"2) How are you to prove that you are the original owner without a patent?" This is the issue most have, so I'll answer it first to the best of my ability. The issue of profit from your IP, is a matter of the distributor of the IP, and the producer of it, i.e, the inventor, artist,etc, along with the related agencies,such as the PR. Each of them have to utilize how they will profit from their labor, and they each have to utilize methods of preventing IP theft, such as encryption.
I can't believe how awesome this video is. There are a HELL of a lot of legal implications and leaks he gives. I am just not aware of all of them. That's the thing about this country. You should learn to speak as a lawyer would speak and find out how this gauntlet is made. It isn't ONLY in patents. This is a fraction but helps the others at the same time. Education is the primary resource. I am sure it is the most hidden thing in this world. It's so damn powerful.
Ok I get it, so if you create it you are an automatic owner. Questions. 1) What are you an owner of? If a product that comes out with lets say a .001 mm different in size are you still an original owner or is the newly created product of slight deviation has now a new owner? 2) How are you to prove that you are the original owner without a patent? 3)IF variations still make you the original owner, to what extent do variations still make you the original owner?Who defines those variations?
Good call. The essence of civilization is property. Also, just because you can't touch it doesn't mean it has no value. The anti-IP philosophy is popular right now, but rests on very thin ice. Progressivism (in the sense of "it's good because it's new") run amok.
Depending from the moment in which we position ourselves, we just might both be right, somewhere. A long time since have seen such interesting perspectives as on this vid. Very nice. Thx.
Everyone has the right to do anything that is not harmful to another creature. That's minimal reciprocity. There must be a valid reason to harm someone else, particularly a person. Everyone has a right to wander the Earth freely and interact with any creatures they happen across and settle anywhere anyone else can settle. That's minimal freedom.
Music, and movies are considered art. Art is art, humans expressed art for thousands of years. Mono Lisa is art, but the original painting is worth a lot of money, fakes are not, because of scarcity. Humans create art because they are artistic. As far as software, it would be probably more pragmatic for vendors who want to maximize profit by creating artificial scarcity, simply by making their software more difficult to use for those excluded, or exclusion technology.
The idea is that you may not be able to even recover the costs of making that song. For example, if it costs months to make an album and the first person who buys it releases it into the public domain people will not buy that album because it freely available. If you cannot recover your transaction costs then you will not make another album. Consequently, innovation and public knowledge will suffer.
IP protection is mainly for the sellers/distributors of the IP, than the inventors, as inventors usually get a supply, and demand rate on the product,excluding state artificiality, such as subsidies, or state protectionism, excluding inventors that are entrepreneurial, who control the entire process of invention selling. Physical property still has ways to protect it, by adding IT, to other services to protect it from theft, such as done in stores with anti-theft technology
Enlightened self-interest, the point at which humanity and civilization begin, is that the good of ourselves is inseparable from the good of everything around us. That requires a) acceptance of other minds, b) reciprocity - concurrence on some basic equality, the duty of the state to uphold the best interests of every individual. Reciprocity is a prerequisite for civilization. Legitimacy begins with seeing to every individual's best interests, not special interests, not even the majority. There has never yet been a legitimate society at scale. No government in existence was every founded legitimately or has ever undertaken to establish its legitimacy. No Treason - Lysander Spooner lays bare many facets of why.
Because of the contract. But IP is much much more than the contract as Kinsella explains. If you buy a song and somehow I get a hold on it, than I'm being bound by your contract with which I had nothing to do - this is nuts. Same goes when refuting state as a club - pay taxes, obey because it's like a club - if you don't like it leave it. But how did I get into this "club". Well involuntarily, I was forced, dragged harrased, threatened and I continuously am.
Kinsella, here, is saying that regardless of the outcome, intellectual property is unlibertarian, and purely on the consequences of them the evidence is currently unclear as to whether or not they help. It might be in SOME cases that some people wouldn't do well without them, but on the whole we could be better off. Not to mention that there are certain regulations in place that increase the costs of entry into a market and thus make intellectual property necessary to recover startup costs.
