‘Data Ninja should be prosecuted’
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- “Card carrying IP Nihilist here, hi. 
”
So states Jesse, author of the Bring Back the 80s blog, in a comment to Crosbie Fitch’s IP Nihilism Ad Coelum et Ad Inferos (also here) in which he says, among other things, “I’m amused to confront the warped mind of the IP Nihilist, and yet bemused that it’s so difficult deprogramming them from some of the belief systems they’ve become indoctrinated with (more severely than IP monopolists are in believing copyright to be a natural right).
“They have this strange notion that because intellectual works may be infinitely reproduced (well, at least until you run out of atoms in the universe with which to digitally represent them), that they may as well be treated as infinite resources, and therefore disqualified from constituting property after all, they explain, it would be immoral to enable people to enclose infinite resources.”
Says Jesse, “I like to consider Crosbie my ally. Our beliefs regarding digital information and economics, while stemming from different foundations, appear to lead to identical practical results save in the unusual circumstance of a bad actor willfully absconding data from a private hoard,” going on »»»
Feel free to correct me if I’m off the mark of course, but Crosbie agrees with me that once data is voluntarily shared with a larger audience, regardless of what compensation was involved, that that data now lay at the mercy of it’s new possessors as to whether it will be rebroadcast potentially to the whole world.
Crosbie’s concern against IP nihilists such as myself lay primarily with the case of where one or more individuals wish to keep data secret. In this case, if a bad actor (I often cast a fictional “data ninja” into this role :3 ) eavesdrops on this data, that is where my view and Crosbie’s view begin to diverge.
We agree that Data Ninja should be prosecuted. Aggressively. Though we disagree on the charges or how the sentencing should be calculated.
I maintain that we should hold significantly greater sovereignty for a person’s privacy and data security than our culture or laws presently allow. I argue that hard earned data is vitally important, only that it cannot easily be quantified and assessed as though it were physical, measurable property.
Crosbie asserts that intellectual works should continue to be quantified as property (somehow), perhaps assessed in a similar way to oil paintings, and that eavesdropping where intellectual works are involved should be prosecuted as a literal form of theft.
Physical property can be quantified (measured, weighed, examined for material content, etc) and rectified (Maltese falcon missing? Find Maltese falcon! Found? Return to proper owner! It only has one possible physical location.)
I know of no way IP could be, however. This novel is your life’s work? and it’s unpublished, and virtually incomparable to any previously published work? What is it worth? Well, you’ve spent 20 hours a week on average over 30 years writing the thing. Do we assess it based on hourly wages? Well, you have published a dozen novels in the past, and none of them have sold a dime. Does that make this work valueless also? Data Ninja stole the hard drive in this case, leaving no copy to assess, so I can’t even read it just to tell you what I’d pay for a copy.
And of course, how could I read it without compensating the author first? Once read, I would be at liberty to redistribute the thing, so I’m sure the author would expect compensation prior to.. er.. assessment. :/
The second step of this scenario is the part where our views begin to starkly diverge.
Crosbie feels, so long as data is voluntarily made available, then whoever possesses it may redistribute the work freely.
While a step in the right direction, I believe that a person should have the recognized right to share absolutely any data in their possession. Regardless of who authored the data. Regardless of how that author hopes to recoup their costs for having initially assembled the data. Regardless of how the data got into the possessors hands.
I contend that our forbearers invented the concept of “property” in order to properly address the fact that physical property, goods and land, can be difficult to distribute and share. A hairbrush cannot benefit the entire community as efficiently as it can benefit an individual, and so long as there are a greater demand for personally owned hairbrushes than there is a supply, people will compete to obtain them. This competition provides economic incentive for those skilled at hairbrush making to increase the supply. Since each hairbrush can only have one owner and can only have one physical manifestation, this system does an admirable job of obtaining the greatest good for the individual as well as for the group from a resource which is limited and difficult to manufacture or reproduce.
However, I do not believe that makes this system, nor the concept of “property” that it engenders, the right fit for virtually any other arrangement. For example it is non-ideal for people to be treated as property. Societies which have tried have failed in the face of those who know of better ways to express “human capitol”. I say it is even contentious to treat animals (livestock, pets, wildlife) as “property”. I say it is wiser to treat deed of guardianship over the animals as property. Such abstract deeds, like physical goods, being irreproducible and limited in supply.
Ideas however â words and sounds and sights, literature and music and cinema â do not benefit at all from being traded in any form similar to physical property, nor can they be deeded.
Whatever meme can be digitized, unlike the hairbrush, can be easily shared. Every member of a society â indeed any member of any society capable of consuming the meme â can benefit from it simultaneously. The supply is (indistinguishable from) infinite, as consumers are counter-intuitively more well suited to reproducing the meme than the originators are. Thus the process of distribution benefits from exothermic participation, and the more popular it is the greater distribution it can have for free.
This sounds much like Crosbie’s accidental strawman in TFA, however I do not claim that hoarding knowledge is immoral. Whatever knowledge a person releases can potentially benefit the globe, but I believe that not only should there be no obligation for them to do so, instead our culture and our laws should strongly resolve to protect the sovereignty of a person’s privacy.
The flipside of the coin “any person should be able to share any data in their possession that they chose” is that “any person should have no obligation to share any information in their possession they do not choose, with very few and specific court ordered exceptions”. Such privacy protection should be directly encouraged by a healthy government. Educating the public on encryption and computer security is potentially as valuable as educating them about drunk driving and safe sex.
Furthermore, the value and the expression of memes are fluid. As water compared to a stone, as air compared to water, is a meme compared to air.
Any part of a meme can have value. From the plot of a movie, to the popularity of a character, to a series of witty quotes, to a particularly poignant wide-angle camera shot that the director and cameraman never foresaw the impact of.
The truth of all art is that beauty and value are in the eye of the beholder. While oft times good art is produced by good artists trying to express a particular idea or emotion to their audience, just as often a work of art is appreciated for reasons entirely unrelated to why it was formed in the first place. Like crystals of ice in the snow catching light from the right angle as your eye moves through the scene, the value of art depends heavily upon what common chords it strikes within viewers.
Thus, we IP nihilists contend that authors are below-average custodians for the memes they have spawned. This due in no disrespect to the artists, but instead because the value is ultimately assessed by the audience, and can thus be best amplified and replicated by the same audience.
So, it benefits society to distribute memes at a rate limited only by the most enthusiastic rebroadcasters with access to the material. Not only that, but for the greatest societal benefit, we should be allowed to remix memes however we please, and these in turn will see redistribution proportional to their popularity. Thus, a majority of production of content can borrow from existing content, dropping the onerous intellectual cost required to make new art until the question of compensation stops being such a terror to producers, and micropayment compensation and pro bono surge in popularity.
Crosbie’s concern about categorizing memes into neat packages of IP threatens this natural economy of memetic propogation very directly.
