Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Denial of the existence of intellectual private property. A mark of Cain.

[ Also see my other post : What is Intellectual Private Property ? ]

Those who argue that Intellectual Private Property, IPP does not exist are akin to the sodomites in Dante's Inferno because they make barren what is by nature fruitful.

And any author who then in turn takes money from a publisher while he also in the same breath argues against the existence intellectual private property is likewise akin to the usurers because he makes fruitful what he considers by nature to be barren.

"To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice."Summa 2.2.q78 a1

If intellectual private property does not exist, then to take money by selling intellectual private property is to take money selling that which does not exist. Which is to sell nothing in exchange for some thing which actually does exist.

The publisher is the one who owns the paper, pays for distribution and all other hard costs. The author produces the ordering of the words on the paper, an ordering which is by nature an 'idea'. And since, as Sheldon Richman writes in The American Conservative, ideas don't properly exist as private property, it follows that author Sheldon Richman is in turn taking money from his publisher while giving the publisher what doesn't exist in exchange.

Some will argue that the IPP denying author is selling his labor, but no one hires labor qua labor. What we hire is productive labor producing this or that good. If a writer is hired to write a book and turns in a manuscript which is unsellable, he may have labored as a writer, but his labor has been unproductive labor and has not earned payment for his labor.

Paying for labor qua labor ignores final cause. It's as if there is no difference between walking to the store to buy milk and walking without purpose. Sheldon Richman isn't paid to write, but paid to write this book with these expected 'ideas', he's paid according to final cause. The final end is the 'ideas' in the books. The 'Ideas' are what he is paid for.

What is known in principle is that a man is due compensation for his labor i.e. productive labor. And thus in turn an author or a pharmaceutical company is due compensation for the labor they invest in production of their product. No different than I owe a doctor for a consultation where I pay him for his knowledge.

Some will argue that what the doctor sells is his time, and let that be true, nevertheless it's not time qua amateur gardener that is paid for, but time qua problem solving doctor that is paid for. Time is simply a convention of division of labor into incremental parts so as to help us quantify labor for placing it in the balance.

Further, after the doctor has told me what my ailment is, I can't simply turn around tell him I'm not paying him because I too now possess the same information as he did. As an architect, I don't sell paper and ink, I sell the information contained on that paper. No one in his right mind pays for random spots of ink on paper; which in turn is why some authors sell well, and others do not sell well, because what people are buying are the ideas conveyed by the paper and ink.

______

Further, A book signifies labor invested, and when I buy a book what I'm purchasing is the invested labor, no different than if I purchase invested labor by a carpenter.

And just as I would not purchase from a carpenter random boards fastened together without order, so likewise would I not purchase from an author random ink spots. Because the art of carpenters and authors are not haphazard, but ordered.

So that what I'm paying for is the invested labor to order those ink spots into a specific pattern which in turn conveys to me information.



41 comments:

  1. Your premise is wrong. I did not get paid for providing intellectual property. I got paid (as you also note) for my labor services, that is, writing. I own my labor because I own my person, so I am free to trade it for money. Intellectual property has nothing to do with it. You seem to think that others should have to pay me (and my estate for 70 years after my demise) repeatedly for work already done. That makes no sense.

    You should now say what Rick Perry has become famous for saying: "Oops."

    ReplyDelete
  2. PS: You beg the question. Through my writing I indeed provide intellectual content, but since you assume this content should be treated like physical property, you assume precisely what is in dispute.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for your reply.

    You are not paid for writing any more than I as architect am paid for drawing. I'm paid for specifically drawing this house to be built on this land.

    My clients come to me with a problem, I solve it and and paid for the solution. The paper is the means of the solution. Not the end.

    Likewise a writer is paid to solve a problem. The end of his product is not the writing but the information contained within that writing. If he were to write nonsense, he would be writing, but he would not be producing a product which has value which he could ask compensation for.