Just as in a Libertarian society, it is the proper function of government to protect property against theft, it is equally just for government to protect the right to the product of one's own mind, to prevent trespass upon one's mind. I see nothing unjust with government upholding copyright laws. It is a matter of legitimate debate if those laws have perhaps gone too far, and I believe they have, but I absolutely espouse that some copyright is perfectly legitimate.
Group meaning is only possible to the extent people share priorities. Morality is a personal understanding of best practices. Ethics is formalized, usually shared morality. Ethics is contingent on the salience, perspective, and priorities of every stakeholder. Here are some ethical universals: a) survival is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals b) truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals c) sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals d) reciprocity is a prerequisite for civilization Individually, get your priorities straight - distinct and explicit, and everything else will fall into line. Society has no chance of getting it's shit straight until there's a critical mass of people with their own priorities straight (and rationality is implied). Practically, you cannot fix a broken system with its own broken tools. The only way for most of us to effectively change things is by changing culture. That begins with being our best self, then subverting current systems by creating alternative systems that just work better. It means formalizing best practices to create a turnkey utopia.
It basically lays out a stateless society and how voluntary market mecanism could replace even things like cops, current court of justice, etc. DRO = Dispute resolution organization
So, even if he's in jail, I would have no claim to say that he "stole" anything from me. As is argued, you can't Steal something that can't be owned. But, like everyone here, I would be very angry and I would feel wronged if someone took my story from me and released it, used it, without my permission. If it were "real" property, I would get it back or be compensated. In this case, I have Lost nothing (or so is argued), so I have zero claim to compensation. This feels clearly unjust to me.
I agree with you, but I guess Mr. Kinsella would say that the inventor will be famous enough to generate income through seminars. This is a very interesting topic worthy of much discourse. For now, I still support intellectual property.
Physical products are easier than immaterial products to protect from theft, such as PDFs ebooks, to MP3 music files, as theft is easier to carry out with the electronic property, such as software piracy. Insurance could be setup for the property, to make the Insurance agencies having the interest in protecting property to ensure clients coming back to increase profit for them.
(Cont): There could also be theoretical DROs (distribution retribution organizations), to help protect IP, such as adding data bits, to trance the product, to only allow the purchaser of the product, such as a private password, or something else, the purchaser would only know, and if duplications of the file were made, additional fees could be added to the debt of the product, unless prohibited by IP contracts
Property "rights" is the mechanism that society has evolved to deal with scarce resources. The "Tragedy of the Commons" only happens where those rights have been abrogated by government, removing ownership. A lake might be owned by one person, or by everyone who owns property adjacent to that lake. So any owner can take any polluter to task for their destructive acts. Any owner who damages the lake is guilty of trespass on every other owner as well.
Does each person own his mind? Yes if no intrusion is implicated. But if the intrusion is implicated to correct than it should be accepted. No intrusion would mean no conditioning, and that is virtually impossible, because that would mean no impressions. Accepting the system of intrusion is a process to conciously grow into an adult. Accepting that is the start to commitment to an ideal, knowing that this ideal is temporarily implemented into the 'impression's conditioning'.
Here in Sweden we have something named "allemansrätt". It basicly says that everyone have the right travel, camp, climb, pick flowers, berries and mushrooms and simular everywhere in the Swedish nature, no matter who the owner is. But none have the right to pollute or destroy the nature. This applies to any land property that is not your lawn. This system works perfectly well and everyone loves it, just wanted to tell you that. I agree with the libertarian immaterial rights point of view though
There could be agencies, and service providers to help with protecting IP, such as placing ID chips, and other technologies, to help track and control IP to ensure physical or immaterial inventions. such as adding biometrics, or other valid methods to protect profit. Inventions, also would be sold on the basis mainly of a single or a limited number of transactions, the artist, etc., that supply and demand will determine what the inventor gets off the labor.
@LoklarYsera If you friend gives you that same CD, that she purchased, you didn't enter into a contract with the original seller. No third party protection. I personally think that SHARING IS CARING
Well contractually you can protect against anything, but why would any big firm make a restrictive contract to not duplicate your invention? Lets say you personally create a widget and manufacture it, what will stop other firms from duplicating it and manufacturing it on a larger scale?