Crosbie and I have discussed the matter of Data Ninja at some length, and he has suggested that the data pilfered by DN, should it be released into the wild, ought to be treated in precisely the same manner as copyrighted data is today. It should become illegal to share, persons trafficking the data should be issued the equivalent of DMCA notices to censor their sharing, and any material derived from the leaked data should be destroyed or remanded into the “custody” of the original, violated author. Again, please correct me if I am missing your meaning Cros, but I have plumbed you pretty heavily on this point just to be sure.
I have also made it clear in my discussions with Crosbie in the past that this assertion from TFA is flawed:
- Therefore, they incorrectly deduce, if copyright is wrong, the concept of IP and owning intellectual work is wrong.
I have said on several occasions that, at least speaking for myself, I do not disown the concept of IP due to monopolistic concerns regarding copyright. Instead, I disown IP due to the toxic effect of literally any censorship beyond a person exercising their own right to privacy, thus disowning copyright, and thus seeing the fall of it’s monopolistic tendencies as a quaint side benefit.
The fact is that I oppose censorship. I would also oppose monopoly, but my first duty is against censorship. That this happens to overthrow monopoly is agreeable, but tertiary. Once we’ve got censorship licked, then I can start worrying about monopoly, oligopoly and cartels. I think they will be easier to fight once the public is properly armed with the free flow of ideas.
Crosbie is unfortunately advocating that which I would classify as sacrificing the free flow of information. I contend that invading global informational transactions in order to reclaim “copyrighted property” is harmful for reasons entirely aside from monopolistic advantage. I contend this is not only a form of censorship, but one of the worst forms. Crosbie championing these methods to reclaim (reclaim?) involuntarily leaked data makes this harm and this censorship no less real and no less harmful. Perhaps less frequent, but with no counterbalancing benefit less of a wrong is still wrong.
I say that censorship to eradicate ideas from the public consciousness is heinous. I see no distinction between a government forcing public retcon to cover up it’s malfeasance, the entertainment cartel forcing public retcon to make it’s digital goods artificially scarce, or a violated author forcing public retcon to.. uh.. er.. what was the goal here, again? Deterrence, or something? To prevent people from selling items at a profit when there is no market for copies? I always get lost at this point.
Crosbie does not arrive at his conclusions due strictly to his distaste for monopoly or backtracking from the present system to work around what he sees as distasteful any more than he accuses us nihilists of doing. Instead, he starts from a set of axia (he has identified these to me so far as “the natural laws”, which I think sound fascinating but have not yet found enumerated anywhere), and he grows a tree of proposed policy from these roots. I do the same, though I am probably starting from different axia.
As a result, Crosbie appears to appreciate whatever limbs from my tree coincide with his. He seems to ignore whatever limbs of my tree do not, unless/until they conflict with his. Then, as we should in order to reach more perfect accord, we argue the matter. He does not yet seem to appreciate that my tree is grown using the same method his is, or concern himself too heavily with how I’ve arrived at whatever conclusions I have. I fear that in his eyes, at any given moment, I am either agreeing with him or speaking nonsense. If this is true, it is only a symptom of the fact that whatever branches in my tree coincide with his did not get there from the same growth pattern. Nor should that be required. Truth is truth, even if you learn it via divergent channels of evidence. Thus, when and where our trees diverge, it is not because I transitioned from following your precise chain of logic into some local error in judgement. It is because I am carefully following a pattern dictated from a source far away from the point where we have diverged. Given our goals are the same (via empirical understanding of human kind and it’s environment, design policy to bring the greatest benefit to individuals and to societies), our complete trees should grow to be congruent if we do this right. Just like mathematicians using different approaches to solve the same equation, they should arrive at the same conclusions. Whatever truths each hold as self-evident are still (ideally) truths, and thus each individual’s chosen axia should be proven via the other. Done properly, your roots would coincide with what I would see as branches, and vice versa, but the trees would resolve to the same completed shape.
Because they instead diverge, someone has forgotten to carry a 2 somewhere, and it is not necessarily anywhere near the point where the divergence really happens. I am sorry to have to maintain my belief that it is your proposed policies and logic (or possibly your axia) which are in error leading to these diverging opinions.
I am not yet certain if it has to do with confusing work with value (I contend that responsibility is the best index of value; a debate I would not mind having with Thomas Paine himself :3) or with overweighing the needs of a lone producer compared to the more likely use case of a swarm of producer/consumers.
One day we’ll get to the bottom of our schism and work it out to at least enough of an agreement to lead to mutually beneficial collaboration. We’re so close already. Presently, I’ve simply been short the free time to craft responses suited to the material in your most recent missive to me, so I took a swing at this one instead. ;3
Best wishes Crosbie, and good luck with 1p2u!
Stay tuned. 
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
September, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:09 am
As I said to another commenter, I donât think anyone should be ever subject to censorship, i.e. their communications to be intercepted and/or prevented by the state.
However, I do think people who set out to violate anotherâs privacy by obtaining copies of their work and communicating it without their consent should be subject to prosecution for that violation. That also applies to those who knowingly abet that violation.
People who are unwittingly circulating such stolen IP arenât doing so knowingly. However, they should at least cease and desist from doing so when it is brought to their attention.
There may well need to be some measure of when such C&D notices are pointless, or no longer in the public interest, but that doesnât mean they arenât potentially helpful and valid remedies in the case of IP theft.
Remember that for IP Iâm only talking about the communication of identifiable intellectual works, not gossip.
And also remember, Iâm only talking about the natural rights of the individual. Corporations have no rights except the benefit of the aggregate right of their human constituents. So, if an employee from one company reveals a recipe theyâre privy to to an employee in another company, that violates no-oneâs privacy.
IP naturalists and nihilists can at least celebrate their agreement against the monopolies of copyright and patent, even if they can’t quite agree on protections and remedies against burglars. If you’ve ever had a private work copied by a burglar and then published against your wishes you might at least recognise there could be a valid argument that perhaps the burglar did in fact steal something real rather than imaginary. But let’s not let this wee quibble prevent our alliance against the suspension of everyone’s cultural liberty by copyright and patent.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Crosbie:
Let me pose some other hypothetical (but entirely probable) scenarios to you, so you can clarify the limits — if any — of Intellectual property, as you’re using the term (IE, without recourse to State-granted monopoly privileges like copyright and patent.)
1. You and your girlfriend are squabbling, rather loudly. Due to the design of the building, and the volume at which you are yelling at one another, people in other apartments can hear the squabble (albeit in a somewhat muffled form.) Do you still “own” the data contained in the argument, or does the fact that you and she are audible in the next apartment over constitute a “publication”?
2. I’m making an audio recording (because I’m a musician and that’s one of the things I do). As per the example above, neighbors are arguing, and a portion of it picks up on the recording. Moreover, the squabble itself — and how it makes me view the neighbors in question — serves as inspiration for a song, which I then use on an album.
