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.

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.

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.

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. :-/

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.”

But you have ALSO stated:

“People who are unwittingly circulating such stolen IP aren’t doing so knowingly. However, they should at least cease and desist from doing so when it is brought to their attention.”

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.

Do it. I think I remember you doing this at least once before and it worked well.

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!

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.

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 aren’t 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.

(smirk!)

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.

“IP naturalism also has a rider – 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 doesn’t mean your guests aren’t 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 – it’s the works they aren’t privy to that they aren’t 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.

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.