Hardcore libertarians: explain your anti-IP-rights position to me.

[myrkul]

Think about it.  What would happen if Lycos had somehow claimed intellectual property on all search engines?

I shudder to think.

And yes, the knockoff cycle, as I think I will start calling it now, is a vital component of a healthy economy. It encourages innovation.

[1713557354]

1713557354

[1713557354]

1713557354

[1713557354]

1713557354

[JoelKatz]

That's only true if you refuse to separate the concept of ownership from the contract that assigns it. As I see it, it's none of my concern how you came to own that TV -- what matters is that you own it now. The TV is not a bitcoin that needs to prove its lineage to everyone who comes across it, and the sales contract is not a passport that you need to carry around to prove you own the TV. A third party can't ignore the contract and pretend you don't own the TV any more than he can ignore a contract with your barber and pretend your hair hasn't been cut.

I refuse to separate them because you can't separate them. It seems like you can when you look only at simple sale contracts. If I sell you the TV, you now own the TV. It doesn't matter what the contract says. But we're not talking about simple sale contracts, we're talking about more complex cases. Say you buy a TV, but in the sale contract you agreed not to watch the TV on Wednesdays. Now suppose I accidentally destroy that TV. Are you entitled to the fair market value of the TV? No, because the fair market value includes the value of the right to watch the TV on Wednesdays, a right you didn't have.

[Mr2001]

Say you buy a TV, but in the sale contract you agreed not to watch the TV on Wednesdays. Now suppose I accidentally destroy that TV. Are you entitled to the fair market value of the TV? No, because the fair market value includes the value of the right to watch the TV on Wednesdays, a right you didn't have.

I don't see how that's relevant. The question of what damages I suffer when you destroy my TV is separate from the question of whether or not I own it; the fair value of the property you destroyed depends on many other things besides the terms under which I bought it.

And in practice, I suspect a court would find that my contract with the person who sold it to me has no bearing on the amount you owe: my inability to fully enjoy the use of that property doesn't let you off the hook. For instance, if I'm blind and unable to see the screen, that doesn't mean you can pay me just enough to buy a damaged TV with a broken screen. The screen still has a value (I can resell a functional TV for more than a damaged one), just as the ability of the TV to operate on Wednesdays still has a value (I can negotiate with the seller for permission without buying a whole new TV, or I can just break my contract and watch it anyway).

The idea that you only own something if every third party agrees to abide by the contract under which you bought it is appropriate enough for a bitcoin forum, I guess, but I have to say this is the first I've ever heard of someone trying to apply it in the real world. Did you come up with it yourself, or is there a school of thought out there that believes libertarianism actually does require enforcing contracts on people who weren't parties to them?

[JoelKatz]

The idea that you only own something if every third party agrees to abide by the contract under which you bought it is appropriate enough for a bitcoin forum, I guess, but I have to say this is the first I've ever heard of someone trying to apply it in the real world. Did you come up with it yourself, or is there a school of thought out there that believes libertarianism actually does require enforcing contracts on people who weren't parties to them?

You cannot have transferrable property rights if contracts aren't enforceable against third parties. Libertarians are split about more complex cases. Ask this hypothetical to a dozen Libertarians, you will get a wide spectrum of answers:

"Fred and Jeff own competing sales businesses. Fred has a contract with all of his employees that if they leave him to work for a competitor, they may not contact existing customers for 180 days. This contract is valid and enforceable against those employees. Fully aware of this, Jeff hires away Fred's employees and directs them to contact their existing customers and try to get them to switch to his company. When the employees express fear that they might be sued or that they shouldn't break their word, he tells them not to worry about it. Fred hears about this from his customers. Does he have a suit against Jeff?"

[myrkul]

[1]You cannot have transferrable property rights if contracts aren't enforceable against third parties. Libertarians are split about more complex cases. Ask this hypothetical to a dozen Libertarians, you will get a wide spectrum of answers:

[2]"Fred and Jeff own competing sales businesses. Fred has a contract with all of his employees that if they leave him to work for a competitor, they may not contact existing customers for 180 days. This contract is valid and enforceable against those employees. Fully aware of this, Jeff hires away Fred's employees and directs them to contact their existing customers and try to get them to switch to his company. When the employees express fear that they might be sued or that they shouldn't break their word, he tells them not to worry about it. Fred hears about this from his customers. Does he have a suit against Jeff?"

[1]LOLWUT?

[2]As I said before, being a dick isn't actionable. Breaking a contract is.

[JoelKatz]

[1]You cannot have transferrable property rights if contracts aren't enforceable against third parties. Libertarians are split about more complex cases. Ask this hypothetical to a dozen Libertarians, you will get a wide spectrum of answers:

[2]"Fred and Jeff own competing sales businesses. Fred has a contract with all of his employees that if they leave him to work for a competitor, they may not contact existing customers for 180 days. This contract is valid and enforceable against those employees. Fully aware of this, Jeff hires away Fred's employees and directs them to contact their existing customers and try to get them to switch to his company. When the employees express fear that they might be sued or that they shouldn't break their word, he tells them not to worry about it. Fred hears about this from his customers. Does he have a suit against Jeff?"

