Intellectual property
Not meaning to reopen the can of worms, but seems this response was lost I'm sorry, I couldn't find any particular articles about the negative effects of the DMCA on the first link (I'm sure there are some -- please post a link.) The second link is not content based -- I would like to see some precise highlighted examples of DMCA infringing on economic freedom. E.g. say pre-DMCA I buy a CD or DVD which forms an implicit contract with the provider, the DMCA is passed and suddenly my contract has been changed -- if nothing else, this is clearly an efficiency issue -- if behavior like this is common, the cost of forming and maintaining contracts along with information costs will skyrocket, not the mention the effect on incentives. For instance, off the first link a page indicates that one may not "patch" software one purchases, which it would seem reasonable to assume I could do so for my own personal use, for convenience, functionality, compatibility, whatever -- it may make a significant difference in the value of the software to me. Likely in this case the law only will apply to people distributing particular code which facilitates illegal duplication, which increases efficiency, and is valuable to the individual insofar as they want to see the optimal (i.e. market clearing) level of reinvestment in producing new software/media. At 01:48 PM 9/8/2003 +0200, you wrote: For further information about the negative impact of the DMCA on our freedom see: http://www.chillingeffects.org/ And here for the logical conclusion of enforcing laws like the DMCA: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re: intellectual property
So do public/university libraries fundamentally violate intellectual property rights? Is widespread sharing theft, or is some form of durable duplication necessary for a theft to have taken place? Is copying alone an act of theft, or only when the copy is distributed? I wish I had answers. The current standard for many media is that duplication is legal if the copies aren't resold. But for music the RIAA wants to prevent not only unauthorized resale of copies, but the unauthorized sharing/giving of copies. What makes that sharing theft? Many musicians have said "if you use it didn't pay for it, it's theft." That doesn't make sense to me. If I enjoy music from a neighbor's stereo system and don't pay for it, it's not theft. Now what if he plays his stereo loudly enough, and I record it from my own living room? Why isn't the benefit to non-paying listeners of music just a positive externality? And how can it be known if the externality is inframarginal or not? If it is a positive externality (and it's not inframarginal), then the apparent solution would not be to enforce intellectual property rights, but to subsidize artists. on 9/5/03 1:49 PM, Fred Foldvary at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > One can own a physical manifestation of an invention or creation. > > When I copyright a book, I don't own the text you have in your memory after > you read it, but I may claim property rights to any physical copies you may > make of the book or parts of it. > > Fred Foldvary > > > > = > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
I'm not so sure in the patent area either. Five drug companies compete to make a formula for a drug that does X, and the one who finishes a minute before the others gets government protection to charge monopoly prices as the government forbids anyone else to complete their research and sell the same drug. If there's any theft there it would seem to be by the government of the other companies' right to what they researched (but didn't complete quite as quickly) and from the consumers who must pay more because of the government-imposed monopoly.
Re: intellectual property
--- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So do public/university libraries fundamentally violate intellectual > property rights? As you know, copyrights confer only limited rights to the author. Owners of books may rent out the books. Copyright only outlaws copying, not use or lending. > Is copying alone an > act of theft, or only when the copy is distributed? "Fair use" permits copying without permission for personal use. What is prohibited is distribution that reduces the potential gains of the author. Free distribution is included here, when that detracts from sales. > What makes that sharing theft? The reduction of royalties from sales. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
Fred Foldvary wrote: --- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What makes that sharing theft? The reduction of royalties from sales. this strongly implies that sharing with persons whom would never have purchased can't be theft. probably not a point you'd be willing to defend. d
Re: intellectual property
But even under fair use, the standard of royalty reduction is not consistently applied. Without even copying a recording, sharing potentially reduces royalties from sales. Suppose I lend my own purchased copy of a DVD to Eric Crampton and he watches the movie and returns it to me. If I had not lent it to him, suppose that he would have rented it or purchased it himself. My act of lending it to him reduced royalties. The lending is legal under fair use (isn't it?), even though royalties are reduced. Another example: copying under fair use can reduce royalties. Suppose I buy Microsoft Office and burn a backup disc. The original is damaged. Suppose that without the backup I made, I would have purchased another original. Again, royalties are reduced by fair use. Steve on 9/5/03 2:47 PM, Fred Foldvary at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > --- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So do public/university libraries fundamentally violate intellectual >> property rights? > > As you know, copyrights confer only limited rights to the author. > Owners of books may rent out the books. > Copyright only outlaws copying, not use or lending. > >> Is copying alone an >> act of theft, or only when the copy is distributed? > > "Fair use" permits copying without permission for personal use. > What is prohibited is distribution that reduces the potential gains of the > author. Free distribution is included here, when that detracts from sales. > >> What makes that sharing theft? > > The reduction of royalties from sales. > > Fred Foldvary > > = > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