@umbilicaltapeworm Its true that is is vague to define, and its even vaguer when I try to summarize it in a youtube comment. ;) But it still works! The boundaries are set in several laws and rules. For example: "allemansrätt" doesn't give you the right to make a campfire in the forest, it only gives you the possibility to do it under safe conditions. Safe conditions is defined elsewhere. Disturbing animals or humans is not allowed. The boundaries for "disturb" with snowmobiles is set elsewhere.
If I create a work with my hands, the work belongs to me, it is my property to do with, use or sell as I will. But if I create a work with my mind, it is to be the common property of all man kind, from me according to my ability, to all according to their need. The notion that intellectual property is not private property but is rather common property, is as socialist as it comes.
Panpiper, I would say that the idea is completely your own and you can do with it what you want until you make it known to others. You have the right to never inform anyone of your idea maintaining complete rights to it. Once it's out you cannot control it without force of government.
I think the success of "allemansrätt" is a demonstration that different societies at different times come up with different answers to problems. It echoes the American idea of "easement". Statute law prevents people from coming up with such interesting and generally agreeable answers, by forcing a "one size fits all" answer that may answer nothing at all.
You forget that people who invent smth should be entitled to gain from it, financially, not socially. The knowledge to smth once in the public domain is free for all to know... but to gain from it is exclusively the right of the inventor, for a given period. otherwise how is someone compensated for their invention?
The problem arises, what value do music, and movies really have in the context of a free market? Probably far less than a economy with copy right laws. In a free market, sure a invention to get started must taken effort to materialize, but once a invention is created, that's the pay off, enhanced abilities with less cost from now on. Music goes the same, sure, the original production of music might have cost something, but what does the reproduction cost? Far less. Originators don't own anything
There is nothing 'poor' about my comments folks. Kindly refrain from voting them thumbs down simply because they contest the thesis of the lecturer or because you disagree with them. If they are 'bad' comments deserving of a thumbs down, they would be filled with invective, or badly composed, or engaged in ad hominem attack, or of clearly bad character. Mine are not, they are clear and reasoned debate. Please leave them visible to those who care to read discussion.
Going back to tribalism isnt going to answer my questions. But hey thanks for a condescending response. The fact that things get invented, has absolutely nothing to do with how the inventor can protect himself from Corporations stealing his/her inventions
Anotherwords, if illegal redistributors, who copy music, or movies, to sell at a cheaper price, that's the actual value of the music, and movies. If a individual wants to copy music, and movies, the costs for him is a computer. Originators don't own anything that is not physically possessed by them. Data can be copied. In a free market, instead of millionaire singers, pop stars, rock stars, record companies, etc, their income would probably be much lower. Society would have cheap music instead.
Licenses, and other methods to ensure profit. Free market solutions can ensure that inventors, artist, etc., profit off their labor. Third party agencies, would monitor the inventions, and they, and the inventor, artist, could both utilize a third party agency to protect against theft of the product.
That's fine, but there are plenty of anti-piracy warnings on music and movies when you buy it. It's understood that you have an agreement with the creator and distributor not to re-sell it. If you claim that any public exhibition of a copyrighted work can be saved, copied, and re-sold, what you're going to do is end public exhibitions and samples of work, if not cut off the incentive for creating it altogether. Neither of these seem good for encouraging creative productivity.
He later further defines scarcity as: one person's use excludes another's. I produce video that I sell to those who are willing to pay. If my work becomes the common property of all mankind such that all persons may use it without paying me, I will not be able to continue to produce. All person's use ultimately will result in excluding all persons from viewing any future work. So all my future work would become infinitely scarce. And a great deal of other work as well. There IS scarcity in IP.
@BrytaPlanka Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It does not replace religion or spiritual guidance, but does allow the greatest freedom of religious/spiritual expression. It does not forcibly impose ethics but rests on natural law -- positive, life-affirming. We who care about all animals and the earth must first care for humans. If we don't respect human individuals, animals are unlikely to be respected also. If people are abused, coerced, unfree negatives result
From what I heard, the argument that copyright infringes on a person's natural rights to use their property however they see fit is wrong. You don't own all aspects of certain things. I can buy the right to sleep in a hotel room, but can't take the bed or keep the TV. You can buy the right to listen to the music without automatically having the right tore-copy it or plagiarize it. This is just necessary for certain services to be possible. Can an anti-IP person explain the other side?
