intellectual property

[mrocktor]

It's a right to not LET people know.

Rights are freedoms of action. You certainly have a right to perform every rights respecting action you can think of that would prevent someone from learning some information you want to keep secret. But you do not have a right to your secret, only a right to act to preserve it. If, without violating your rights to life, property and liberty, someone discovers your secret, you have absolutely no claim against them, nor any grounds to prevent them from spreading the information.

On the other hand, if your property is invaded, a contract is breached or the information is extracted from you via threats to your life or property - those means of discovering your secret are crimes.

[trivas7]

That's a false dichotomy. All enforceable claims of right must be expressed in term of law, which is the means of stating objectively what is allowed versus forbidden, and what the penalty will be for doing something forbidden. In the same sense, there is no "objective criterion" that tells you what the penalty for theft or assault is -- that is, as you put it, entirely legally determined. There is no "objective criterion" that tells you that fraud is a violation of a man's rights (after all, the fraud victim wasn't physically forced to give money to the salesman without sufficiently checking the deal). There is also no "objective criterion" that allows vs. prohibits the keeping of found items. Law is the means of making enforceable principles objectively known in a rational society.

You're conflating the law with property rights. If someone walks off with my physcial stereo system, I know my property rights have been violated. But If someone sends me an mp3 from a band I've never heard of, I don't know whether or not by playing it I have thereby violated someone's property rights. It's exactly the matter that there is no objective principle involved that is enforceable by law.

[DavidOdden]

But If someone sends me an mp3 from a band I've never heard of, I don't know whether or not by playing it I have thereby violated someone's property rights.

Similarly, if someone gives you a shiny baubble, you don't know whether you can rightfully accept that baubble, or whether you are accepting stolen goods. Don't confuse scienter requirements for punishment with the basic notion of property rights.

However, as a matter of fact, using the "know or should know" standard, you should know more strongly that you do not have the right to that MP3 since you know that you are receiving a copy and not an original, and that it is highly unlikely that the person has the right to make a copy (so you know you are receiving stolen goods). Whereas with non-copied physical objects, you have much less reason to conclude that you are receiving stolen goods.

[trivas7]

Similarly, if someone gives you a shiny baubble, you don't know whether you can rightfully accept that baubble, or whether you are accepting stolen goods. Don't confuse scienter requirements for punishment with the basic notion of property rights.

However, as a matter of fact, using the "know or should know" standard, you should know more strongly that you do not have the right to that MP3 since you know that you are receiving a copy and not an original, and that it is highly unlikely that the person has the right to make a copy (so you know you are receiving stolen goods). Whereas with non-copied physical objects, you have much less reason to conclude that you are receiving stolen goods.

I'm having a hard time understanding your logic here. Are you saying that it is incumbent on me to determine that what someone has sent me digitally was legally obtained? If so, why?

Perhaps the broader question I'm asking is how can the principle that man has a right to the product of his mind be legally enforced.

Edited April 15, 2008 by trivas7

[KendallJ]

Perhaps the broader question I'm asking is how can the principle that man has a right to the product of his mind be legally enforced.

The same way one enforces any other property rights. One embodies that product in tangible form, makes a claim to it, has that claim demarcated by government, and then a body of law exists as to what he can to do protect the claim and what govt can do to secure it.

I wonder what it is about te current copyright/patent law that does not enforce such principle?

I've given you 3 posts now where I specifically addressed the problem with "product of one's mind" as rationalistic in nature. Your problem in formulating a proper idea of this right and it's legal defense is highlighted in those posts.

When that problem is fixed, the existing legal framework actually apperas pretty darn good at legal enforcement.

[KendallJ]

I'm having a hard time understanding your logic here. Are you saying that it is incumbent on me to determine that what someone has sent me digitally was legally obtained? If so, why?

For the same reason that it is encumbent upon you to know that land that is not yours may belong to someone. For the simple fact that you know that such things can be owned. That is an inductive generealization, that you have ot use to claim property as much as you do to respect other people's property. If you own something and know your rights to it, you can't really claim ignorance to the fact that others can own things as well, can you. You need not know anything else to know this for a physical piece of property than for a intellectual piece of property.