Conversely, I could argue that all of the music I've ever downloaded from a P2P network was fair use, since it did not reduce royalties. Why? All I have to do is claim that I would have never purchased the music at the market price. on 9/5/03 3:08 PM, Steve Miller at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But even under fair use, the standard of royalty reduction is not > consistently applied. Without even copying a recording, sharing potentially > reduces royalties from sales. Suppose I lend my own purchased copy of a DVD > to Eric Crampton and he watches the movie and returns it to me. If I had > not lent it to him, suppose that he would have rented it or purchased it > himself. My act of lending it to him reduced royalties. The lending is > legal under fair use (isn't it?), even though royalties are reduced. > > Another example: copying under fair use can reduce royalties. Suppose I buy > Microsoft Office and burn a backup disc. The original is damaged. Suppose > that without the backup I made, I would have purchased another original. > Again, royalties are reduced by fair use. > > Steve > > on 9/5/03 2:47 PM, Fred Foldvary at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> --- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> So do public/university libraries fundamentally violate intellectual >>> property rights? >> >> As you know, copyrights confer only limited rights to the author. >> Owners of books may rent out the books. >> Copyright only outlaws copying, not use or lending. >> >>> Is copying alone an >>> act of theft, or only when the copy is distributed? >> >> "Fair use" permits copying without permission for personal use. >> What is prohibited is distribution that reduces the potential gains of the >> author. Free distribution is included here, when that detracts from sales. >> >>> What makes that sharing theft? >> >> The reduction of royalties from sales. >> >> Fred Foldvary >> >> = >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
> So do public/university libraries fundamentally violate intellectual > property rights? Is widespread sharing theft, or is some form of durable > duplication necessary for a theft to have taken place? Is copying alone an > act of theft, or only when the copy is distributed? I wish I had answers. If copying allows you to do something that would otherwise require buying another copy, it's theft. If I loan you my copy of Fred's book, it's OK since I can't use it while you have it. But if I take it to a Xerox machine and make it so you can have all the benefits of a copy without buying it -- and I can, too -- then it's infringement. > The current standard for many media is that duplication is legal if the > copies aren't resold. No, it's not. Never has been. All unauthorized copying is prohibited unless it falls under the "fair use" exception. Generally speaking, copying a small portion of a work for scholarly purposes (e.g., a few pages of a book, maybe even a chapter) or personal purposes (e.g., one song on an album to send along with a greeting card) is considered "fair use." So are backup copies (in case the tape machine malfunctions) for yourself only, and copies to a different medium (e.g., you have a CD and you want to listen in your car, but yoru car has only a tape player). The "fair use" definition is subjective -- you could probably copy an entire out-of-print book for scholarly use if it were not possible to buy one from the author/publisher. But wholesale copying to avoid purchase is definitely infringement, even if no money changes hands. For example, if one student in the class buys a textbook -- or a music CD -- and everyone else in the class copies it in order to have it without buying it, that's infringement under the law, and always has been. > But for music the RIAA wants to prevent not only > unauthorized resale of copies, but the unauthorized sharing/giving of > copies. This has always been the law -- the RIAA is just trying to enforce it now. I'm don't necessarily agree with their methods, or the magnitude of their penalties, or their standard of proof. But the fact is that what they are trying to prevent has been illegal for a very long time. (The last time to copyright law was overhauled was in 1977.) > What makes that sharing theft? Many musicians have said "if you use > it didn't pay for it, it's theft." That doesn't make sense to me. If I > enjoy music from a neighbor's stereo system and don't pay for it, it's not > theft. No, but if he plays it for profit (e.g., in a restaurant or on a radio station) from more than two speakers he has to pay for a license from ASCAP/BMI. (If they area from which it can be heard is small enough to be covered from only two speakers, it's considered a fair use of the recording already purchased, or of the radio signal received.) --Robert
Re: intellectual property
In a message dated 9/5/03 3:07:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >But even under fair use, the standard of royalty reduction is not >consistently applied. Without even copying a recording, sharing potentially >reduces royalties from sales. Suppose I lend my own purchased copy of >a DVD >to Eric Crampton and he watches the movie and returns it to me. If I had >not lent it to him, suppose that he would have rented it or purchased it >himself. My act of lending it to him reduced royalties. The lending is >legal under fair use (isn't it?), even though royalties are reduced. Ken C (a fellow GMU PhD student) did bring over the director's cut of FotR and I watched it. Had he not done so I would most definitely not, in my current state of poverty, have gone out and purchased or even rented it. so his willingess to share increased my surplus without decreasing the surplus of the owner of the "intellectual property right" to it.
