Intellectual Property: A Government Protected Monopoly
Information can not exist independent of the media on which it's imprinted because it is a characteristic of the media on which it is imprinted.
When you speak, the information imprinted on your brain is converted to sound vibrations which are received through the auditory senses of others then interpreted by and imprinted on their brains. When you download music, you are imprinting digital information on a physical hard drive (which you own). When you paint a painting, you are imprinting information on a canvas (which you own). When you take a photograph, you are imprinting information on film (which you own). When you write a letter or draft a blueprint, you are imprinting information on paper (which you own).
Copying isn't theft; information isn't property.
For something to be property, it must be a scarce, rivalrous resource. For an act to constitute theft, it must deprive the rightful owner of a scarce, rivalrous resource of said resource without consent. Information can be copied infinitely without destroying , devaluing or depriving the creator of the original, therefore information is a non-scarce resource, thus information is not property and can not be owned. Some critics may impulsively object to this on grounds that they oppose plagiarism, but plagiarism is an issue of fraud rather than intellectual property, thus such an objection wouldn't be responsive to the case I've laid forth here.
Non-scarce resources can't be owned.
Property rights are established to avoid conflict over scarce, rivalrous resources. Property rights are not established to prevent conflict over the characteristics of scarce, rivalrous resources. You can not own the characteristics of something independent of the thing itself. You do not own the color blue just because you own a blue car. Likewise, you can not own the patterns of information imprinted on your computer's hard drive just because you own the computer. You own the hard drive. You own the computer. You do not own the color "white" or "black" just because the computer is white or black. You do not own the color "green" just because the internal circuit boards are green. You do not own binary 1's and 0's just because they are imprinted on the hard drive. To insist otherwise is to state that you own the computer twice. It's double dipping.
It's also a declaration of intent to physically trespass against the bodies and actual physical property of other people by preventing them from changing the patterns imprinted on their own property, or by expropriating their property if they do. What is euphemistically called "intellectual property protection" is really just a government protected monopoly on patterns of information which, as demonstrated, don't even meet the prerequisites necessary to be considered property.
Proponents of "intellectual property" protection are nothing more than monopolists who want to use the force of government to protect themselves from competition for profit.
About the Author
I'm Jared Howe! I'm a Voluntaryist hip hop artist and professional technical editor/writer with a passion for Austrian economics and universal ethics. You can catch my podcast every Friday on the Seeds of Liberty Podcast Network.
Great, well-thought-out article, Jared.
One question though, can you demonstrate your statement, "Information can be copied infinitely without... devaluing...it?" It seems to me that the more there is of something (anything), the less it is valued by others. Even things that are perceived to have value...like gold, silver or even water...if there is an abundance of it, the less it is "valued" by others. In some cases, an over abundance of something tends to become despised in the eyes of those who once ascribed value to that thing.
All other things being equal, an increase in supply of a scarce, rivalrous resource relative to demand will result in a decrease in price. Supply and demand only applies to scarce, rivalrous resources, though. Information is nonscarce in that it can be infinitely replicated without consuming the original, which means the supply is infinite.
This "scarce, rivalrous resource", business? That describes crude oil and other extracted commodities. Not intellectual property.
And if I may, offer a solution.. "intellectual property insurance" .. If a content producer needs to sell content and re-coupe their money, they and any trustee could pay for a leaked insurance plan. This could involve a refund too (deposit) if a leak does not occur. Now content producers can attempt to re-coup there cost without resorting to violence and should something be released to the wild it will truly be free. Smart contracts can assist in this.
This would also be a great solution for trade secrets
Many a time as I code
I look at my letters and numbers in dread
Was it patented by a toad?
Simply common sense restricted by Fred
Patent Clerk on caffeine load
All my self produced work he will shred
No more rights to words and thoughts should exist
Eliminated these bureaucratic duds that persist
Allow our minds to freely express
Cancel out these duds and redress
Awaken the mind
No longer confined
Land of the free
Finally will be
Home of the brave
No longer a slave
Not a catacylsm
Simply Anarchism
Youre right @jaredhowe, that's what freedom of information is all about.
Even as someone who produces content that I would prefer not to be copied, I think IP is absolute nonsense. Like you said, you can own the medium an idea is imprinted onto; there's no way to own an idea.
That's exactly why I differentiate between "self ownership" and "body ownership". The self is extremely hard to define and leads to conflations between "self" and labor, which leads to this nonsense about ideas being property. "Body ownership" is way more specific and helps to avoid such ridiculousness.
I posted about plagiarism and fair use just yesterday, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on my approach there (game theory, tribalism, etc).
I really like the approach you take here focusing in on physical property. I have to wonder though, is our sense of "unfairness" when our ideas as expressed in a physical medium get copied and used by others (even if they give us credit, as to avoid outright plagiarism) just a primitive feeling we need to get over? If someone commissions @klye for pay, as an example, to create a custom piece of art for their post and then someone else uses that same png image in a different post for free (while again, giving @klye credit, though not previously getting permission) is that just how things go? Was anyone harmed or wronged at all? Is that just on @klye for not using a medium which can't be copied? Is there any valid sense of "Hey, you shouldn't have done that. Show some respect to the original creator of that idea." Or is that concept an outdated one imprinted on us by government that we should all just get over?