[DavidOdden]

I'm having a hard time understanding your logic here. Are you saying that it is incumbent on me to determine that what someone has sent me digitally was legally obtained?

I'm saying that your analogy between what you know if your stereo has been stolen and what you don't know if you receive possibly stolen goods is totally faulty. If someone steals from you (physical or intellectual property), you don't automatically know if they have stolen from you. The fact that you aren't always aware of the theft doesn't mean that there is no theft. If you receive goods from someone else (physical or intellectual property), you don't automatically know whether they have the right to the property and can properly give it to you. You were basing an argument (for what, I can't tell) on the problem that you might not know if an MP3 that someone send you is given by right; I pointed out that so what? That's an instance of the general "innocent recever of stolen goods" problem which every moral person should give some thought to, but furthermore you can be much more certain with intellectual property (as contrasted with physical property) that it is stolen and that you should not accept those stolen goods. One way to verify this for yourself is to take a dozen randomly selected pieces of intellectual property, and determine (actually verify) what is required for legally make a copy and give it away, and since you raised the question with respect to mp3's, it should be mp3s from somewhere. If you do this, you'll see that the probability of some piece of emailed IP being legal is hardly worth considering.

Perhaps the broader question I'm asking is how can the principle that man has a right to the product of his mind be legally enforced.

Well, concretely there are criminal and civil responses, and internet theft has shown that more teeth need to be put into the criminal aspect of protecting property rights. The basic principle relates to the damage caused by the theft, so that if you are in the "business" of systematically stealing and distributing IP (file-sharing), the penalties should be substantial. And indeed they are, as shown by the righteous nearly quarter million dollar judgment against Jammie Thomas.

[trivas7]

For the same reason that it is encumbent upon you to know that land that is not yours may belong to someone. For the simple fact that you know that such things can be owned. That is an inductive generealization, that you have ot use to claim property as much as you do to respect other people's property. If you own something and know your rights to it, you can't really claim ignorance to the fact that others can own things as well, can you. You need not know anything else to know this for a physical piece of property than for a intellectual piece of property.

If I want to know if what someone has given me has been legally obtained I can ask if they own it. How does my claim to property obligate me to go out of my way to determine the legal status of an mp3 before listening to it?

[trivas7]

You were basing an argument (for what, I can't tell) on the problem that you might not know if an MP3 that someone send you is given by right; I pointed out that so what? That's an instance of the general "innocent recever of stolen goods" problem which every moral person should give some thought to,

For me to accept the claim that the "innocent receiver of stolen goods" problem applies equally to IP you would first have to convince me that IP is just like any other form of property. But because of its non-entity status I am inclined to think that it is not.

[KendallJ]

If I want to know if what someone has given me has been legally obtained I can ask if they own it. How does my claim to property obligate me to go out of my way to determine the legal status of an mp3 before listening to it?

You mean other than going out of your way to ask if they own it?

[DavidOdden]

For me to accept the claim that the "innocent receiver of stolen goods" problem applies equally to IP you would first have to convince me that IP is just like any other form of property. But because of its non-entity status I am inclined to think that it is not.

Then your entire contribution was completely irrelevant and nonresponsive. Since you've a priori rejected the notion of intellectual property and thus you reject the position that a man can own the product of his mind, nothing that you've said here has any use in understanding the objective basis for propetcing such property. You may as well have declared that since real estate cannot be physically moved, it cannot be considered property; your interjection of noise regarding mp3s was just a smoke screen.

[TuringAI]

I'm sorry, but I can't make any sense of your question. I'd be happy to address your question, if you could restate the question so that I could figure out what your "why" refers to. The other point is that I don't believe your theory of rights is correct, so addressing matters of IP is probably doomed because the basic shared foundation of property rights that would be needed for a productive discussion of the role of IP simply isn't in place.As a matter of fact, real estate is a good example of something that is now and then and it is about the only form of property that isn't also here and there. The fact that you created the IP is the basis for it being your property, which means that you have the right to "dictate" (that's what it means to own something). If you want to create a novel that expresses the same truths as are expressed in Atlas Shrugged, that is perfectly okay, so copyright does not constitute a claim on another person's mind. It simply says that you cannot copy Ayn Rand's novel, so it's a restriction on your action (that you may not take her words for your own).This is where you're making a major mistake. Consent is implicitly given, when the driver enters your property.Consent is implicitly given when they enter your property. The way for them to avoid hearing your shouted poetry is to stay on their own property, or the property of people who they trust to not tolerate poets. Or they can wear earplugs, or drive with the windows rolled up. They are free to act in quite a number of ways to avoid perceiving the universe.

