Philosophy of copyright and libertarian arguments against intellectual property

Under your definition again then if Chapelle wrote a joke and tells it in Minnesota and another comedian tells the same joke in Texas then Chapelle has no claim to the joke nor does it have value. That again negates the fact that Chapelle was the originator of that joke and as such is a creation of his.

The argument you're putting out is that essentially anything that is an intellectual creation (soft) has no intrinsic value and the creator doesn't deserve any control. That strikes me as frankly bizarre to claim as Libertarian. In fact the development of copyrights came during the Enlightenment at the same in reaction to the invention of the printing press. Largely the same time as the basis of Libertarian philosophy was developing.

And of course value is subjective and marginal. Our very money is only valuable because of subjective value.

I'll take a look at the link but if that is the argument that is being put forward that ideas shouldn't be considered valuable because they can repeated and used by more people than one I will repeat that is bizarre and frankly damaging to the idea of Capitalism. It's a reductive to the idea of scarcity and value to material objects when as noted even our very money is just an idea and as we move further and further away from actual currency the material tangibility of it is even less.

 

Apologies for formatting issues, trying to do this quickly on a phone while on the pot.

Chapelle can claim that he originated the joke. That doesn't mean he's the only one allowed to say it. That joke is not a scarce good.

As to whether or not Chappelle's joke has value - again, value is subjective. I suspect most would value a Chappelle joke told by Chappelle over a Chapelle joke told by @Haymitch

Of course it has no intrinsic value - nothing does. Value is subjective.

And I would say you know far less about libertarian philosophy than you think you do. Which is ok, of course. It's a niche thing and libertarians have rarely been well-organized at anything, so if their message has never clearly gotten out, that is not a surprise. You have to seek it out - in that pdf I linked, for example.

That's right! Value is subjective - not intrinsic.

 

I have one question. Do you think writers, comedians and programmers should get paid for their work?

 

@Haymitch
https://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/kinsella-against-ip-mises-2008.pdf
I've read through quickly about 2/3rds of the link and a couple of quick observations.

I will withdraw my own statement as saying what Libertarian thought is but the author notes near the beginning that not all Libertarians think this way and many Libertarians would agree with the value of intellectual property and stand for copyrights. So neither yourself, Kinsella, or myself represent overall Libertarian thought. It sounds like there is a debate on this issue and from other people who I've heard who also call themselves "Libertarian" don't share that view.

I will also stand by that the argument put forward regarding that value is only based on scarcity and that scarcity is only in material objects is very problematic and what I've read so far only reinforces that view. Two quick examples that the author brings up illustrates this very clearly.
Kinsella talks about how there isn't value in the idea and uses the example of a mousetrap stating that while someone might create a mousetrap that is merely a rearranging of parts. The parts are what is valuable but the rearrangement isn't since others could take those parts and rearrange them. The other example he uses is a sword and while a sword smith might take metal ore and make a sword out of the value of it is in the ore.

Again that is a bizarre idea that strips the value of something down to it's base material and ignoring the function of it. If someone were to get 10 pounds of iron ore that is going to cost less than the two pounds that are in the sword because the process of creating the sword has added value. That is rightfully described as "creating" and not "rearranging" because the iron ore won't spontaneously become a sword. While certainly the idea of how to make sword isn't necessarily scarce as anyone can be told the process of going from iron ore to sword but that takes knowledge and skill to do it. This is why even back in ancient times skilled swordsmiths were considered valuable and rewarded for it. In some cultures they were even held with religious reverence. Not the iron ore.

In the case of a mousetrap the arrangement of parts also represents a creation of the mind and if it was just a matter of arranging parts that anyone could do we would never have the saying "building a better mousetrap" and the game "Mousetrap" would be pretty boring.

Taking Kinsella's argument that would remove the principle of added value. All wealth would be reduced to simply the elements of the land you own. The computer I'm typing on is no more valuable than the silicon, copper, carbon and other elements it's made out.

The next big issue that I see is that while yes the argument of scarcity for value makes sense and yes we have a finite amount of tangible resources. Placing material resources though as the sole determinate of value and downplaying the work of mind ignores that the work of mind can change the scarcity of resources or even render the scarcity of an item irrelevant for value. Just using a recent example 25 years ago many felt that the US couldn't produce any more crude oil anymore and that oil prices were bound to keep on rising because oil was becoming scarcer. Fracking changed that suddenly the US is back to being an oil producer and in the meantime the price or oil drops. Kinsella's argument is that that is a process so that anyone can do and is repeatable. While yes that is a process that anyone can do that doesn't change that fracking suddenly changed the availability of oil and the value of it. For that matter crude oil had no value until about 150 years ago and without the development of the internal combustion engine. So without an idea whether crude oil was scarce or not it would have no value.