Do my neighbors “own” the argument itself? How about the sound of the argument that came through my walls?
Do they also have at least partial “ownership” of the song I created, if it contains a portion of that recorded argument?
What about an unahtorized “re-enactment”?
I ask example 2, because it’s already happened:
Just ask Beck Hansen.
http://whiskeyclone.net/ghost/songinfo.php?songID=307
Salient quote from above-linked page:
“The opening sample is of that very fight, and that’s where the story begins. Beck recalls, “When I was recording the song in my living room and they were out front screaming at each other and I couldn’t…I had to stop recording my song. And it was strange because I was recording the music for the song; I hadn’t written words yet. And I couldn’t record anymore because they were too loud and I just left. I had to leave ’cause it was too hectic. When I came back I had all this…I had the song and then after they had this argument…it’s too bad I lost the tape that has the original argument ’cause the argument went on for 40 minutes. It was unbelievable. I put 2 seconds of it on there. Pretty classic. But somebody out there has it.” Another time Beck calls it “a special tape, filled with horrible things that will destroy your destiny if you know what it is.”
Does what Beck did constitute a “seizure” of the arguer’s “intellectual property?”
3. I used to be quite extensively involved in Ham Radio. One of the things that was relatively common (and still is to some degree) was that we would pick up either the fundamental frequency or various harmonics of stuff like Cellphones, baby monitors, pagers, business-band 2-way radio traffic, the fast-food order signs at fast-food restaurants, etc.
Were we violating anyone’s “intellectual property” by listening in? Does use of an unsecured, publically-accessible channel constitute ‘publication”?
How about THIS example:
4. A woman makes a rather frivolous call to law-enforcement, in regard to a problematic cheeseburger.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/burger.asp
A recording (allegedly) of the incident then gets circulated all over the Internet, because everybody thinks it’s just so damn funny.
Does the woman still retain “ownership” of “all copies of a given intellectual work” (the original 911 call), or are the “property-rights” equally split between her and the 911 operator on the other end of the call?
When, if at all, was the call first “published”?
5. “Found sound”.
http://www.sweetthunder.org/tapes/
How about a blog dedicated to “found sound” — miscellaneous bits of recordings which the blogger has scaveneged from various sources (swap meets and junk shops and suchlike.) In particular, the answering-machine tapes.
Did the PREVIOUS owners of the answering-machine tapes explicitly — or impicitly — forfeit ownership of the tape? In other words, did the swap-meet/junk-shop owner have the “right” to sell the tape in the first place? What about the blogger? If the blogger purchased the tape (or even just found it lying along side the road), does he have a “natural right” to copy it, and — if he so chooses — disseminate those copies to the world at large via the Internet?
Broadening our example, do I still “own” the scrap of paper even after I crumped it up and tossed it into the trash?
Does somebody have a “natural right to copy” a particular design scrawled on an apperently-abandoned building?
Looking forward to your answers.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Further evidence that you’re a closet “maximalist”:
“People who are unwittingly circulating such stolen IP arenât doing so knowingly. However, they should at least cease and desist from doing so when it is brought to their attention.”
“Circulating stolen IP” or circulating COPIES of “such stolen IP? Do THEY own THEIR copies, or not?
If the original owner of the “stolen IP” continues to own ALL SUBSEQUENT COPIES such that the law recognizes a “right” to Cease-and-desist orders against a subsequent copier/publisher, then by definition you are in full and total agreement with the most “maximalist” of the “copyright maximalists”, irrespective of your stance on copyright and patent.
If you also own OTHER’S COPIES, then the “natural right to copy” you keep prattling about lacks any substantive meaning.
Furthermore, exactly which one is the “original”, if all subsequent copies are identical? Presumably the one with the earliest digital time-stamp. But what’s to stop someone from *claiming* ownership over a given peice of “IP” — CLAIMING that it was stolen — and forcibly censoring everybody else via “cease and desist” letters (exactly what the RIAA member corporations are already doing.)
Is it somehow more valid if an INDIVIDUAL does it?
What exactly constitutes “publication” for the purposes of arguments over “natural right to copy”.
Do I “own” it if I bought it?
Do I “own” it if it was gifted to me?
What about if it was “gifted” to me (and millions of others) via a p2p network?
What about if it’s a tape I found along side the road?
September 10th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Henry, if you want to portray my recognition of IP (including an author’s and inventor’s exclusive right to their writings and designs as recognised by the US Constitution) as being a closet IP maximalist that’s up to you, but I don’t think it’s a very appropriate portrayal.
If you’ve read my articles you’ll know I have always supported the US Constitution. What I have always disagreed with is the granting of monopolies of copyright and patent to published works.
I am against unnatural monopolies and so I am a copyright abolitionist, but I have always been in support of intellectual property according to natural rights libertarianism.
So, I am not an IP nihilist.
You can copy the words I sell or give you until the cows come home, but if you manage to break into my briefcase to obtain copies of my private intellectual work, then yes, I do believe that constitutes theft, and that all such copies are not the legitimate property of whoever receives them.
I appreciate that some will be unhappy that I recognise IP theft (even though I don’t recognise monopoly), but well, that’s what you get for adhering to one set of principles rather than another. I am unhappy that some IP nihilists believe they can steal my IP without consequence, but hey, that’s why we have arguments.
There is a far bigger argument between those for and against monopoly, than those for and against IP. I suggest we win the argument against monopoly first, and then finesse our differences regarding IP. Let’s put it this way, we both believe in the freedom to copy everything, except that I exclude stolen IP from that. That’s a pretty large overlap compared to many who don’t believe anyone should copy anything without the copyright holder’s permission.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Let’s have a look at your hypotheticals then.
1. If you effectively communicate with others by breaching the bounds of your private domain to make a broadcast to those within the vicinity, then while those in earshot might treat it as accidental and respect your intention that such speech is private, the fact is, it has reached others’ ears. You thus own any recording you make of their speech, where the recording is what you would hear with your unaided senses. In other words, you have no right to place ultrasensitive microphones on walls in order to bug your neighbours, but there’s nothing stopping you recording what you can hear naturally.
2. Your neighbours have no ownership rights despite it being their speech that is recorded, but the fact that it was they who spoke it is inviolable.
The problem with English is that the possessive is used to indicate authorship as well as ownership. As we know, the fact that you weave a basket doesn’t mean it must forever remain your property, it must simply forever remain undeniably your work. Hence why without monopoly, intellectual work can be treated just as material work. The author is by no means implicitly the owner, but they forever remain the work’s author.
3. People may well prefer to treat electronic communications that are intended to be private as if they are private, and thus to respect the expectation of the communicants that their communication should be treated as if private, however, a broadcast is a broadcast, whether encrypted or not. The only sufficient criteria for true privacy is a physical barrier – not convention. A paper envelope is a physical barrier. An IP address or encryption is not a physical barrier.