@BrytaPlanka It's an interesting thought, and the same question can be asked about children? What I as a libertarian want is for adults to be free to make their choices regardless of what others feel they should or should not do. That each man's life is his own. The dealings of animals, or children for that matter are a different story and must be dealt with separately from the issues of consenting adults. Animal rights and age of reason for example are more philosophical debates, harder to pin.
He defines property as that which derives from the transformation of matter and that therefor properties of mind are not property. I disagree with his definition. Property has nothing to do with matter, but is more a function of the addition of value. All the logic that applies to the ownership of matter and one's own body applies to the mind. I own my own mind! My intellectual property is not additional property rights, but the enforcement of the right to my own mind.
@unfortunateboner I think we are not allowed to harvest someone else's crops, just as we are not allowed to chop down a tree to use as a christmas tree without asking the owners of the land for permission first. But I do think we are allowed to stroll around on a cropfield and travel over it if we don't destroy the crops on it. I'm not exactly sure of the impact on a cropfield that's needed for it to be considered a damage to the cropfield, but that's the legal limit as far as I know at least.
No only don't release ideas you want to remain a secret. In short keep your secrets to yourself if you want them to remain a secret. There's nothing complicated about that...
Simply because it is 'easy' to copy intellectual property does not make it right. Simply because there are no widgets expended does not invalidate property. Simply because I still possess my own original when someone copies my digital art, does not mean that they did not take from me without my consent to right to view the work of my mind, my intellectual property. My mind does not belong to you, nor does the product of my mind belong to you.
Anti-IP sentiment does seem to be a growing trend which I've noticed in the libertarian movement, that's for sure. In order to remain free-market and not anarchist though, the current definition of property needs to be modified to exclude any non-physical types of property. This makes me wonder what right exactly is being violated when Verizon gives its users' phone data over to the NSA without users' permission. It's no more a matter of privacy than sharing a video without distribution rights.
Well, in the case of a phone company providing information to spying agencies, it is just idiocy on the individuals for using unsecure communications. By using the cell towers owned by these companies, they have all the property rights to copy that data and do with it what they please, however in a free market, they would have little incentive to violate the trust in the data security.
Free market is anarchist and anarchist is free market. This is by definition. You cannot have a truly free market if all property is not privately owned. You cannot have private ownership of all property with a state.
@@s0lid_sno0ks You don't even know that anarchism in anarcho-capitalism is a neologism which simply means without state control, you gotta read the catallactics chapter of Human Action first before spewing nonsense. Here are some reference articles and book sections for better understanding of the terms: mises.org/library/are-libertarians-anarchists mises.org/library/libertarian-anarchy mises.org/library/myth-and-truth-about-libertarianism mises.org/library/scope-and-method-catallactics
So your ownership of creation only extends to the resources you own??? Meaning, if you create a new product in your garage you own that product, BUT only that product. And anyone else who creates the same product with their resources will own that product as well? So why create new products if any large company can take the idea, thank you, and using their resources manufacture that new product? Or am I missing something?
More thoughts... Within sites like RU-vid, it's probably easy for producer members of RU-vid to enforce (c) within RU-vid, and then RU-vid enters into (c) agreements with other large sites... that's the anarchistic model, right?
Wouldn't the theory of contract mentioned invalidate renting, lending, and insurance that didn't include a security deposits equal to the value of the property? In essence buying and reselling.
I was simply responding to " Want to protect your "idea?" Hide it, or show it on written contractual agreement only." My scenario illustrates how it can't be protected by contract. I feel like you're missing the point, though. Let's say I write a story. I protect it by never releasing it to Anyone. Someone breaks into my house, copies the story (leaves what it was written on) and sells the story under his name. It would seem that the Only charge against him would be trespassing, right?
