and still no answer for an IP stance that would lead people to death rather than to help themselves.

Why is it so hard to defend the IP policy that would deny generic drugs to the poor, or treatment techniques (non-drug) to those living abroad where a sales agent for the "creator" may not even be present?

I'd say that anyone with a serious belief in IP, should be able to account for the rationality or basis in natural law that someone is unable to help themselves with the knowledge they posses, regardless of who thought of it first.

As to my "hypocrisy", again, there is a failure to understand my position. Physical, tangible property is being confused with non-property IP. I do not believe IP is property, and thus, the issues with the scarcity or resource costs of physical property do not hold for it. To continue claiming I am being hypocritical, when in fact my position is rational and consistent smacks of evasion of the question at the beginning of this post.

Why must people resign themselves to death over IP? Why does IP override the right to self-preservation?

This smacks of the same hypocrisy charge that I am flawed for asking the question above. Again, another evasion.

I do not believe in positive obligations as law. That doesn't influence the question above, where a natural obligation is not being called into question. The IP holder loses nothing, might not even know that his creation was being used, to help someone, and as such, never had the opportunity or resource cost to do so.

I will ask, yet again, regardless of charges laid against me (refuted as false above repeatedly)

Doctor in foreign country. Wants to use US patented process (IP) to save a patient's life. He does not have the right to use the process. In fact, the IP holder has told him explicitly under international treaty he may not use it.

Is he a thief if he does use it? Should he be susceptible to damage claims or criminal action?

 

What medical process may not be used? Specifics? Real world examples?

You may want to view:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_287.htm

In other words, under this provision, signed into law in 1996, a physician may use a patented process, at will.

This is what happens in the real world, and goes to the discussions had with Korr, and response to Gworld's points: we acknowledge that people have a right to their work, but where we find ourselves in grey areas, we have to determine relative rights. In other words, we do the best we can, given an imperfect world. The above is a good example, and is responsive to Guerilla's attempt.

We do not say it's cool to copy an entire book, make copies, and give them out, or sell them, without asking the author; to buy a CD, make 20 copies, and hand them out or sell them, as you would; to scrape the content off a site, "rebrand it," and profit off another webmaster's work.

An asinine comment like:

Merits a response. The claims to hypocrisy have been made, and supported - I don't know, "strict construction of the Constitution, except the parts that blow," comes most immediately to mind. Endless cycles of repeating denials, though customary, and my reaffirming, with specifics, why I state as I do, serve nothing - one need only look up a few inches, to see specifics, if interested.

To the subject of the thread, many here feel to do the things we're talking about are theft. Many points have been made to show why. And ignoring them does nothing.

Now, Guerilla,

I feel guilty about repeating information ad-infinitum.

 

Ok, apparently there is an exception on the books for procedure. Which again highlights that IP is an artificial legal construct, and not a product of natural property rights which occur do to scarcity.

So what about a medication? I know of the medication, I know of the process to make it, and I have assembled the ingredients.

Am I a thief to make the drug to treat my patient? Should I be susceptible to damage and criminal claims?

Again, IP is only property because the law makes it so. The law also changes how long it can be property, what the exceptions are, etc. In this regard, it is totally artificial, and again, not real property.

This notion that exceptions somehow validate bad law, or artificial legal constructs that only serve special interests, is exactly what is wrong with our legal system today. Every exception creates an inequity, which justifies another exception, which creates another inequity. It keeps the lawyers busy, it allows the state to grow, and the lot of the people living under the law are at best, marginally improved.

Real property doesn't need law to define it. It exists before law, and it will exist after it.

PS, the hypocrisy charges have now shrunk to the Constitution. Which is brilliant as the charge has no merit. A strict constructionist relates to interpretation, not content. I don't have interpretation issues with the Constitution. I think portions of it should be changed, or removed per the Amendment process. On what it clearly says as written today, could not be any clearer to me, even if I do not agree with it.

Don't get me wrong. I have been hypocritical in the past, I might be today, and I probably will be tomorrow, but the stuff I am accused of hypocrisy on, for the purpose of scoring points in an argument, are without merit.

This attack on "constructionism" is another canard. But then, looking at the signature of my accuser, it's obvious his obsession with me goes beyond what is honest and well intentioned.

 

The question is not as simple as you try to make it. Let's talk about a loaf of bread or a hot dog which we can all agree is a real property. If I am dying of hunger and I steel the loaf of bread, you can certainly call me a thief but should I be concerned with what you say when my survival depend it on my action?
The problem with IP is that is being used as a weapon to keep the poor as poor and make the rich even richer, so why should these people care about it if you can not enforce your property right?

northpointaiki;

I understand that you agree with my initial assumption in my previous post but I don't believe that I have an answer that is complete and can answer all aspects of this question and as long as we don't have a good answer for second part of previous post, the initial assumptions don't matter a lot.