[1]LOLWUT?

Which word didn't you understand?

[2]As I said before, being a dick isn't actionable. Breaking a contract is.

I understand that's your position, but Libertarians are in fact split on the issue of whether Jeff broke a contract or was merely being a dick. I just asked a bona fide Libertarian, and his position was that Fred has a suit against Jeff because his implied contract with his employees (that he would pay them money for breaking their contract with Fred) makes him an indirect party to the contract he asked them to violate. In a sense, they are acting as Fred's agent when they violate their contract with me. This makes Fred liable.

I don't know what my own position is. I find these kinds of situations to be very difficult.

[Mr2001]

You cannot have transferrable property rights if contracts aren't enforceable against third parties.

I think you're begging the question. Maybe you can't have transferable property rights without enforcing contracts against third parties, because you have a particular belief about the nature of ownership (i.e. that it only exists to the extent that observers are contractually forced to acknowledge it), but that doesn't restrict the rest of us who aren't burdened with that belief.

[JoelKatz]

You cannot have transferrable property rights if contracts aren't enforceable against third parties.

I think you're begging the question. Maybe you can't have transferable property rights without enforcing contracts against third parties, because you have a particular belief about the nature of ownership (i.e. that it only exists to the extent that observers are contractually forced to acknowledge it), but that doesn't restrict the rest of us who aren't burdened with that belief.

Okay, fair enough. But whatever that other mechanism is that permits transferrable property rights, unless it's carefully rigged not to, it will apply to other types of rights as well. In any event, Libertarians really are split on this issue. There is no one "Libertarian view" on this.

[myrkul]

You cannot have transferrable property rights if contracts aren't enforceable against third parties.

I think you're begging the question. Maybe you can't have transferable property rights without enforcing contracts against third parties, because you have a particular belief about the nature of ownership (i.e. that it only exists to the extent that observers are contractually forced to acknowledge it), but that doesn't restrict the rest of us who aren't burdened with that belief.

Okay, fair enough. But whatever that other mechanism is that permits transferrable property rights, unless it's carefully rigged not to, it will apply to other types of rights as well. In any event, Libertarians really are split on this issue. There is no one "Libertarian view" on this.

Oh please, there's hardly a "libertarian view" on the definition of the color blue. I wouldn't be surprised to hear one of us say 'The market will sort it out'. And you know what? That's the answer to your little Hypothetical. The Market will sort it out.

[JoelKatz]

You cannot have transferrable property rights if contracts aren't enforceable against third parties.

I think you're begging the question. Maybe you can't have transferable property rights without enforcing contracts against third parties, because you have a particular belief about the nature of ownership (i.e. that it only exists to the extent that observers are contractually forced to acknowledge it), but that doesn't restrict the rest of us who aren't burdened with that belief.

Okay, fair enough. But whatever that other mechanism is that permits transferrable property rights, unless it's carefully rigged not to, it will apply to other types of rights as well. In any event, Libertarians really are split on this issue. There is no one "Libertarian view" on this.

Oh please, there's hardly a "libertarian view" on the definition of the color blue.

I don't think that's fair. While you can probably find a self-described Libertarian or two who holds any imaginable view, there are a large number of positions that the vast majority of Libertarians hold consistently and are consequences of Libertarianism's principles.

But if you take the position that no two Libertarians agree on anything, then there's really no answer to the OP's question.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear one of us say 'The market will sort it out'. And you know what? That's the answer to your little Hypothetical. The Market will sort it out.

I agree, most Libertarians would believe that the market would sort it out. However, their position on what role the legal system would play in that sorting will vary. But it's true, many 'defects' in the legal system can be worked around by contract. (For example, EULAs are one way Microsoft 'works around' perceived weaknesses in the law of copyright.)

[myrkul]

I wouldn't be surprised to hear one of us say 'The market will sort it out'. And you know what? That's the answer to your little Hypothetical. The Market will sort it out.

I agree, most Libertarians would believe that the market would sort it out. However, their position on what role the legal system would play in that sorting will vary. But it's true, many 'defects' in the legal system can be worked around by contract. (For example, EULAs are one way Microsoft 'works around' perceived weaknesses in the law of copyright.)

The 'blue' crack was hyperbole. But, all too often, an accurate one. The defining characteristic of a Libertarian is our love for debate (as evinced by the length of this thread)

EULAs are not contracts, and they're not enforceable.

[em3rgentOrdr]

The 'blue' crack was hyperbole. But, all too often, an accurate one. The defining characteristic of a Libertarian is our love for debate (as evinced by the length of this thread)

Well the whole premise of voluntaryism/market-anarchism/libertarianism is that disputes should be handled through reason (through contracts & agreements) first, not guns (from legislative fiat).  That's why we like to debate. 