4. If the recording of the call wasn’t obtained through violation of privacy (circumventing a physical barrier), then neither the maker nor recipient of the call retains ownership.
5. Were the answerphones or the tapes in them stolen? If so, then the recordings remain the property of whoever they were stolen from.
In the case of an answerphone to be delivered for destruction, if in a sealed bag this constitutes a private delivery/communication to oblivion, thus interception is a privacy invasion. If delivered unsealed for scrap then it is available to whoever chooses to inspect it.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
“There is a far bigger argument between those for and against monopoly, than those for and against IP. I suggest we win the argument against monopoly first, and then finesse our differences regarding IP. Letâs put it this way, we both believe in the freedom to copy everything, except that I exclude stolen IP from that. Thatâs a pretty large overlap compared to many who donât believe anyone should copy anything without the copyright holderâs permission.”
Is it?
Not on the level of “permission” it’s not.
You are not only claiming that you own YOUR copies (the one that the hypothetical theif stole), but also that you own *all subsequent copies* as well. You had not “published” the data in question, or explicitly *permitted* him to copy/distribute it.
So, by your thinking, you also own whatever copies *he* might make of it, as well as exclusive control over how — or even IF — such copies are distributed. Hence, your claim that you should be empowered to force others to “cease and desist” from making/distributing THEIR copies.
See the similarity, Crosbie?
A copyright apologist would — rightfully — look at a statement like “You can copy the words I sell or give you until the cows come home, but if you manage to break into my briefcase to obtain copies of my private intellectual work, then yes, I do believe that constitutes theft, and that all such copies are not the legitimate property of whoever receives them” and ask why the dividing line between published (publically-available) and unpublished (private) “intellectual work?” In neither case has the original “rights-holder” permitted the copying or distribution.
Of COURSE the guy should be prosecuted — FOR BREAKING INTO YOUR BRIEFCASE.
Whether he made copies or not is inconsequential, because you ARE making the claim that you still “own” others copies in the instance that they were not “legitimately” obtained — which is, in case you missed the last ten years or so, the position taken by copyright apologists/p2p opponents.
The issue, ultimately boils down to whether everybody AFTER him “owns” their copies, or not.
And the only two alternatives (excluded middle, remember?) are “yes, they do”, or “no, they don’t”.
*HE* should be prosecuted for breaking into your briefcase and, arguably, for violating your privacy.
Where your position becomes downright onerous is where you claim to retain ownership of ANY OTHER INSTANCES that may exist.
Sorry, but if I have a “natural right” to copy, then I have also have a *natural right* to OWN those copies – EVEN IF the ownership-credentials of the person I copied from are somewhat murky.
More to the point, in cases like what you’re describing, it’s what people DO with the data that constitutes criminality.
The mere fact that I may know your address, or your mother’s maiden name is a FAR cry from using such information to answer the security-question on one of your accounts, in order to empty your bank account.
Do you “own” the view of your house, from 200 feet down the road?
The “privacy-advocates” hassling Google Street-view seem to believe that they have an “exclusive right” to the mere image of their house, on the grounds that such images *may*, possibly, kinda sorta include some kind of “private” data.
I don’t buy it. I agree that if somebody breaks into your house and steals your USB key, there has been a theft.
What I DO NOT — and cannot — agree with is the notion that you ‘own’ every subsequent copy, simply because you haven’t *explicitly* renounced ownership of them via an overt act of “publication”. Because then the crazy cheesburger-woman “owns” the 911 call about the dangerous cheeseburger.
Like it or not — and you obviously don’t like it — if you recognize people’s “natural right to copy” publically-available information, the it doesn’t make ANY difference *how* such information became publically-available or not.
Asserting claim of “ownership” over copies *descended* from “Stolen” data inevitably involves violating others’ natural rights.
Why?
It’s a vanishingly-small step from saying “I order you to remove this because I never explicitly intended it to become public” to “I order you to remove this because I never explicitly PERMITTED duplication”. The burglar might not have “owned” the copy he stole from you, but — like it or not — he DOES own any copies *he* might happen to make of it, and so does anybody who makes copies of *his* copies.
HOWEVER the data might have been ‘published” (IE, Made pubic), the fact that it *IS* public necessarily means that YOU no longer “own” it.
But let’s step back from this a bit. What is your stance on “trade secrets?”
Let’s say I run a fried chicken restaurant, and our whole enterprise rests on the tasty goodness of a special recipe which we take pains to keep secret from the public at large.
Now let’s say somebody who REALLY wants to know just exactly what makes our chicken so special takes the time/expends the effort required to figure out our recipe. Do we “own” that recipe, such that we should be legally empowered to force him to “cease and desist” cooking chicken in that particular way?
After all, the “harm” to us is exactly the same whether he “reverse-engineered” the recipe, or just stole it off somebody’s desk.
Now let’s apply that to pharmaceuticals. Absent the state-granted monopoly privilege of patent “protection”, there’s nothing to stop a competitor from figuring out — via chemical analysis OR simple trial and error — the formula for your exciting and revolutionary cold-remedy.
So I ask you again Crosbie (and please bear with me because I’m REALLY trying to see the difference here):
Does the chicken-cook “own” the recipe?
Does the chemist “own” the cold-remedy formula?
I strongly suspect that I know what you’ll say:
“The chicken-cook owns all subsequent “copies” of the recipe If the initial copy was stolen from a wall safe, but NOT if it was reverse-engineered.”
See the problem, Crosbie?
In your desire to protect “privacy”, you’ve ended up expanding the what Robert Heinlein called the “private sphere” to the point where it completely subsumes — and destroys — not just the PUBLIC sphere, but EVERYONE ELSE’S privacy as well.
And don’t even try to claim that the chicken and pharmaceutical examples are different because they involve selling and money. Copyright Maximalists don’t buy that when p2p advocates talk about how “no money changed hands”, so I’m not going to give you that loophole either.
barring State-granted monopoly privileges such as copyright and patent, you only “own” information until it becomes publically-available — HOWEVER it hay have been made public. The alternative is to claim ownership — and control — over others’ copies IRRESPECTIVE of whether they were involved in the original “theft” or not.
I really can’t see the distinction here.
having said that, I really DO respect your love of creativity, and desire to see it rewarded. (I share that desire myself, being as I’m a musician and such.) I also think 1p2u is a great idea.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
“4. If the recording of the call wasnât obtained through violation of privacy (circumventing a physical barrier), then neither the maker nor recipient of the call retains ownership.
5. Were the answerphones or the tapes in them stolen? If so, then the recordings remain the property of whoever they were stolen from.”