Re: intellectual property
In a message dated 9/5/03 3:28:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >If copying allows you to do something that would otherwise require >buying another copy, it's theft. If I loan you my copy of Fred's >book, it's OK since I can't use it while you have it. But if I take >it to a Xerox machine and make it so you can have all the benefits of >a copy without buying it -- and I can, too -- then it's infringement. When ken lent me his copy of the movie he watched it too; was that theft?
Re: intellectual property
on 9/5/03 3:27 PM, Robert A. Book at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But > wholesale copying to avoid purchase is definitely infringement, even > if no money changes hands. What if it was not to avoid purchase, i.e. I would not have purchased it anyway at the set price? Copying at one's own expense still seems to be fundamentally different from stealing. What if I disassembled my computer and then bought all identical components to re-create it, and then gave it to a stranger? What if I could do that at a tiny fraction of the cost of a buying another identical computer? *For the record I actually buy the music that I download because the downloads are fast and easy compared to peer-to-peer networks, and because I can buy tracks as I wish, i.e. no need to buy a whole album for a couple of tracks I want.
Re: intellectual property
--- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Conversely, I could argue that all of the music I've ever downloaded from > a P2P network was fair use, since it did not reduce royalties. Why? A > All I have to do is claim that I would have never purchased the music at > the market price. A uniform rule is needed that applies to everyone. Under that rule, some would have bought the music and others not. The net result of enforcing the rule is more royalties to the creator. The market rule is: to the creator belongs the creation. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
--- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another example: copying under fair use can reduce royalties. Suppose I > buy Microsoft Office and burn a backup disc. The original is damaged. > Suppose that without the backup I made, I would have purchased another > original. Again, royalties are reduced by fair use. The reduction of royalties is the damage caused by theft, but not all reduction in royalties is theft. When permitte by contract or law, it is not theft. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
Unless he sells it or gives it away! The question is, is the CD/book/etc. itself my property or not? Or am I agreeing by buying it that I can only use the media in a very limited way? on 9/5/03 3:53 PM, Fred Foldvary at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > A uniform rule is needed that applies to everyone. Under that rule, some > would have bought the music and others not. The net result of enforcing > the rule is more royalties to the creator. > > The market rule is: to the creator belongs the creation. > > Fred Foldvary > > > = > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I'm not so sure in the patent area either. Five drug companies compete to > make a formula for a drug that does X, and the one who finishes a minute before > the others gets government protection to charge monopoly prices as the > government forbids anyone else to complete their research and sell the same drug. This not quite right. Normally, five drug companies compete to make a formula for a drug that does X, BUT THEY ALL COME UP WITH DIFFERENT FORMULAS. Each gets a patent (monopoly) on their specific drug, but NOT on "a drug that does X." Vioxx and Celebrex both do the same thing, but they have different chemical formulas and are subject to different patents. Which each firm as a "monopoly" on its specific drug, the market is really a duopoly in the market for "COX-2 inhibitors." (See section 5 of http://rbook.freeshell.org/PharmInnov.pdf ) Also, for drugs the monopoly is not the same as the patent term. It's usually shorter. (See section 4.4 of the same paper.) > If > there's any theft there it would seem to be by the government of the other > companies' right to what they researched (but didn't complete quite as quickly) > and from the consumers who must pay more because of the government-imposed > monopoly. This is what the "patent races" literature is about. I can post some references on this if you like. --Robert Book
Re: intellectual property
Well, as Robert Book pointed out, there is a conflict between laws. The law says fair use, whatever that means exactly, but now the DMCA says not even that. Though the DMCA really only permits the prevention of fair use, I think. But anyway, it's a real stretch to call the current situation a contract between buyer and seller. I guess they now have EULAs and such with some media, but not others. on 9/5/03 3:56 PM, Fred Foldvary at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > --- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Another example: copying under fair use can reduce royalties. Suppose I >> buy Microsoft Office and burn a backup disc. The original is damaged. >> Suppose that without the backup I made, I would have purchased another >> original. Again, royalties are reduced by fair use. > > The reduction of royalties is the damage caused by theft, but not all > reduction in royalties is theft. When permitte by contract or law, it is > not theft. > > Fred Foldvary > > > = > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
