For the past several years I have been following the debate on so-called intellectual property on the Gripe Line (now silent), Technological Liberation Front, TechDirt, and Against Monopoly. As I have read the posts a comon theme began to appear. The concept of "Sale" is being depreciated.
Normally when one buys a product, such as a car, the seller transfers his/her property right to the buyer. However, with the growth of personal computers which allows content to be easily copied and transferred, we have seen the emergence of so-called intellectual property. Those who support the concept of intellectual property assert that the creators of content perpetually own the content and that those who "buy" the content are simply "leasing" or "licensing" the content, which leaves the buyer with no property rights concerning how the content may be used.
The current trend of property rights aggrandizement by those promoting s0-called intellectual property rights appears to be coming under increased scrutiny. Ubersoft recently ran a very humerus panel of cartoons: "Grand Unified Interconnected Litigation Theory". This series of cartoons explores how end user license agreements (EULA) essentially strip the consumer of any rights and allows the content creators to essentially abuse the consumer at the content creators whim.
TechDirt recently published "Creation Does Not Equal Ownership". The article details that the simple act of creation does not confer perpetual ownership to the creator. In that article Mike Masnick wrote, more eloquently than I, "Despite their claims of being property rights supporters, they are actually the opposite. They are trying to deny property rights to any recipient."
"Creation Does Not Equal Ownership" is a followup an article by Stephen Kinsella: "Objectivists on the PRO-IP Act". Kinsella writes "Notes Johnson, "the creator of a piece of intellectual property owns the product of his work." His argument? "If a baker bakes a loaf of bread, he therefore owns it." And likewise, for "music, movies, software." But note the mistake here Johson makes: "If a baker bakes a loaf of bread, he therefore owns it." The "therefore" is the giveaway: he says this because he thinks of the creation of the loaf as the act that gives rise to ownership. Then this leads to the analogy with other created things, like music. But creation of the loaf is not the reason why the baker owns it. He owns the loaf because he owned the dough that he baked. He already owned the dough, before any act of "creation"--before he transformed it with his labor. If he owned the dough, then he owns whatever he transforms his property into; the act of creation is an act of transformation that does not generate any new property rights. So creation is not necessary for him to own the resulting baked bread. Likewise, if he used someone else's dough--say, his employer's--then he does not own the loaf, but the owner of the dough does. So creation is not sufficient for ownership."
Mike Masnick goes on to write: "Exactly. Creation alone does not grant property rights if none existed prior to that transformation. I would even take the argument a step further. Even if you own something due to the fact that you created it, once you have given away or sold that product, you no longer have ownership of it -- and claiming you do actually removes property rights from the lawful owner."
Those who advocate so-called intellectual property are attempting to deprive the consumer of being able to acquire property rights to products that they have legally bought. Furthermore, those who advocate so called intellectual property are asserting an imaginary property right that they do not even posses. It is time for the consumer defend their property rights by fighting back.
3 comments:
Well, I advocate intellectual property rights, but I don't believe they interfere with a purchaser's intellectual property rights.
The things that interfere are monopolies such as copyright and patent.
A baker owns his creation just as an author owns their novel - and they own it because they created it. They introduced it into their private domains through their physical or mental labour.
If the baker has stolen flour, or the author has stolen another's manuscript, that is a separate crime.
If a miller supplies flour to the baker as part of a commission for the baker's labour in transforming it. The baker still owns their creative labour, even if they don't own the flour. If the miller does not reimburse the baker for their creative labour in plaitting the dough into an artful shape, their flour is forfeit - subject to the agreement of the commission.
A publisher may lend a typewriter to an author, but they cannot claim to own their drafts through owning the ink. Nor can they expect to demand the return of the ink used by the author.
The Merchant of Venice may be instructive in this matter.
Creation or exchange are the two key actions that bring objects into the private domain and constitute those objects as property, whether they are material or intellectual in nature.
If I sell you a book, it is not the fact that I created it that interferes with your intellectual property rights, but the mercantile privilege of copyright that permits me to prosecute you if you reproduce it or publicly perform it without my permission.
Similarly, if I sell you a loaf I have baked with my own flour, it is not the fact that I created it that interferes with your material property rights, but the mercantile privilege of patent that permits me to prosecute you if you attempt to reproduce my genetically modified flour.
Some libertarians support intellectual property, they're just against monopolies that interfere with it.
Others, like Stephen Kinsella, are also against intellectual property itself.
And in the other direction there are objectivist libertarians who perversely support monopolies as well as IP.
And then there are the apparent agnostics such as Lawrence Lessig who, while encouraging a more liberal attitude from publishers, would still support an author having the privilege to control the use of their published work.
I agree that "if I sell you a book, it is not the fact that I created it that interferes with your intellectual property rights, but the mercantile privilege of copyright that permits me to prosecute you if you reproduce it or publicly perform it without my permission."