Why, if you valued the secrecy of the information, can't you maintain your right to the secret? Why can't you have discovery of something be the basis for IP as well as creation? When one discovers something that could be useful in some context, and acts to establish it as a secret, why shouldn't one have rights to it? For example, when I am in the process of inventing, and have not yet created something that can be produced, I confide in my partner what I am doing. He then takes off and sells the idea to someone else and they finish it first. I have not yet created a finished product and therefore all my effort goes to waste. What element in that DOESN'T cry out "Right's violation!" and ask for some kind of protection?

The flip side of this argument, of course, is what if I am on my own property, my neighbors have a car that has awesome decals. I don't ever look over there and I myself am a decal creator. I never look at anyone else's decals because I wouldn't want that to influence my decisions. As long as I do this I can have 100% claim to the originality of my product. Then for no reason he parks his car on the street right in front of my house, not blocking me from getting out but certainly putting it in a place I couldn't avoid looking. Now I've been working on a decal that looks strikingly similar to that, but the courts will most certainly decide that I have copied it, because as I finish it even though I'm not focusing on the other person's decal, subconsciously elements of the decal work their way into my work. Again, what element in that DOESN'T cry out "Rights violation!" and ask for some kind of protection?

In the first example, I clearly think that, like anything else stolen from a person, those who end up with it at the end have no claim to it. If I stole apples off my neighbors tree and sold them to others, the others who bought them still have no right to it, do they?

In the second example, the rights violation was done in conjunction with current laws, and the best way to punish would simply be to let me have the rights to my own work reguardless of the fact that it's pretty much a copy. It's not like I intentionally copied it, did I?

Edit: I missed some of what you said. So now I want to ask you... why do you insist that because information qua universal cannot be owned that information qua entity cannot be owned? Isn't this what Intellectual Property is, owning information qua entity?

Edited April 16, 2008 by TuringAI

[DavidOdden]

Why, if you valued the secrecy of the information, can't you maintain your right to the secret?

There is no right to a thing.

[TuringAI]

There is no right to a thing.

Explain what 'thing' means here. Obviously intellectual property is a thing. Computers are a thing. We have rights to earn them, to keep them, and to trade them.

[Lemuel]

For example, when I am in the process of inventing, and have not yet created something that can be produced, I confide in my partner what I am doing. He then takes off and sells the idea to someone else and they finish it first. I have not yet created a finished product and therefore all my effort goes to waste. What element in that DOESN'T cry out "Right's violation!" and ask for some kind of protection?

The element of your failure to protect what you're doing ahead of time, such as a non-disclosure agreement, which exists to provide contractual incentive for your partner - regardless of how much you trust him on a handshake - from using the information against you, or spilling the beans to a competitor.

The flip side of this argument, of course, is what if I am on my own property, my neighbors have a car that has awesome decals. I don't ever look over there and I myself am a decal creator.

(edit)

Again, what element in that DOESN'T cry out "Rights violation!" and ask for some kind of protection?

The element of your ignoring the neighbor's car without any means of providing objective evidence that you'd never seen those designs before. Logically, you'd be making a claim of "no access", but there's no way to prove it.

Of course, other factors come into play, such as the creative value of the product of intellectual property. Comics often complain about joke-stealing, but there are actually somewhat objective criteria for judging whether a joke is an off-the-cuff smart-ass comment that anyone would make, or whether it's a very original, imaginative 'bit' born of an established comic's style and content. The same goes for the difference between a simply-designed car decal and, say, an elaborate ad campaign design concept.

Isn't this what Intellectual Property is, owning information qua entity?

