Devil's Advocate

So yes, there's nothing about copying that IP prevents as long as it's different, which is to say there's nothing about copying that IP allows. And the primary reason is to secure a return (by monopoly) on the innovator's time and effort creating something novel. The following link describes this in greater detail, but we already agree on what IP secures: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whats-the-difference-betw-2004-12-13/ Our disagreement has to do with why. Specifically why suspend the implementation of a right to life of a competitor whose only "vice" is knowing what you know?

The producers and consumers of generic goods who must wait for a patent to expire before they can participate in laissez-faire capitalism. -- Edit: GO PANTHERS!

I had hoped New Buddha might clarify how transforming an ought (to choose to respect IP) to a must (respect IP) is essential to securing property. It's apparently central to the defense of IP, and yet never adequately explained. A persuasive argument for enacting this categorical imperative against man's ability to survive by copying, would seem a necessary starting point. The presumption that copying is theft implies a burden on the individual to continuously prove his innocence; to ask permission prior to taking any action that may have "originated" in some other person's mind. Beyond that, it is also curious that (in most cases) only the commercial application of copying is prohibited, and only for a period of time. This points to a unique definition for property that immediately undermines another dubious claim that all property is intellectual. All property can be inherited - can IP? All property belongs to its owner indefinitely - does IP? And if IP secures investment, as is often claimed, how does allowing for personal/educational use not undermine the very same commercial security? If I am allowed to duplicate intellectual property, but not to market it, I have still removed myself (and the innovator's compensation) from the very thing IP is proposed to secure. The personal/education allowance obviously points back to the fact that copying per se is a legitimate implementation of the right to life. Were it not, all (students and consumers alike, who in reality are one and the same) would be forced to respect IP or be punished for not doing so. And the only way to "inherit" IP, to my knowledge, is to purchase it. If for nothing else than the sake of logical consistency, IP were an essential security of property, shouldn't we then remove any constraint of time and require the children of innovators to purchase their inheritance? No, all property isn't intellectual and all copying isn't theft. Forgery certainly is, as is breaking and entering to carry away property that belongs to someone else. I can't do that with the contents of someone's mind. There are legitimate securities in place to retaliate for aggression against ones actual property. IP doesn't justify forcing an additional contractual prohibition on anyone but a willing trading partner, and there again contracts already exist for that form implementation of a right to life.

First off, I need to have you clarify what you meant when you entered this discussion with, "Respecting IP is a choice that each individual must make for himself." IP laws are coercive because they they transform what you ought to be able to decide for yourself into what you must do; they remove choice. Perhaps I misunderstood you on this point, and if so it would help us to move forward if you could clarify it. We may not actually be disagreeing, at least I thought we started on the same page...

The effort to write is not property; the manuscript is. She built that and is entitled to profit from it. There are better examples to work with, that don't require theft or fraud, if you're interested...

I appreciate the information provided by New Buddha and accept Eiuol’s description of property as being something you either made yourself or traded for. I also appreciate that they are defending a widely accepted position that is central to the philosophy of Objectivism, perhaps best summed up by the Trader Principle. Nevertheless, I remain unpersuaded that the act of copying an original work of art represents a theft of the same. IP, as a security against theft, wrongly identifies effort as property. While it is true that effort is a means to acquire property, effort is not property per se. The artist is compensated for his effort by wage or by trade, and the result is a transfer of property from him in the form of a product; he does not transfer his effort (nor can he). To claim that the means to an end is also an end is a misuse of the definition of property. So the presumption that copying someone’s property is a theft of their effort is simply wrong; it takes your effort to do it. One can certainly appreciate that an innovator has presented something new to work with and voluntarily agree to pay him to copy it for you for any number of reasons, but one is certainly under no moral duty to pay him for your effort to reproduce his product for any reason. Object + Effort = Property (belonging to the individual who exerts the effort). The bottom line is that an innovator’s need to be compensated for his effort is not a lean against the implementation of a right to life for anyone else.

I reread your post several times but cannot grasp the distinction you are making between our positions on this issue. Advocacy that equates copy with theft, simply because the act of copying wouldn't have occurred but for the original action, creates a problematic response where opponents begin with their hand in the cookie jar, so to speak.

The recurring problem is the persistent belief that Man B couldn't have thought of car to begin with; that he owes Man A that much and must pay him for it financially or by consent. This is a premise that seriously need to be checked...

Yes, and the question remains whether Man B ought to be allowed to make that decision for himself. Does your advocacy for IP represent a regression from your earlier position that, "Respecting IP is a choice that each individual must make for himself"?