> In a message dated 9/5/03 3:28:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >If copying allows you to do something that would otherwise require > >buying another copy, it's theft. If I loan you my copy of Fred's > >book, it's OK since I can't use it while you have it. But if I take > >it to a Xerox machine and make it so you can have all the benefits of > >a copy without buying it -- and I can, too -- then it's infringement. > > When ken lent me his copy of the movie he watched it too; was that theft? > I don't think so, since he couldn't watch it while you had it. It was no different from lending you a lawnmover. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Re: intellectual property
In a message dated 9/5/03 4:06:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Well, as Robert Book pointed out, there is a conflict between laws. The >law >says fair use, whatever that means exactly, but now the DMCA says not even >that. Though the DMCA really only permits the prevention of fair use, >I >think. But anyway, it's a real stretch to call the current situation a >contract between buyer and seller. I guess they now have EULAs and such >with some media, but not others. I seem to recall from my various studies of law that there's a legal doctrine that where an older and a newer law conflict the newer law prevails.
Re: intellectual property
In a message dated 9/5/03 4:10:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> In a message dated 9/5/03 3:28:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >> >If copying allows you to do something that would otherwise require >> >buying another copy, it's theft. If I loan you my copy of Fred's >> >book, it's OK since I can't use it while you have it. But if I take >> >it to a Xerox machine and make it so you can have all the benefits of >> >a copy without buying it -- and I can, too -- then it's infringement. >> >> When ken lent me his copy of the movie he watched it too; was that theft? >> > >I don't think so, since he couldn't watch it while you had it. It was >no different from lending you a lawnmover. > >Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I'm sure it's not legally theft, but it fits the definition of theft that someone on the list promulgated her this afternoon. :)
Re: intellectual property
> on 9/5/03 3:27 PM, Robert A. Book at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > But > > wholesale copying to avoid purchase is definitely infringement, even > > if no money changes hands. > > What if it was not to avoid purchase, i.e. I would not have purchased it > anyway at the set price? What if you broke into a store at night and stole a piano -- but that as not to avoid purchase, i.e. you would not have purchased it anyway at the set price? Would that be OK? > Copying at one's own expense still seems to be > fundamentally different from stealing. For the record, I have used the work "infringing" not "stealing." I agree that they are different acts, but I'm not sure their different morally. > What if I disassembled my computer > and then bought all identical components to re-create it, and then gave it > to a stranger? What if I could do that at a tiny fraction of the cost of a > buying another identical computer? If a patent applied to the whole computer, you would be infringing the patent. And that's been the law since the 1790s (in the US anyway). For computers these days, the patents typically applies to the components, not the whole computer, so it would be perfectly legal to do that. It would not, however, be at "tiny" fraction of the cost. Maybe lower cost, but not "tiny." > *For the record I actually buy the music that I download because the > downloads are fast and easy compared to peer-to-peer networks, and because I > can buy tracks as I wish, i.e. no need to buy a whole album for a couple of > tracks I want. For the record, I didn't even copy music tapes in junior high (mid-1980s). (I've been having this arguement for a *LONG* time! ;-) --Robert
Re: intellectual property
Discussions of the morality of intellectual property, as opposed to its economic effects or efficiency, are not really germane to armchair. Please take them off list. Thanks! -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] "But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren." --J.R.R. Tolkien, *The Silmarillion*
Re: intellectual property
Fred Foldvary at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > A uniform rule is needed that applies to everyone. Under that rule, some > > would have bought the music and others not. The net result of enforcing > > the rule is more royalties to the creator. > > > > The market rule is: to the creator belongs the creation. Steven Miller: > Unless he sells it or gives it away! The question is, is the CD/book/etc. > itself my property or not? Or am I agreeing by buying it that I can only > use the media in a very limited way? You own the physical CD/book/etc. You can loan, sell or give away the physical object. You do *NOT* own the legal right to copy it as much as you want for any purpose you want. There is an interesting case now where a guy is trying to sell some downloaded music on eBay; he promised to delete his own copy after the sale. My guess is, this would be legal. I think it ought to be. See: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/03/1823202&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=141&tid=188&tid=99 I just got a message that the Armchair list passed it's daily limit, so I guess you'll all get this message tomorrow. And I can take a breath and give my fingers a rest. Whew! ;-) --Robert
