Rubbish.

IP is a statist monopoly. IP is neither necessary, nor helpful, nor moral. IP contradicts physical-matter property. As technology improves (towards infinity at the point where Joe Sixpack has a gadget which can nanoassemble any-arbitrary-anything from a blueprint and a supply of raw elements), IP enforcement increasingly necessitates a panopticon state.

All arguments for IP boil down either to public-good socialism, or a lack of creative imagination, or the use of government to solve problems which the government itself created.

I can elaborate on any or all of the above, if asked.

A far more useful discussion would be "given the contraint: 'I may not tell a stranger what to do with his own physical-matter property', what means could be found to fund things which currently make their money from IP?"

Not so fast, Julian.

So if I write a book and publish it, either in paper or merely as a digital eBook, then someone else should be free to come along and "reprint" the book and sell it? Without paying me? Or perhaps without even leaving my name on it as the author?

Surely you can't be suggesting that.

I make my entire living in the Linux world. There is almost nothing I could possibly want in software for which the best of breed is not available for free... for the most part proprietary software is rather poorly done... with a few notable exceptions.

What will kill software IP isn't stealing. It's just that IP'd software is being made redundant. Once a problem is solved in software and the source is made available under GPL, that problem has effectively been solved for so long as computers exist. As does Amazon, I supply a service. The software is free. I will guarantee you that most of the software Amazon uses is the same. It's GPL'd software with a small percentage of inhouse code to support their web site. It will also be the case some people will provide other services this way. In fact I'm waiting for a go ahead on a project doing just that. The entire infrastructure they use will be a secure system based on GPL'd linux and Debian code; it will support a very small package that has "IP". The customer recognizes that copyright is dead, so they are using the trade secret approach.

People will also pay to get features added into open source software that otherwise might not happen soon enough for their needs.

Similarly with music. Most of my musician friends make their money off touring. For the most part those with CD's are making money for their label and not themselves. With the ease of self production these days, many are using the downloadable mpg's as loss leaders for merchandising and getiting people to their gigs.

I've been around both areas for decades and watched the changes coming, and in fact knew they were coming long before many others did.

The times are changing and you ignore it at peril of your business.

As to MS... (funny it's also a disease) I'd say they are within a couple years of doing an IBM or a DEC. Both companies failed to accept changes and hung on to outmoded business models until their very existance was in peril. DEC never did recover. Last I heard Compaq or someone acquired them...

It goes deeper than just software.
All chip manufacturers use similiar processes and equipment. No manufacturer really has anything that's more than a few months ahead of anyone else. What's special are the masks and VHDL source.

A lot of manufacturers, like LSI Logic, don't even have their own foundries. They have a huge R&D budget to produce something that is electronically transmitted to a foundry like TSMC. TSMC doesn't do design. They just fab silicon.

A substantial portion of the cost of a computer is IP in this manner. There's the design of the CPU (a billion dollars or more), the rest of the chips, the motherboard layout, the spluttering on the surface of the hard drive, etc, etc. Billions and billions of dollars of R&D to build it. The raw materials are next to worthless.

While we use a trade/economic system based on money and the sale of commodities... copyright is a must. Just like patents it performs the task of stopping the largest and strongest from undercutting and stealing commodities created and owned by the smaller and weaker. It is part of the framework that allows individuality to develop. Removing it forces the small business person to enter into what is to all intents and purposes "slavery" to the large company/state and only create what the large company/state lets them.

The USSR was a very good example of what happens when you don't have copyright. The creativity was greatly stagnated.

When you compare the creativity of the USSR (just think music for an example) with the creativity of the "Free democracies" during the cold war era the difference was staggering... the USSR produced rehashed old stuff or stole from the outside world.
Even in military its creativity was greatly diminished.

So if I write a book and publish it, either in paper or merely as a digital eBook, then someone else should be free to come along and "reprint" the book and sell it? Without paying me? Or perhaps without even leaving my name on it as the author?

Surely you can't be suggesting that.

Hard to answer. Simplest answer "au contraire, I am suggesting just that".

Elaboration:

0. Only matter (which has "identity", unlike data, and so can be meaningfully stolen) is property. Ethically you may not restrict how I operate my own photocopier / computer / printing-press / whatever.

1. Sticky contracts can emulate nearly all of the features of copyright, without government monopolies. (They can't emulate the misfeature of patents that slurps up independent implementations into the patent's ambit.)

2. ...but a business model which depends upon anything IP-ish is stupid as pattern copying gets easier.

3. ...and such a busness model evinces a failiure to think of creative alternatives. Examples: can you sell the book text to a commodity publisher? Can you sell signed "endorsed and genuine" copies at a premium? (Forging a signature or trademark isn't IP violation, it's a crime of fraud against the buyer. Mislabelling the author might be such too.) Will fan loyalty ovrride the appeal of bargain-basement copy shops? And so on and so forth. That was just 30 secs casual brainstorming.

With regard to drug IP, there may soon be a nuclear explosion.

There is a bill before the US Congress that would allow the reimportation of American drugs from western countries with socialized medicine. This is tantamount to importing price controls. Drug companies have been willing to supply some countries with drugs at sharply reduced prices because they can recover their R&D costs in the very large American market.

Congressmen have noticed that drugs are 30-90% less expensive in Europe, and they want a piece of the socialistic action. If this passes the Senate (it already passed the House by a wide margin with bipartisan support), Bush has vowed to veto it, but it would be his first veto and I doubt he will stand up for higher drug costs in an election year.

The drug companies are mad with grief, but though I certainly don't support price controls, it serves them right for ruthlessly promoting the pernicious prescription drug benifit.

As the drug companies can't afford to lose the US market, I see two possible consequences. They can refuse to sell in Europe, thus preventing cheap drugs from entering the US market, or they can refuse to abide by price controls in Europe.

In either case, the EU is not going to take this well. It will either ban export to the US (which I think would be a violation of WTO obligations) or seize all US drug patents.

Either way, I fear a disaster for medical IP, and a possible halt to R&D. Let's hope Bush stands up for his principles this time.

Removing the enforcement of IP would cripple a number of industries. For example, the open software world creates lots of neat stuff, but it creates very little industry-specific business software. On the other hand, my employer does. Without IP protection, our customers would just steal it, and we'd be out of business.

In other words, IP protection prevents a tragedy-of-the-commons, where certain resources (such as the effort by people like myself) are grabbed without limit, causing us to cease our activities.

There is no question that the advent of digital technology makes IP issues more difficult, but the idea of protecting "non-matter" (IP) is quite old. It is, for example, a required function of government in the US Constitution. The Constitution (unlike our lawmakers or Supreme Court) recognizes that granting someone a temporary monopoly is a necessity for the advancement of progress in many fields, but that a permanent monopoly is bad.

Thos such as Julian who argue against all IP are living in a fantasy world. Without IP, they would see the end of investment in in intellectual efforts, because people only invest in property, Who is going to invest in an engineering company or a software company without some form of protection?

There is an alternative to patents that works in a few areas: trade secrets. But it doesn't work when reverse engineering is possible. There is no alternative to copyrights.

Just because IP laws have gotten out of hand is no reason to adopt a silly utopian notion that IP is wrong.

That position is one reason that many of us consider Libertarianism to be the land of utopian idealists, rather than people with serious thoughts.

Alex, I think your view of advocates of open source software is ignorant and misinformed - you appear to fall all too easily for the common Microsoft ploy that open source software is 'communistic' or 'anti-American' because source code is being made freely available and copyright and patent laws are therefore being 'rejected'. Whether you like it or not - the Internet would not function today without 'free' software like Linux, FreeBSD and Apache and if we'd all been relying on Microsoft for Internet server applications the Internet would be only a fraction of what it is today.

Open source software is not about violating the copyright of a software provider like Microsoft nor is it about rejection of property rights (although Richard Stallman may like to have people think it is). One of the key features of open source software is that it allows individuals to break free from dependence on firms like Microsoft, in an environment where computer technology and software are an increasingly important part of life. That kind of desire to be free from the manipulation of a powerful force like Microsoft is motivated not by crazy 'property is theft'-thinking but by the libertarian ideal of individual independence.