EULAs are not contracts, and they're not enforceable.

EULAs are totally invalid contracts.  There is no "meeting of the minds" whereby two parties come to a mutually-understood agreement.  There is almost zero effort by these big corporations to communicate in plain English what exactly all that legalize BS is saying.  And then they hide some little innocent looking phrase cleverly hidden in the 20 pages of dense text that gives them carte-blance to do whatever they want.  Each party must understand what he/she is agreeing to inorder for there to be a valid contract.  At the minimum, there would need to be some multiple-choice quiz after the end of reading the damn EULA to ensure that I, the user, actually understand what I am agreeing to.  The other glaringly obvious flaw with EULAs is the fact that I don't actually have to sign it until after I have purchased it from the store clerk!   

[myrkul]

EULAs are totally invalid contracts.  There is no "meeting of the minds" whereby two parties come to a mutually-understood agreement.  There is almost zero effort by these big corporations to communicate in plain English what exactly all that legalize BS is saying.  And then they hide some little innocent looking phrase cleverly hidden in the 20 pages of dense text that gives them carte-blance to do whatever they want.  Each party must understand what he/she is agreeing to inorder for there to be a valid contract.  At the minimum, there would need to be some multiple-choice quiz after the end of reading the damn EULA to ensure that I, the user, actually understand what I am agreeing to.  The other glaringly obvious flaw with EULAs is the fact that I don't actually have to sign it until after I have purchased it from the store clerk!   

Which is why I called them 'not contracts'. They're an attempt to end-run around copyright laws and screw customers. Especially with that 'sign after you buy' thing.

That said, I haven't had to see EULA in a long time. FLOSS is your friend!

[em3rgentOrdr]

EULAs are totally invalid contracts.  There is no "meeting of the minds" whereby two parties come to a mutually-understood agreement.  There is almost zero effort by these big corporations to communicate in plain English what exactly all that legalize BS is saying.  And then they hide some little innocent looking phrase cleverly hidden in the 20 pages of dense text that gives them carte-blance to do whatever they want.  Each party must understand what he/she is agreeing to inorder for there to be a valid contract.  At the minimum, there would need to be some multiple-choice quiz after the end of reading the damn EULA to ensure that I, the user, actually understand what I am agreeing to.  The other glaringly obvious flaw with EULAs is the fact that I don't actually have to sign it until after I have purchased it from the store clerk!   

Which is why I called them 'not contracts'. They're an attempt to end-run around copyright laws and screw customers. Especially with that 'sign after you buy' thing.

That said, I haven't had to see EULA in a long time. FLOSS is your friend!

Myrkul, I was agreeing with you, just elaborating.  Just like my previous miscommunication with you when I commented about the bitcoin symbol.  Anyway, I'm in the same boat as you...I switched exclusively to Linux and almost exclusively to Free/Libre-Open-Source-Software about a year ago and have never looked back.  Only every once in a while when I use some proprietary software like dropbox or whatever that I have to click "agree".

[muc]

So-called "intellectual property" violates real property rights, plain and simple.

Agreed for the most part. I know of someone who refuses to copyright his online material because he believes that you shouldn't have contracts and/or agreements with the government, which is what he claims a copyright is. However, he claims ownership of his material, and requests people not steal it by duplicating it.

[smoothie]

Good post!

[em3rgentOrdr]

So-called "intellectual property" violates real property rights, plain and simple.

Agreed for the most part. I know of someone who refuses to copyright his online material because he believes that you shouldn't have contracts and/or agreements with the government, which is what he claims a copyright is. However, he claims ownership of his material, and requests people not steal it by duplicating it.

Does your musician friend *strongly request* that people don't copy the music he creates, or does he *threaten violence* or some sort of legal (including non-government court) action should you copy?

[bitcon]

property is theft. 

[em3rgentOrdr]

property is theft. 

Dammit!!!  I'm debating in the Noobie forum!  Nooooo!!!   

[agaumoney]

This universe doesn't grant any rights to anyone. Rights are invented by humans for political control.

Evidently you have a misunderstanding of what are rights vs. civil liberties.

Rights were identified by humans, not created.

The discussion and concept of rights are co-opted by those seeking unjust power and authority, and the terminology twisted and confused as a means for obtaining that power.  If people cannot identity what are rights, and what are confusingly called civil rights instead of civil liberties, the people will be mentally and eventually physically subject to those who can obtain power thru that confusion.

"[All men] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights..."  works just as well if you believe in a supreme intelligent creator or whether you believe in evolution thru random chance and survival of the fittest.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

And FYI, "secure" is not "create" or "grant" or "obtain".  "Secure" in that context means to protect from violation that which one already has.  And "just powers" come only from "the consent of the governed."

And in conclusion...

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."