Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

Re Intellectual property rights - If someone uses say, logs and straw to build a house and

1. other people copy this idea and also build houses
2. other people think of the idea themselves independently of the originator

Would the originator be able to copyright or patent his idea?

Or would this lead to a coercive scarcity?

(e.g. there is no existing copyright law applicable to song titles so I could publish a song called 'Close to the Edge' but if my melody bore more than a passing resemblance to 'Roundabout' but I had never even heard the latter I could be sued.)

What is the Libertarian view on such things?

Epignosis wrote: T, I didn't know you were a vegetarian.

I'll be back later, but on this (which is brief):

We're heading in that direction. There's just a few animal meats I eat these days. I'm trying to eliminate that cognitive dissonance off my psyche.

ExittheLemming wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: It depends. Ayn Rand was a strong supporter of IP rights. Rothbard supported a much more limited notion of what falls under IP. Some completely reject any notion of IP. I don't have a clearly defined opinion. Somethings are clearly not like the house scenario that you mentioned. That will of course generate an unnatural scarcity. Things with the arts get a bit more complicated. Without IP the arts as we know it wouldn't exist. However, that isnt necessarily a problem. Most arguments that say it is seem to assume that the creation of music should be a something that is doable as a means to sustain one's self.  Of course that's not even quite accurate as the way the industry has been changing, with free downloads and donation based profit, no IP laws are required at all. When you say do-able for an individual's own satisfaction I would probably agree but the whole thing about the arts is that the scarcity arrives from there being a very limited amount of producers the hobbyist will agree to purchase from. If that were not the case we'd all be doing it? You are certainly right that the entertainment industry and our means of sourcing art is changing rapidly, but what I think will remain is the unchanging fact that more people are willing to pay to see David Beckham do his day job than they would mine (finance officer - yawn)

The T wrote: But IP are I think a natural extension of property rights, if we assume you have the right to own the fruits of what you produce. Of course the arts are so, we can say, irrelevant to sustain any of our basic rights (like the one to live) that we can assume is just a leisure activity. Yet it is not one for the artist, for whom is as important as making things for thw manufacturer or planning buildigs for the architect. What I would assume is that said rights should start and end with the person. If the person dies, so do his rights, unless he transfers them while still alive to his heirs or whoever he wants. Of course this second person wouldn't be able to the same because if not it could be done ad nauseaum till eternity. Once the original benefitiary dies, the work is in the "public domain" or the formula can be used by anyone. That will though have great implications for corporations that rely on their trademarks and secret formulas to survive (famous drink here). Though in the end even this will get solved by itself: anyone could copy this formula but someone will be the best using it, and the original owner will still be able to beat the competition with a better product or by adapting and innovating. But then the entire thing of actual physical property righs and inheritance would create an incongruence here. Damn is this difficult, trying to make everything make sense.

The T wrote: But IP are I think a natural extension of property rights, if we assume you have the right to own the fruits of what you produce. Of course the arts are so, we can say, irrelevant to sustain any of our basic rights (like the one to live) that we can assume is just a leisure activity. Yet it is not one for the artist, for whom is as important as making things for thw manufacturer or planning buildigs for the architect. What I would assume is that said rights should start and end with the person. If the person dies, so do his rights, unless he transfers them while still alive to his heirs or whoever he wants. Of course this second person wouldn't be able to the same because if not it could be done ad nauseaum till eternity. Once the original benefitiary dies, the work is in the "public domain" or the formula can be used by anyone. That will though have great implications for corporations that rely on their trademarks and secret formulas to survive (famous drink here). Though in the end even this will get solved by itself: anyone could copy this formula but someone will be the best using it, and the original owner will still be able to beat the competition with a better product or by adapting and innovating. But then the entire thing of actual physical property righs and inheritance would create an incongruence here. Damn is this difficult, trying to make everything make sense.

This is a slippery critter when it comes to the arts methinks. I think Pat is right when he states no-one owns the means of production (rhythms, harmonies, chords, scales etc), but apart from distinct melodies and lyrics, nothing else could be considered capable of being protected by copyright. Why should the chain of nominated beneficiaries stop at one? (ain't this an infringement of their liberty to bequeath ownership to a chosen heir or sell their rights to a 3rd party under a binding contract?)