Further this idea that an idea itself is valueless as it is just a pattern that can be repeated and thought up by anyone ignores that not everyone thinks of the idea. If that were the case then as stated the Incas would've had guns, steel and even the pulley system. They easily could've but they didn't because good ideas are actually a scarce resource.

I'll plan on reading the rest of it piece and comment further later but will note one more thing.
On page three the piece is copyrighted. Granted it's under a creativecommons copyright and isn't reserving rights that he even bothered to get a copyright shows that Kinsella understand this is a unique creation and worth something more than just the silicon and plastic device I'm reading it on.

 

Reading through the debate about idea scarcity, I like to add that wrt entertainment, it's not that it's scarce, but it definitely has a diminishing return for the consumer. If I hear Chappelle's set from a local comic, I might not enjoy it as much as a vintage fifty year port wine, but I did pay less and I'm likely not going to drink wine again for the evening unless I really really love wine.

So entertainment does have a competitive half life, much like how movies and games are sometimes a half off a year later. Some people might still prefer the original over spoilers, recaps and bootlegs but it still affects the Creator's bottom line

Yeah I think insulin prices and other "essential drugs" like it are market failures.

The profits involved are much lower and without Government intervention, prices can skyrocket because of supply constraints. It's those same constraints that motivate greedy opportunists to justify a $100 price.

The article goes into a deeper meta, where you can try to patent the process or the delivery mechanism but because it's slightly different, it has to go back through the gauntlet of rigorous years long testing, which is essentially a big cut from the new patented price.

No one cares about this and only want a return to a cheap 10 dollar vial but it's because no one cares that we have a glut of boner pills with a product catalog larger than Jelly Bellys and less than a handful of insulin manufacturers.

The new threat in generics is that we offshored (iirc a quarter of) the manufacturing to China and some of their b*stard companies switch up the chemicals or generics that domestic pharma later remixes and rebadge...all without the FDA rigor or oversight we know and love.

A potentially still expensive yet lethal combo.

 

Definitely. If someone wants to pay them for their work, that is A-OK. Always.

 

God damn man I can't keep up with this! This is why I usually only post stupid one-liners, because I don't have the desire or endurance for these conversations online. "Well then you shouldn't have entered one, moron!" says Haymitch to himself.

You of course make some good points. I do appreciate you taking the time to read into it, and your criticisms. I am a bit confused by some of your objections and might be misunderstanding.

Regarding two smaller scale items you mentioned...

You correctly note that me or you or Kinsella presuming to speak for all libertarians on this topic is foolish, as it is not uniformly agreed upon. And I have been doing just that when I knew better than to. So, that's my bad. Shame.

Regarding the copyright on that, Kinsella wrote this elsewhere:

Spoiler

"If you oppose IP and don’t want a patent–just don’t apply. Unfortunately, someone else might independently invent the same thing, patent it, and shut you down, since your having invented it first, or independently invented it, is no defense. So, you might also want to lower your knickers and reveal your idea publicly, to lower the chance someone else can patent it (this is called defensive patent publishing).1

But if you don’t want copyright, you’re out of luck. Under the current law, copyright is received automatically. Contrary to popular wisdom, you don’t “copyright” something. It’s not a verb. You don’t need to put a copyright notice on your work. You don’t need to register it. It’s automatic. And there’s nothing you can do about it...."

"[W]e do not even have an opt-out system, since, as noted, copyright is automatic, and there is no way to get rid of it. Snide commentators sometimes say, “if you are against IP why do you copyright your works?” or “why don’t you just waive your rights?” Well we don’t copyright our works–your system does. And your system does not allow us to waive our rights. There is no way to make a copyright-protected work public domain. The closest thing to it is CC0, but this cannot “guarantee a complete relinquishment of all copyright and database rights in every jurisdiction”."

http://c4sif.org/2011/04/lets-make-copyright-opt-out/

He's a patent lawyer btw. He claims that many patent lawyers are anti-IP (obviously no way to prove this).

You still seem to be defining scarce differently than I am (and Kinsella). So it's hard to debate what is scarce and what isn't when we have different definitions.

I might be misunderstanding something you wrote above but not all scarce things necessarily have value. And Kinsella does not claim that.* A bowl of poison soup is scarce but it likely has no value. Nor does Kinsella claim that the value of a thing is determined solely by its components. So I'm not really sure how to reply to that.

*It's been about a decade since I read this but... I don't think it's in there.

