Is Intellectual Property a legitimate concept?

[Outis]

I have no interest in the first floor for the purposes of this thread.

Carrikature, I don't think you can answer this question without delving into "first floor" issues, at least, not with any logic or connection to the foundational assumptions. "First floor" issues must be examined, else the "second floor" results are inconsistent at best, utterly incoherent at worst.

I'm not chiding you, or anything of the sort: I just don't think it can be done at all without the intervening steps.

[Joel]

I think IP is not a legitimate concept.

The book Against Intellectual Property, freely available online here: http://mises.org/document/3582 I think makes a solid philosophical case against IP. The main idea is that IP is fundamentally different, and in conflict with, tangible property rights. Thus they cannot be just two different, coexisting kinds of property. The whole reason for property rights is that tangible goods are rivalrous (one person using a hammer means other people can't use it at the same time). If all goods were non-rivalrous that would be great. It would eliminate the conflict-of-interests that motivates theft, and the idea of property would be unnecessary. But ideas are not rivalrous (some ancient person may get the idea of a hammer from seeing someone else have and use one, and can then use the idea to make their own, without stealing the other person's use of his original hammer). Tangible goods are inherently rivalrous, but IP law artificially creates rivalry where there was none. It grants a monopoly to produce a particular good(s). Which also has the effect of curtailing other people's use of their own tangible property. In the extreme case of all ideas being "owned", you would not be able to do any action that uses any idea that someone else had thought of before (without permission), making human action virtually impossible.

If IP were actually a natural property right, it should have no arbitrary expiration date. It should be perpetual, bequeathed to heirs forever. Someone should have a monopoly on the production of fire. Someone should have a monopoly on the production of wheels. Someone should have a monopoly on the production of levers. Etc. Then for you to make fire or a lever, etc. with your own tangible property would be illegal.


It seems that the only argument for IP put forth in this thread so far is the argument that people have the right to profit from their labor. E.g. Teallaura says,

FYI: it's not the idea that is owned - it's the rights to profit from that unique work.

But that's not how the law works. The law does not guarantee any profit. It only grants a temporary exclusive monopoly on producing a particular thing (or derivative thing) in tangible form. And from what I understand, it's illegal for someone else to produce an illegal copy (or derivative work), even if they just dump it to the bottom of the ocean.

Moreover, no kind of property rights ever grant the right to a profit. There's never a guarantee of profit from your property or the fruit of your labor. You might work hard producing a large quantity of a tangible good that no one wants to buy. Or you might come up with a good idea, but someone else comes up with a better one making your idea obsolete, so you make no profit. So this is not an argument for IP.

But you do have the right to the fruit of your labor. That is, if you come up with the idea of the hammer, and you make one, you have the right to the hammer you made. And if someone else sees you and decides that's a good idea and makes his own hammer, then he owns the hammer he made. You don't have the right to beat him up (or lock him in a cage, or take his hammer or other tangible property, etc.) for doing so.


One other point:
At one point in the thread, I also saw the confusion between copying and plagiarism. They are not the same thing. Making and selling a copy of a Dickens novel as a Dickens novel is one thing. Making the copy and replacing Dickens' name with my own (claiming that I wrote it) is a different thing. The former is perfectly fine, while the latter is lying (fraud?).

[Carrikature]

Carrikature, I don't think you can answer this question without delving into "first floor" issues, at least, not with any logic or connection to the foundational assumptions. "First floor" issues must be examined, else the "second floor" results are inconsistent at best, utterly incoherent at worst.

I'm not chiding you, or anything of the sort: I just don't think it can be done at all without the intervening steps.

If that's your stance, no one is forcing you to participate. I'm not about to start creating a universe just so I can bake a pie.

[Outis]

If that's your stance, no one is forcing you to participate.

Oh, it's not a case of "forcing me to participate." The topic is to me a fascinating one, and I'm interested in people's thought processes.

I'm not about to start creating a universe just so I can bake a pie.

Now, that is a delightful turn of phrase. May I steal it for future reference?

[Carrikature]

Joel, rather than quoting your entire post, I pose a question. What happens when intangible, non-rivalrous ideas (R&D) are used specifically for rivalrous production (medication)? Part of the copyright concept, so far as I know, is designed to protect those entities that pour resources into new discoveries.

[Carrikature]

Oh, it's not a case of "forcing me to participate." The topic is to me a fascinating one, and I'm interested in people's thought processes.

My thought process is that one must first be presented with a knot before one can begin to untangle it.

Now, that is a delightful turn of phrase. May I steal it for future reference?

It's not mine. It's a misquote of Carl Sagan.

[Joel]

Joel, rather than quoting your entire post, I pose a question. What happens when intangible, non-rivalrous ideas (R&D) are used specifically for rivalrous production (medication)? Part of the copyright concept, so far as I know, is designed to protect those entities that pour resources into new discoveries.

Ideas (i.e. non-rivalrous) are always used in the production of rivalrous goods. This is in line with the argument that artificial restrictions (by granting monopolies) is actually a violation of regular property rights: the right of free persons to engage in production using their own property. IP is not some new kind of property in addition to (alongside of) the concept of tangible property. The two are in conflict.

As for special protections for those who invest in R&D, all production requires speculative investment, and there is never a right to a return on your investment. Thus the person arguing for IP would have to justify why making particular kinds of investments would grant the investor additional rights that investors in general do not have.