Re: intellectual property
> > --- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Another example: copying under fair use can reduce royalties. Suppose I > >> buy Microsoft Office and burn a backup disc. The original is damaged. > >> Suppose that without the backup I made, I would have purchased another > >> original. Again, royalties are reduced by fair use. > on 9/5/03 3:56 PM, Fred Foldvary at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The reduction of royalties is the damage caused by theft, but not all > > reduction in royalties is theft. When permitte by contract or law, it is > > not theft. Steven Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Well, as Robert Book pointed out, there is a conflict between laws. The law > says fair use, whatever that means exactly, but now the DMCA says not even > that. Though the DMCA really only permits the prevention of fair use, I > think. But anyway, it's a real stretch to call the current situation a > contract between buyer and seller. I guess they now have EULAs and such > with some media, but not others. Fred said "contract or law." Copyright is a law (though a contract can alter the "default" rights in an individual case). The enforcement of EULAs are somewhat questionable as far as I know. There was a proposed "Uniform" law that would have made them enforceable, but only two states passed it (Maryland and Virginia). Unfortunately, I live in one of them. Fortunately, I just read in the ABA Journal this week that the people who propose Uniform laws have given up on this one, which is the first time that has ever happened. --Robert
Re: intellectual property
--- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The question is, is the CD/book/etc. > itself my property or not? It's not a matter of yes or no. Ownership is a bundle of rights. You have particular rights to the book, and the author and publisher also have particular rights, and the public, via its agent the government, has particular rights. So the book is the property of several persons or classes of persons. > Or am I agreeing by buying it that I can only > use the media in a very limited way? Yes, you implicitly agree to have limited rights. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
Perhaps Americans should count themselves luck that the English didn't copyright our language My serious point is if we were to step back, wouldn't we see that there are all sorts of contexts of IP, and in some cases the law of IP is just a blatant monopoly ruse in practice At another level, for quite a long time now I have asked myself whenever considering learning a methodology or program language or similar, where will this lead me? Will I get my mind trapped in someone else's thought process which I have to pay each time I use? Do I really need that? In fields such as business strategy its now almost impossible for any 2 people to understand each other because there are so many variants of almost the same term but each tm'd by a different guru, and most of these concepts have little value in themselves but only in connecting with other ones suffering from the same IP-driven diarrhoea Randomly applied IP prevents learning - sometimes in areas of most desperate humanitarian value - so IP raises many examples of not just what is the law on that but what should it be to be fair to all concerned. Chris Macrae www.valuetrue.com
Re: intellectual property
on 9/5/03 4:14 PM, Robert A. Book at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > What if you broke into a store at night and stole a piano -- but that > as not to avoid purchase, i.e. you would not have purchased it anyway > at the set price? > > Would that be OK? Totally different, as you say below. I'm talking about taking an unauthorized copy of the piano when it is offered to me. > > For the record, I have used the work "infringing" not "stealing." I > agree that they are different acts, but I'm not sure their different > morally. I don't pretend to know either, except when arguing from a particular position as a means of better understanding the problem. > > If a patent applied to the whole computer, you would be infringing the > patent. And that's been the law since the 1790s (in the US anyway). > > For computers these days, the patents typically applies to the > components, not the whole computer, so it would be perfectly legal to > do that. It would not, however, be at "tiny" fraction of the cost. > Maybe lower cost, but not "tiny." That's why I present it as a hypothetical. If it were possible to do so for a tiny fraction of the cost, then it would be essentially the same situation as with music recordings now. But why is the existence of patent laws more moral than their absence? > > For the record, I didn't even copy music tapes in junior high > (mid-1980s). (I've been having this arguement for a *LONG* time! ;-) Wow. When I was in Junior High I was too narrowly self-interested to think much about Huey Lewis' intellectual property rights. :)
Re: intellectual property
--- alypius skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What is your definition of "property"?
> > Mine is: "Anything subject to human control."
>
> What is your definition of "stealing?"
> Mine is: depriving another person of possession of his property.
>
> Copyright violation does not deprive another person either of possession
> or use ("control") of his property.
But an author's property includes the income from the property, and
copyright violation steals that.