No, it isn't. You can't own a fact any more than you can own a portion of sunlight.

Intellectual property is intellectual in nature, meaning that there is a deliberate and active process of thought that establishes facts, integrates them into concepts, and applies those concepts in unique ways. You can "protect" your new idea by not speaking of it, or ever translating it into physical reality, but if it's not very complex, someone else is going to think of it eventually. If you do translate it into reality, though, you can protect it with a patent, which prevents others from profiting on what was first your product.

Your intelligence, inventiveness, and morality as an inventor will determine if it's something as easily duplicated as a microwave bacon tree, or as radical as a motor that runs on atmospheric static electricity. The better you are, and the more complex your invention/song/design/etc., the easier it is to protect it.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Lemuel

[DavidOdden]

We have rights to earn them, to keep them, and to trade them.

Good: so keep up with this line. You have a right to keep it. You don't have a "right" to a particular outcome. This should ultimately result in you seeing why there is no such thing as a "right to a secret".

[TuringAI]

An entity is metaphysical. Intellectual property is man-made. From entities to intellectual property a chain of events must happen. Which event on that chain defines the transition from metaphysical to man-made?

We go from entity, to sensation, to perception, to conception, and then to IP. Where along those lines does the change happen?

If you're going to convince me of anything please at least try to understand what I am saying.

I am not saying that any fact about a person is property. I am merely saying that anything which is communicable and containable implies a certain legal action to take which defends rights. When we choose to say, write, sign or type we communicate. Why should we fear communicating with others if we don't want to communicate with everybody?

Data and fact are two separate things. Data represents fact and is destroyable. Fact is invulnerable. I am not saying you should own a fact, I am saying you should own data, at least in a sense you should own it.

[KendallJ]

An entity is metaphysical. Intellectual property is man-made. From entities to intellectual property a chain of events must happen. Which event on that chain defines the transition from metaphysical to man-made?

We go from entity, to sensation, to perception, to conception, and then to IP. Where along those lines does the change happen?

If you're going to convince me of anything please at least try to understand what I am saying.

I am not saying that any fact about a person is property. I am merely saying that anything which is communicable and containable implies a certain legal action to take which defends rights. When we choose to say, write, sign or type we communicate. Why should we fear communicating with others if we don't want to communicate with everybody?

Data and fact are two separate things. Data represents fact and is destroyable. Fact is invulnerable. I am not saying you should own a fact, I am saying you should own data, at least in a sense you should own it.

This is a very long way of saying fact shoudl be intellectual property. The difference is the creation of something which is man-made, from ideas. A song, a poem, an invention reduced to practice. To simply embody fact as data is insufficient.

By the way, that whole understand what I'm saying thing is a two way street.

[DavidOdden]

An entity is metaphysical. Intellectual property is man-made. From entities to intellectual property a chain of events must happen. Which event on that chain defines the transition from metaphysical to man-made?

A car is man-made. "man-making" defines man-made.

Data and fact are two separate things. Data represents fact and is destroyable. Fact is invulnerable. I am not saying you should own a fact, I am saying you should own data, at least in a sense you should own it.

Probably close enough -- data is the specific expression; data is the novel, not the philosophy, only the former being copyrighted. The data can also be expressed in a tangible mass-having form such as a book, which can be bought and sold without the author's permission.

[TuringAI]

I think the problem here is in definitions. After this attempt at explaining I will try another tactic, which is simply asking why any particular reason that you can't own a secret is indeed a secret.

The concept of intellectual property as being a monopolistic restriction on the form of the data rather than on the causal relation between two people's data MUST be refuted, and utterly abolished. I'm not saying that we should abolish intellectual property. I am saying we should reframe the debate without resorting to old habits.

If you completely imagined and came up with a story for a book that was exactly like my life, you would have a right to it. Even if you observed my life in public and came up with the book that completely describes my life, you would have a right to it. However, should I live in a big dome and the only way for you to even know about my life would be to trespass, and you plan on telling others by writing a book about your observations of me, not only would you not have the right but I would have the right to stop you and to keep the book from spreading. Nobody has a right to that book and anyone who owned one would have to give it up. You would be forced to refund the people who honestly didn't know that the book was illegal, and possibly even those who made a claim that they didn't know and who I couldn't prove knew.