I'm interested to know on what information you base your claim that Many of the NGOs attending will be pushing for a right to information, including the right to see, modify and distribute source code. Powerful open source software like Linux is widely available today and I think it would be ridiculous for NGOs to demand the source code for software produced by the likes of Microsoft when better quality software is available, with the source code, from the Internet - all absolutely free.

Copyright and patents and respect for IP all form important parts of the incentive-driven capitalist system but I advise you to keep a close eye on modern changes to copyright and patent laws which could have a serious impact on civil liberties and innovation (see the EU IP Enforcement Directive, EU Copyright Directive and EU Software Patent Directive) - newer IP/copyright/patent laws are not about promoting creativity, they are about stifling it and increasing the control the state and powerful firms have over individuals.

Anyone who thinks that the drug companies are doing to lion's share of drug research should read the New Republic article last December on the issue (link in URL row). It completely debunks the myths the drug companies spew.

Julian, I hate to say it but it didn't seem like even 30 seconds.

Pathos' New Republic article tries to downplay the role of drug companies, in drug development, by saying that they often build off of work done in academia or in government labs; but isn't that like downplaying the contribution of a construction company, in building a skyscraper, by noting that another company fabricated the I-beams?

IP protects the small man. Big companies link Intel, that manufacture as well as develop, could use trade secrets to keep their market share, at least to some degree. A much smaller company like ARM would be screwed without intellectual property because it only designs chips, rather than manufactuers them. Indeed, Intel licences ARM technology. IP allows ARM to specialise in the design side, and leave manufacturing up to others.

Ronald Bailey of Reason writes a good article on drug companies, why people hate them, and why they are good.

"Sticky contracts can emulate nearly all of the features of copyright," says Julian Morrison, at which point I reiterate his own initial comment on Alex S's post: Rubbish.
The point is that the kind of people who are going to attempt breach of copyright are not those with whom one might sign a contract in the first place. I see Julian still hasn't answered David Sucher's straightforward question about IP in regard to authorship of a book, which is not surprising since it's difficult to answer from an anti-IP standpoint.
The value & power of copyright is well illustrated by the efforts made in recent years by large publishers and photographic agencies such as Corbis & Getty to re-write contracts with contributing photographers, in order to grab far more of the copyright inherent in images for themselves. As someone else said, copyright protects the small individual: it's a force for economic independence, and it promotes creativity. If someone rips off one of my pictures and reproduces it without permission or payment, for his own economic benefit, it damages my interests. It's theft. It's unethical. I fail to understand how some people can regard the promotion of this behaviour through the destruction of IP rights as remotely libertarian, unless they're so far over on the anarcho-lib edge they're in danger of falling off.

I did too answer! In IP's absence, copying would not be prevented. However forging of authorial signatures or removing attribution might be prosecutable as fraud, by any buyer who was decieved.

I did too answer! In IP's absence, copying would not be prevented. However forging of authorial signatures or removing attribution might be prosecutable as fraud, by any buyer who was decieved.

I think you've got a non-starter there, Julian. You admit flat-out that my rights as author/publisher/capitalist have no expectation of protection. That dog won't hunt.

The only party with a gripe, I believe you suggest, is a deceived buyer.

1. If it's a good forgery they may not ever know.
2. They may not care.

I don't believe there is a fundamental conflict between open-source and IP. Open source software is IP with a license that sits in a 'sweet spot'. There are a great many applications where open source software offers the lowest cost solution and substantial commercial value to those who use it and contribute back to it. I've done it myself. Even the GPL, though, has legal copyright support giving it strength. Commercial developers who use it often find the cheapest way to comply is to feed their improvements back to the community at large. Without copyright, there would be no such compulsion.

My example of LSI Logic was not insignificant. The best I can tell is that Julian would say "Screw LSI, their business model sucks". That would be unfortunate. LSI Logic was the first company to use the "foundryless" model. That model has since proven highly successful and made huge contributions to the industry and technology. It separates two independent parts of the process and allows those portions to compete independently. No longer is a company with high quality engineering bound by its ability to manage a foundry or vice-versa.

Take a moment, open your computer, and look at all the chips in it. Pretty much everything other than the CPU, memory and possibly the chipset has a logo on it from a company that doesn't fab its own silicon. That almost certainly includes the video, network and hard drive controllers. If you've got a DVD player, chances are pretty good that the only only chips that weren't produced with this model are the memory and voltage regulators.

I just want to point out an inaccuracy in this story:

> Software can be easily locked to particular computers.

This is just plain incorrect. There is something known as 'turing equivilance' What this means is that *ALL* digital computers are functionally equivilent. It is possible to emulate ANY digital computer on ANY other. This is a mathmatical fact. The only way to create such an "identifyable" system is to embed some unique piece of information or hardware into the computer and forbid the owner of the computer from modifying it.

In short the only way to create such a software lock-in is to iinterfere with the property rights of the owner of the machine.

The problem with current IP theory is that the concepts upon which it is based are simply not compatable with the physical nature of the Universe. The concept of information upon which IP is based is simply not correct.

Rather like Newton's laws of gravity, The concepts that IP is based on (basically that of information being a rival good) are false, but did produce a reasonable approximation of the "right" answers under the common conditions of the time that theory was created. Also like Newton's laws, there are conditions which will expose that falsehood, leading to answers which are at increasing odds with reality. As it happens, modern information technology has exposed those flaws in the underlying theory of IP, and continuing to base law upon those concepts will simply lead to increasingly absurd and self-contradictory results.

Now it's fairly obvious that the intelectual work that someone does in creating a piece of information is valuble, and that there needs to be some way that a person can be paid for that value.

However, arguing over the conventional theory of IP and trying to prop it up by legal contortions will, in the end, be of no benefit to the creator or user of that value. "The horse is dead. Quit flogging"

What we need is to develop a better way of pricing and protecting that value, one which is consistant with the *actual* nature of information in physical reality.

The Intellectual Property debate is fascinating and complex. In all probability, both extreme positions are unworkable. which makes clarity of approach difficult to come by.

I have another take on it, deriving from the original Lockean notion of property as something "enclosed from the common." It's currently on my anvil and will shortly be posted at the Palace.

Manufacturing and design have substantially different cost structures. The printing press essentially started this by providing the first real means of mass-production. I don't see how the fundamental challenge copyright addresses has changed in the centuries since.

What's changed is the addition of the ability to replicate with no physical material changing hands. This is a logical extension of the ongoing trend. New methods like open source are entering the marketplace. They do not change the fundamentals, though. Design is expensive, and there has to be a mechanism for compensation.

A couple of questions for Julian, to try to get to the heart of the debate over intellectual property:

(1) Why would I pay for a book that I can get for free?

(2) Why would I write a book that I can't get paid for?

Monsyne Dragon wrote:
The only way to create such an "identifyable" system is to embed some unique piece of information or hardware into the computer and forbid the owner of the computer from modifying it.

In short the only way to create such a software lock-in is to iinterfere with the property rights of the owner of the machine.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what Microsoft is attempting to do with its 'trusted computing' initiative, based around 'Palladium' technology or Digital Rights Management (DRM). This scheme would see CPUs tied to certain bits of 'trusted' software (from Microsoft) - and it's all being done in the name of preventing piracy - of Microsoft's software and of music and film content via P2P networks.

Laws like the American DMCA and the European EUCD do interfere with the property rights of consumers and they stifle innovation and harm competition (and they have a significant impact on academic research into things like cryptography) but lobbying from powerful organisations like the RIAA and MPAA, as well as individual firms (like Disney), means American and European governments seem to genuinely believe this kind of restrictive law is necessary to keep content providers in business.

This is not the way IP law should be moving in a free society.

F.W. Porretto writes:
"The Intellectual Property debate is fascinating and complex. In all probability, both extreme positions are unworkable. which makes clarity of approach difficult to come by.