If I own bonds and I still possess the bonds but you took the interest on
the bonds, would that not be theft?
> but this is profit from a temporary legal
> monopoly--perhaps an entirely legitimate monopoly from a utilitarian
> point of view, but monopoly privileges nonetheless.
A copyright does confer a monopoly, but I would not call that a privilege.
I have a monopoly on my personality and personhood, but that is my natural
right, not a privilege. My writing is an extension of myself, and thus is
also not a privilege, but my natural right to my created property.
> If GM is not permitted to
> have a monopoly on auto manufacturing, thus depriving them of some
> opportunities to profit, is this stealing their property?
That is a different issue from a patent on something they invented.
> Monopolies, such as copyrights and patents, are granted
> solely for reasons of superior social utility--namely, to encourage
> creative work which might not otherwise be performed.
Some would argue that it is also a matter of moral right.
To the creator belongs the creation.
> But what is the optimum tradeoff between incentives created by granting
> these temporary monopolies and removing or reducing the incentives so as
> to promote more quickly the spread of innovation and knowledge throughout
> society?
David Friedman discusses this in "Law's Order".
He explains why, quite reasonably, copyright duration is longer and easier
than patent duration.
> As soon as we ask this question, it becomes possible to
> challenge existing copyright or similar laws, which were created purely
> for utilitarian reasons, on utilitarian grounds as well as libertarian.
Friedman does not challenge these, in that work, as I recall.
Fred Foldvary
=
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
>>But even under fair use, the standard of royalty reduction is not>>consistently applied. Without even copying a recording, sharing potentially>>reduces royalties from sales. Suppose I lend my own purchased copy of>>a DVD>>to Eric Crampton and he watches the movie and returns it to me. If I had>>not lent it to him, suppose that he would have rented it or purchased it>>himself. My act of lending it to him reduced royalties. The lending is>>legal under fair use (isn't it?), even though royalties are reduced.>Ken C (a fellow GMU PhD student) did bring over the director's cut of FotR>and I watched it. Had he not done so I would most definitely not, in my current>state of poverty, have gone out and purchased or even rented it. so his>willingess to share increased my surplus without decreasing the surplus of the>owner of the "intellectual property right" to it. Heck, let's go a step farther. I'm an anime fan, and first watched an obscure anime series on my computer, after receiving the video file from a friend who downloaded it from a file-sharing network. Not having seen it before, and not expecting it to be very well-done, I certainly would not have purchased the series on DVD left to myself. However, having finished the series, and having enjoyed it very much, I actually bought the DVDs. I don't think that this sort of behavior is that uncommon; people can and do download music from P2P networks in order to see if a new album is worth buying. Here's a case where file-sharing increases royalties. My surplus and the intellectual property owner's surplus both go up. Even if I had not ended up buying the DVDs, however, I would still feel that the owner's intellectual property right was not violated; I bring up this line of argument as a possible counterbalance to the line of reasoning that has people downloading music in lieu of purchasing it. --Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
Hi sorry for the earlier email. I sent it by mistake before I'd finished writing it. How does the market decide that the _thought_ creation belongs to the creator as you state?Obviously the fact that copyright is a legal fiction imposed by the government and is in no-way a market based solution. Someone else using my idea prevent me from using the idea myself nor can I stop someone using my idea after they've got it from me. These are two of the differences that distinguish physical property from ideas. I don't see how copyright is some kind of natural right. Surely the libertarian solution is not to impose government enforced monopolies! A libertarian solution would be market-based rather than being imposed by the government. For example why not let a song publisher to enter into a contract with a consumer about how they can use the song that they purchase? Then the purchase price would factor-in the amount of freedom that the consumer would have with the recording they've purchased? Why does the government need to interfere at all by setting blanket terms of copyright? "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." --Thomas Jefferson Hamish > -Original Message- > From: Fred Foldvary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, 5 September 2003 21:54 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: intellectual property > > > --- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Conversely, I could argue that all of the music I've ever > downloaded from > > a P2P network was fair use, since it did not reduce > royalties. Why? A > > All I have to do is claim that I would have never purchased > the music at > > the market price. > > A uniform rule is needed that applies to everyone. Under > that rule, some > would have bought the music and others not. The net result > of enforcing > the rule is more royalties to the creator. > > The market rule is: to the creator belongs the creation. > > Fred Foldvary > > > = > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: intellectual property