The flaw in your response is that you feel wronged because someone took something from you alas that could not be claimed as you still have your story in your possession untouched thus it's logically impossible to claim anything has been stolen from you. Copying something clearly does NOT take it away from you. Regardless of how you feel it simply can't be argued anything was stolen from you. You clearly still have your story in your possession and it's unharmed and untouched.
I agree with most things he said. One question I have with libertarianism is how the filosofy deals with problems at a global scale, like enviromental issues and simular. Basicly, I dont want people to have the right to poison and destroy earth. So, im kind of a enviromental libertarian at the moment.. (still searching I guess) Lets say a factory dumps poison in the lake against everyone elses wish. How will libertarianism deal wihth that situation?
Yes, if adding value to matter, in order for it to be your property you must own the matter in the first place. But I paid my teachers. I paid for the books I read. I paid for the software I use. I paid my script writer and I paid my actors. I own the material and tools used in the creation of my property. You did not pay for those things. You do not have the right to expropriate the work of my mind for your own benefit without my permission.
@BrytaPlanka Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It does not replace religion or spiritual guidance, but does allow the greatest freedom of religious/spiritual expression and enlightenment. It does not forcibly impose ethics, but rests on positive, life-affirming natural laws. We who care about all animals and the earth must first care for humans. If we don't respect human individuals, but support abuse, coercion, violation of individual freedom -- can you imagine animals respected?
Property and identity are partly linked by 'trust' (or lack of it). The misinterpretation of 'I have, therefore I am' is too much around within the individualized reality of our self-defined identity (at least in the West, it is). Of course, our skin barrier defines 'I', and no matter how much we want to expand the control within our skin barrier to objects around us by means of legislation within the term 'our property', in the end the 'our' becomes more and more a burden,rather than a virtue.
His argument that creation is not sufficient has a hole. 21:24 If a company pays you to carve a statue that you do not own it. The problem is that the person creating does own it presumably through some contract with the company and the creator is paid to transfer ownership of their creation when it's done. If the person creates something out of the marble, and the company does not pay, the creation remains. I think a reasonable person would call this theft even though only creation is taken.
Given how hard (c) is to enforce on the internet, I'm thinking we might as well accept this model on the internet. For actual books (and other physically distributed media), I think there's room for (c) property in L phisophy. After all, the effort of on individual in creating information makes that information feel like property to the individual. Our aknowlegement of the fuzzyness of all this is reflected in the fact that this property is not held in perpetuity.
I would have to disagree with him because through his lens, only physical property matters. He would ignore the scarce resource of my time and effort. The inventor labors through thought and calculation. Although we cannot control what others do with their property, I believe inventors can make a partial claim on increased profit that results from their innovation. Invention and innovation homesteads ideas that were previously not conceived. Otherwise others are making claim on my time & energy.
@21:00 what if you carve a statue out of your own marble, and someone takes a 3-D set of photos of that statue, plugs it into their machine, and cranks out a thousand copies? You labored pointlessly to create a finite resource that could be reasonably predicted to have a certain value, and that value was stripped from you by 3-d modelers. What incentive is there for people to make marble statues then? ...None
@LoklarYsera Let's take the coke as an example, if you buy a coke, figure out how to make another one from your own personally owned materials for a friend. Are you then a criminal ? What about cars ? Can't afford one, make your own from cheaper materials, but get sued because someone else made that kind of car first ? It looks too much like some other car ? There's no difference between this or any other crafting you could do that copies another design. And can you really justify that ?
OK now I realize that libertarian legal theory is much more complex than its economics. So what if I print somebody else's book but replace the author with my own name??? Can I do that since there are no copyright laws??
@LoklarYsera That's a bit insulting, especially considering I'm one of the most intelligent people on the planet right now. However that no-copying clause is exactly what I disagree with, and find insulting. Someone, somewhere, using the government to tell me what I can or can not do with my own materials is just plain wrong on so many levels. If I make an exact copy of someone else's car, why can't I sell it ? How do you justify telling me that if I sell it you can take my money away by force?