Precisely -- one extreme is trying to convert Grimm's Fairy Tales into IP, determine who are the descendants of whatever bards 'thought up' the original Rumpelstiltskin, etcetera, and get Walt Disney to fork out whatever these descendants deserve as compensation for their ancestors' genius.

The other extreme is for anybody to be entitled to nick the text of the Great Book you took ten years to write and make a fortune on the billion-dollar sales .... while you, as great author, continue to starve in your attic.

See also Samizdata Illuminatus in an ancient debate on IP dating back to .... May 2003:

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/003511.html#003511

David Sucher & R.C. Dean,

The point about the novel is spot on, especially since that actually happened to Steven King. Julian and those like him who advocate parasitism would plunge us back into a world where innovation was discouraged. I would certainly strike.

If a writer comes up with a story, puts words to paper(through a computer or by hand), why shouldn't they have the rights to their *original* idea? Why shouldn't someone be able to profit from something that people *want to buy*? Something that takes work.

E-Books, bookstores; people buy books still. People still write them, as well. That takes time to do.

If there was no form of protection, and someone could just copy it or claim it as their own, then people would be discouraged.

"But they should write for the love of writing!"

And bricklayers should lay brick for the love of bricklaying, expecting no salary, right? Writing is work, too. A different kind of work, but work.

Some *do* write for just the love of it. I do. But I would be ticked off if some random idiot copied everything I wrote and claimed it as their own. (Of course, I'd also love to get paid for it.)

Writing can be a full time job for some people. Some people can write in their spare time, and work to support themselves. But not everyone. (Stephen King worked as a teacher for years while he wrote, living in near poverty, for example.)

So why *shouldn't* someone be compensated for creating a work which others enjoy? Or, why *should* you get everything you enjoy for free?

Answering R C Dean:

I'll answer more specifically in a moment, but first I'll point out something that appears to be implicit in your questions. It appears to me (correct me please if I err here) that you're thinking "authors ought to be paid". In fact you're probably thinking several semantic expansions of that sentence:

- authors ought to be paid, because our society needs authors. This is the same public-good socialist reasoning as is given for government subsidised art.

- authors ought to be paid, rather than somebody else profiting from their work without giving the originator a cut, and,

- authors ought to be paid, because payment is owed for the work done. This and the above rest on a misinterpretation of payment. The socialist view of payment sees it as a moral balancer: one gains, and suffers for it ("pays"), and the suffering offsets the moral taint of the gain. Or as a worker one suffers, and is balanced by a "fair wage". (Hence their fuss about "too much" and "too little" both in prices and in wages. Note the socialist ethic: pain is good, gain is evil) But the property-libertarian sees payment differently: as a persuader. When one offers payment, one is merely trying to entice somebody to behave differently than they would have otherwise. There's no particular reason why people "ought" to be payed, even if they have created a masterpiece. There's no particular reason why a middleman shouldn't profit more, if that's the price each asks for their services, and people are willing to pay.

Now that said, returning to your questions:

(1) Why would I pay for a book that I can get for free?

I buy paper books, I could try to download them, but it's a pain to hunt them and not as pleasant to hold and read. I go watch movies, I could get them off bittorrent, but the cinema has a bigger screen and "the cinema experience" is fun. I buy CDs because I prefer their portability, ease of use, and durability. I like the way they collect together related songs, and the cover art combines with the music to "set a tone" for the album. I like that I can use quick visual searching of cover art to find a remembered piece of music.

Of course, the above is just my own preferences. Giving the example of something already legally accepted as out of copyright, why does anyone buy the works of Shakespeare? Why not download them as a freebie from Gutenberg project or any one of many other sites?

Note that this doesn't mean the author necessarily gets a cut; Shakespeare grows no richer in his grave. But saying that copyright is required for books to get published at all, is obviously false.

(2) Why would I write a book that I can't get paid for?

There's no reason you can't get paid, the burden is merely upon you to figure a way that's consistent with inviolate physical property. (After awhile, there would be standard tried-and-tested ways, but as of now that they remain to be discovered.)

Ways of getting paid include, but are not limited to: paid performance (eg: pay-to-view online serials), patronage, busking, selling the manuscript to a commodity publisher, or having a "day job" and writing as a hobby.

You're probably going to ask me to think up more ways, or knock the ways I have thought up, but that's not the point. They are just my ideas; it would be the author's business to use their own creativity to figure out moneymaking schemes.

Nobody owes creators a living, that's the essence of my point.

Why would I write a book that I can't get paid for?.

For love of it, or to make a name for yourself. If you look at the average income that people who write trade books actually receive from their writing, the amounts are often astonishingly small - the return on their time is much less than they would get if they went and got normal jobs. There are a few exceptions, but very, very few. (People who write textbooks, manuals and similar can make a good living, but that is because you cannot get people to do it for the love of it). Copyright as it applies to publishing tends to make money for publishers rather than authors. This is not necessarily bad - the existence of a publishing industry is obviously a good thing, and the existence of a publishing industry certainly encourages people to write books - but copyright in its present form doesn't do a very good job of paying authors directly.

Julian Morrison, please go and do a bit more thinking. No creator thinks anyone owes them a living. But if you want to read my work or anyone else's work, the thing I do to EARN my living, then you will have to pay for it or go without. That is under my control. You are living in a fantasy world.

Also see my more expansive post to Dale Amon's "copyright is dead" prophecy (complete rubbish, like most prophecies).

Julian, are you serious?

But saying that copyright is required for books to get published at all, is obviously false.

I don't think anyone suggested this. What the defenders of IP are saying is that copyright is essential to get NEW products of the mind produced.

By allowing one to divorce the mental act of creation from the physical, IP facilitates economic growth and the creation of both new art and new tools.

We need to stop thinking in terms of novels, which, while wonderful, are not the most important form of IP. Suppose I have a great idea for a new safety device for automobiles--one which will save many lives, possibly including Julian's, if implemented. Under Julian's scheme, I will need to start my own factory and compete with GM, Ford, Saab, etc.--and end up losing, as GM will be permitted to use my idea (thus destroying my brand's principal competitive advantage), and they've got a lot more experience running a car factory than I have.

What engineer will design a safety improvement for automobiles if he can't get paid? What company will bother to employ engineers if they can simply steal the ideas created by their competitors?

Some may still do it for prestige or personal amusment. But nothing gets people going like profit, and removing the profit will remove the overwhelming majority of people from the field.

Julian: Nobody owes creators a living, that's the essence of my point.

But if you want to use what they create, why not pay them? Your own point changed a bit:

Creators don't owe you what they create.

Michael: For love of it, or to make a name for yourself.

But if no one has any copyright, some other wanker could just steal it and make a name for themself.

Note that I'm not trying to defend the entire publishing industry. If it's anything like the music industry in the way it pays the artists, then I wouldn't want to.

I'm talking about a person having right to what they make, and having right to sell what they make. Just because it can be easily repoduced doesn't mean people should get it free.

Movies cost money to make(less if actors didn't get outrageous salaries), and if no one ever bought DVDs or VHS tapes, or went to see movies at a theater, there would be no money to make more.

The same could be applied to live plays. Someone could film them, distribute it on the internet, and then no one would show up for the play; why pay for a ticket when you can get it free?

There has to be something to protect creators rights. Maybe not the current system, but something. Books and movies aren't like software: You can't charge for "services" in the case of a book or a movie.

Well, you probably could, but businesses don't buy fantasy novels or the latest blockbuster. (Okay... some might.)