My point is simple and elegant. You have no right to claim something is a secret. But if it IS a secret, you have a right to make sure it is kept a secret. The difference between something being a secret and something not being a secret should be obvious, but I will attempt to define it here.

A secret is any data we have about something which cannot possibly be known to those who are not party to the secret without a rights violation being involved in the process of exposing it. If there is even one loophole, even one, and it is exploited, you cannot claim that you had a secret in the first place.

[DavidOdden]

My point is simple and elegant. You have no right to claim something is a secret. But if it IS a secret, you have a right to make sure it is kept a secret. The difference between something being a secret and something not being a secret should be obvious, but I will attempt to define it here.

A secret is any data we have about something which cannot possibly be known to those who are not party to the secret without a rights violation being involved in the process of exposing it.

I strenuously object to this approach, because it is simply false that this is what a secret is. So I will substitute the novel word "sklorf" to refer to data which physically cannot be known except by being made party to the data, or by someone violating someone else's rights. In that case, I don't believe that there is any such thing as a sklorf. This explains, then, why here actually is no word sklorf, because it is a non-referring expression -- this "concept" subsumes no concretes at all. But perhaps you can name some sklorfs.

The concept of intellectual property as being a monopolistic restriction on the form of the data rather than on the causal relation between two people's data MUST be refuted, and utterly abolished.

I don't see any reason why it MUST be refuted, and I do see why it cannot be utterly abolished. The monopolistic restriction on "data" entails (causes, explains, gives rise to) the specific relationship between two people's data. It's my data, you can't make a copy without my permission.

If you completely imagined and came up with a story for a book that was exactly like my life, you would have a right to it.

I'd have a right to you life? Wow, that's generous! Well, let's suppose that you mean that I'd have a right to the book that I wrote -- of course. That is what copyright law says. There being no such thing as a "right to a secret", if I guess the details of your life correctly, well that's impossible but still if I did, I have the right to guess. There's no question about that.

However, should I live in a big dome and the only way for you to even know about my life would be to trespass, and you plan on telling others by writing a book about your observations of me, not only would you not have the right but I would have the right to stop you and to keep the book from spreading.

I see: well, I'll have to give this some thought. This is an application of the doctrine that a man should not profit from the fruits of his wrong-doing (Riggs v. Palmer). The proper basis for limiting the rights-violator's ability to disseminate this work is the prohibition against trespass, as I mentioned at least once before. This applies to the wrong-doer, as I mentioned at least once before. However, copyright protection ways more than that. If you lose a book, that is not "wrong-doing", and the consequences of losing a book -- a third person finds it and decides to make copies -- can only be prohibited by statutorily declaring that even outside of a contractual chain, you have no right to certain things, namely, copying someone else's data. And that is because the physical object (the book) is separate from the abstract data instantiated in the book qua ink and paper. Thus IP law explicitly says that the physical object is separable from the data-object, and that one can be rightfully transferred without effect on the other.

Nobody has a right to that book and anyone who owned one would have to give it up. You would be forced to refund the people who honestly didn't know that the book was illegal, and possibly even those who made a claim that they didn't know and who I couldn't prove knew.

This part is wrong. The only context where a third party could possibly have an obligation to surrender the book is if the physical book were actually stolen goods, and then we're in the murky realm of the theory of innocent receipt of stolen goods.

[KendallJ]

I see: well, I'll have to give this some thought. This is an application of the doctrine that a man should not profit from the fruits of his wrong-doing (Riggs v. Palmer).

I don't have to think about it much farther David. This whole idea of replacing the traditional notion of IP with a right to privacy, is an application of the idea that while a man should have a right to the products (albeit both facts and inventions) of his mind, that such "right" does not entail him actually being able to benefit from it, since the action of preserving it precludes the mechanism of benefit.

THis is sort of like saying that you've a right to the food you grow on your land, but since we must verify that you actually grew food, such actions as eating it or trading it for other things destroy the original right.

It is a violation of the very principle that gives rise to rights in the first place, the meta-ethics of reason as the means of survival.