1) You depend on others, teachers for example, to accumulate a baseline of knowledge to expand upon, i.e. create new things. In most cases this is provided for you by the state in which you were raised, or by your parents' use of other means. Bottom line, the baseline is given at no cost to you. 2) My understanding is that IP doesn't prevent you from creating new things, or rearranging existing things; it prevents you from duplicating original things for commercial purposes. I think I agree with you that, "property is only yours to the extent you made it yourself or traded something you made", but #1 then fails to apply since innovation requires something to work from that wasn't exclusively yours to begin with. #2 is also deficient because IP doesn't impede creating, only copying, which is then presumed to be an act of theft or fraud. So, if property is only yours to the extent you made it yourself or traded something you made, and I figure out how to duplicate it based observing others public use of it (for which you've already been compensated), what have you left to offer me in trade for the money that is my property. It is only yours to barter with if I am a willing customer...

... as would a more precise use of definitions... To steal property is to separate a rightful owner from his possession; fraud is to claim that it is yours. To copy property does neither of these things, so the argument for IP presumes guilt by transforming a natural human ability into a sinful morality that requires legal regulation, i.e. the enactment of two moral imperatives: thou shall not steal, and thou shall not bear false witness. Why? Because the State is a righteous entity that will smite you if you transgress. Never mind that your effort to produce property isn’t property per se. The labor to produce a product isn’t the same thing as the product; effort is a means to property. Never mind that compensation for effort is properly determined by an employer or a customer. Apparently the need for compensation creates an obligation to pay according to the terms of the laborer. Never mind that the goal of innovation, progress, apparently must be limited in order to be achieved. -- Kudos to the Original for covering most of the rest of my argument… probably better than I could... I'm going to break for a time to take care of business. There will be some copying involved. Be afraid; be very afraid...

So I take it that equating copy with theft by definition is a necessary element in your argument. Here's my argument: Calling copy a right because it helps you survive is the same exact rationalization a common burglar uses when he says he has the right to steal because it helps him survive and feed his family, and the same exact argument a politician uses when he says he has the right to tax the rich to help welfare recipients consistent with those actions humans use to implement a right to life. Again, I am not disputing a legal right to obtain a copyright or to enact security against fraud or theft. What I am asking is why, as a matter of justice, must I ask permission to copy (as a forced "contractual" obligation) what you have voluntarily placed in a free market to sell without my permission? Or more fundamentally, if all copy is theft, aren't we essentially asking for permission to live? How long does one survive on actions that are exclusively innovative?

Yes, but why ought we secure innovation by limiting competitive reproduction (again, beyond the normal securities against fraud and theft)? We are, after all, talking about justifying the regulation of an ought, i.e. to remove a choice to respect innovation.

Because the principle is the same regardless of the scope of innovation. Either innovators need to be uniquely insulated from real market forces or they do not, and if they do there needs to be some objective reason consistent with free market practices that respect contractual agreements while providing securities against fraud and theft. Copying per se doesn't require fraud or theft... Bear in mind that we agree, "Respecting IP is a choice that each individual must make for himself. And respecting the IP of others is in the self-interest of a productive human being." It also serves individual self-interest to respect the rights of others if their own rights are to be respected. So if I can reproduce what I find in the marketplace without breaking and entering someone's warehouse or misrepresenting their product as my own, why should I care how hard someone worked to bring something new to the market? For clarity, my argument is confined to respect for contracts that are freely entered into. We are, after all, contractual animals. If I purchase copyrighted material I intend to abide by whatever limitations are made at the time of purchase. But if I merely become aware of something new in the marketplace in the course of pursuing about my own business...

Packaging the definition for theft with copy isn't a necessary element in my argument. Is it in yours?

gio makes a point about the impediment IP presents, qua human, to man's ability to copy. I hadn't really considered this a survival skill before but upon reflection I'd agree that it is, and as such may indeed contradict a right to property via life. I rather like the way he sums this up as, “IP is a bad copy”. If I am the inventor of the mousetrap and my position is that no one may reproduce my trap without permission, and I deny it (as would be my right), have I not effectively prevented all others the ability not only to, “build a better mousetrap”, but to create their own original? This (to me) presents a significant impediment to human progress that cannot be justified by the supposed impediment to innovation a lack of protection for IP attempts to remedy. The remedy appears to secure innovation by limiting progress, which if not contradictory is at least a curious means of promoting progress, that being the logical goal of innovation. The innovator is in possession of a product that beats all future competition to the marketplace, and if marketable, is compensated for his efforts prior to anyone having the opportunity to, “get a piece of his action”. Is it fair that someone might then reproduce this product were there, “no strings attached”, with the intention of competing with the innovator for a share of the market? I doubt there’s any serious objection to this, as it regularly occurs and accounts for much, if not all of human history; competition being a significant cornerstone of all free marketplaces. Why then does it become a moral imperative to secure all future rewards (to the disadvantage of others) beyond the fair compensation that comes from the unimpeded introduction of a new product to the marketplace?