THOSE COPIES, yes — subsequent copies — HOWEVER CREATED, and by WHOMEVER they may have been created — must rightfully be considered the property of those who made the copies, whether the ORIGINAL OWNER of the answerphone tapes in question might otherwise desire. Y’know why? Because if the original owner of the answerphone owns *all copies” — as you’ve stated previously — inevitably and necessarily abrogates everybody else’s rights to *their* copies.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Moreover, if the *physical barrier* is your dividing line (The walls of your room, the baby-monitor feed on an open frequency, the briefcase the burglar broke into) then he should be prosecuted for *breaking the physical barrier* itself. It does NOT follow that just because he broached a physical barrier YOU still own the copy that shows up on somebody’s blog 20 years later (the answering-machine example).
Or am I missing something here?
September 10th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
There’s nothing wrong with reverse engineering. And nothing is changed by the introduction of commerce, ’selling and money’.
I appreciate you believe that coming into possession of an intellectual work constitutes a fait accompli to remain unconstrained by law, even if directly or indirectly obtained through theft, but I disagree.
IP nihilism is certainly a much simpler policy than IP naturalism, to simply disqualify the notion of IP, but I suggest “as simple as possible” is better than “simpler”.
If intellectual work can be stolen from those who produce it in place of equitable exchange then that prevents the possibility of commerce in intellectual work (often claimed in exaggeration to be the consequence of the end of monopoly).
I do not believe culture or people will become repressed by remedies that, to secure individuals’ exclusive right, could be applied to the communication of their stolen works. There is certainly scope to make such remedies draconian, but I’m not suggesting that.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Crosbie,
I always feel a little bad when I disagree with you “big players” in the discussion/debate/battle over state-granted monopolies and their protection. I feel like we’re all a community here and as you have said in previous comments, I think we ultimately share some of the same major goals. The fact that we disagree on other points is constructive and helps all of us better define our positions and ideas.
That being said, I think there is a fundamental issue with claiming that somebody owns all copies of “stolen” IP, and that is that eliminated the existence of these copies requires public retconning (as Henry described it) on a massive scale. If I break into Henry’s house and steal his latest recording and rush home and distribute it on p2p networks, I have done something wrong: theft. I should be prosecuted for breaking and entering and taking something. Yet now that the copies of Henry’s work have been released “into the wild,” there is no going back. I wronged Henry by robbing him of the opportunity to make his work public on his own terms, but this is a crime that cannot be “undone.” We have seen over the past semidecade or so the futility of attempting to remove all copies of anything from the global network. Not only is it impossible, but doing so often violates people’s privacy rights, and any kind of widespread scheme to allow removing all “unauthorized copies,” is, as Amazon discovered with the Kindle, a fiasco. While Henry might like to “roll back time” and erase all copies of his song, there is just no way to do that without violating privacy. You can’t have DRM that auto-erases his song, you can’t track down everybody sharing it, and you can’t spy on people’s packet transmissions to see if they’re still transmitting copies – all of these things are privacy violations.
The best Henry can hope for is that I somehow pay him restitution for his loss (and we open up another discussion on the constitutionality of massive damage awards), and that the now-widely distributed copies reflect positively on him. I completely agree that he was wronged by this happening, and I think the fictional me was wrong to do that to him, but outside of that relationship between the two of us, there isn’t anything else that can legitimately be done without severe privacy violations to individuals.
We can go further and discuss whether or not the various individuals on p2p networks “own” those copies or not, but I think the issue breaks down right here, at enforcement.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Here’s a great news clipping related this issue: http://www.macworld.com/article/142732/2009/09/musicpirarcy.html?lsrc=rss_main
At what point, if any, did “theft” occur? Who is wrong, and who is simply doing what they should be able to do with their own “property?”
September 10th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Steelwolf:
Nailed it RIGHT on the head. However, I’d go further:
1. Assuming your example, you’ve deprived me of the opportunity to make it public *on my own terms* — in other wods, to impose my own conditions. But Y’know what? So does EVERYBODY ELSE’S “natural right” to copy. You know, the thing Crosbie keeps telling us is the main reason he opposes stuff like copyrights.
But let’s think about this. Sorry to use that “facile” old distinction between copying and theft again, but Y’know what? Assuming you didn’t steal my *ONLY* copy, even the claim of “theft” becomes murky at best. Sure, you stole *a* copy, so let’s say instead of five, I have four. But the essential attribute of what makes “stealing” a crime is that you’ve *lost* something.
Obviously the other four absolutely identical COPIES aren’t gone. I still HAVE them. So the most you can possibly say is that youlve stolen ONE of my copies — NOT the ‘content’ itself, which I still have.
Now let’s assume you broke into my house, by instead of stealing one of MY copies, you created one of your own, using *your* equipment. Yet again, what exactly have I “lost”? I *still* have the four copies that I had before, but YOU now have one.
As I said before, the potential harm to me is excactly the same whether you “stole” an existing copy from me and made it public, or whether you simply made a copy of YOUR OWN (as per Crosbie’s oft-proclaimed “natural right” to do so).
Either way, the content has been made publc under something other than *my* terms.
Crosbie resorts to rhetorical hairsplitting, by claiming that since the INITIAL copy was “stolen”, all of it’s “children” are likewise stolen as well. Thus — irrespective of any supposed “natural right to copy”, all *I* really have is a “natural right” to copy AS YOU (the ‘real’ owner) see fit.
How exactly does this differ from a “copyright maximalist” position, again?
After all, THE RIAA member-corporations didn’t “authorize” that particular method of distribution, did they? They didn’t *explicitly* authorize those albums to be put on p2p networks in most cases. *They* just want to be legally empowered to dictate the terms of how, when, where, and to whom “distribution” is done. And at least implicitly, according to Crosbie, that’s peachy keen.
Let’s take this a bit further. Since we’re obviously intent on mis-applying the notion of “property” to the nonphysical, how about some PHYSICAL examples of property mirroring Crosbie’s “digital ninja” scenario:
1. I live in the United States, where — barring explicit treaties and such — the vast majority of the land was, arguably, forcibly expropriated from the tribal inhabitants, who were then pretty much slaughtered. Does this mean that the land on which I live actually still “belongs” to some long-dead Indian Chief (presumably, the legal head of his tribe, or as nearly equivalent as can be ascertained.)
Or does it *really* belong to his great-great-great-grandon (seeing as he’s dead?)
This isn’t unique to the U.S. either. Pretty much EVERY square inch of land-mass has, arguably, been “expropriated” from somebody, at some time. So I’ll ask again: how in the bloody blue hell is anybody to determine who “really” owns a given parcel of land — much less make “restitution’ to the previous owners/their descendents etc.?
If I have a “natural right” to copy that which I “own” (as Crosbie claims), then it follows that HE DOES NOT have the “natural right” to INTERFERE WITH SUCH COPYING. Whether I ‘bought” a particular copy from some guy who had “stolen” it from somewhere else is, at base, inconsequential, because any attempt by Crosbie to interfere with *my* copies necessarily involves abrogating my natural rights.
Same goes for whether I learned a song off of a record that my Uncle stole from a library (for example.)