@umbilicaltapeworm No, but pretty much everyone think "allemansrätten" is good. I've actually never heard anyone argue for abolishing it. There is some criticism about berrypicking companies taking advantage of it, since allemansrätten never was meant to make others have commercial use of the land. But thats more of a debate on how to fix that particular situation, then argument against having an allemansrätt. If someone in Sweden oppose allemansrätten, he or she isn't very good at speaking up.
I never said that IP was the driving force behind invention, why in the world would you assume that? However, IP is the only way to protect yourself from your invention being stolen. Until you find a better way, all of the responses is just wishful thinking. AGAIN, MY QUESTIONS WERE ABOUT PROTECTION AGAINST THEFT, and never a question as to why someone would invent. So either answer my question, or quit posting something that which is irrelevant to what Im asking
Scarcity is a pretty poor definer of property. Sexy available women are scarce, are they property or the basis of such? I am vastly more comfortable defining property as that which I create, and in so far as I used that which I own in it's creation, I own my creation. Given that I own my mind more assuredly than I own my body (which switches out all it's atoms within a year), a better first principle for a philosophy of life would evolve from that, no? And IP is scarce, see my previous comments.
Let's assume this true. So I make a contract with you that says "DO NOT COPY OR REDISTRIBUTE THIS SONG WITHOUT MY PERMISSION." So, you break the contract and redistribute it all over youtube UNDER YOUR NAME. Let's say I have legal action to take against you for breaking the contract. But what about the next guy who sees it on youtube, copies it, and sells it under his name. Do I have a right to go after him? With this argument, no. What you're basically saying is "NEVER RELEASE AN IDEA!"
Property ownership, yes going back to exactly the debate I had with a person before. You create something new, then according to the property ownership, the item you are holding in your hand is the only thing you own, so what if you want to profit from it? You start making it, and sell it, a big Corporation buys one item from you duplicates it and starts selling it on mass scale, how do you protect yourself from that? -LOL
Not 100% but it is certainly becoming much more accepted especially by those in the "new and upcoming" Austrian school. (Tucker, Kinsella, Molyneux, etc)
You are assuming that if there were no IP laws people would still invent. I will give you an example. In USSR we had no such laws, yet we had many inventions, there were even journals published with many such inventions, none were produced. And I have nothing against corporations equally benefiting, I am against IP theft, which you seem to be all for. International IP laws are different, not to mention there is an expiration date, no one owns patents forever. Ugh..
Actually, not only have I done critical thinking, I'm probably 10x more skilled and experienced with it than you are. For example, I don't make fallacious points then try to ignore them or jump past them when called out. So, for the purposes of clear conversation, we're going to start with the first issue. Why would you spell something wrong and use it in short-quotes when I clearly used the word properly?
When I create a work of digital art for instance, it is my right to not allow others to view it, it is my work, it is my property. I may sell to you the right to view it. Without my selling you that right, you do not have the right to view it. If someone makes a copy of the work and gives it to someone else, that someone else has not purchased from me the right to view my work, they are in fact engaged in theft, in the theft of my rights, not simply property.
Claiming that you own other people's bodies and property is socialist, Mr. "Cohen". I'm sure your name is just a "Cohen-cidence" to your statist pro-IP stance, though. Tribalite parasite.
No, I clear up one point at a time. You used "plagerise" with single quotes. Is that how I spelled it or did I spell it correctly? After that is dealt with then we'll deal with your other claims. You seem to think quite highly of yourself so it will be amusing. But first answer my above question.
What incentive is there for people to murder people who walk around their statues with cameras, photographing them from all angles? A: Whatever the sale price of the statue is.
You're dead wrong about IP. Nobody says ideas have no value, what we do say is that they aren't scarce. If you sing a song I can sing it too and you don't lose the song. If I sleep in your bed you don't have a bed to sleep in.
@BrytaPlanka Does the factory own the lake in it's entirety? Does the poison affect areas that are not property of the factory owner? Who is harmed by the factory's action? If nobody is harmed and it's their land what they're doing is irresponsible, but difficult to tackle without attacking their freedom to own land. If the poisoning of the lake affects nearby rivers and land that the factory owner doesn't own he is directly affecting the owners against their will and that is wrong.