My problem is that I see the content producers aggrandizing their property rights by depriving the consumer of their property rights that would normally accrue when they buy a product. For example, creating your own mix of songs from various CDs that you bought onto an MP3 player.
Recently on TechDirt, the claim was made by one commenter that copyright is necessary since a lot of people spend a lot of time and money creating, marketing, manufacturing content. That seems to miss the whole point of copyright, which is to foster new content for a limited period of time. The concept that a lot of people spend a lot of time and money creating, marketing, manufacturing content applies equally well to content that is in the public domain. One does not need copyright to make a living. However, I will acknowledge that a short time limited monopoly in the form of copyright is a suitable trade-off in order to give the content producer an opportunity, but not a guarantee, of income.
I am rambling on, maybe I am spending too much time on TechDirt, Against Monopoly, and the Technology Liberation Front as I am becoming more radical. (Some posters on the The Technology Liberation Front have a strong IP orientation that I find counter intuitive to the blog).
> My problem is that I see the content producers aggrandizing their
> property rights by depriving the consumer of their property
> rights that would normally accrue when they buy a product.
No-one needs to aggrandise their property rights, they simply need to assert them, and demand the government helps protect them.
What large commercial publishers are doing is continually seeking greater terms, scope, enforcement and penalties for their monopolies, from the government.
> For example, creating
> your own mix of songs from various CDs that you bought onto
> an MP3 player.
That's perfectly natural. And conflicts with no-one's property rights.
It may well infringe a publisher's copyright, but then copyright is not a property right but the privilege of a monopoly.
> Just today on TechDirt, the claim was made by one commenter that
> copyright is necessary since a lot of people spend a lot of time and
> money creating, marketing, manufacturing content. That seems
> to miss the
> whole point of copyright, which is to foster new content for
> a limited
> period of time.
A monopoly is necessary if you wish to commercially exploit a monopoly, but that doesn't mean the monopoly is necessary per se, let alone ethical.
If it's abolished, well sure, those few corporations that can still benefit from it will need to reorganise their business. However, self-publishers will see no difference because 1) they can't afford to prosecute infringement anyway, and 2) they aren't using those publishers who can prosecute infringement for monetary gain - because they're self-publishers.
The market for copies has ended. Having a legal monopoly over copies doesn't make any difference if no-one takes any notice of it.
> The concept that a lot of people spend a lot
> of time and
> money creating, marketing, manufacturing content applies
> equally well to
> content that is in the public domain. One does not need copyright to
> make a living.
Right. But one does need intellectual property rights, just as one needs material property rights. The creator of a material or intellectual work owns that work - because they created it (not because they owned the raw materials, though that is less prone to complications when things don't go smoothly).
People have a right to exchange their labour, creations, or purchases in a free market.
If you write a novel that's your fricking novel, your property, and no other blighter should be permitted to steal it from you.
> However, I will acknowledge that a short time limited
> monopoly in the form of copyright is a suitable trade-off in order to
> give the content producer an opportunity, but not a
> guarantee, of income.
A monopoly is not really a trade off, but a suspension of the public's liberty that privileges a favoured party, as a reward to that party - in this case publishers. Apart from ulterior motives of controlling the press, we are supposed to believe in the dubious notion that in the process of exploiting their privilege publishers will cause the production of more culture and innovation than would otherwise occur.
Well, hang on just a sec. They said that about slaves, that by removing their liberty more labour could be extracted from them than would otherwise occur, hence an overall benefit to society.
What people seem blind to here is that we're talking about the suspension of our inalienable right to liberty. The government can't simply say "We know you'd rather have your liberty, but it's better if we suspend it to privilige publishers - you'll thank us for it one day". Sod that. It's my fricking liberty and you can't take it from me to reward your publishing buddies.
And this is what happened 3 years after the US constitution was enacted in 1787. Some cunning publishing types thought they could easily reenact Queen Anne's copyright act of 1710 on the basis it helped secure people's exclusive rights (IP rights), and the constitution had given the government power to do that. Unfortunately, very few people noticed that copyright didn't just secure exclusive rights, it also granted publishers a monopoly - a monopoly that had no constitutional sanction. Some did notice it, but they wrung their hands in angst and let it pass - a crisis of conscience that gave way to commerce.
> I am rambling on, maybe I am spending too much time on
> TechDirt, Against
> Monopoly, and the Technology Liberation Front as I am becoming more
> radical. (Some posters on the The Technology Liberation Front have a
> strong IP orientation that I find counter intuitive to the blog).
Tech Lib Front, is 'objectivist libertarian'. It'll rot your brain. ;-) They have no problem with unnatural monopolies as long as they are 'in the public good', which frankly should be an abhorrent notion to anyone calling themselves a libertarian, let alone us natural rights libertarians.
Post a Comment