"...the burden is merely upon you to figure a way that's consistent with inviolate physical property..."
And what if I, as a user of of said inviolate physical property, do not choose to compensate the author for the time and effort they have put into creating the book? What recourse does the author have then? That IP is being abused by Disney and their corporate ilk does not mean that you toss copyright out with the bathwater. Copyright exists for, among other things, to protect creators from being strongarmed by media giants. It means that creative work has to be paid for before it can be used. Copyright is not the problem, copyright is the solution. In this argument, I think, RC is right and Mr. Morrison is not.
PS. Shakespeare did not make his money writing plays; he made it by being part owner of the Globe. Plays were written to order and became the property of the theatre; playwrights were lucky if they got 5 or 6 pounds for their efforts, and once they were sold the theatre could make as many changes as they deemed necessary to the script and the playwright had no recourse. I wonder if in the copyrightless world Mr Morrison envisions we will be able to change the endings of our favorite books simply because we feel like it? One can imagine a frustrated reader of Gone with the Wind having Scarlett kill Melanie at Tara and finally have Ashley all to herself, until the arrival on the scene of ace Pinkerton man Rhett Butler and his wife Nora and their dog, Asta.....the possibilities are endless.

But if no one has any copyright, some other wanker could just steal it and make a name for themself.

Plagiarism and copyright violation are separate things, although they often happen together. In a lot of cases, we don't actually have laws against plagiarism. People who do it simply lose their jobs and/or get shunned from polite society. This seems to do quite well. Some so called "Moral rights laws" that give the author the right to be clearly identified as the author do exist, and I think they are generally a good thing. However, they are not the same thing as copyright, which gives people the right to profit from and (in many but not all instances) control the distribution of the work. I think the case for moral rights of this kind are pretty unequivocal. As I said before, I think there are plenty of reasons that affect how much people create, and certainly copyright law and their ability to profit is one of them. However, this is a long way from being the whole story.

Plagiarism and copyright violation are separate things, although they often happen together. In a lot of cases, we don't actually have laws against plagiarism. People who do it simply lose their jobs and/or get shunned from polite society. This seems to do quite well.

But if there are no people being employed to write books*, then no one is going to lose their job for it; they don't have a job in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, copyright should definately be limited -- this "99 years after the authors death" stuff is a crock, software patents are stupid, and stingy media giants who are trying to control all new entertainment suck.

*if people could just download books and not pay for them, eventually they'd stop buying books, and people wouldn't be employed to write books.

There are several intellectual errors being bandied about on this thread, but I am only able to take the space to respond to the two most damaging to any hope for a rational argument.

The first is the idea that anarchy is somehow related to or akin with the principles of libertarianism. This is false.

Anarchic ideology is a 19th century reaction to the concept of the individualistic, classically liberal representative state as delineated by the founding documents of the US, and the several philisophical and intellectual trends that led up to concept of a just state. It is related in its utopian aspects to pure marxism, especially in its definitions of the nature of man and the need for the revolutionary destruction of the state.

It is not an accident of history that many prominent anarchists were drawn to the Bolshvik revolution and subsequent Soviet state. Bukharin was considered the intellectual equal of Lenin, and was a parter in that political enterprise until it destroyed him.

It should be remembered that he and his followers were purged not because they were capitalist individualists, but were heretics from the true faith for competing with Stalin for power, and demanding the dissolution of the state apparatus instead of accepting the continuing dictatorship of the proletariat.

If you want to see an anarchic society, just go rent a copy of "Escape From New York". Imagine how long you would last when the crazies come looking for food.

Secondly, the definition of property as a physical object and nothing else is not only grievously in error, but in fact is sterile and meaningless when it comes to the reality of human life.

The human race survived for untold millenia with no concept of private property as it passed over the land, hunting and gathering. A tribe might fight for its traditional area of collection, but if the herd moved, so did the people. Studies have now shown the movement of various peoples all over the Earth
attempting to survive.

It was not until agriculture was invented that property became a matter of ownership. Notice, however, that the same ground walked over and ignored previously, except for the fruit gathered, was now considered valuable enough to defend, and build walls around, and live on continuously.

What made the difference? It was the addition of intellectual effort that transformed an anonymous piece of dirt into something valuable enough to die to protect.

One of the posts above caught the truth very clearly. The chips that run most of modern society's activities now are nothing more than sand, and have little physical value. All the value that exists in them, or in anything else, is due to the intellectual, creative effort that is put into the physical item to mold it as something useful or desirable for humans to have.

When you define property as meaning only a physical lump of matter, you have eliminated the only source of value that any property could ever have---the human mind. All property, in the human sense, is intellectual property. This proposition is very easy to demonstrate.

Walk out onto any piece of land, or take hold of any object. Now empty your mind of all knowledge that you have been taught about how to grow crops on that land, or use that object. If you are standing on the most fertile ground on Earth, it has no value for you, and is interchangeable with any other piece of dirt.

IIf you are holding a VCR, you can't adjust the clock to the proper time, and are in the same boat as me. It is, in fact, physical property which is meaningless, and intellectual property that endows material things with value. To hold the opposite is to throw away the pearls, and keep the shells.

It's up. Please see What's Mine Is Yours.

And try not to laugh too loudly.

I believe that from a practical point of view IP laws will never be very good.

IP help rewards people that worked on a project, it also means that when that product is sold it will cost more. So fewer people will be able to benefit than if it were no IP profits.

Also if change in technology reduces the duplication cost, then the effect of IP in total cost will be greater. I believe that there is a ratio here that is important from a practical point of view. In that if the money to be saved is small, people won't bother to break the rules. And the laws are mostly self enforcing. Enforcing IP laws also have cost.

I think that the above issues make it clear that IP laws are an awful hack, and are likely to remain so.

Instead of selling IP, just sell your intelligence. Sell service associated to software instead of software IP. Sell medical services associated to drugs instead of drugs IP.

Oh, yeah, maybe it isn't as comfortable as thinking for a limited period of time then watching the money flow in. But maybe it's more moral.

From each according to ability, to each according to need.

Screw that.

What I create is mine. It's something I've labored to create. Julian doesn't seem to believe it exists as a product because it has no physical form. He seems to want to take it away from me and give it to everyone else.

Screw that.

I've paid dearly (you don't want to know) to complete my current project. Without copyright, someone could start cranking out carbon copies at a tenth of what we've spent on this. I've been through hell for this, and someone wants to be able to copy it freely?

I'll take up or down in the marketplace. That's fine. I took the risk. Either its good enough to make up for the pain, or it's not.

I sure as hell wouldn't have gone through all this if I wasn't going to end up with some ownership of the product. It just wouldn't have been worth it. That's a large part of what makes capitalism work. The whole incentive thing.

Mr Veryretired has written by far the most intelligent and perceptive comment in this thread -- indeed, the best comment I've ever seen on this subject anywhere. Thank you.

Julian,

Just because the government currently enforce IP, that doesn't mean that it's a statist monopoly. At the moment, the government enforce anti-murder laws. That doesn't mean that libertarians should support murder. With no government at all in place, I believe that the community at large would still protect IP, just as they would punish murderers.

Similarly, there have been times when murder has been suddenly made much easier by new technology: the crossbow, for a start. The response of humanity to these developments has indeed been to rethink how we treat the issues involved, but not to say that, because it's easier to do it, it's OK to do it. Quite the contrary.

No, I'm not saying IP theft is as bad as murder. Obviously. I'm saying that there's a lot more to law enforcement than statism, and that society's reaction to these very same problems when they apply to other types of law is the opposite of what you are now proposing. The onus is on you to explain why this type of law is so very different to other laws, and I don't think you've done so.

ST---your comment is much appreciated

(2) Why would I write a book that I can't get paid for?

As has been pointed out, most authors get very little for writing and do it because they enjoy writing. If youy want money sell out and get into TV or something.

The question of controlling IP in a world with high storage and high bandwidth is going to be an enormous problem. At the moment neither of the approaches much appeals to me, however, given the potential changes in manufacturing techniques over the next 50 years, I think we'd better get used to some different economic paradigms.

I think it is inappropriate to confuse the practical aspects of enforcing IP laws with the ideological and moral issues.

If people are going to be thieves, then either someone will come up with a way to protect the IP, or they won't. In the latter case, mankind will probably lose something of value, as normally happens with parasitism.

