Thomas Jefferson knew full well that “Intellectual Property Rights” was a contradiction in terms. Jefferson knew that so-called “IPR” is an egregious violation of property rights.

How ironic that China and other East Asian nations are demonstrating greater respect for human rights and individual liberty than the US and Europe by not enforcing “IPR.”

Thank you for your plainspoken, common sense expose of the absurdity of “Intellectual Property Rights.”

How ironic that Western champions of “freedom, democracy, and human rights” relentlessly bash Asian nations for “flagrant disregard for Intellectual Property Rights,” when the very concept of IPR is a contradiction in terms?

How ironic that no less a figure than Thomas Jefferson saw through the falsehood over two centuries ago?

I am not sure that I can completely understand your comments. Would you be so kind as to expand on your reasoning a little more before I comment….

What you’re thinking of as my justification for someone taking someone else’s private work is not justification, but rather pointing out the possibilities of the wronged party to turn it around to their benefit without having the backing of government. Reputation and ridicule are very powerful things. I don’t think it would take many examples of someone trying to benefit from someone else’s work to decide it’s not worth it. Take Milli Vanilli (spelling?) for example.

The last comment of superior ideas versus inferior ones may have been out of place, but was in reference to the way that regulations and protections of the government are not about protecting everyone so much as they are about protecting the established businesses against upstart competitors with ideas that may or may not be better.

So, to sum up, I don’t think it’s okay but I don’t think it’s worth spending hardly any collective effort to deal with, shame and disapproval are sufficient. And, the collective effort so far is rather detrimental to freedom and innovation.

(Did one of your replies disappear, Sheldon? I thought initially you had made another comment about the breach-of-privacy angle of this.)

@Michael: I agree that this is an uncommon situation, and don’t know if it warrants additional protections beyond current laws against trespassing (although I imagine laws around “digital” trespassing could use some refinements to keep up with technology).

I’m not tracking with the rest of your comment, in particular:

Seen this way, the author may actually thank the “thief” for taking the risk of investment to make his/her work known.

Unless the “thief” is actually the more talented mind… then haven’t the people comprising the market won? Who wants IP to protect inferior ideas in the prevention of superior? Likely only those who have them.

Theft isn’t really the right word, of course, but this would be a terrible violation of privacy and I can see no justification for it. Are you saying it’s okay for someone to copy private work whether it is intended for eventual publication or not, because the appropriator may be more talented and do better work with it? It’s okay to prematurely and without authorization publish the work of another (or publish work which was not intended to be shared at all) because the “market” may benefit from this? We may not have privacy? We may not have a personal domain?

I’m not a supporter of IP — although I’m okay with using that term loosely to describe several unrelated concepts — but your possible justifications for this kind of “breaking and copying” are troublesome.

Seen this way, the author may actually thank the “thief” for taking the risk of investment to make his/her work known.

Unless the “thief” is actually the more talented mind… then haven’t the people comprising the market won? Who wants IP to protect inferior ideas in the prevention of superior? Likely only those who have them.

The protection sought is when you’ve created some work and fixed it on paper or saved it on your hard drive, or whatever. You may have many personal, unpublished copies, but you have not chosen to publish them on the web or in book form or whatever. Crosbie would like to see a recognition of your property rights for this situation, so that you will have the right to arrange “first sale” of your work.

Speaking as someone that Terry Hulsey would almost certainly add to his list, this is very sensible to me. (And I think this discussion has allowed me to better understand Mr. Fitch’s often cryptic views on this subject, although maybe I’m incorrect in my interpretation here.)

However, isn’t this situation already covered by standard physical property rights? In order to get those private copies, there must be some form of breaking and entering? (How do we value the loss if there are now copies all over the place and no one is willing to make the payment for publication?)

It’s removal even if I leave the author a copy of the work? What if I buy the book in a store, then make copies of that and sell in another country? I haven’t made any unpermitted access, and the author might never even find out that I was selling the copies, yet I have a feeling you’d still call this theft. What exactly has been stolen, and why didn’t the author notice immediately? Perhaps you might say that I “stole” the author’s potential profit in that country, but what if I instead wrote my own book on the same topic and sold it in that country, and it was so much better that nobody there would even be interested in your book? I’m sorry to say that at this point I wonder whether we are both speaking English here, as I’m not making sense of your use of “theft”, “removal”, etc.