I think Michael Jackson bought the Beatles publishing rights before he died and presumably these are now owned by the executors of his estate. From memory I believe the copyright on this work will revert to public domain 50 years after the death(s) of the composer(s).

You have correctly outlined the dilemma here though i.e. tangible property rights are bundled with exclusive ownership and transferred when the property is sold while intangible property like music and literature are sold as goods e.g. if I buy a CD or novel I own the good(s) but not the underlying copyright in the book' or CD's content.

An entertainment industry without IP currently exists of course in the domain of the internet, where free illegal downloads are everywhere. Perhaps Pat is right in stating that the legitimate industry will not disappear because of this, but 'beating the competition with a better product' in a post-IP world, would still rest upon the consumer's confidence in being able to identify the true originator of any given work.

My head hurts

I'm not so sure how much worse things would be without IP law.  We have had ample periods in human history that did not really have IP protections, and yet there was not really a dearth of both artistic and scientific/technological achievement.  Yet, I'm not sure I would be ready to abandon IP law/protections altogether, though a significant scale back (especially with respect to artistic works) would be welcome.

If you're still clinging to a monopoly provider of law and police services then yes I suppose you need minimal taxation.

ExittheLemming wrote: The T wrote: In the marijuana thread Ivan raised a valid question (or, actually, I'm adapting it to make it a valid question ). If we finally get rid of so much interference in people's lives and we agree that we will only punish actions that interfere with the rights of others, we still need some fair universal rules. Let's say X steals from B. A police officer captures X. Then it's time to administer justice. In what basis? Judges would do it but based on? We would need a very jurisprudence-based system then. Also, even at the cop level itself. How is he to judge if a third person's rights have been injured? Either he has to have an objective guide or he will decide it all by his discretionary abilities, which might or might not be ideal for the task.  Discarding donation-based police and courts (an idea that I still believe improbable), at least some minimal form of taxation and government wouldn't be needed to sustain this system?  It's important to remember that a judge is a judge of law, not of fact (that's for a jury to decide) Case law is a 'challenge and response' system i.e. our laws are not 'set in stone' but evolve and mutate over time due to new or amended rulings arrived at by judges based on precedence. Similarly, a cop can arrest and charge you but he cannot convict you.(that's for a court to decide) Your post highlights several of the w.a.n.k.y. aspects of having numerous competing law enforcement agencys and the prospect of having jurisdiction reduced to which brand of justice you put in your trolley from LawMart U'like. Although there currently exists incompatible laws in different states/nations/jurisdictions etc a consumer has recourse to appealing any decision to the next hierarchical level of justice (regional court, high court, court of human rights et al) Such a hierarchical system would require all its subsidiaries to agree upon a central core of legislation to be used to settle disputes. It strikes me that under a completely unfettered free market system advocated by Libertarians, the court would be free to 'cherrypick' which case precedence laws it adopts depending on what would best serve their income/profit.

Problem of the day: we all can agree political change, in this era, occurs rather gradually, step by step. Revolutions seem to be a thing of the past. So for a libertarian society to exist, the steps in that direction will succeed each other, not happen all at once. Couldn't that generate the problems that critics of the idea usually voice? Let's say that so e steps are taken: minimal wages and working safety regulations dropped, anti-trust regulations demolished, and the market is somewhat freer; but subsidies and government monopolies remain, plenty of other regulations to the economy and the man still in place; under this less than ideal scenario, wouldn't the worker have even less mobility than before? Wouldn't this benefit just one part of the equation? Or are these steps necessarily like a domino setup where the tearing down of one piece will in time assuredly bring about the tearing down of the next one? I haven't thought that well about the actual scenario, but you get the idea.

JJLehto wrote: Though I agree, libertarianism is one thing but reaching these extreme scenarios like those supported by Pat and Llama...would be one hell of a (very slow) process. An even in a "regular" libertarian setup, I honestly think people will lose faith in it/see it's problems after a while.