    If I were hired to pick grapes and I picked them and dropped them on the ground as opposed to putting them in a basket, the owner would be within his right not to pay me because my labor did not produce the required end.
    _______________________

    And no I did not write that you or your estate should be paid 70 years. What I wrote is that compensation is subject to prudence and that a man should be compensated for his labor, i.e. productive labor.

    For instance, if a writer invests 2500 hours writing a book, then let him be at minimum compensated a living wage equal to those 2500 and after he has earned a reasonable return, the book could be available for distribution without further compensation to the author.

    What you have done, which is commonly done is divide the argument into either this or that where the solution is in the mean.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You yourself write, "What is known in principle is that a man is due compensation for his labor." How is that different from my statement that I was paid to write? Yes, the editor wanted the fruits of that labor, the article. So he offered me money so that I would exert effort rather than do something else. As I state below, this does not prove that the intellectual product is property. That requires more argument, which you have yet to produce.

      Delete
    2. Mr. Richman,

      Obviously I should have been more clear, but I thought it was understood from the context of what else I wrote that it is not labor per se, but the 'fruit' of labor which is paid for.

      Or let me put it this way. What are you selling if not the fruit of your labor? Someone who works by the hour is paid for his time, but a writer is paid for what he produces regardless of the time it takes.

      Or perhaps writers are unique and are paid more if a project takes longer to complete. But in architecture, the fee is fixed regardless of the time it takes. Sometime I make a living and sometimes I really eat it time wise. But regardless what my clients pay for is what I produce intellectually as expressed in construction documents. What I sell is signified by what is on the paper.

      Lines and words signify the intellectual.

      Delete
  4. Mr. Sheldon writes : "you assume precisely what is in dispute."

    More precisely, what I do is point out the error of those who argue that intellectual property does not exist, if they in turn accept compensation for the product of their labor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have not answered my point that you beg the question. It's not enough to say my position is in error. You have to prove it. That I am paid to write an article (enabling the publication to be the first to publish it) does not prove that the article qualifies as property the way a chair or pair of shoes does. That requires an argument. You have not provided it.

      Delete
    2. In the first part of my article I grant your understanding of intellectual property and show that it leads to an absurdity that you're a thief for taking compensation from a publisher.

      In the second part I likewise argue from common sense that when we purchase a book what we purchase is the intellectual content not the paper. Books online are as close as it comes to pure intellectual content because all that is purchased is the intellectual property signified in speech.

      Delete
    3. Let me be clear. I'm not arguing that what is purchased is exclusively the intellectual property. Printing costs, paper and other sundry expenses are likewise paid compensation for. What I'm arguing is that the intellectual is likewise paid for and treated as property by both the seller and the buyer.

      This isn't an argument according to the nature, but an approach coming from that which is better known by man. And is a first step to knowing according to nature.

      Delete
    4. Still begging the question. You assert -- without argument -- that the rules of finite, scarce physical property should apply to things (e.g., an arrangement of words) that are not finite, scarce, or physical. I argued the contrary, invoking the indisputable fact that you and I can both have copies of an article without depriving anyone else of it. You have yet to rebut -- much less refute -- that argument.

      Delete
    5. Mr. Richman,

      Thank you for your comment.

      You perhaps don't appreciate common sense as an argument, but I find is rather persuasive. If I hand over to a client a document, and he in turn copies it and hands the document back to me, according to you he, he does not in turn have an obligation to pay me for the information contained in the document because he now possess ownership of it no less than I do.

      A man doesn't need to understand the nature of life to know that horses are living, we see by how it moves and lives. We know the horse is living while we likewise know the rock lying in the field is not living.

      Likewise, I may not be able, at present to give an explanation of the nature of intellectual property, but I see it by how we live and interact with each other in society. It is common sense that the client does not possess ownership of the information by mere possession of it, and I have never met anyone in business who thinks otherwise, it is how we live.