I recognise that a burglar may remove intellectual work. You do not.

Burglary isn’t the only situation in which it is important to recognise IP. One of the other situations is in the exchange of IP, e.g. for money. If you pay me for my draft manuscript I can give you blank sheets of paper, and you won’t complain because you can’t claim I have failed to deliver what should now be your intellectual property – you’re happy with just the paper (I can pour some ink on it if you want that too).

Is “intellectual property” the only reason why books and manuscripts are different from a bunch of blank sheets with ink on it ? I don’t think so. If I pay for a manuscript, then I’m going to get a manuscript; if you give me blank sheets, these do not constitute a manuscript and that is a breach of contract. Again, “intellectual property” is not necessary to resolve those problems. The “problems” presented in this thread seem to always involve prior violations of principles extraneous to “IP”. As for the burglar, I should have said this earlier: this problem is impossible. What is the chance that someone is going to burgle an author, and copy the draft, without getting caught ? Even if he managed to do that, doesn’t the creation of something, from stolen property, mean it is equally stolen ? As Stephen Kinsella said,

Consider the forging of a sword. If I own some raw metal (because I mined it from ground I owned), then I own the same metal after I have shaped it into a sword. I do not need to rely on the fact of creation to own the sword, but only on my ownership of the factors used to make the sword. And I do not need creation to come to own the factors, since I can homestead them by simply mining them from the ground and thereby becoming the first possessor. On the other hand, if I fashion a sword using your metal, I do not own the resulting sword. In fact, I may owe you damages for trespass or conversion.

Against Intellectual Property, pp 37-38.

The knack of explaining oneself without repetition is still beyond my reach, but I’m working on it.

Please forgive my apparent lack of interest in intellectual discussion.

When you can see the magician putting the rabbit in the hat, you know he\’s a lousy magician. That\’s what you\’re being, Fitch., a lousy magician. Moreover, despite repeated requests, you refuse to spell out your distinction between IP (natural) and copyright/patent (privilege). You seem to be the only one in the universe who sees a difference. Until you stop repeating yourself and start explaining yourself, I have conclude that you are a troll, who is not interested in intellectual discussion.

Repeating this endlessly will not make it so. Let’s have some argument, some rebuttal of the arguments that the anti-IP side makes.

Concerning the need of permission from a privileged individual to make copies of your own property, you may be thinking of copyright which is a transferable privilege to exclude others from their natural right to make copies (a reproduction monopoly).

The natural owner of an intellectual work is the natural possessor (creator or purchaser), and it is naturally they who decide who may or may not have access to their private domain and their possessions within it.

I recognise that a burglar may remove intellectual work. You do not.

Burglary isn’t the only situation in which it is important to recognise IP. One of the other situations is in the exchange of IP, e.g. for money. If you pay me for my draft manuscript I can give you blank sheets of paper, and you won’t complain because you can’t claim I have failed to deliver what should now be your intellectual property – you’re happy with just the paper (I can pour some ink on it if you want that too).

Authors and other creators of intellectual work, and those who purchase it, need it recognised as intellectual property (not just material property). What is in conflict with natural rights, with individual liberty, is not private property (material or intellectual), but the state granted monopolies known as copyright and patent. Hence, I’m an apparently rare libertarian: a copyright abolitionist that recognises intellectual property.

Your scenario is weak. Private property condemns all burglars, whatever they do once inside. The burglar could not have made the copy without infringing on the author’s property rights, and so it follows that intellectual property is useless to protect his draft. It is, at best, an additionnal condemnation on him, but it is not the source. Obviously, if you want to keep a draft, that is, a tangible object, to yourself, you’re perfectly free to do so. That is possible because of private property.

I appreciate it must be attractive to throw your hands up and simply deny the possibility of IP completely, to revert to a simpler world where only matter can constitute property, but people do have a natural exclusive right to their intellectual work, e.g. a natural ability to defend their writings against theft by burglars. The only unnatural aspect is the privilege of a monopoly (granted for the benefit of printers and manufacturers).