Wherever it came from, *I* didn’t steal it, so *any copies or derivatives I might happen to make* cannot, by ANY stretch of the imaginagion, be considered “stolen”, either.
At heart, this is an issue of CONTROL, sanctimonious hand-waving about “natural rights” and “government monopolies” notwithstanding.
When Crosbie talks about how “anybody who has had creative IP stolen knows that it was something real” is — whether he wants to admit it or not — trance-channeling Sonny Bono’s notion about copyright lasting “forever minus a day”.
You “owned” it — until it was stolen. Yes, you arguably still “own” THE ONE PARTICULAR SPECIFIC COPY THAT WAS STOLEN.
You do NOT own any of the other copies, because such “ownership” would inevitably involve granting you the authority to violate MY “natural right to copy”, not to mention Steelwolf’s “retcon” dilemma.
The only thing “stolen” in the case of Digital Ninja (assuming that nobody made backups) was MONOPOLY CONTROL OVER DISTRIBUTION AND USAGE — which is exactly what copyright grants, in case you forgot.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
“If intellectual work can be stolen from those who produce it in place of equitable exchange then that prevents the possibility of commerce in intellectual work (often claimed in exaggeration to be the consequence of the end of monopoly).
I do not believe culture or people will become repressed by remedies that, to secure individualsâ exclusive right, could be applied to the communication of their stolen works. There is certainly scope to make such remedies draconian, but Iâm not suggesting that.”
1. Okay, let’s try this — again.
What — if anything — is the difference between theft of “intellectual work”, and COPYING of such work?
Because — as you’ve stated many, many times, I have ha “natural right” to copy every tape or album which I “legally” own — absent copyright monopoly, which you consider to be illigitimate. Right, so far?
So given that fact, YOU — after publication (wherever you draw THAT line) rightfully, have absolutely no say on what I do with the particular *copies* that I own — Up to, and including, making MORE copies, and distributing them to all hell and gone.
So I ask again: assuming that you had backups, has Digital Ninja stolen the “intellectual work”, or a particular INSTANCE of such work?
Because — and here’s where this is relevant — IF he stole “the work” itself, then no matter HOW many copies might exist, “the work” is still *owned* by the creator, who then has “exclusive” control over it’s use — up to, and including — whether to PERMIT you to exercise your “natural right to copy” it — AND over what circumstances — if any — distribution of such copies will be permitted.
(Hmmm, that looks eerily similar to the claims made by “copyright maximalists”, Doncha think?)
To put it as bluntly as I possibly can (and how you could be involved in the copyright-debate WITHOUT getting it, I’ll never know):
If somebody Copies one of *my* copies, I haven’t “lost” a goddamn thing (and neither have the RIAA member-labels whimpering about how a copy equals a lost sale). Nor has the existence of “unauthorized” copies “destroyed the possibility of commerce.
Hell, even the RIAA members understand this, which is why they’re so pissed about the “first sale” doctrine.
Because every particular instance of a creative work — every “copy” — is competing with EVERY OTHER COPY for market-share. That’s why copyright apologists are so doggedly tenacious about retaining their monopoly privilege in this regard: they know full well that people have a “natural right” to copy — and that, given the right toolset, they WILL EXERCISE such a right (hence, all the bleating propaganda against “piracy”). They ALSO know that — thanks to the “first sale” doctrine, every “new” copy is competing for market-share against every PREVIOUS copy. (For example, “do I buy the book “new” for 15.99, or do I buy a good quality “used” copy for 2.50?”)
So which is it, Crosbie. You really can’t have it both ways here. Either you have an exclusive right to ALL instances (copies) of a given work — in which case my hypothetical ‘natural right to copy’ infringes your monopoly), or your rights stop at YOUR copies — WITHOUT regard to whether what they’re copied from was “bought”, “Given” — OR “stolen.”
September 10th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
“I do not believe culture or people will become repressed by remedies that, to secure individualsâ exclusive right, could be applied to the communication of their stolen works. There is certainly scope to make such remedies draconian, but Iâm not suggesting that.”
Of course not. then again, the Framers probably didn’t think a simple 7-year monopoly privilege could mutate into perpetuity on the installment plan, either.
The only way to NOT have such “remedies” as you’re proposing become draconian, is to somehow recognize YOUR rights ONLY to YOUR copies. Not to copies MADE from your copies. Not to 3rd-generation ones made from THEM, etc. etc.
Analog media never ran into this issue, because after a relatively few generations — “copies of copies”, the results became so degraded as to be unusable. The total fidelity inherent in digital media, means that — for all intents and purposes — “originals” and “copies” are indistinguishable.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Quote from you (from the “sell your rights” thread):
“IP naturalism also has a rider â all those who are privy to IP are naturally at liberty to copy it. In other words, simply because a book of poetry is in your private property, that doesnât mean your guests arenât at liberty to make copies of the books you let them have access to. Everyone is at liberty to make copies of works they are privy to â itâs the works they arenât privy to that they arenât naturally at liberty to copy.”
Okay, let’s try this:
1. I am a poet.
2. I LEND you my notebook of poetry. (Does this constitute “publishing”, in that you are now “privy to” the content?)
3. Your sister comes over to your house, likes some of the poetry in MY notebook, and copies it. Is she excercising her “natural right”, or not?
Who ‘owns” the poetry? You? If “ownership” doesn’t allow you to control distribution — OR PRICE — of all instances, then your ‘ownership’ doesn’t give you very much leverage, now does it?
Let’s take this a step further:
1. I’m a poet.
2. My ex-wife comes across a notebook containing a mixed-bag of stuff — phone numbers, scribbled messages, etc. Some of this happens to be poetry that I created.
3. She likes the poems, so she copies them, and sends “her” copies to members of her family.
Have *my* rights been violated? What exactly does it mean to own “the poems” but NOT own “the copies?”
This is where “IP Naturalism” crumbles as a position. It reifies creative works” as separate from particular INSTANCES of such creative work (”copies”), and then attempts to bestow some kind of “ownership”-claim to that reification.
Am I a “Unicorn nihilist” if I don’t believe in Unicorns?
Your proclaimed “naturalism” MUST inevitably turn into “maximalism” the millisecond you presume some kind of “right” to dictate what happens to OTHER PEOPLE’S COPIES — and thus, inevitably, infringe the very “natural rights” you claim to be protecting.
September 10th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
The individual’s natural rights are secured by the superhuman power of the government created for this purpose.
The individual has a natural monopoly to their private material and intellectual works. It is the securing of that natural monopoly, that exclusive right, that the US constitution empowers a government to protect. (not to grant privileges of copyright and patent that suspend individuals’ liberty to make copies of their own property)
So, a government should be empowered to remedy/reverse a violation of an individual’s privacy, to undo the theft of intellectual work – as far as is practicable.
I appreciate there’s an anarchist movement for which IP nihilism goes hand in hand, but that’s not the movement I’m part of.