      People who argue we are nothing more than phantasms move out of the way when a bus is about to squish them like a bug because common sense is more persuasive. Likewise, you would demand compensation if a publisher did not pay you for your document, (when what was contracted for is solely a document), which he now possess physically equal to yourself.

      Delete
    6. "Likewise, I may not be able, at present to give an explanation of the nature of intellectual property, but I see it by how we live and interact with each other in society. It is common sense that the client does not possess ownership of the information by mere possession of it, and I have never met anyone in business who thinks otherwise, it is how we live."

      That very act of putting that argument forward disproves it. We interact through the use of language. Language is made up of intangible ideas created by others. If your conception of intellectual property were correct, you would have no means to express it.

      Delete
    7. I'm a bit in doubt to what your argument is, but if you're saying that I can't use words because they were created in the past by others, then you have missed my argument entirely.

      I specifically wrote that intellectual property can be regulated by society and that a man is only due just compensation for his IP.

      Further, no one in his right mind claims words and phrases as exclusive property.

      Delete
    8. "Further, no one in his right mind claims words and phrases as exclusive property."

      Plenty of people do, or at least attempt to. You may define them as not in their right mind, but that adds nothing to the argument. I could equally say that people who claim images, or sequences of sounds, as exclusive property are not in their right minds.

      Delete
  5. "What is known in principle is that a man is due compensation for his labor."

    I disagree. A man has a right to compensation for labour agreed in advance at a rate agreed in advance.

    If the mere act of labouring gave rise to a right to compensation, buskers and people who squeegee cars without first asking, would have a right to compensation, which of course they don't.

    "It's either this or that. But like most of life, truth is found in the mean between the extremes."

    That's a fallacious attempt to divert a debate away from reason. Truth may sit in the middle, or it may sit at the extremes. Settling in the middle because it is the middle may make some people believe you are being reasonable, but it gets you no closer to the truth.

    Out of interest, what would you consider to be the mean position when it comes to the existence of God?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your reply.

      Paul writes : "I disagree. A man has a right to compensation for labour agreed in advance at a rate agreed in advance."

      I agree, with it understood that the contract must be within a limit of paying a living wage, nor to high to be far beyond the worth of the product produced. And did not intend to say otherwise.

      ____________________

      Paul writes : "Out of interest, what would you consider to be the mean position when it comes to the existence of God?"

      I would put it at the same position as to whether or not you exist. The truth of the matter does not admit of variation, you exist.

      Delete
  6. So, love the girls, are you saying that a writer is paid for "intellectual property" even if the writing isn't copyrighted and is freely available for public use, reproduction, and sale? If so, you're stretching the definition of "intellectual property" to the point of meaninglessness.

    I am also paid for my writing at Center for a Stateless Society. And everything I write is published under a Creative Commons license -- free for distribution (including for sale) without restriction. So if C4SS has "property" in what I write, it is simply the non-rivalrous first possession of what I write because its actual first iteration appeared on their website. Their "property" consists entirely of ones and zeros on a web-server, and pixels on a screen -- and does not impair the infinite replication of that same pattern of ones and zeros wherever anyone else sees fit to do so.

    "Intellectual property" is not, as you define it, the simple ownership of one iteration of a pattern. In that case, everyone who burns a CD of an mp3 file downloaded from a torrent site would have "intellectual property" in that copy of the song. If that was as far as "intellectual property" extended, none of us copyright abolitionists would have a bit of trouble with it. But if that was as far as "intellectual property" extended, Chris Dodd would die of apoplexy on the spot.

    "Intellectual property," as the term is used by copyright defenders, means specifically the right to control the replication of a pattern and prevent others from non-rivalrously copying it. If I build a new kind of house and my neighbor sees it and builds one like it on his on land with his own materials, he's violating my "intellectual property." That's exactly what the Intellectual Property Nazis mean by the term, and no verbal slight of hand or conceptual sloppiness on your part will evade that fact.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Consider the case of a software engineer, who writes for a living. She must meet even higher standards than those who write prose, since her output must be grammatical, must be spelled properly, and must actually produce the stated objectives.