I am still just not understanding that last part, about “if a COPY of the words is stolen”. How can it be theft if it’s a copy? If I go into the library, copy a few pages from a book, then walk out with the copies, what have I stolen?!? The library still has the book, and I paid for the copies.

Even without any IP laws, a stack of blank paper would still be less valuable than a stack of paper with things printed on it (well, depends on what is printed), just as a chunk of rock would in general be less valuable than one that had been chiseled into a beautiful statue, or a tub of water versus an ice sculpture, or a new sharp knife versus a dull, beat-up one. This doesn’t require any concept of intangible property, just that the physical matter itself is arranged in a more valuable configuration.

As long as you are recording the "benefits" of copyright, it is only fair that you tote up the costs. Serious enforcement of copyright in this age would require a totalitarian state. I don’t think it’s worth the price.

Terry, you’re wrong. (See above.) Manly enough? What now?

No can do. But I can say this: I can disapprove of an action without thinking the state or anyone else should forcefully intervene. Dickens repeatedly sold manuscripts to an American publisher although he had no copyright in the U.S. and others put out “unauthorized” editions. His publisher was willing to pay him in order to be first to market. If you Google, you will probably find the case in which Tolkien (I think) had a book published by an unauthorized publisher here and a public campaign was launched on behalf of the “official” edition in order to see to it that he got the profits.

In a free society many things may happen that offend me, even deeply. Not all of these things will be property violations. When they are not, there are ways of dealing with them that do not entail violence or the state.

Terry wants to charge us with a no-IP scenario that sounds evil.

The moment J.K. Rowling publishes her next new novel, I have my presses ready, and I immediately scan it, print a million copies — perserving her name as author — and rush them to all the stores, whereupon I become an overnight millionaire, sending not one penny to Miss Rowling herself.

You immediately scan it. Immediately ? How long would scanning a 700 pages book take ? I\’m not a specialist. What about the numerous possible mishaps you\’ll have to check and correct ? Sounds intensive.

You print a million copies. Again, how long would that take ? Where do your presses come from ? You seem awfully well-off for someone who\’s just about to turn millionnaire.

You rush them to all the stores. How long would that take ? Did you map out all the stores in the country ? I don\’t know how it works. Let\’s say you\’re an alternative publisher. Don\’t you have to contact the stores ? Wouldn\’t there be some difficulty involved in selling a book twice ? Again, I have no idea, but sounds like it could take quite a while.

You become an overnight millionnaire. You\’re gonna sell for a million in a day, even though the original publishers were there first ? Sounds very optimistic.

You don\’t send one penny to Miss Rowling herself. Indeed. But Miss Rowling already got paid from the contract she entered into with the first publishers. So she\’s got her share of pennies already, and this will remain true whether you do your copying&selling or not. The main losers in all this would thus be the original publishers. But then I don\’t think we should refrain from the above scenario, just to preserve these guys\’ sales.

But also don\’t consider me a potential investor. I think it\’s a hairbrained scheme that would bankrupt you (that is, assuming we don\’t also get the opportunity to eliminate \"bankruptcy\" while we\’re at it…).

There exists such a confusion even within the free software movement, i.e. between those who would compel authors to surrender their unpublished work to the public without charge, and those who would restore to the purchasers of software the liberty to make copies and derivatives. Free as in speech, not as in beer.

Take a leaf out of Thomas Paine’s book. The liberty of all is more important than the prosperity of a few, even if the latter do lobby the legislators so lucratively.

Am I supposed to feel bad that she wrote a story and wouldn’t be making a billion dollars from the kids who buy it? I’m not really sure I get what you’re trying to say.

It’s interesting you bring it up though, because the scenario you present is not much different from how things are CURRENTLY in the music industry. It’s not terribly hard to get the latest release online from any established artist (lesser-known acts can be a little more difficult…). Yet some people insist on going to Borders and paying nearly $20 for a CD. Why do you think that is? Is it because they’re afraid that the cops are going to come get them?

Therefore, whilst I would see nothing wrong with a free market in the printing of copies of a published work (without compulsory royalty, license, taxation, etc.), I couldn’t agree with the precise wording of your proposition. Incidentally, I strongly doubt you would become quite as wealthy as you indicate if there was a free market in the production of copies.