Turing my problem with your entire new system is that your dismissal of the old one was refuted and you never dealt with the fact that you dropped it needlessly. Your objections to it were answered. You haven't justified a reason to depart from the current system of IP at all, so why discuss a new one.

[TuringAI]

I strenuously object to this approach, because it is simply false that this is what a secret is. So I will substitute the novel word "sklorf" to refer to data which physically cannot be known except by being made party to the data, or by someone violating someone else's rights. In that case, I don't believe that there is any such thing as a sklorf. This explains, then, why here actually is no word sklorf, because it is a non-referring expression -- this "concept" subsumes no concretes at all. But perhaps you can name some sklorfs.

By that principle, freedom is also a non-referring expression. Freedom refers to a condition that is the absence of coersion. That's all it can mean. Sklorf in this case refers to the integrity of a chain of cause and effect. This integrity means that the data stream, which is any data that is generated from original data, has not been 'coerced'.

I don't see any reason why it MUST be refuted, and I do see why it cannot be utterly abolished. The monopolistic restriction on "data" entails (causes, explains, gives rise to) the specific relationship between two people's data. It's my data, you can't make a copy without my permission.

Of course, it is true that if I design a type of car and you COPY it, you are violating my rights. But what if I simply make one of my own, and it happens to have the same qualities? The qualities and the concept of the qualities are two different things. One refers to the other.

I'd have a right to you life? Wow, that's generous! Well, let's suppose that you mean that I'd have a right to the book that I wrote -- of course. That is what copyright law says. There being no such thing as a "right to a secret", if I guess the details of your life correctly, well that's impossible but still if I did, I have the right to guess. There's no question about that.

Of course. Now it's also thinkable that you might make observations about the outside of the dome, and draw at least one correct conclusion. Maybe the dome is becoming weaker, and a bit less opaque. The fact that you wanted the dome to not betray ANY aspect of the inside may or may not be tenable. It's up to each person who owns their own dome to make sure that it's working properly.

I see: well, I'll have to give this some thought. This is an application of the doctrine that a man should not profit from the fruits of his wrong-doing (Riggs v. Palmer). The proper basis for limiting the rights-violator's ability to disseminate this work is the prohibition against trespass, as I mentioned at least once before. This applies to the wrong-doer, as I mentioned at least once before. However, copyright protection ways more than that. If you lose a book, that is not "wrong-doing", and the consequences of losing a book -- a third person finds it and decides to make copies -- can only be prohibited by statutorily declaring that even outside of a contractual chain, you have no right to certain things, namely, copying someone else's data. And that is because the physical object (the book) is separate from the abstract data instantiated in the book qua ink and paper. Thus IP law explicitly says that the physical object is separable from the data-object, and that one can be rightfully transferred without effect on the other.

First of all, losing a book that you are contractually obligated not to lose is a wrongdoing. It may be unintentional but carelessness is not something which actually excuses responsibiltiy.

By taking your example, however, I think you're gotten to the core of the problem. When we form concepts of anything we omit where and when we saw it. That is, a dog that moves to another place, or the same dog at one point in time or another, is the same dog. That at least can be understood. However, what about two dogs? That they are the same kind of animal is dependant upon the two dogs. The law of identity allows us to have a concept in our mind about 'dog' and the data we have, while it may be the same in quality as one another's, is not necessarily the same data. Not NECESSARILY. It might be. Me telling you about the dogs entails a data stream that goes from me to you. You observing the dog independently involves a data stream going from the dogs to you. They are two situations which have the exact same result, but were accomplished by different means. But I digress.

There is something physical in the world that is happening because of the book. There is something physically different from you writing a book on your own that happens to be of similar quality as mine and actually copying from my book. The data stream idea allows us to picture what is happening to the data.

I don't know exactly what you mean by contractual chain, but if it means what I mean by it, yes you have no right to copy someone else's data. It would be like having a book with a cover that said "liscenced by TuringAI", when you clearly know that this means if you didn't get it from a liscenced vendor it is something to which someone did something illegal, IE they handed the book to you, dropped it, or violated liscencing procedure by sharing it with someone without binding them to the contract. In this case you know it's illegal. Now if I, TuringAI, were to simply hand you the book and I stupidly forgot to make you sign a contract, then this is my fault. That I own the chain of contracts, but have decided to let you have a copy without signing it symbolizes something, and that is like handing over a deed to a house.