    Yet, in most cases, she receives no royalties. Is this unjust?

    I think not. There are few starving software engineers. We perform a valuable service and are paid well. We don't cling to notions about "Intellectual Property."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mr. Freeman,
    Thank you for your reply, but please be aware.

    If your software engineer is paid by the hour, or week or some type of salaried position then he has nothing to do with the conversation anymore than a prostitute does selling her services. What he is paid for is to sit there and perform some service.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Africans forcibly brought to America were once considered property. That didn't make them so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Forcibly'? A libertarian distinction I would not make.

      Just because slaves are finite in number, scarce and physical where a slave cannot be possessed in common equally doesn't make them property. Or does it? What is the libertarian argument against men selling themselves into bondage?

      A better example:
      Just because the Aztecs were in common agreement on human sacrifice did not make their acts any the less disordered.

      Or the common agreement in our own society that fornication is not a sin doesn't make that act any the less sinful. And obviously many more examples in our own society could be cited because so much of modern society is grounded in the unnatural.

      But none of these are relevant because it's self evident that what is paid for are solutions to problems. Whether that solution be a horse so I can ride to town. Or music which rests in the musician.

      Delete
    2. And to the reply I'm begging the question.

      The burden of proof actually rests on those who deny intellectual property, but I'm more than glad to delve into it a bit, but not beholden to prove it does exist.

      Second any argument I have given have not been addressed. But met with the same reply of wanting an argument accord to the nature of intellectual property while ignoring other methods of coming to know which I have offered.

      Delete
    3. "The burden of proof actually rests on those who deny intellectual property"

      Why?

      I consider it to be exactly the opposite. Copyrights, patents, etc. are monopolies created and enforced by the state, through the use of the threat of force. As far as I am concerned, anybody who wishes to entrench the use of violence, or the threat of it, to further their ends, faces the burden of proof to justify their actions.

      Delete
    4. LTG: I made my argument, though I think you have the burden of proof. You have yet to refute or even rebut it. You merely deny it.

      Re slavery: you don't think the transport of Africans to America was forcible? Strange, to say the least. They surely did not sell themselves into bondage. As for the theoretical question about selling oneself into bondage, in my and most libertarians' view, any such contract would be absurd since selling oneself would nullify any obligation to obey the contract's provisions. Thus, it would be unenforceable.

      Delete
    5. Mr. Richman,

      I appreciate all your comments.

      The burden of proof rests on those who deny intellectual property because you're arguing against an established social practice which does not admit to being self evidently in error.

      Some practices are common, and in error, such as usury, but IP does not fall into that category of being an obvious error.

      How IP has been implemented according to prudence can be seen to be questionable, but not IP per se.
      _________________

      As I brought up before proof can be grounded in different authorities, with tradition and common use being one such authority. True, tradition and common use can be in error, but they are recognized as legitimate authority to use as a standard by which to judge.

      My argument for IP is first grounded in that same authority. It is likewise grounded in the concept that we cannot sell what does not exist because to do so would be unjust.

      Delete
    6. Mr Lockett,

      Thank you for your reply, but the libertarian argument of 'violence' is silly. Society is natural. I'm a Catholic, and no Catholic who knows what he's talking about can accept man as existing in a state of nature.

      Delete
    7. "but the libertarian argument of 'violence' is silly."

      You cannot legitimately claim that, because to do so would be a complete contradiction of your previous arguments.

      You've persisted in appealing to common sense - claiming that intellectual property is legitimate because people accept its existence. However, there is an even greater common sense that violence is unpleasant and should be refrained from. That common sense tells us that those seeking to escalate violence face the burden of justifying it.

      Therefore, if you argument has validity, mine, using the same premises, has at least equal validity.