Julian is advocating parasitism by the completely absurd rationalisation that only something physical can have the aspects of property. I would just say that for hundreds of years, thousands of people smarter or more thoughtful than he have determined just the opposite, given the same set of starting facts!

In other words, Julian's idea is absurd and not worth debating.

There are some clarifications that must be made.

IP proponents - IP, in and of itself, is not enough to deal with all situations. IP is essentially law... and that means it needs to be enforcable. As it stands now, music copyright in particular is essentially unenforcable. Books may become so in the near future. IP can more easily be applied to businesses, re: Lyman's car safety feature example, because the targets are large and unmoving (though well-defended with lawyers and lobbyists).

IP opponents - IP isn't perfect, nor is it always enforcable, nor can it be easily applied to all situations. But it is a long jump from that admission to your claims that it is 'dead'. Wishful thinking on your part.

Open source advocates: I am sympathetic to your cause, but has it ever occured to you that you often depend on IP law? For example, what if microsoft were to simply copy your latest pet project, alter it enough so that it is only compatible with MS, and sell it, what except IP laws could prevent them?

Were I an author, I would not 'deserve' payment in some socialistic or entitlement sense. That is a straw man, and not a very clever one. I mean rather that if someone wished to peruse my work... that I spent my time, my skills, and my intellect on... then they and I should settle on a price based on how much they want to have it. And you call this unreasonable? You madman!

If wal-mart had to compete with a thieves' market across the street, who were unmolested by police as they hijacked trucks full of similar products and sold it below production cost, it would go out of business. Does this mean wal-mart is a corrupt entity milking profits from anti-hijacking laws? Of course not.

One final note: Copyright law DOES need updating. It needs to return to the original compromise between public and private - Private domain works should convert to public domain despite what Disney's lawyers think. And it needs to modernize... software needs to convert at a much quicker pace than books do, for example.

And the first step should be to wave away the natterers making nonsense claims about the end of IP, much like you would wave away any other gnat mindlessly buzzing in your ear.

Shoo fly, don't bother me.

The problem with musicians and authors not making nearly as much from their works as the record companies and the publishers is not one of copyright law, but rather the fact that they have (except for superstars) signed very bad contracts. 'Standard industry practice' and all that. Digital distrubution gives them the chance to get out from under the thumbs of their former masters.

Baen Books sells plenty of digital titles without any copy protection whatsoever. And people buy them, because most people aren't thieves, and it's way more convenient that digging around some godawful usenet group or p2p network.

I think that much of this whole debate will disappear once publishers (of music and books and other IP) realize that ease of copying doesn't mean that people will steal. They just aren't giving us a convenient way to buy or rent access to digital copies (with the few exceptions such as Baen Books, and O'Reilly's Safari Library).

As Danny O'Brien (a journalist) said, obscurity is worse than piracy for a creator.

Very Retired:

"There are several intellectual errors being bandied about on this thread, but I am only able to take the space to respond to the two most damaging to any hope for a rational argument.

The first is the idea that anarchy is somehow related to or akin with the principles of libertarianism. This is false."

As I'm sure you are aware, there are two doctrines which go by the name of anarchism.

On the one hand, there is the violent, anti-capitalist version which goes by various names such as "anarcho-syndicalism", "socialist libertaranism" etc. So far as this kind of anarchism is concerned, you are entirely right that it has nothing to do with libertarianism.

This sort of "anarchism" is mad and bad.

On the other hand, there is the anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-libertarianism espoused by thinkers such as Murray Rothbard, David Friedman (son of Milton) and Julian Morrison in this thread. This kind of anarchism is a major element in libertarianism. Murray Rothbard was closely involved with the founding of the libertarian party and the Cato Intitute and is properly regarded as the founder of the modern libertarian movement. David Friedman is a libertarian par excellence and a leading thinker in the movement.

This sort of anarchism is central to libertarian theory and raises some of the most interesting and important questions about the proper role (if any) of the State .

To which version are you referring? (I hope and trust only the former, but I fear the latter ....)

So...

Dale Armon, you make your living entirely from something (linux) which is given away for nothing.

So, how do you pay your bills?

Physical objects are becoming less and less meaningful. Consider creating parts in the field. The trend has been developing for centuries. The real value is design and IP. To nullify that would be to throw away a huge portion of our wealth.

Allowing Dave O'Neill's suggestion that as a writer I sell out (does that mean writing is not a commercial activity?) how will I get paid writing for telev ision if all TVprogrammes are necessarily unprotected by copyright and will therefore be available free? Who is going to pay me when commercial TV shuts down?

IP is for me one of the most difficult issues of legal and economic theory. Frankly, I don't yet have a settled view on the matter. One scenario bugs me: what happens if George and Fred both write identical plays, and George manages to get his copyright settled 30 minutes ahead of Fred, therby netting the return while Fred ends up penniless. However many times folk trot out the utiliarian defence of copyright law, one cannot help thinking at that a deeper level, an injustice has been committed. But I honestly don't know how we fix that without losing the economic benefits of IP.

Even if, as Julian Morrison said above, that IP is "statist", it strikes me as entirely plausible to suppose that even in a stateless society, in which competing legal orders existed, IP in some form would continue to exist. The key words here are "in some form".

While it is true that a lot of folk write books and so on as hobbies (thank goodness), it strikes me as commonsensical to suppose that a great deal of arduous creative, intellectual endeavour would be stillborn without some way of ensuring that the creators of X or Y had some way of knowing they would be remunerated for a specified period of time thereafter.

Julian Morrison is quite correct, however, to query the way in which writers of novels, for example, demand that they are "owed" payment for their work. In a free market the only debt one is owed is one into which people volunatarily contract with one another. If I write a book and no-one buys it, that is my problem.

However, notwithstanding the complexities introduced by modern technology, I think it is too glib for folk to imagine that IP will whither on the vine. In its present "statist" form, maybe. But one must not rule out some other, different way of having IP in a libertarian order. Maybe there is a good piece of original legal and economics research to be written on this.

Johnathan:

"IP is for me one of the most difficult issues of legal and economic theory. Frankly, I don't yet have a settled view on the matter. "

Me too.

"One scenario bugs me: what happens if George and Fred both write identical plays, and George manages to get his copyright settled 30 minutes ahead of Fred, therby netting the return while Fred ends up penniless."

For obvious reasons, this is implausible in the context of copyright (two Hamlets ?!!!). It is, however, almost inevitable in the context of patents which protect commercial production processes. The answer must be to have variable patent periods, depending upon how long it would have taken for the rest of the field to catch up. For a truly innovative discovery, the patent period should be longer than for the discovery which has only just pipped its competitors to the post. A flat period of 15 years (or whatever) is silly.

"[it] strikes me as entirely plausible to suppose that even in a stateless society, in which competing legal orders existed, IP in some form would continue to exist. The key words here are "in some form"

There is a problem with both patents and copyright in a stateless order. Both are "public goods" in the economic sense. That being so, it is difficult to see how either could evolve or survive in the absence of coercive enforcement by a State. There are substitutes (chains of contracts) but they have their weaknesses.

"Maybe there is a good piece of original legal and economics research to be written on this."

Both David Friedman and Jan Lester have written on this issue (they both make the point about variable patent periods).

David,

In the current market being a TV writer is more sure fire than being the author of fiction books. At least based on the writers I know (which is a fair number, a dozen of so commercial authors of varying sucess and a half dozen TV writers)...

In all honesty the majority of writers would be better off doing something else.

To answer your other question:

how will I get paid writing for telev ision if all TVprogrammes are necessarily unprotected by copyright and will therefore be available free? Who is going to pay me when commercial TV shuts down?

That is a good question, in the nightmare scenario it will be the public service broadcasters only. Personally I see potential for a collapse of the commercial TV industry leaving original drama requiring writers to be left in the cold.

From a technical perspective I've seen a range of Digital Rights Solutions, none of which get around the current problems. If the TV companies wanted to they should be addressing this problem now by embracing the internet, they are not.