This part is wrong. The only context where a third party could possibly have an obligation to surrender the book is if the physical book were actually stolen goods, and then we're in the murky realm of the theory of innocent receipt of stolen goods.

Why is it murky? Technically it's still the originator's property. If you were to buy something that was actually stolen, you would have to return it but by that same token the one who sold it to you owes you money, and you should be allowed to sue them for fraud just like the originator has a right to press charges.

[DavidOdden]

Of course, it is true that if I design a type of car and you COPY it, you are violating my rights. But what if I simply make one of my own, and it happens to have the same qualities?

That's a separate topic, the question of what constitutes legal evidence of copying. Copyright law says that you can't copy, and that's what we're talking about.

It's up to each person who owns their own dome to make sure that it's working properly.

Right: that is, there is no such thing as a right to a secret, there is a property right to exclude trespassers.

First of all, losing a book that you are contractually obligated not to lose is a wrongdoing.

If there were such an obligation, but there isn't. Can you point me to an actual clause in a contract that obligates a person such that some fact is true about the universe? That's an untenable clause -- you have to express conditions as statements about a party's actions, such as "must use reasonable caution". Show me the clause and I'll give further consideration to your contract ideas, otherwise contract obligations are irrelevant to IP law.

I don't know exactly what you mean by contractual chain, but if it means what I mean by it, yes you have no right to copy someone else's data.

A contract is a set of conditions which two parties voluntarily agree to, each party having some obligations and privileges. One party may have the right to sub-contract some aspect of the contract to someone else. Thus A gives B X in exchange for Y. B subcontracts with C from some aspect of Y in exchange for Z. There is a chain from C to A, through B -- C has no obligation to A, even if A ends up with C working in his bathroom. Supposing we were talking about copying, then. A permits B to take X and copy it once, in exchange for $5, and this is stated in a contract. B may then contract with C to copy from his copy X' three times, in exchange for $6. This is perfectly fine: B voluntarily gives X' to C for a specific purpose. Copyright law says that you cannot do this, that even if C has no direct contract with A, C still cannot do this thing with respect to A's intellectual property.

It would be like having a book with a cover that said "liscenced by TuringAI", when you clearly know that this means if you didn't get it from a liscenced vendor it is something to which someone did something illegal, IE they handed the book to you, dropped it, or violated liscencing procedure by sharing it with someone without binding them to the contract. In this case you know it's illegal.

I know that it's illegal even without that cover: that is what copyright law does for you. It says "Here is a specific property right that the creator has, which goes beyond contracts". It is not necessary to emboss books with "Warning: Intellectual Property" (such declarations have no legal fource although they may serve as a cultural reminder that copyright violation is theft so don't do it. It means that if you find an abandoned copy of Atlas Shrugged in the woods, you can keep the physical object which has become unowned (by being abandoned) but you cannot take as your property the intellectual content -- the expression, the words.

Now if I, TuringAI, were to simply hand you the book and I stupidly forgot to make you sign a contract, then this is my fault.

Nah, you don't need to sign a contract to buy a book. You just take it off the shelf and hand over the cash.

[DavidOdden]

I don't have to think about it much farther David.

...

THis is sort of like saying that you've a right to the food you grow on your land, but since we must verify that you actually grew food, such actions as eating it or trading it for other things destroy the original right.

I think it's more like asking whether you have an obligation to un-eat a sandwich that someone gives you, if it turns out they stole the sandwich. Legally and morally, the answer is "no". If you have reason to believe that the sandwich is stolen, from a moral perspective you should not eat the sandwich, but I cannot see any rational legal system that makes such an eating-act a punishable offense, unless you are actually certain that you are in receipt of stolen goods. IP law, of course, provides you with that certainty; without IP law, I don't see how the certainty requirement could be satisfied, and thus copyright protection can't be reduced to a general obligation to not receive stolen goods.