I’m advocating the natural rights philosophy. It can’t be all things to all men. Someone else can write articles championing other philosophies that deny IP, recognising only material possessions.
September 10th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
(Just so everybody knows — the “Ex-wife” in the above example was totally hypothetical. I’m still happily married. As for my wife, I dunno.
(smirk!)
September 10th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Quite the lively and interesting debate. Maybe i’ll make it through henry and crosbies comments later but I find myself siding with the article comment by Jesse. I was very intrigued to find someone with a similar understanding and I am glad you brought this to my attention.
the commenter jesse said ” I believe that a person should have the recognized right to share absolutely any data in their possession. Regardless of who authored the data. Regardless of how that author hopes to recoup their costs for having initially assembled the data. Regardless of how the data got into the possessors hands.”
crosbie said: “People who are unwittingly circulating such stolen IP arenât doing so knowingly. However, they should at least cease and desist from doing so when it is brought to their attention.”
I’ll admit to not reading through all the comments present. But these 2 points I find are where some of our opinions begin to defer. Im going to have to agree with jesse. I think henry touched on this as well.
September 10th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
As to your hypotheticals Henry,
Lending a notebook of poetry (you authored) does make the recipient privy to the notebook (consequently naturally at liberty to make copies).
Any person who is privy to the loaned notebook is also at liberty to make copies.
If you have such a legitimately obtained copy you own the poetry in that copy. You control its distribution and can decide who should have access to it, and can set any price you like. Any leverage is incidental.
In your second step if by ‘come across’ you mean the person was privy to the mixed bag of stuff, and that they copied the poems found therein, and those poems weren’t stolen, then yes, they are at liberty to copy them and the recipients of those copies own the poems within them. No rights are violated in such a case.
To own a poem means you control access/use of that intellectual work in the copies you own. It is quite independent of anyone else’s ownership of a poem in indistinguishably similar copies.
You may just as well characterise the reclaim of stolen material property as a violation of the rights of those who’ve received it, but that’s sophistry. It’s just as silly to characterise remedies of IP theft as IP maximalism.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
@ Lando
Very interesting.
Every now and then I think I should put these kinds of threads together into one giant post so everyone / anyone who comes here can get the benefit.
Maybe I will. But it’d be long …
Cheers!
September 10th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
@ Jon
Do it. I think I remember you doing this at least once before and it worked well.
September 10th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
*sigh*
I’m going to try to explain this again, and maybe you’ll get it THIS time:
You said:
“To own a poem means you control access/use of that intellectual work in the copies you own. It is quite independent of anyone elseâs ownership of a poem in indistinguishably similar copies.
You may just as well characterise the reclaim of stolen material property as a violation of the rights of those whoâve received it, but thatâs sophistry. Itâs just as silly to characterise remedies of IP theft as IP maximalism.”
But you have ALSO stated:
âPeople who are unwittingly circulating such stolen IP arenât doing so knowingly. However, they should at least cease and desist from doing so when it is brought to their attention.â
Sorry, but the two stances conflict at a fundamental level:
1. You “own the poem” — in the form of YOUR particular copies.
2. Someone “steals” one of those copies.
3. A third party COPIES the copy from step 2.)
4. YOU — backed by the full weight of government, FORCE them to remove/destroy THEIR copies, on the (flimsy) justification that the particular copy from which THEY copied wasn’t legitimately obtained — IE, the person wasn’t “legitimately privy” to it.
So do you “own” the copies which you’re trying to coercively remove in the example, or don’t you?
ADMITTING — as we have from square one — that you DO STILL own YOUR ORIGINAL COPY, if such ownership does NOT extent to “indistinguishably similar copies” — HOWEVER AQUIRED, and whatever their “parentage” — then quite simply, by your own statements, acting to remove COPIES of “such stolen IP” — even when they’re “indistinguishably similar” to the one “stolen” from you — constitutes an intrusion into THEIR rights.
The only “IP” that can legitimately claim is “stolen” is the SPECIFIC COPY WHICH THE THIEF STOLE FROM YOU.
Not “indistinguishably similar” copies OF what was stolen, but the particular, specific instantiation of it.
Your claim that because the “original” wast stolen, you still own the “copies” is specious, to the extent that you’ve admitted that your “property” claim has “nothing to do” with any other copies — NO MATTER HOW “indistinguishably similar” they may be.
Which is exactly what those you mischaracterise as “IP Nihilists” have been saying.
(Nice strawman, by the way — the only references I get back from a quote-encased search on Google are either from your blog, here, or other sites mirroring content from the first two I mentioned.)
Have a good day, Crosbie — this has really been fun.
September 10th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Forcible removal/destruction is rather an exagerration of my suggestion of a cease and desist notice. You could just as well pretend I suggested sending in the stormtroopers too.
I’m saying that in securing an individual’s right to privacy, including the exclusive right to their intellectual works, in recognition of their natural IP, there should be some remedy/restitution/deterrence to IP theft rather than to simply write it off as inconsequential.
Let’s just agree to disagree, eh?
You know where I stand, and vice versa.
I’m an IP naturalist, you’re an IP nihilist, and yes, after three centuries of copyright and patent it’s not surprising we need new terms for new philosophies.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
“Forcible removal/destruction is rather an exagerration of my suggestion of a cease and desist notice. You could just as well pretend I suggested sending in the stormtroopers too.”
Then please enlighten us as to your proposed penalties, in the (entirely too likely) case that they REFUSED to comply?
I’ll go so far as to admit that — as a matter of COURTESY, if nothing else — it would be good form for them to remove it.
But, by the same token, it would be “good form” to edit out potentially-hurtful information from an answerphone tape you own, prior to posting it to the “found sound” blog. Certainly neither instance represents a level of harm meriting the equivalent of DMCA takedown bullshit, and you KNOW it.
Frankly, I’m at a loss to think of a situation that WOULD justify it.
In the hypothetical example, your gripe is with the burglar, and he owes you for the break-in, and particular copy he stole. His sister doesn’t owe you a goddamn thing for the copy he might have made for HER (or even for the one that she might have made for HERSELF while she was over at his apartment.)
Claiming otherwise neccesarily presupposes that people have the ‘natural right to copy’, but YOU get to stipulate the terms of when, where and how — which is exactly the claim put forth by “maximalists” on their rampage of destruction.
More forthcoming in an article submission of my own.
Bee fun, Crosbie.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Crosbie,
Not to keep this going longer than it should, but how is sending a C&D notice any different than what we’re seeing right now? Are you saying that organizations like the RIAA are justified in attacking websites, p2p networks, and individuals because they have distributed a prerelease music album? Somebody has most certainly taken a copy at the source, and distributed it widely – therefore, by my understanding of your logic, all subsequent copies are also stolen property and should be destroyed.