Peter F Hamilton addresses this in his novel Mispent Youth which is just out in paper back. He's a Science Fiction author from the midlands, but the novel provides food for thought on what happens in this type of scenario. One of the characters is a mutual aquaintance of ours who makes a marginal living as an author and has that removed by the emergence of the replacement to the internet.

Anarchy is the abscence of a state structure and its attendant policing powers, legal system, etc. It is an offshoot of the disastrously erroneous Rousseouian(?) assertion that man in nature was a moral and happier entity. The Hobbsian reply that life in nature was "nasty, brutish, and short" was a more realistic protrayal.

I am a Jeffersonian democrat, and believe that a minimal representative government that is clearly defined by a constitutional framework which rests on the protection of individual rights as its primary obligation is an indespensible part of a free society.

I am not a utopian, purist, or devotee of some form of "theoretical" new social order. The reason the US has become the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of the world is because ideas have real consequences. The fallibility of men requires an apparatus with which to restrain their baser instincts and urges. The political framework of the Constitution provides this necessary element.

The critical issue is to maintain the controls on the government that were put in place precisely because the natural tendency of those with political power is to attempt to increase it at the expense of the citizenry.

It would be the height of moral and philisophical blindness to simply declare that all state systems are equally evil and should all be abolished. The result of any such "unfettered" society would inevitably be the rule of brute force, as no other option would exist.

The challenge for free people was clearly put by Franklin when asked about the new constitution. A bystander asked what kind of government had been adopted, and Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

I am afraid the other experts you cite will have to go quite a distance before I accept their utopian formulations over the concepts put forth by Jefferson, Madison, et al. I respect their defenses of freedom, but anarchy is not compatible with the operation of a free society in the real world of very imperfect human beings.

I've read through any number of threads on intellectual property, and this is easily one of the best. A few more thoughts for the assembled masses to chew on.

(1) Physical items and property rights are completely distinct from one another. When you are dealing with something you can hold in your hand, this is easily overlooked. The property and your rights in it, including your ability to transfer it or to withhold access to it, are easily seen as one and the same. This often leads to a further fallacy that only physical items can be/should be property.

(2) Property rights, like all rights, are intangibles. There is no reason why these intangible rights cannot be attached to other intangibles, just as they are attached to tangible objects.

Lurking in the back of my head is the thought that intellectual property and real property have a great deal in common because of the way they relate to these intangible rights, but I haven't developed the thought yet.

(3) As mentioned above, whether IP should exist or be legally recognized at all is not the same question as how to enforce or protect IP. This is another distinction that people claiming the end of IP often overlook.

(4) All property is a "state monopoly", in the sense that it all depends ultimately on the power of the state (through the civil and criminal law). For that matter, nearly all real property has, as the ultimate root of its chain of title, a grant from the sovereign (the old handwritten ones are really cool).

(5) Believe me, I see the irony of a guy who writes for a blog for free claiming that people won't write without the income stream guaranteed by IP and copyright. Still, I think IP has very large net utilitarian benefits that we would be foolish to discard.

Can't answer everybody's comments. Too many, too little time. But I have to add: libertarian anarchy does not prevent any of...

- sticky contracts ("...you agree to require any purchaser to agree to these same terms...")

- trade secrets (which are especially useful in cases where reverse engineering would be difficult)

- being hired by someone else to produce work (example: anarchic publishers having on-staff authors so they can release fresh new books faster than cut-rate cloners can duplicate them)

- asking payment to tell someone your idea, or telling them under non-disclosure agreement, and asking payment to rescind the NDA.

- trade marks and signatures (because forging them is fraud against the buyer)

As regards tangible vs intangible property, I think the mistake is to think in terms of "rights". Rights are an intangible ethical abstraction, physical property is not. We could debate "rights" until the sun turns red and swallows us; physical property needs no fancified definition because it is its own definition. It is independent of an external definer, and is thus compatible with anarchy.

Why yes, Julian. It would indeed be ever so more convienent for you if we were all to agree that an author or musician had no rights at all to what they create.

But sadly, playing "control the language" only works when people aren't paying attention or can't directly rebut.

We do have a 'right' to our lives, a 'right' to our liberty, and a 'right' to our property. And that includes our intellectual property.

Not sure if folks understood what I was meaning when I said "Nobody owes creators a living, that's the essence of my point". So I'll clarify.

Nobody owes anybody anything, except by voluntarily placing themelves into debt. Nobody is owed anything, unless some other person voluntarily offers to owe it.

Hence, creating an idea gives you no special rights. Unless you can entice someone else to offer payment for it, you cannot expect to turn it into profit.

Payment is persuasion not a "moral balancer".

How you arrange things such that someone offers to pay for it, is your problem. Not mine. Not society's problem to subsidize you with an implicit tax.

Ryan Waxx (and others similar): sneering assertion does not constitute a logically valid argument.

Nobody owes anybody anything, except by voluntarily placing themelves into debt.

That's so overbroad as to be simultaneously unworkable and laughable.

But I'll grant you... its consistant. Of course, fanaticism has that luxury... it doesn't have to deal with reality.

If I were to invent and popularize Levi Jeans, and they became popular enough that people would buy them for the brand name, then I would have the reasonable expectation that others could not copy my name and logo to take advantage of name recognition that they had no hand in creating. Trademark is IP, too.

Because something is intangible, that doesn't make it fictional. And while I have no right to compel others to buy, I do have a right to compel others not to steal.

I don't want a freakin' subsidy.
I want to be able to sell my work.

I build embedded systems. My work is incorporated into products which are sold as a commodity. Those products could be easily duplicated were it not for copyright. That is standard practice for embedded systems programmers.

Yes, I could secure my devices against copying. It's actually pretty trivial in my case. I assure you, though, you'd really rather I didn't. For that matter, I would rather I didn't. I really don't want to be involved in forcing a linkage between surveillance systems and a central control.

veryretired,

Anarchy is the abscence of a state structure and its attendant policing powers, legal system, etc.

That may be *your* definition, but that is not the definition used by Rothbard, Friedman, Randy Barnett, etc. Anarchy is the lack of a *monopoly* provider of policing powers, legal system, military forces, etc.

I am not a utopian, purist, or devotee of some form of "theoretical" new social order.

One might label 'utopian' the view that a monopoly on the use of force is vital for a secure and safe society. Certainly, the 200+ million who died in the 20th century as a result of this 'apparatus' might view it as 'utopian'.

The fallibility of men requires an apparatus with which to restrain their baser instincts and urges.

Riiiiiiiiiiight. Thus, give a monopoly on the use of force to these same fallible men.

It would be the height of moral and philisophical blindness to simply declare that all state systems are equally evil and should all be abolished. The result of any such "unfettered" society would inevitably be the rule of brute force, as no other option would exist.

This argument is no different from the cries you hear such as "Without public schools, there would be no education," or "Without the Dept of Energy, there would be no energy," or "Without the Dept of Food, there would be no food." This is where I point out that there is no Dept of Food yet the Western World is filled with fatso's.

The Pavlovian response to the 'A word' is shocking even for libertarians or 'Jeffersonian democrats', and is no different from the kneejerk responses given to small govt advocates from big govt sympathizers.

There has never been a truer political or philosophical statement than the above declaring that the concept of individual rights has no meaning in the theory of anarchy. I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment, and that is precisely why I oppose the concept and practice of anarchy in any form, regardless of how it is disguised by rhetorical ruffles and flourishes.

The fallibility of men requires an apparatus with which to restrain their baser instincts and urges.

Riiiiiiiiiiight. Thus, give a monopoly on the use of force to these same fallible men.

Remember kids, its better to be raped than to have police. Just lie back and think happy thoughts.

And hold your anarchy teddy bear REALLY tight.

Remember kids, its better to be raped than to have police. Just lie back and think happy thoughts.

And hold your anarchy teddy bear REALLY tight.

Who said anything about not having police? Is that what you *really* think Rothbard and Friedman want? If you would take away your kneejerk blinders for a moment, maybe you could understand their argument before making your own.