      Delete
    8. Mr. Lockett,

      Thank you for your reply. I was a bit rude in my comment, please excuse me, I'm very tired having been up all night grinding out a project for a client that was due today.

      What you hold as violence I understand as legitimate authority derived from the natural existence of society. Which is not to say, by any means that a government cannot descend into tyranny, but that tyranny is not the natural condition.

      Delete
    9. "What you hold as violence I understand as legitimate authority derived from the natural existence of society. Which is not to say, by any means that a government cannot descend into tyranny, but that tyranny is not the natural condition."

      None of which contradicts anything I said. In fact, it absolutely supports my point. The only thing that really differs is that you've attempted to define violence as not being violence, if it is justifiable violence. That is at odds with common sense.

      Delete
  10. Mr. Richman,
    By your own reasoning you would be agreeable to the following scenario: I snatch up the first copy of your next book, print up thousands of copies, and sell them to my profit without a penny paid to you.
    Of course I hope that there is a multi-million dollar advantage to me (as, sincerely speaking now, we all rejoice in the success of your writing), and that your charity is its own reward. Now you, and Kinsella and others, will legalistically quibble if I say that there is "injury" to you, since you are all determined to say that there is NO injury. Gosh, I hope not! I wouldn't want to impose a financial wound you by ripping off your work!
    Also, I know that this scenario is cozy with you since -- notwithstanding the hobgoblin of foolish consistency -- you have already conceded the point here:
    http://fee.org/articles/tgif/intellectual-property/
    Just as Kinsella has done here:
    http://blog.mises.org/13399/the-death-throes-of-pro-ip-libertarianism/
    Just as Kevin Carson has done here:
    http://c4ss.org/content/3392
    I wouldn't have brought this up again, but I have this weakness for Catholic girls (ah, memories!), and I want them to be treated tenderly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "By your own reasoning you would be agreeable to the following scenario: I snatch up the first copy of your next book..."

      What do you mean by "snatch?" Are you suggesting stealing an unpublished manuscript, or are you talking about buying the first copy sold?

      Delete
    2. 'Snatch', as in have someone ride with the courier and copy it while the courier is on his way to deliver it to the publisher.

      Delete
    3. If that was the intention of the comment (I suspect it wasn't), it's not much of an argument. Any courier contracted to do such a job would almost certainly be contracted to refrain from facilitating such an act. In any case, if the threat of copying in transit was perceived to be such a threat, you would expect the author to deliver the manuscript him/herself.

      Beside which, the delivering of a manuscript by courier is unlikely in this day and age. It's far more likely that the manuscript would be delivered to the publisher electronically.

      Delete
    4. Mr Lockett,

      A courier contract goes like this:
      I need a document delivered to X
      What is the cost and time frame for delivery?
      Thanks, good enough, the document can be found here and my credit card number is X.
      End of conversation.

      But better yet, let the document be electronically mailed. From the IP denier's standpoint there's no foul and no harm if the mail goes two places versus just one.

      After all, what's being sent are nothing more than an 'idea' which the sender doesn't make any claim of ownership of.

      The point is, the IP denier has put himself in the position where at most all he can complain about is some minor violation of privacy. Big deal. It's like someone taking $5 out of my pocket. An inconvenience typically at most, and less annoying than a mosquito bite.

      Or just let the book be purchased at the book store, copied off and published en mass by a discounter willing to sell below what S.R.'s publisher can print at. No harm to S.R. even though he won't make a dime off more than a few dozen books before the discounter floods the market, because he didn't own the material conveyed by the book.