 

I can't agree, Gworld, because we are talking in extremes. At the end of the day, to your issue of medicines, the people who spend millions researching, putting to trial, and bringing the drug to final fruition - they have some kind of right to reward from that creation, yes? And it is unreasonable to place a limitless arena for that reward to be realized, so that cheaper alternatives are forever barred, yes?

In other words, between Guerilla's position: there isn't even such a thing as the right to benefit from one's creation; and the other extreme: quote one word, and you're in the slammer, is a wide world of realities within which we have to work.

To the issue you've raised, patents and generic medicines, it seems to me that the very idea of generic medicines at least approaches the two poles fairly well; since most drug patents are applied for before even trials are undertaken, the effective patent life of a drug is under a decade. Not great, if you need a medicine in the meantime, but not a limitless hold, either.

Now, briefly: I have no wish to revisit an old, tired subject, now: "Natural rights." Guerilla declares he is basing his ideas on concepts of "natural rights;" since property is only based on scarcity, IP is an oxymoron; therefore, any work of any kind - a book, an album, a body of software - is his to do with what he will.

So, briefly: I reject this notion of "natural rights" when it comes to "property." I believe that once we leave the state of lawlessness, we construct whatever realities work for us, as an incentive to progress. If Guerilla sees the zenith supporting his contentions in "scarcity," I see it in the notion that what we produce in life is a good thing, and there are good positives to come from rewarding production that is useful to us.

To accept Guerilla's notion, that all creations are communal "things" that belong to all and not the creator, is to toss out most of what I believe distinguishes us from dumb brutes. Name me a society where people put themselves in self-induced arduous labor for a good part of their lives, producing an original creation, knowing there is zero chance in hell they have a right to exert authorship, in all its forms, over that creation, and I will direct you to a good book.

 

I think it is, but I'm not getting a lot of traction with it.

That's a totally different issue. If you steal something, that's a risk and moral determination you have to make, understanding that it may not be moral, and it may not be legal.

You can "steal" a hotdog because when you take it, all of the resources to purchase, cook and market it are confiscated with your theft. The former owner is poorer for it. He has a tangible loss.

Fair enough. But my point is that it is not property in the first place. It's only property because state violence backs up a law that makes it so.

Without state sponsored IP, then there would not be this social weapon. The combination of private business protectionism and law making is fascism. I absolutely abhor that paradigm.

 

J.K. Rowling, with copyright to the Harry Potter Series; net worth: 1.0 billion.

J.K. Rowling, if Guerilla and others had the right to do what he has said he has a right to do, copy the book and disseminate it at will, without the author's permission, and without compensation to the author; net worth: Um, less.

 

Considering that research, production and marketing of a new drug will cost hundreds of millions, I fail to see how you can consider stealing a hot dog a theft but not stealing the formula for a new drug.
The problem is not if IP is real property in comparison to hot dog or not but in the concept of private property as whole. Should we accept private property as some kind of universal principal that is always correct and attach a moral dilemma to it or should we disregard private property rights in certain instances?

 

That's the scary part of the whole argument. This idea that people have a right to it. All those buildings we see. All those computers we use. All those bridges, and phones and stereos were made in someones mind. They don't have value because they exist. They have value because the mind made them. I can give you the tangible parts of a spaceship, but it isn't a valuable spaceship until the mind makes it.

If I was to write an ebook to sell, why would I write it if I knew Guerilla was sitting around waiting to download it , and sell it for $2 to a million people.

Guerilla seems to think that his views on "rights" were passed down by a God or something. Is he even familiar with why we have rights? Because it is the difference between "right" and "wrong". We do what is right and we all know stealing is wrong. You can rationalize it all you want. Call it market duty. Call it freedom to steal. Whatever you want. If you're benefiting from the hard work of someone else without their permission or compensation than you're stealing. It is as simple as that.

 

You're arguing for the Labor Theory of Value. We all know that prices are set in the marketplace, not based upon inputs or costs. However, patents disrupt this, by creating artificial scarcity and zero competition.

The false justification I keep reading is the cost of creating drugs. But here is the deal. I think we all know that effective drugs do not have to cost millions, and that drugs were produced back in the day when there were not millions available. I think we also know that discoveries are made by researchers in the field or academia. If you partake in naturopathy, you'd know that most of the drugs and tonics are not million dollar cures. Of course, your doctor will never prescribe them to you, because he is an agent for the drug company, who has a government created monopoly not only on drugs, but on profit from drugs.

Don't get me started on the FDA.

This is a scam, plain and simple. All the patents amount to are price subsidies. They allow the creator to charge higher prices without competition and the taxpayer ends up paying for their R&D, but their high profits as well.

Don't go there. Socialism starved millions of people to death in the Eastern Bloc countries and Soviet Union. Central economic planning and public ownership of the means of production pave the road to tyranny and poverty.

There is no perfect system, but the market system has consistently produced an atmosphere for upward mobility, peace and social equity without central planning. There will always be people who fall off ladders, crash their car, lose their job, go on a killing spree after their lover leaves them. But that doesn't mean there isn't a better way, and I believe that is freedom.