But I'm not sure that argument is ever made. The defense of IP typically ends up dropping any kind of notion of it being a natural right on the level of property rights, and instead it really boils down to a utilitarian argument: that IP laws provide incentive to increased innovation, and that (therefore?) the central planners should grant and impose monopolies for the purpose of diverting more resources toward R&D (or creation of new books, songs, etc).

[edited to add]
That is the argument given in the U.S. Constitution. It is intended to be a subsidy to Science and the practical arts.
[/edited to add]

There are a number problems with this utilitarian argument:

1. By defending IP on mere utilitarian grounds, the arguer has abandoned the concept of IP as property (and property rights), and thus is no longer arguing for the validity of the concept of intellectual property. (And thus seems to be not a good argument for the thread topic.) They are simply arguing that the free market should be curtailed by force because otherwise people would spend an insufficient amount of resources on R&D.
2. It's not at all clear what determines a sufficient amount of R&D. Who is to say the number of books written without copyright is "insufficient"?
3. Diverting additional resources toward R&D means diverting them away from whatever uses to which free people would have put those resources otherwise. It's not obvious that that is necessarily a utilitarian improvement. (Perhaps those other uses were more urgently valued.)
4. It's not at all clear that IP laws result in a net increase of innovation. There are ways in which IP laws impede and dis-incentivise innovation, and if anything, the historical evidence tends to indicate that there is as much or more innovation and creative works in the absence of IP laws. (e.g., for a mountain of evidence see Against Intellectual Monopoly with a whole chapter devoted to the pharmaceutical industry)
5. Even if it were a utilitarian improvement, that doesn't tell us whether forcing that upon people is morally acceptable.

[Carrikature]

I am going to mull over this post before replying in full. I wanted to point out a quick issue I see.

Ideas (i.e. non-rivalrous) are always used in the production of rivalrous goods.

The existence of open source anything seems to make this statement false as long as you're claiming 'always'. I would grant 'most of the time'.

[Teallaura]

Well, it no longer seems that a company going out of business is an abandonment of the protection.

If a company goes out of business do you then have the right to move into their building? Of course not - being in business has nothing to do with owning something. That corporate entity still owns the building even if it doesn't conduct business anymore. Same thing with intellectual property.

Only once a corporate entity has NO ONE who can lay claim to ownership (stock. partner, et al) of the business such that no human being has rights to corporate entity (full or partial) does the idea of abandonment come in (technically, it's not abandonment - it's unowned property). Then and only then can an effort be made to transfer ownership to someone or something that can actually act on it.

Law - it's not just for breakfast anymore!


Cere: Let me get back to you - I'd have to do some research I just don't have time for today.

[Outis]

OK, I've given the idea some thought.

We have (through our legislators) accepted and codified into law that an individual who comes up with a potentially profitable idea should have the right to at least attempt to make a profit on that idea. However, as they stand, the laws are somewhat fuzzy, maybe even somewhat contradictory, on what forms of protection an idea can receive.

* If you have a physical medium of your idea (print, sound recording, video recording, software or hardware that implement the idea), you have the sole rights to attempt to make a profit from the physical medium, _and_ from the idea itself, for a certain period of time. Within certain restrictions, no one is allowed to make copies of your recording and sell them or give them away without your permission (copyright). More to the point, no one is allowed to copy the idea in and of itself and sell their version without some very specific restrictions. For music, I can cover a song provided I pay the mechanical licensing fees. For video or print, I have to purchase a license to print or make copies of the video for distribution. For technology, no one is allowed to implement that technology without your permission (which, again, usually involves licensing fees).
* This has made a lot of people rich, but has seemingly benefited more copyright and patent lawyers than it has inventors, creative artists, or anyone else who has the ideas.
* Generally, people don't like copyright and patent lawyers (or layers in general).

I think the idea of IP is, or was, a good one. But I also think it's been horribly distorted in execution.

[Cow Poke]

If a company goes out of business do you then have the right to move into their building?

When I said...

Well, it no longer seems that a company going out of business is an abandonment of the protection.

...it was a reversal of my previous statement. Indicating a reversal on my part. A change of opinion. A change of mind. But feel free to continue to argue the point.

[Teallaura]

Er, Joel - you stated that 'isn't how it works' then proceed to describing the law working just exactly as I had explained. The right to profit isn't a guarantee to profit - it's a guarantee no one else can legally poach your work so that you can attempt to profit from it unhendered by competition to sell/produce/etc your own work. (Competition from similar works being perfectly fair.)

Aside comment (not addressed to anyone in particular): the silliest thing to me is the 'anti-establishment' crowd pushing for a reduction in IP. An established, well funded business can produce/sell an item far more efficiently than a lone individual. Getting rid of IP rights insures a nightmare of corporations poaching work from each other, individuals and other nationalities - meaning the little guy will get stomped and likely stop publishing anything until he/she can finance the business side. Instead of freeing intellectual work, it will stifle it as few other things ever have.

Carry: I do actually intend to eventually address the actual topic... Sowwy...

[Teallaura]

...it was a reversal of my previous statement. Indicating a reversal on my part. A change of opinion. A change of mind. But feel free to continue to argue the point.

I realized that but it sounded like you didn't believe it should be the case, so I was explaining the rationale...


Oopsie...

[Cow Poke]

I realized that but it sounded like you didn't believe it should be the case, so I was explaining the rationale...


Oopsie...

I should have been more clearerer.

[Cerebrum123]

Cere: Let me get back to you - I'd have to do some research I just don't have time for today.

No problem. Sometimes I tend to miss answers in threads. Maybe send me a PM when/if you do find out.