There has never been a truer political or philosophical statement than the above declaring that the concept of individual rights has no meaning in the theory of anarchy. I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment, and that is precisely why I oppose the concept and practice of anarchy in any form, regardless of how it is disguised by rhetorical ruffles and flourishes.

That's some great jingo.

But just for a moment, before any more rhetorical flourishes on your part, can you at least imagine that people like Rothbard and Roy Childs took the individual rights position to its logical conclusion to reach their advocacy of anarchocapitalism? Can you see how they might make their argument, even if you disagree with it? It was not an abandonment of individual rights or a belief in the infallability of man; it was quite the opposite - the extreme principled defense of individual rights, and the extrememly vigilant view of the very fallible nature of man that led them to their conclusions.

I know many people who *understand* this, and still disagree with them on the 'workability' or anarchocapitalism, and respect them for their skepticism. But when I hear stuff like libertarian anarchy means no police, no law, etc. I can't help but conclude that some libertarians are as blind to rational argument as are big govt sympathizers.

Who said anything about not having police? kneejerk blinders, blah, blah blah, Rothbard and Freidman, blah blah, if you read them, you will magically come to agree, blah blah

I don't have a copy of Rothbard and Freidman handy, cultural barbarian that I am, so all I have to go by is your characterization (or mischaracterization) of them.

You dismissed the need for 'an apparatus with which to restrain (falliable men's) baser instincts and urges' with some railing against entrusting men with the use of force. That sounds a LOT like abolishing the police (who are made up of men entrusted with the use of force), if you look at what you actually wrote.

Jonathan Wilde: YHBT (by Ryan Waxx) YHL HAND

Everyone here knows how to work google. Most could figure out how to work wikipedia. Arguing from a position of ignorance is laziness, or trolling.

You dismissed the need for 'an apparatus with which to restrain (falliable men's) baser instincts and urges' with some railing against entrusting men with the use of force. That sounds a LOT like abolishing the police (who are made up of men entrusted with the use of force), if you look at what you actually wrote.

I most certainly did not. I dismissed a *monopoly* apparatus. HUGE difference. I also never told you to "go read" anything, nor that you will "magically come to agree" to anything. In fact, I clearly said that I know many people who understand the arguments against anarchocapitalism and empathize with their skepticism.

Julian,
I doubt they are trolling. Which means...

Julian: The other day, I was given a pamphlet by a devout christian. I have no doubt that that person felt that if I would just read it, I would be saved.

Sadly, we'll never know because I jammed it it the nearest trash bin.

Are you going to now call me a heathen, as well?

If you want to debate the finer points of anarchy, then present them if you wish. Telling me to go read an entire book, then come back is a dismissal, not a engagement.

Unless you want me to list a few books I want *you* to read before you make another post?

I thought not.

There *is* a difference between a monopoly of force, and having multiple players, true. But weather there should be multiple users of force is a totally meaningless question when asking weather one of them in particular is justifiable.

My error was in assuming that Jonathan was actually attempting to respond to veryretired's point. Won't happen again.

JW: most are not, because they make arguments, or express misunderstanding (as distinct from ignorance). RW has thrown about ad-hominems and sneering rhetoric, poured scorn upon straw-men, claimed ignorance and yet continued in the discussion without making an attempt to rectify it. These are the classic spoor of trollus wilful ignoramus.

And what, pray tell, has been the entire... as in every word... content of your last post, Juilian?

It wouldn't be ad-hominems and sneering rhetoric, would it?

Physician, examine thyself. You may not LIKE my points, but sticking your nose in the air isn't a rebuttal.

If you redefine anarchy to be something else than anarchy, you may make all the arguments you wish about it, but you are not arguing in good faith. As you see fit to denigrate and throw around various insults about anyone who takes you to task for attempting to defend the indefensible, I have no more interest in your sophomoric posturing.

I am very glad you read some books. Unfortunately, you learned nothing about civil discourse. Maybe another trip to the library is in order.

My error was in assuming that Jonathan was actually attempting to respond to veryretired's point. Won't happen again.

Believe what you may, but I was responding to veryretired's point. veryretired claimed that anarchy is no related to libertarianism, which simply a false statement. There is a very strong tradition of market anarchism in libertarian thought. Rothbard, Friedman, Roy Childs (for part of his life), Randy Barnett, Bryan Caplan, Wendy McElroy, numerous others, and I venture even a couple of contributors to this blog at least sympathize with the market anarchy position.

The topic is very relevant in a discussion like this in which someone takes the strong No IP position that Julian has (and has argued very well).

If you redefine anarchy to be something else than anarchy, you may make all the arguments you wish about it, but you are not arguing in good faith.

Anarchy means "without ruler" not "chaos". "Chaos" means "chaos". If you make the statement "The first is the idea that anarchy is somehow related to or akin with the principles of libertarianism. This is false," then you should at least realize which definition the libertarians who espoused anarchy mean by anarchy. The onus is on you.

As you see fit to denigrate and throw around various insults about anyone who takes you to task for attempting to defend the indefensible, I have no more interest in your sophomoric posturing.

I certainly did not mean to offend, and if I did, I apologize.

I am very glad you read some books.

What books does everyone keep attributing to my mention? I have not mentioned a single book on this thread, nor have I told anyone to go "read this".

Unfortunately, you learned nothing about civil discourse. Maybe another trip to the library is in order.

Thanks.

veryretired: anarchy means a society without a government. Libertarian anarchy (AKA anarcho-capitalism) means that the reason the society is without a government is that most people therein accept the libertarian rule of "non initiation of force" as an ethical absolute, and/or they accept physical property plus self ownership as an absolute. I'd say arguments from those definitions were in good faith.

Note how open ended that definition leaves the actual details of how the society organizes. For example JW appears to favor voluntary joining of policed communities. I personally think that a combination of hire detectives, armed citizenry, and private arbitration is plenty; I have distaste for the idea of policed communities. These things are a matter for taste among anarchists - and would likely also be so for people actually living in an anarchy.

The fallibility of men requires an apparatus with which to restrain their baser instincts and urges. - Is simply the truth, and therefore any objections you have with it is going to natrually look ridiculous.

Folks, at root all that statement does is acknowledge that the 'tragedy of the commons' problem exists. I can't believe such a simple statement is creating such problems.

There's a very interesting discussion of "the tragedy of the commons" in relation to government and anarchy over here.

Note how open ended that definition leaves the actual details of how the society organizes.

Note how the lack of details means that any criticism of the definition must either be hopelessly vague or vulnerable to the anarchy proponent's simply shifting implementation details.

Its a debate team's dream assignment.

Within bounds, "shifting implementation details" is sensible adaptation, provided one does not re-espouse a disproven argument.

The actual bounds are hard edged though: property and/or non-initiation-of-force (they work out to mean the same thing, although I prefer "property" because it's clearer and inspires less hair-splitting).

I read your link. Its fundemental error is assuming that all tragedies of the commons (TOTC) are equally difficult to resolve.

For example on national defense, it argues that the TOTC of having to restrain a government is just as bad as the TOTC of not having a national army.

Sorry, wrong answer.

It also convienently doesn't address the issue of one TOTC being able to resolve several others. For example, having our military, we can do things like preventing piracy (of the seafaring kind).

Calling government a TOTC isn't enough to debunk the need for one. Its not even CLOSE.

Is the rest of your literature of the same, um... 'high' quality?

This whole physical property concept has as an underpinning that objects have some intrinsic value. Unless it's something you can eat, no, it doesn't.

Gold is held by many as the only valid basis for a currency. It has no value beyond what we assign to it. It has some industrial uses. Other than that, it's just jewelry and ornamentation. To you, it has some value. To me, its only value is what I can sell it to you for. Its value to me is only in that you apply some value to it. Just some abstract notion of value. I don't understand how it's more valuable than a piece of information.