I have just blogged a quick summary of what I perceive to be the three positions on IP: IP Triumvirate.

There are three theories as to how intellectual work should be recognised as property (or not):

1 Privileged IP – extended by unnatural monopoly
2 No IP – material property only
3 Natural IP – no unnatural monopoly

Privileged IP is the predominant and received thesis. Moreover, to the most extreme of IP maximalists, the privileges of copyright and patent are seen as actually deficient, that the reproduction monopolies should be perpetual, and are otherwise dilutions, albeit tolerable if in the public good.

No IP is the predominant counter-thesis, that there is no such thing as intellectual property, that the only thing that can be the subject of property is matter, not information. Thus if a poem written on a sheet of paper is stolen (from someone’s private possession), only the theft of paper and ink is recognised, and if a copy of the words is stolen, no theft is recognised to have occurred at all.

Natural IP is the recognition of intellectual work as property from a natural rights perspective. It is offensive/incomprehensible to advocates of both the predominant thesis and counter-thesis, as while on the one hand it holds that the monopolies of copyright and patent are unnatural and derogate from the individual’s liberty, on the other hand it recognises that intellectual property is natural, that individuals have a natural exclusive right to their intellectual work. Thus with natural IP, poems can be stolen (theft of IP recognised with/without any material), though no monopoly over the poem is granted, e.g. purchasers of poems are free to make and sell copies or derivatives.

Russ, putting your name on something that is not your own is not, in and of itself, a violation of property rights. The violation occurs when you SELL your item by MISREPRESENTING it. I can’t paste a Rolls Royce emblem on a Pontiac and try to sell it as a Rolls Royce. I can, however, paste the Rolls Royce emblem on a Pontiac and try to sell it as a Pontiac with a Rolls Royce emblem on it.

You don’t need the concept of “intellectual property” in order to recognize that fraud is a violation of property rights.

I hold the stance I do because I recognize that information cannot be owned. And I think even you recognize this. Your defense of IP law is almost completely utilitarian — and, what’s more, based on unfounded predictions. There are lots of reasons to “create” information (whether in the form of music, film, software, written works, etc), even if you don’t stand to profit from it. In fact, experts in each of those genres would probably agree that the best work often comes from when there’s a goal aside from the almighty dollar.

I won’t comment on the examples that you’ve produced where the real violation is fraud. They’re not relevant because it’s not IP infringement.

(Not does an appeal to a writer\’s \"reputation\" solve this conundrum. A reputation is an idea, not a physical object. According to the above argument, a reputation is no more ownable or subject to fraud than any other idea. Hence, own has no \"ownership\" in one\’s reputation nor recourse to what other\’s do to what one does not own.)

It is a self-contradiction to claim that intellectual property rights are nonexistent and simultaneously claim that anyone can commit fraud against a user of ideas. If IP rights do not exist, then no fraud is possible against either the manipulator of non-ownable ideas nor against customers who are merely purchasing a copy of ideas that are non-ownable.

Claiming that ideas are not property in any case at all is as self-contradictory as claiming that anarchy is logically or philosophically or morally self-consistent.

Exactly, it is an invention. Earlier libertarians called it “artificial property” as opposed to “natural property.” My article addressed the all-property-is-monopoly point through a quotation by Kevin Carson. It doesn’t get you to IP. I refer you to the quotation.

And I still have no idea what he is trying to say, when he says he\’s for abolishing \"the IP monopoly\" but still in favor of IP.

There exists software that takes an expert systems understanding of music and generates new songs in a continual non-repeating manner.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090601085928.htm

I see no reason why another program could not automatically fill out and send in the copyright paperwork and fees.

Similar expert and neural network learning systems have been proposed or exist for writing scientific papers, doing engineering design work, and other work that could qualify for IP.

In the area of tangible property science fiction is moving closer to engineering fact concerning automated systems able to construct themselves as well as performing general manufacturing. In the not too distant future software, hardware, and evolutionary algorithms may combine such that you can turn loose and automated system and later reap substantial tangible property benefits without further input. Eventually one could picture sending a probe to a dead moon then years later end up with property and infrastructure worth trillions of dollars. When IP and hardware interact and effectively breed new hardware and IP things become interesting.

Dennis May