How does the market decide that the _thought_ creation belongs to the creator as you state?Without the intervention of the government handing out artificial monopolies the market wouldn't respect other peoples copyrights or patents. This is a very different situation from physical property where an owner of a property can prevent access to the property. Surely copyrights Surely the libertarian solution is not to impose government enforced monopolies but rather to let market participants enter into Why does the government need to interfere at all? Hamish > -Original Message- > From: Fred Foldvary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, 5 September 2003 21:54 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: intellectual property > > > --- Steve Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Conversely, I could argue that all of the music I've ever > downloaded from > > a P2P network was fair use, since it did not reduce > royalties. Why? A > > All I have to do is claim that I would have never purchased > the music at > > the market price. > > A uniform rule is needed that applies to everyone. Under > that rule, some > would have bought the music and others not. The net result > of enforcing > the rule is more royalties to the creator. > > The market rule is: to the creator belongs the creation. > > Fred Foldvary > > > = > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: intellectual property
> > What if you broke into a store at night and stole a piano -- but that > as not to avoid purchase, i.e. you would not have purchased it anyway > at the set price? > > Would that be OK? No, but what if I built an exact replica of that piano for less than it would have cost me to buy it. Would *that* be okay? ~Alypius Skinner > > Copying at one's own expense still seems to be > > fundamentally different from stealing. > > For the record, I have used the work "infringing" not "stealing." I > agree that they are different acts, but I'm not sure their different > morally. Yes, they are. Infringing is only "wrong" because the government passed a law granting monopoly rights. Stealing is recognized as wrong even in the absence of government laws or government itself. The difference is that "infringing" does not deprive the owner of his possession. He still has it, to use as he sees fit. This whole issue is a utilitarian one, not--except for strict libertarians--a moral one. It involves a trade off for society collectively between optimizing innovation and optimizing diffusion of innovation. Copyright, etc., increases innovation and discovery, but retards dissemination of the innovation or knowledge. It has nothing to do with any inherent right of an innovator to monopoly profits. That's why protection or not of this government-granted monopoly right is left to the discretion of congress. Protecting actual property would not be considered discretionary, but the state's duty. ~Alypius Skinner > > > > What if I disassembled my computer > > and then bought all identical components to re-create it, and then gave it > > to a stranger? What if I could do that at a tiny fraction of the cost of a > > buying another identical computer? > > If a patent applied to the whole computer, you would be infringing the > patent. And that's been the law since the 1790s (in the US anyway). > > For computers these days, the patents typically applies to the > components, not the whole computer, so it would be perfectly legal to > do that. It would not, however, be at "tiny" fraction of the cost. > Maybe lower cost, but not "tiny." > > > > *For the record I actually buy the music that I download because the > > downloads are fast and easy compared to peer-to-peer networks, and because I > > can buy tracks as I wish, i.e. no need to buy a whole album for a couple of > > tracks I want. > > > For the record, I didn't even copy music tapes in junior high > (mid-1980s). (I've been having this arguement for a *LONG* time! ;-) > > > --Robert
Re: intellectual property
> Ownership is a bundle of rights. > Granted, but a distinction can be made between those rights which would be commonly recognized even in the absence of government and law, and those rights which exist only because they are decreed and enforced by the state. Intellectual monopolies fall into the latter category. Just look how writings and inventions were treated prior to the creation of C&P laws. >But an author's property includes the income from the property, and copyright violation steals that. > This does not usually extend to prohibiting competition for that income stream by providing identical goods or services. C&P laws are an exception to this rule for pragmatic, not intrinsically moral, reasons. >If I own bonds and I still possess the bonds but you took the interest on the bonds, would that not be theft? > You are the buyer/customer of the bond, and the interest paid by the seller is what you have actually purchased when you paid for the bond. This would be as if I paid in advance for a music CD and received a receipt, with the CD to be delivered later. Of course, the CD has to be delivered to the buyer, just like the interest. The CD seller can't give the CD I purchased to someone else, although he could give the other person an identical CD, although I don't know whether this free distribution of CD's would be legal. (Can a retail merchant sell for any price he chooses, even below his cost? Or is this illegal?) So what does your analogy have to do with intellectual monopoly laws? I think it breaks down. A bond buyer has a contract with the seller, but a musician does not have a pre-existing contract with his potential customers. What he does have is monopoly rights granted by the state, and generally recognized _only_ because they are granted by the state. This is because the state wants to increase the incentive to innovate. >> If GM is not permitted to > have a monopoly on auto manufacturing, thus depriving them of some > opportunities to profit, is this stealing their property? >> >That is a different issue from a patent on something they invented. Why? See my grocery store analogy in my other post of the same date as this one. >> Monopolies, such as copyrights and patents, are granted > solely for reasons of superior social utility--namely, to encourage > creative work which might not otherwise be performed. >> >Some would argue that it is also a matter of moral right. To the creator belongs the creation. > One might also argue that to the copier belongs the copy! Historically, who has argued that copyrights and patents are moral or natural rights? Do you have any information about the historical pedigree of this idea? ~Alypius