What happens when sites refuse to comply with a C&D? Do you take them to court? Should they go to jail? Does nothing happen? I find it hard to see this perspective succeeding in the long run, as it seems to me to be only different from what we have now in theory. In practice, I envision the same old lawyering we have today – since the original was often “stolen” from the source.
I think that individuals have a natural right to the data they store on their personal computers, including making and distributing copies of it. I also think we need strong privacy laws to protect individual data at the source, because once something gets out, it is (and should be) impossible to stop it. If Google stores info on me and somebody else gets it, they have the right to spread it around – even if I said they didn’t we all know how futile it would be to try and stop it. If even a few people find it valuable, there will be a copy stored somewhere, ready for distribution when the need arises. That’s why if Google is going to store data, I should be assured that it is safe – if they can’t provide that assurance, they should not be permitted to store the data. Of course, I’m ignoring issues we might have with what Google itself does with the data, but again that’s another discussion.
My point is this: when data gets out, it’s out. This is the internet we’re talking about, a worldwide distributed network. Trying to retroactively take something back is like trying to force somebody else to forget a memory.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
A C&D was a suggestion of the sort of remedy that should be considered for IP theft.
If we can agree on the principle that recognises IP theft then that’s fine. Agreement isn’t required on the practical remedies at this stage. That’s more a matter for public consultation.
Aside from the agreed culpability of the burglar, it’s going to range from:
A) All the stolen IP distributed as a consequence of the burglary can be considered as authorised.
to
Z) Anyone in possession of a copy of unauthorised provenance is admonished to destroy or return it, and to cease and desist from further communication or distribution. Persistent non-compliance is liable to result in a fine.
The monopoly of IP is clearly over, but I think we have a long debate ahead of us concerning the continuing recognition of intellectual property per se.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
“Z) Anyone in possession of a copy of unauthorised provenance is admonished to destroy or return it, and to cease and desist from further communication or distribution. Persistent non-compliance is liable to result in a fine.
The monopoly of IP is clearly over, but I think we have a long debate ahead of us concerning the continuing recognition of intellectual property per se.”
Nonsequitur, because, absent monopoly privileges, ‘intellectual property’ lacks any substantive meaning.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Henry, IP has a very substantive meaning to those who produce it and wish to exchange their intellectual work as property in a free market.
But, as I said, we’ve a long debate ahead of us between those who recognise IP and those who don’t.
On the one hand we have those who’d have theft as an occupational hazard to be borne as an inevitable overhead, and on the other, those who’d have a government disincentivise and remedy it. It’s probably a democratic thing.
I’d be more concerned about the fact that the Pirate Parties around the world are pro-copyright, and simply quibbling about whether the term should be reduced to 20 or 30 years, although exempting non-commercial copying.
There are far bigger fish to fry.
September 12th, 2009 at 10:10 am
“Iâd be more concerned about the fact that the Pirate Parties around the world are pro-copyright, and simply quibbling about whether the term should be reduced to 20 or 30 years, although exempting non-commercial copying.”
I beg to differ with that. I think what makes the Pirate Parties excellent is their willingness to go beyond the back-and-forth on copyright to illuminate the real principles that are at stake: http://techdirt.com/articles/20090708/0039315482.shtml (excerpt of statement by Christian Engstrom of the Swedish Pirate party).
Technology opens up possibilities; copyright law shuts them down. As does your proposed “enforcement” of intellectual “property.”
September 12th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Pirate Party: IP and monopolies are fine for those who want to earn a living, but for everyone else neither intellectual property nor monopolies over it need to exist
Me: Monopolies are bad full stop. People should be at liberty to exchange their labour in building upon published culture for money as well as love, and an exchange is impossible if it’s either prevented by monopoly, or their work isn’t recognised as their property.
There’s a subtle, but as Henry recognises, vital difference. You may well find the former more appealing, but I don’t find it to be a particularly principled position, more one that’s based upon observing the current situation, i.e. that those commercial big boys can keep their monopolies and they are welcome to them, but us kids who don’t care for money are going to share files whether anyone likes it or not, and we demand the right to do so.
I’ve come up with a principled, natural rights position, and some people are a little irked that whilst it is against monopoly it doesn’t indicate that people have a natural right to share intellectual work obtained through burglary. If it irks you I can only refer you to Stephan Kinsella and the philosophy of IP nihilism. :-/
September 13th, 2009 at 12:31 am
“On the one hand we have those whoâd have theft as an occupational hazard to be borne as an inevitable overhead, and on the other, those whoâd have a government disincentivise and remedy it. Itâs probably a democratic thing.”
Well holy hell, I NEVER thought I’d see a statement like that come from somebody who CLAIMS to oppose copyright/patent monopolies.
And no, Crosbie, it’s not a “democratic” thing, it’s a “your position makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, so you’ve decided to turn snarky” thing.
So tell us, Crosbie ol’ pal, what exactly IS the RIAA’s sue-em-all campaign, if not a “government disincentive and remedy” for those who BELIEVE that ideas can be “owned” and don’t want to accept “theft” (filesharing) as an “occupational hazard”.
This discussion is over, before it REALLY starts pissing me off.
September 13th, 2009 at 12:39 am
“I’ve come up with a principled, natural rights-based”…..
Feh. You’ve done no such thing. All you’ve done is posture as some kind of “anti-monopolist”, while simultaneously defending what amounts to the current system *under and slightly different name*.
It’s bullshit, multiple people have called you on it, and a few comments ago you posted something that could easily have been cut-and-pasted from “Sam I Am’s” stupid “maximalist” tirades.
Allowing privileges *IF* needed — and RECOGNIZING them to be privileges (the Pirate Party’s stance on copyright) is INFINITELY superior to posturing as an ‘opponent’ of the Status Quo WHILE DEFENDING IT’S CENTRAL TENET.
I’m out — go back to working on 1p2u and/or peddling your ‘non-monopolistic IP” nonsense that nobody but you even understands.
September 13th, 2009 at 12:44 am
“Thereâs a subtle, but as Henry recognises, vital difference. You may well find the former more appealing, but I donât find it to be a particularly principled position, more one thatâs based upon observing the current situation, i.e. that those commercial big boys can keep their monopolies and they are welcome to them, but us kids who donât care for money are going to share files whether anyone likes it or not, and we demand the right to do so.”
There you have it, folks — Mr. self-proclaimed “anti-monopolist”, Mr. Arch-crusader for the supposed ‘natural right to copy’ — has now resorted to sputtering off RIAA talking-points in defense of a ‘proposed enforcement mechanism’ that is EXACTLY LIKE THE DMCA IN EVERY DETAIL.
It boggles the mind. I’m no expert in “natural-rights Libertarianism”, but the amount of “Doublethink” involved in “opposing” state-granted monopoly-privileges but claiming a ‘natural right’ that is, in every respect IDENTICAL to those monopoly privileges is WAAY beyond my ability to comprehend.
Amazing.