Good, then we agree that the purchase of copyrighted material legitimately prohibits freely copying that same material. As to not being intellectual property, my understanding is that copyrighted material is protected as intellectual property, but that might be debatable... No on all counts. I obtained the image from a website with the following statement displayed: "Images may be subject to copyright." Looking for, finding and following the terms of legal use, I read that material freely posted at the site allows that: "By making your content public, you are also giving other Members .... the right to copy, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and create derivative works from it via the Site, third party websites or applications (for example, via services allowing Members to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content, and via social media websites), provided such use is not for a commercial purpose." -- I think we are generally in agreement that copyrights reflect a moral use of the law. To the degree that they fall under (or overlap) intellectual property, it isn't an impediment to human civilization to enforce them, yes??

Did the artistic production you bought legitimately have any of the following statements printed on its label: 1) All Rights Reserved ? 2) No copying ? 3) Subject to applicable laws ? If so, how does your making a copy not violate terms you freely agreed to at the time of purchase?? But, the blue print and specifications are physical objects of property, like the car and media containing music, videos, etc. Again, if they were purchased with known prohibitions against copying, you would just ignore and copy anyway??

I'll take a shot and try and sort out my own thoughts on this point. The fundamental aspect for me is the viability of choice; is the choice real or forced? For example, if I am in a burning house I can choose to flee unharmed or to remain and burn to death. Is the choice real or forced? I think this is the jump off point for advocates of amoral lifeboats; if I choose to remain it cannot be a moral choice because I am choosing to die. It is correct to say my choice cannot be prescribed in a normal context that doesn't include finding yourself in a burning house, but being in one what am I to do? If I rely on morality to guide my actions and morality no longer applies do I simply lay down and die?? There may be a reason to remain in the house, e.g. a loved one who is in another room. If my life is the moral priority why do I care? Because that loved one is part of my moral life. I cannot say that in a burning house I ought to risk death by searching for a loved one, because I don't know that I can save them and the risk may go unrewarded; we may both die... but it remains a real moral choice left for me to determine based on how I want to live that moment in time. So Eiuol, in that circumstance I find a possible moral application that cannot be prescribed.

Interesting that you consider my citing the very author you're so eager for us to read as an argument from authority. Yay Oh dear, well I've been probing try to understand you better. I get that you agree with Bastiat, who is no stranger to those who follow Objectivism, as is Aristotle, Locke, Hume and others. I also appreciated your rather unique approach to criticize IP as, "a bad copy"; I intend to use that again sometime. Artists were often paid by patrons who appreciated the potential value of what they were capable of, and in that respect the concept of IP has been around longer than you suggest. Are you familiar with how the issue of IP was addressed by the ancient merchants who took the value of innovation quite seriously hundreds of years ago. If not, you may want to read, Lex Mercatoria someday. The Dutch phrase, "Live and let live" is referenced to prescribe allowing artisans to live by the value of innovations, for a time but not forever to avoid the negative aspects of monopoly. Go on...

... nor does anyone here... "God put raw materials and the forces of Nature at man's disposal. To gain possession of them, either one has to take pains, or one does not have to take pains... If pains must be taken, ... the satisfaction must go to the one who has taken the pains. This is the principle of property" ~ so sayeth Bastiat Work can certainly be a painful experience to those who would prefer not to work... "Always you have been told that work is a curse and labour a misfortune. But I say to you that when you work you fulfil a part of earth's furthest dream, assigned to you when that dream was born, and in keeping yourself with labour you are in truth loving life, and to love life through labour is to be intimate with life's inmost secret." ~ Read Gibran

Exactly, and so the direct purpose of a property right is to protect the individual as a consumer and as a producer. If he cannot own the bread he purchases, anyone can take it from his plate before he eats it. Likewise, if he cannot own the bread he produces, anyone can take it from his oven without paying for it. The larger question here is not, "Who owns the marketplace?"; everyone does. Producers and consumers enter the marketplace as equals because they are essentially the same person, with the same right to property. And the source of that right isn't the marketplace or government; it's the individual... What? Were you expecting me to say, the Right to Life? *cue fanfare* How useful is even the most fundamental right of all to individuals who dismiss it or worse, recognize it for themselves but not for others? Recognition is key, and while most recognize who owns tangible property, intangible property (IP) is a very different kind of good, or bad, depending on your point of view. It's difficult to grasp what you can't get your hands on...

That depends in large measure on how much you value your work...

Very pleased to see your return and appreciative of you comments, if not entirely in agreement with them. I don't accept (yet) that moral evaluations can be manipulated to achieve a, well for lack of a better description, a greater good. I'm much more comfortable with accepting the immoral (but perhaps necessary) temporary effect of an action directed at survival. Sometimes life bites, and the only rational thing to do is bite back. Your reference to honesty has been discussed by myself and Eiuol before, and in that case he shared your view and I did not. I advocate silence in lieu of lying as an effective means of not divulging the truth to someone bent on using it for destructive means. But that's me... I look forward to it...

I love the way you put this, and I agree. Do you support a right to property as a consequence of a right to life? ... but consuming is not an end in itself. Someone must replenish the goods in order for consuming to continue long term. The area of interest shared by consumers and producers is a right to the property they possess. So you can as easily say the purpose of consumption is production (of consumable goods). Do you agree?