Forgive me, I’ve been remiss. You’ve visited the thread twice now, and I’ve failed to respond to your arguments and questions. Next time you drop by, let me know what they are.
Dear me, have I been… hijacking?
No, dear. You’ve been thread whoring. Hijacking connotes at least raising a topic.
In what way? It was suggested that the OP search for previous threads. I provided a list of such threads. You (coming along later) didn’t care for that. I explained myself. You didn’t care for that. I’m not going to get into a recursive battle with you on that subject, and allow this thread to be hijacked.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Well, NOW we indeed have a hijack. Dewey has offered to change the “Lib Hijack” to just “Hijack”. However, This Year’s Model could not edit another poster’s quote, so he had to leave it as it was. We mods are not supposed to edit poster’s comments except for fixing code errors or deletion of personal info or inappropriate links and so on, so we had to leave it too. Frankly I don’t think saying “so and so hijacked a thread” is such a terrible thing. “[blank]-whore” of any sort seems far worse. Nevertheless, either way this discussion is not a Great Debate so drop it or move it to the Pit or email. Thanks.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Thank you, Gaudere. Level headed and judiciously fair as always. I apologize for my own participation in the matter. I should have summarily ignored the whole thing.
So would you now be so gracious as to answer my question about IP rights?
(BTW, I’ve already modified that entry on the text file where I keep the “library,” FWIW. It won’t show up in that form again. I’m perfectly willing to work with you to avoid offense, within reason, but I can’t do that unless you bring such matters to my attention.)
I really don’t have much of an opinion one way or the other on the matter, because I really don’t understand it. Like abortion, it is controversial among libertarians, depending on how the phenomenal entity “intellectual property” is conceived. There is, for example, this argument against, the reading of which leaves me with glazed eyes and the feeling of having lost the last few minutes of my life. Arguments in favor (for which you can Google) are equally boring. Perhaps you and I could work together in formulating a sensible and definitive libertarian position such that the answer to your question would not involve the mapping of millions of hypothetical permutations. For this, you would need to educate me on what intellectual property exactly is (if indeed it is exactly anything), and I could educate you on what the principle of noncoercion is. Together, we can establish the premises and draw the inferences that will lead us to a conclusion that will satisfy you. Let me know whether this sort of cooperative discussion (as opposed to an adversarial discussion) would be of interest to you.
Millions of hypothetical positions? I asked you two questions about one property, namely a novel.
Here it is again, in case you’ve forgotten:
I have contracted with Libertarian State A, which has strong IP protections. I write a popular novel. A neighbor a few streets over has contracted with Libertarian State B, which has no IP rules. He sells my novel without giving me a thin red dime. Do I have recourse, and if so, what?
Say it’s 100 years after my death. Libertarian State A’s IP protections are so strong that they grant copyright into perpetuity. Does my estate still have any recourse against the neighbor?
Dewey, could you rewrite the questions without containing the term “IP”, merely stating concretely how your contracted state regards your novel?
Daniel
Also: note the title of this forum.
I don’t represent the libertarian position, and I fail to see why I should assist you in forming valid arguments.
(Also BTW: you find this topic “boring”? Good lord, don’t you know how important IP is in this modern era? Boring or not, it’s certainly something you should be prepared to deal with.)
Replace “IP” with “copyright” if that helps, although I’m curious as to how Libertaria handles things that the status quo would call patents and trademarks as well.
(Can Hank patent Rearden Metal? Can Taggart Transcontinental prevent others from using the stylized “TT” logo?)
Is this really a confusing point? If I want to print and distribute copies of “Atlas Shrugged,” I have to pay Ayn Rand’s estate for the privilege of doing so. Are people really unclear on the concept I’m presenting?
Actually, what I’m getting at is this. Both of us contract with state A. I publish your novel without getting your consent. What consequences follow?
Knowing the answer to that might clarify how State B should handle the situation.