Btw, my entire problem in this thread is that IP is not property. I think you (and maybe korr) understand my argument.

 

This is hilarious. Especially from a libertarian that believes everyone has the right to do what they want with physical property even if they prevent competition with it.

Britney Spears writes "Hit me baby one more time". You think people have the right to steal it and compete against her for the very song she wrote? And profit from it? lol For the sake of the "market" and "consumer" who can go buy someone elses music.

 

First of all, the portion you quoted from NPT is a strawman. He is misrepresenting my position. This seems to be an ongoing problem. Am I not communicating my views clearly enough?

Hmm, I never said there was communal ownership. That would imply that they were some form of property. I've also not excluded the creator from being able to utilize his creation (the IP). This is a false position.

My position, for the millionth time, is that IP is not property. It can't be owned by anyone once the creator exposes or shows it to the world.

It exists only by legal fiat.

Why does it have to be so extreme, and why does it have to be a society to be valid? A single author is sufficient to disprove the rule you have attempted to construct.

Again, it looks like you're extrapolating on NPT's attributed position of mine. Which is indeed a false position.

You're talking about property. I have no issue with that. IP is not property. A constructed bridge, is property.

Good point. Why do people continue to produce ebooks? The Mises institute had an article today with this great line, relevant to this thread...

Apparently it is a revenue generator for them. Perhaps your ebook is worthless, but building a mailing list by passwording each copy with the downloaders email can have value. Perhaps it increases your profile, or allows you to affiliate sell products within.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think stealing ebooks is a good idea. That said, I don't see how you with your $2 ebook, can afford to protect your property rights, when people around the world are copying it. It's simply not possible to police. And that is because it is not scarce. If you had 500 books, the police could go out and collect them. But how will you collect 50,000 ebook copies? How when you delete one from a computer, will you prevent another from being copied somewhere else?

You can't. Again, because IP and digital goods lack scarcity.

What I think you fail to recognize, which is typical of Objectivists, is that what you want, is not always what is most profitable, or what is in demand in the market. You might think marketing your ideas in an ebook is a good idea. But really, you might have been better off podcasting and selling feed ads. Or maybe offering a newsletter by subscription. Or building a mailing list.

The market should not have to subsidize your bad marketing or business ideas. Trying to enforce digital IP is a losers game.

You're missing the point. I'm a rationalist, not a consequentialist. I don't care if IP helps or harms society. I don't really care if people steal or not. That's not my argument. I'm not trying to be a pragmatist, or in your case, a protectionist.

I'm saying, philosophically, rationally, IP does not pass my sniff test for being property, and thus, is not subject to the same treatment.

You're dealing with the big kids here, not the DIGG crowd. I make way too much money each year to flirt with stolen software or bootlegged Xbox games. I'm not arguing from an "end user" POV.

No, it's not that simple. Because it is not enforceable. Because the notion of IP only exists between your ears. It's lack of scarcity means everyone can own a copy of an ebook, at no cost or loss to the producer.

In fact, in most cases, the cost of downloading (bandwidth, processing power, drive space) is borne by the end user, which means that they have mixed their labor and resources with your idea, which might pass the test for creation of a completely new work. Hmm, I have to think on this.

 

Uhm, I think we already covered, you don't know what libertarianism is. You didn't even know what the NAP was, and you thought you could be libertarian by reading a book about Jekyll Island.

A libertarian is against state regulation of the free market. So yeah, it's consistent with libertarian principle.

Do you think Brittney Spears actually writes her own music? Do you think she produces it? Gimme a break.

This is an excellent example of the IP creator finding an effective vehicle (T&A) to market their good to commercial success. Brittney isn't successful because her songs are great or because her organization has legal IP protection. It's because she looks hot in a skin tight leather suit.

When you grow up, you'll understand why sex sells everything, regardless of IP. lol

 

IP is property.

Because ISPs bow to copyright infringement. There is still protection.

Really? When did "God" define property? And why did the founding fathers recognize it?

I know what libertarianism is. I was a libertarian. I started my quest into libertarianism with that book. I know your arguments. You're arguing from a market efficiency point of view. I no longer do that anymore.

Property rights are not regulations.

Side track. See you're trying to squeeze out of it. You refuse to rationalize it, so you go and find something else to attack. Can you argue the point or not?

Since when did the male demographic buy britney spears cds lol?

 

You want to talk about music specifically, I would say yes other musicians have a right to compete with the very song "she" wrote (I assume you mean her label's songwriters)

It is rare that any album goes by these days without some cover song on it, and if five people suddenly released high budget Britney Spears cover songs it would, if anything, be a vote of confidence in her - a signification that her work was important. This is probably the only reason no one has covered her yet

Show me a song that hasn't been sampled, stolen, ripped off, copied, or modified and I'll show you a song that simply isn't important.