Thanks for your input.
(And @klye, if you see this, sorry to use you as an example, but I wanted something solid to talk about, and I remember this exact situation happened here on Steemit.)
Thanks for the questions. I have a few of my own.
How would a contract between you and Kyle create an obligation on someone else to not use their own scarce, rivalrous resource (a computer) for the purpose of copying a non-scarce, non-rivalrous resource (bits)? How would your decision to pay Kyle for content which can be copied without further labor or capital investment by either you or Kyle make it incumbent on others to pay you for the use of their own physical property for purposes of copying? Why does the creation of a non-scarce, non-rivalrous resource give you or Kyle a better claim to the scarce, rivalrous resources of others?
Can anyone demonstrate damages to property or body that aren't hypothetical?
Could such a medium exist given that anyone could just grab a screen capture? Absent keeping content secret, how would copying be prevented or punished without the initiation of physical force?
Why shouldn't people use their own scarce, rivalrous resources how they see fit? What's the definition of respect? How respectful is it of a content creator to lay claim over the scarce, rivalrous resources of people with whom they've no agreements to prevent them from using their tangible, physical property how they see fit?
Yes. As Kinsella points out in the work cited in your article, "intellectual property protection" has its origins in what are called "monopoly laws" and could never exist absent a central monopoly on force. The imposition of IP creates unagreed upon positive obligations to pay "royalties" to others for the use of one's own scarce, rivalrous resources, which is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
I have to agree, I your like of "Can anyone demonstrate damages to property or body that aren't hypothetical?" really hits the nail on the head. Most of the people making claims today are all making hypothetical claims. Nobody broke into their office and stole their media, they're just saying they lost sales of "10 million dollars" but have no physical proof that any sale was lost. They can't even prove that 10 more people would have purchased their product if they hadn't just made a copy.
I've been damaged non hypothetically. But, if I speak too much truth, I may lose the right to sue. Or, even be jailed, considering the state of the nation's "liberalism" today. That's why hypothetical situation are all ya got.
Sorry, I wasn't happy about it when I found out either.
I'm a R&D guy. Hardcore, to the bone, third generation Inventor, with a capital I. I put food on the table for myself and others (and their children) by using the alchemy of the applied sciences. I have two US patents. (#9051539B & 9051539B2), and the pricetag was over $60k. I have patents for a reason. I am only one man. I am able to ideate (my basic job function for years), mechanical, electromechanical, pneumatic and hydraulic solutions for frequently complex problems and technical requirements with caveats imposed on my thinking by the client. Yes, ideas and "information" are my stock and trade.
Being just one man, I can visualize the most simple and elegant physical dynamics and enclose them within a machine. But, a machine, especially a one-off prototype can take months to make with 100 people working on the different processes and aspects necessary to make the machine. For one man to perform all of the same functions in sequential order means that delivery date could be many years away depending on the complexity of what is being made....from scratch. Pushing the technological envelope is not like pushing a shopping cart. Many people do R&D, few do it well, even fewer are exceptional. Which group do I fit in? You tell me. Go look up my patents. There was 6 years of work in the basic design before we filled out the patent application. That work has a monetary value invested in it. Hence, the "information" that communicates the idea also has a monetary value regardless if it is the form of 1's and 0's, blueprints or text written by quill and ink. That value belongs to me. I've earned it through the time spent in school, honing the skills necessary to design and then, go make the machine all by myself, without the other 99 people mentioned above. The catch is time. One man can only do so much in a day. A patent keeps others with greater resources from seeing what I have done, and cloning it, (in effect stealing my investment) and getting to market before I can due to lack of resources.
All it takes is money.
In your posting you demonstrate that you are both unhappy with the unethical ways that large corporations have gamed the patent system, and that you are in need of greater understanding of the differences between patents (machines & devices), copyrights (music, books and media) and trademarks (logos, artwork etc.) as your arguments mix up the contexts for each causing comparisons between apples & oranges. That said, I DO get it.
Please, before you make me list the logical issues with your arguments, do look up my patents. The actual title is ridiculously long. What it covers in essentially the first economically viable, scalable "biomass engine". Solving the algae-for-fuels problem in 2008, and willfully ignored by the federal government ever since. But, that's a rant!for when I'm not so tired.
Ask yourself how motivated to make such investments in bettering technology would you be if anybody who decided for themselves that ere was no law against it, so they cloned your work without permission (or even notification) the algae cultivation system you spent every dime you had and over 10 years (now) moving forward to market with? I assume not very. Making things is hard. Making things that are true innovations is almost impossible, and I've been lucky enough to create three.
Did you have to make your car?
That kind of problems will be solved when you monetize and protect your creations , this project make it possible :)
https://steemit.com/art/@rayandoelimi/are-you-an-artist-or-creator-check-this-is-for-you
Good points Jared, nice read.
In my early days of content creation I would get upset if someone used my content. Now I embrace it because I know I am the first one to post the content and I make sure to SEO it properly.