Daniel
I sue you for statutory damages and win under the laws of state A. Also, possible criminal sanctions if the violation is particularly egregious.
Suppose one of them is the US, and the other is say, Cuba.
A better example would be the US and China. Cuba’s market is a rounding error.
But, so what? This is a problem in the real world, but at least the fact of national governments blunts its impact. Remaking the world into Libertaria seems to me to exacerbate the problem.
And of course I’m presuming actual law in our two hypothetical states. I’m curious as to what kind of copyright protection flows from the “one law” of noncoercion.
Okay. But let me ask you this: is the answering questions thing a one-way street? Is it the case that you cannot see why I don’t answer your questions, but you can see clearly why you don’t answer mine? I’m still waiting to hear whether you’re willing to work cooperatively rather than adversarially to develop an answer to your IP (reborn as copyright) question. I mean, the evidence notwithstanding, maybe you would reconsider.
How so? On both counts? How does the fact of national governments blunt its impact? And what are your hypothetical libertarian governments — chopped liver? Aren’t they national governments too? Finally, if you could bring yourself to explain just exactly how remaking the world into Libertaria (as opposed to what, multiple libertarian nations or a mixture of libertarian and authoritarian nations) seems to you to exacerbate the problem, it might help me understand just exactly what the perceived problem is.
Oh. Why didn’t you just say so? You must have missed it when I explained that it could flow either way, depending on how one defines “mind”, just as abortion could flow either way, depending on how one defines “life”. It’s a matter of whether ownership of the mind means ownership of the decisions it makes or ownership of the ideas it conceives, and whether the latter extrudes into ownership of the ideas it realizes. There is certainly no controversy over the ownership of consent; but there is great controversy over the ownership of realized ideas. No one can force you to divulge what is in your head, but if you’ve divulged it voluntarily, then it is out there like the breath you’ve exhaled. That’s how I see it anyway.
Also, with respect to this:
Note that I did not ask you assist me in forming a valid argument (although why you would be unwilling to do so is unclear). What I asked was whether you would be willing to approach getting your question answered in a cooperative way. Perhaps you should decide whether you indeed are bothered about not having your questions answered — which is what you’ve repeatedly referenced here — or indeed whether you are bothered about being unable to stir up an argument. Many discussions in Great Debates have been cooperative ventures among posters for the purpose of at the very least framing the debate. Especially on philosophical matters. See the many discussions about materialism and theology, for example. SentientMeat and I, on completely opposite ends of the spectrum, work from a place of genuine mutual respect. Our interest is not in submarining each other with clever arguments, but in developing a rational basis upon which to have a reasonable debate.
Have you even asked me a question yet? Other than this one, that is?
I take this series of questions to essentially be asking what I mean when I said shifting to Libertaria would exacerbate the problem, so in the interest of brevity this will serve as my answer to all of them.
I understand a Libertarian society, as you concieve it, based on your posting history on the subject, to be one where government functions are handled exclusively by contract – that is, there is no “state” in the sense of the status quo; rather than an entity having jursidiction to enforce its laws over a defined geographic area, jurisdiction is based solely on the express consent of those willing to contract with a “government company.”
Because under your view governing bodies (such as they are) would lack the ability to prescribe rules on a geographic basis, the problems of conflicting copyright rules (or the absence of such rules) become much more significant. I’m not sure why this needs any sort of explanation; it seems to me to be self-evident. If nothing else, there is clarity: there is another state with which to have diplomatic relations, with whom we know its reach and power. Contrast that to a gaggle of fiefdoms, not to mention those individual who simply haven’t contracted with anyone.
I assume this to be rhetorical.
This is a non-answer. I don’t care what other libertarian thinkers think. I care what you think.
Is this a statement of your view? It’s so noncommittal I’m not sure. At any rate, what you appear to be saying is that there are effectively no copyright protections to be found flowing from the noncoercion principle – the novelist has no right to profit from his work, should he choose to publish it. Do I understand you correctly?