 

No problem but just pointing out the fault of "what Libertarians stand for." It makes sense that there is plenty of debate in Libertarian views and I shouldn't have said that I know what they think either. That said my own view of it, and might be shaped by people I know who call themselves that, would not agree with the argument put forward here.

True copyright gets put on published work. There is no need though to go through the problem of listing it otherwise we could add a "Copyright 2021" to our posts. Thought it was funny to see on the third page a Copyright.

The definition that you and Kinsella have provided is that scarcity is limited to a material resource and by nature material resources are finite. Further make a uniqueness argument that is tied to the nature of matter so in your pencil example yes two people cannot use the same pencil at the same time as a physical object that is unique. The argument put forward is that because everyone can come up with ideas and two people can think of an idea therefore they aren't scarce. My point is that good ideas are scarce. Again why didn't everyone in the world come up with the idea of the wheel, steel or any other idea. Further Kinsella acknowledges this by pointing out the importance of trade secrets.

In the section "Property and Scarcity" Kinsella talks about how scarcity defines property and as such a system of laws regarding property is established. So while yes there are resources that aren't common that aren't considered valuable there are resources that are scarce and we would to possess so they are considered property. The point regarding oil is that it is a scarce resource but one that nobody wanted to possess until the invention of the internal combustion motor. In that sense any value placed on the resource only exists because of an idea. In other words while oil is a tangible asset it's value is only due an idea. On the other hand if the idea had no value and it was really the value of the oil then oil would've been valued as a possession prior to the idea of the engine.

Regarding the value based on the components in the section "Creation versus Scarcity" Kinsella writes:
"Consider the forging of a sword. If I own some raw metal (because I mined it from ground I owned), then I own the same metal after I have shaped it into a sword. I do not need to rely on the fact of creation to own the sword, but only on my ownership of the factors used to make the sword.73 And I do not need creation to come to own the factors, since I can homestead them by simply mining them from the ground and thereby becoming the first possessor. On the other hand, if I fashion a sword using your metal, I do not own the resulting sword. In fact, I may owe you damages for trespass or conversion."
Under this argument he is claiming that ownership here is only of the metal and not the product of the metal, in other words the value placed on the possession. While yes the owner of the iron ore to make the sword can claim a certain ownership if I were to obtain iron ore from someone and made a sword doesn't mean that the owner of the ore can claim the sword. The sword still represents a unique creation. The owner of the iron ore owns the iron but not the creation so yes a sword maker should purchase or obtain the ore from the owner of the ore but once the sword is made an extra value is added to the material. If we take the reverse side of the argument Kinsella made the owner of the sword can't claim he is owed the difference in value between the sword and the ore. The added value is created and not based upon the material itself.

No problem and I still need to read the last part.[/quote]

 

I'm going to note that Kinsella covers the utilitarian argument for IP which he dismisses by citing people like Jefferson and Locke. Yet he still has to acknowledge that Jefferson created the US Patent Office and that Locke while basing property on ownership of tangible asset does acknowledge that value is created through labor.

This is while I will say the argument is very problematic as even if you philosophically do not believe that there is such a thing as "intellectual property" it raises a lot of other problems.

 

So in other words you consider paying for jokes and writings as voluntarily.

 

Would you also end the ability to alienate property while you are alive? To set the price of your property in trade? What about conditional transfers? The idea seems like you would just be punishing those without the foresight to put property into trusts or gift all their property to their children on the condition that the children grant them a life estate in the property and the authority to transfer the child's ownership of the property (essentially allowing inheritance without using the method of a will or intestate succession.

 

It's called being sarcastic. It's just hilarious watching self proclaimed Libertarians having issues with private businesses not publishing something to improve their brand image and profitablity.

 

Again this is a strange argument to take from the Right. As creator shouldn't the creator have a right to benefit from income generated from their creation?

The argument that they shouldn't and it's an injustice to those who could also benefit sounds very Marxist. In other words one's labor isn't primarily for the their own benefit but for society. Each to his by ability according to each to his needs.

Regarding the transfer of intellectual property rights yes there is a fair point about whether the heirs should continue to benefit from that. Rand is against it and believes that that is unearned wealth but that could also apply to handing down material assets. The same argument could be applied then to why should heirs inherit things like land when they didn't buy it and there are those who could benefit from it beyond the narrow interest of the owners income benefit?

 

I'm addressing you and not Merge's you frequently criticize the Left including in this thread and cite Rightwing opinion pieces. Do you agree with what you are citing or not?

 

Why are you presenting the argument then if you have no opinion on it nor read it?