This thread has become a debate about the pros and cons of anarcho-capitalism. I think that is inappropriate. Copyright and the protection of IP are not a key question in distinguishing it from other forms of social organization. To my mind, the question of copyright is just one among many in the question of how business is conducted and disputes are settled. An evolved or created system of anarcho-capitalism could well (likely, even) contain copyright or some functional equivalent.

The only systems which inherently reject copyright are anarcho-syndicalism and communism.

This whole physical property concept has as an underpinning that objects have some intrinsic value.

Not so. the underpinning is that objects have "identity", and hence mutually exclusive uses. My car is different from your car, even if in all other particulars they are identical. If I take your car, I have two cars and you have none. If I decide to convert your car into a bonfire, you can't continue to use it as a car. If I want to use your car as a bonfire, and you don't want it, only one of us shall prevail. Either we fight over it (politically or combatively), or the "winner" is already prejudged by ownership. It being your car, I would be in the wrong. Assuming the society was just, your preference would prevail.

It should be obvious that none of the above applies to data. If I copy your mp3 collection, you still have the original. If I whistle the tune on the train, many people recieve it and I lose nothing.

Property in ideas is nonsensical, except as a disguised subsidization via a defacto tax.

Veryretired and Ryan Waxx:

As (I think) I started the "what is anarchy" sub-thread, just a few points.

1. If you are interested in the libertarian conception of anarchy (which I presume you are, even if your inclination is to reject it as nonsense), there is no alternative but to read a book or two on the subject. You simply can't "pick it up" from a blog and then dismiss it out of hand. It would be like forming a view about relativity based on a conversation in a pub.

2. It's up to you whether you do so, but if you are interested (even sceptically), please do read one (or preferably both) of David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom and Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty.

3. I honestly believe that you will be both genuinely suprised and impressed - neither is (or was in the case of Rothbard) a wild-eyed bomb thrower and I am sure that many of the sentiments they express will strike chords with you.

4. Re. the Tragedy of the Commons (aka the Public Good problem) you may be right that this can pose a challenge for anarcho-libertarians. However, you will be surprised (as was I) as to how many so-called public good problems are either nothing of the sort or are easily soluble.

Best wishes

Cydonia

p.s. Very Retired:

"The challenge for free people was clearly put by Franklin when asked about the new constitution. A bystander asked what kind of government had been adopted, and Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

I may be wrong, but I had understand this to be a warning from Franklin that keeping the republic within its proper bounds would be a very hard task indeed.

History has of course proven Franklin quite right about that and this is part of the anarcho-libertarian critique of limited government - it sounds like a great idea, but nobody has managed to articulate a mechanism for keeping a limited government limited.

What do you think Franklin would think of the U.S.G. in its present form ?!

Julian, it is not about property in ideas; to the best of my knowledge you cannot copyright or patent an idea; you copyright a work or patent a process which you have to describe in adequate detail. You are misdirecting the argument.

Why can you not grasp that a work -- a novel, a painting or whatever -- is no different in kind from a car when it comes to value or perceived value, and therefore a question of property. It is not a single copy that has value – the work employs the medium; if it is my work, I am entitled to claim ownership of it and to place a value on it .

Julian
It seems to me you've ignored or missed the core of a lot of my arguements, so I'll summarize it in another way.

Over my dead body.

Julian Morrison, here's a question for you: do you reject the utilitarian argument for IP, ie, that they increase the potential flow of creative ideas? If not, what happens under your anarchist approach?

Cydonia,

Thank you for your comment. My original post was in response to the assertions made by earlier posts re: anarchism as a workable social structure, and Intellectual property rights vs physical property rights. The latter distinction was made by another, as I do not see them in opposition to each other.

Your comments about anarchy demonstrate that you are, in fact, recapitulating the dialectic that generated anarchic thought in the 19th century, i.e., the state is overwheening and abusive, therefore we must abolish it.

You are free to make this argument if you wish. Just don't think it is original or persuasive to someone who has studied political philosophy for several decades.

The opinions of any number of people, published in books too numerous to count, are dangerously in error when those ideas are grafted onto the real world. In this specific case, the use of the term anarchy to mean something other than anarchy is a category of argument once referred to as the "painted leopard", and is fallacious.

But, as someoone pointed out above, this thread was about IP, and in that discussion, my earlier point remains. Any lump of physical property is just that until some intellectual effort makes it valuable for human beings. The foundation of value is the mind, the idea that transforms physical matter into something more than what it was.

For those who cannot accept this point, so be it. But I will remind you that there is no difference in your physical surroundings than that enjoyed, or endured, by the most primitive prehistoric human who walked where you now walk.

If your world is different, more convenient, more healthy, more intellectually stimulating, more anything other than rocks and trees and bushes, it was intellectual effort that makes it so. Deny the reality of the mind and its products, and you deny the reality of human life itself.

One final point about enthusiasm as it applies to intellectual trends. The 19th century also produced medical theories which claimed to have solved all the problems of human health. One of these asserted that all illnesses were the result of misalignment of the spine, and therefore, every human ailment could be cured by the proper realignment of the spine.

The resultant discipline, chiropractic medicine, operated for quite some time claiming to cure cancer, liver disease, kidney problems, heart trouble, etc. etc. But science does not recognize assertions, only evidence, and as the chiropracters were pressed to provide proof, the many claims began to drop away.

Currently, while there are chiropracters, they confine themselves to back problems, not curing cancer or heart disease.

Therefore, you will please pardon me if I remain steadfast in my appreciation of an imperfect system for imperfect men. The world is littered with the corpses of the victims of those who pursued the "perfect society", by whatever name it was called. I do not demand perfection. The price is too high.

Julian Morrison, here's a question for you: do you reject the utilitarian argument for IP, ie, that they increase the potential flow of creative ideas? If not, what happens under your anarchist approach?

I've avoided utilitarian arguments thus far, deliberately. I reject utilitarianism, for several reasons. I consider it immoral, arrogant (who gets to decide what constitutes the "good" of other people?), economically ignorant (of the impossibility of meaningful central-planning), and pragmatically unable even to fulfil its own brief: breaking property to create happiness always ends up damaging it instead.

Temporarily ignoring the above, do I believe a lack of IP would decrease the potential flow of creative ideas? I admit my ignorance. Lacking prescience, there's no way to trace through the complex mesh of interlocking motivations and incentives. Which weighs more in people's minds: lower returns, reduced barriers to entry, plagiarism, the pleasure of creation even without pay? Would a replacement moneymaking method become profitable enough that creators actually end up earning more? Short of getting out my tarot cards, there really isn't much of an answer I can make to any of these questions.

Veryretired:

"Your comments about anarchy demonstrate that you are, in fact, recapitulating the dialectic that generated anarchic thought in the 19th century, i.e., the state is overwheening and abusive, therefore we must abolish it."

I'm not sure which comments you mean, but much of late 19th c and early 20th anarchism was of the communist variety - primarily directed at the evils of capitalism (with the State almost a secondary target). As such, it is as different from anarcho-libertarianism as the latter is from (say) modern day welfare socialism.

"You are free to make this argument if you wish. Just don't think it is original or persuasive to someone who has studied political philosophy for several decades."

Re. originality, I'm not quite sure what you mean. I did not suggest that the idea of anarcho-libertarianism originated with me (!!!!) - its antecedants go back many centures to the Catholic scholastics and before, but in its modern form, Rothbard was the major force, although he freely acknowledged his debts to classical liberals such as Mises, and individualist anarchists such as Lysander Spooner.

Re. persuasive -you haven't said if you have read Friedman and Rothbard. If you have and were not persuaded or even interested in reading more, then, so be it - I am not going to be able to do a better job than them :-(

I would, however, be interested in your considered reasons as to why you reject their theses (private email might be more suitable than lengthening this thread still further).

However, if by any chance you have NOT read either or both of them, why not take out a few hours and have a look? The worst that can happen is that you remain unpersuaded!

Regards

Cydonia

Notwithstanding my own viewpoint, I have learnt a lot from this marathon thread. Thanks everyone, including Julian, for your diverse array of passionately argued views.

Come on, let's get it up to 100 posts ...