      Delete
    5. Our host has described the situation clearly.
      The point is, as soon as these anti-IP theoreticians (Richman, Kinsella, Carson, et.al.) recognize their nudity before this rather simple example (I provide the links above where they concede the point), they move from theoretical obfuscation to practical obfuscation ("oh, tut-tut, we concede, but no one would ever make copies of some story by someone named J.K. Rowling, and even if they could, how impractical, no delivery boy would pick up the first copy (ha, ha), and how could you print up so many copies so quick, and anyway there's no money to be made there, and [cough, burble, sputter]").
      They pretend to be of the Austrian school, and yet they give a perverse definition of property as based on scarcity and difficulty of reproduction. But the Austrian theory of value is based firmly in subjective value: A pocketwatch in the middle of Mississippi has value to the degree that someone values it -- not because of its fine materials, not because of the labor that went to its making, and absolutely not because of its scarcity.
      There are definitely serious problems with the current state of IP (witness the current SOPA bill), but its attackers should be taking IP to task based on consideration of real examples that cause real injury to intellectual producers, and not howling their case like a bunch of Billy Sundays.

      Delete
    6. Terry, I apologise for putting words in your mouth earlier, but I had assumed, incorrectly it seems, that you were alluding to an scenario which was a bit more substantial than the rather weak one which was put forward on your behalf.

      love the girls: "But better yet, let the document be electronically mailed. From the IP denier's standpoint there's no foul and no harm if the mail goes two places versus just one."

      And how exactly would the e-mail end-up spontaneously going to two places? It's another weak example.

      "Or just let the book be purchased at the book store, copied off and published en mass by a discounter willing to sell below what S.R.'s publisher can print at."

      Yes, that's the whole point! That's how markets work to deliver better outcomes for the consumer. You seem to be offering it as a counter-argument.

      Delete
    7. Mr. Lockett writes :
      ""Or just let the book be purchased at the book store, copied off and published en mass by a discounter willing to sell below what S.R.'s publisher can print at."

      Yes, that's the whole point! That's how markets work to deliver better outcomes for the consumer. You seem to be offering it as a counter-argument."

      I was offering it as a counter-argument because I mistakenly assumed common ground which apparently does not exist.

      Delete
  11. Let's say a popular novelist says, "I won't write another novel unless one million people give me 10 bucks apiece, but those people will get it shipped to them the day of its release."

    That would be TRUE capitalism, a true free market. It wouldn't matter if the people who received it would then digitalize and reproduce it; indeed, if it's a good novel then the author would WANT more people to read it for free, and then the next time he could say "I won't write another novel unless 2 million people send me ten bucks apiece."

    ReplyDelete
  12. James Wilson,
    In fact many of the first novels were written "on subscription" -- that is, putting their money up front, as you suggest. I wonder if that practice was the result of weak copyright protection or the result of economic considerations apart from that.
    TH

    ReplyDelete
  13. The literal act of economic harm in claims of intellectual theft is not one of actual theft, but of unfair competition. Essentially, that means that one person made all the investment just to have another person flood the market with the same product with less investment. While no act of theft has been committed because the capital is not scarce and feely replicable, the harm is in the potentially massively devalued capital. But is this an act we can truly see as a sinful?

    A group of fisherman on a lake will depend on fish to make their living. If the markets they sell their fish in are flooded with inexpensive, perhaps even free fish that were divinely replicated, their economic gains are limited. Does this make Jesus, whose power of miracle makes the scarce unscarce, an intellectual thief since he has acted in a perfectly analogous way to a intellectual copycat?
    Do not read into such an example absolutely. But do consider it. Is it possible that that which CAN be shared with all of creation should always be allowed to?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your post

      Anonymous writes : "The literal act of economic harm in claims of intellectual theft is not one of actual theft, but of unfair competition"

      All private property is a convention. Private property is created by each given society, and does not exists outside of a society.

      Further, since each society exists for the good of the citizens, it in turn follows that it's proper to each society to establish conventions that protect the citizens from unfair competition by means of convention such as by establishing the existence of intellectual property.

      For more on the concept of private property is a convention please read : http://catholiccultureandsociety.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-is-intellectual-private-property.html

      Delete