Re: intellectual property
--- Barney Hamish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How does the market decide that the _thought_ creation belongs to the > creator as you state? The publisher includes a contract with the book that states that the seller agrees not to copy the book, and not to transfer it to anyone unless the next owner also agrees not to sell the book. It would be like a covenant that goes with the book. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property
> Robert A. Book wrote: >> For the record, I didn't even copy music tapes in junior high >> (mid-1980s). (I've been having this arguement for a *LONG* time! ;-) Steve Miller wrote: > Wow. When I was in Junior High I was too narrowly self-interested > to think much about Huey Lewis' intellectual property rights. :) Whereas I didn't have a tape recorder. :P -- Anton who really did frequently walk three miles, uphill in the snow, from school http://ogre.nu/
Re: Intellectual property
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Morrow) writes: >Not meaning to reopen the can of worms, but seems this response was lost > >I'm sorry, I couldn't find any particular articles about the negative >effects of the DMCA on the first link (I'm sure there are some -- please >post a link.) The second link is not content based -- I would like to see >some precise highlighted examples of DMCA infringing on economic >freedom. E.g. say pre-DMCA I buy a CD or DVD which forms an implicit I think this is a good summary: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20030102_dmca_unintended_consequences.html and some more extensive articles here: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/ These argue mainly that the monopolies promoted by the DMCA are usually not the kind of monopolies that copyright advocates have been arguing are valuable, and may make "fair use" more difficult than it ought to be. -- -- Peter McCluskey | "To announce that there must be no criticism of http://www.rahul.net/pcm | the President, or that we are to stand by the | President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic | and servile, but morally treasonable to the | American public." - Theodore Roosevelt
intellectual property, was immigration's effect
--- Barney Hamish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Intellectual Property isn't really property. ... So called "intellectual > property" doesn't share many of real property. What is your definition of "property"? Mine is: "Anything subject to human control." > How can someone own an idea? One can own a physical manifestation of an invention or creation. When I copyright a book, I don't own the text you have in your memory after you read it, but I may claim property rights to any physical copies you may make of the book or parts of it. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: intellectual property, was immigration's effect
>
> What is your definition of "property"?
> Mine is: "Anything subject to human control."
What is your definition of "stealing?"
Mine is: depriving another person of possession of his property.
Copyright violation does not deprive another person either of possession or
use ("control") of his property. It might reduce his opportunities for
profit (opportunity cost), but this is profit from a temporary legal
monopoly--perhaps an entirely legitimate monopoly from a utilitarian point
of view, but monopoly privileges nonetheless. If GM is not permitted to
have a monopoly on auto manufacturing, thus depriving them of some
opportunities to profit, is this stealing their property? Of course not,
because no one has an inherent right to a monopoly. I'm not stealing from
the barber if I cut my own hair, or persuade a mother, girlfriend, or
whoever to do it for me for free, even if the cut is indistinguishable from
the local barber's own work, and even if it deprives the barber of profit
opportunities. Monopolies, such as copyrights and patents, are granted
solely for reasons of superior social utility--namely, to encourage creative
work which might not otherwise be performed. (I expect this was a valuable
law in a pre-industrial society in which 90% of the population were
employeed as farm workers. I'm not sure it has much value in a highly
industrialized economy wherein most people are city dwellers, half the
citizenry enrolls in college, farmers are less than 3% of the population,
and technology is fast making many of these monopolies unenforceable.)
But what is the optimum tradeoff between incentives created by granting
these temporary monopolies and removing or reducing the incentives so as to
promote more quickly the spread of innovation and knowledge throughout
society? As soon as we ask this question, it becomes possible to challenge
existing copyright or similar laws, which were created purely for
utilitarian reasons, on utilitarian grounds as well as libertarian.
~Alypius Skinner
.
