[ExI] intellectual property again

[JOSHUA JOB]

On Mar 7, 2010, at 10:31 PM, Spencer Campbell wrote:
> I don't buy it. The government cannot perform self-defense on behalf
> of other people. Aside from that, ALMOST ALL instances of self-defense
> qualify as "force".

The idea is that government is simply an institution with which people place their right to defend themselves (in part), because the might of many many many people is far better than a single person defending himself alone. You have a right to respond with force when someone initiates force against you (as they are violating your rights and so can no longer claim to have rights of their own, in a limited sense). Having others defend you is also right, since you are not granting anyone a right you do not yourself have. I am NOT saying that you do not have a right to use force under any circumstances. I am saying you ONLY have a right to use force when someone violates your rights (that is, in self-defense or defense of your property), and then, legally, only can do so within certain bounds. So, you can shoot someone who attacks you, but you cannot go and burn down the house of someone who stole from you. Essentially, you retain your right to defend yourself directly in a crisis, but in non-crisis situations you agree to let the government do it (so that people don't run around killing each other claiming their rights were violated without proof).

> Out of the two, I would lean towards "more obvious laws". I think it
> would be better to say "more natural laws", however. Laws which not
> only aren't arbitrary, but clearly do not *appear* arbitrary.
> ...
> The difference is essentially this: an arbitrary law is enforced by
> consequences imposed by other people, whereas a natural law is
> enforced by consequences of your own actions.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. Then all idea of property rights (or at least most of it) goes out the window as arbitrary, since many people will feel it is in their best interests to steal (however irrational that is). Similarly with very well executed murders (that is, little evidence), and all sorts of other things. You NEED laws to be enforced by other people. If you didn't, then everyone would be angels, and that is simply not true. Many many of the morally correct laws that should be imposed would meet your definition of arbitrary (unless everyone was rational and understood where their rights came from, etc., which is unlikely ever to be the case).

> And yet it is much, much more complicated, for the simple reason that
> intellectual property is fundamentally easier to steal. In fact, you
> can steal it just by looking at it. Nothing can stop you.
> 
> I don't think it's possible, even in theory, to construct a
> self-enforcing copyright system. To me, this indicates that we may be
> looking at the problem from the wrong angle. Indeed, I think you're
> seeing a problem where there really isn't one.

I agree with you on the latter point, a self-enforcing copyright system is likely impossible. But so is a self-enforcing rights respecting legal system in general. The people who break laws, only do so because they feel the benefits outweigh the costs (even if they're crazy for thinking so). That is why we need police and courts, to take care of the nutjobs of the world.

And since we need that anyway, there isn't much more to an IP system. I know of no way to steal someone's intellectual property just by looking at it. You have to DO something with it in order to infringe someone's property rights. If you create a product that exactly matches various architectures or systems created by another company, you can be shown to have infringed on their patent (or not, that's what court/arbitration is for). Similarly, if you copy a book plot, or make an copy of a movie without permission, all of those things can be shown without a doubt. Now, whether it is perfectly enforceable isn't the issue, as most things people do with their content that they purchase that is protected by IP law is something that isn't that big a deal to the companies, and indeed is something everyone wants to be able to do anyway. 

This is exactly why companies are working to give us access to ALL our media everywhere, anytime, for just the cost of initial purchase. Its why "digital copy" is springing up all over on DVDs, because people want those types of things. They realize that they cannot try to sell people a movie 5 times in order to be able to watch it on their computer, their iPod, their TV, etc. etc. Because people simply won't buy those multiple copies, they'll try everything in their power to get around the protections, and there is virtually no way to prevent it or enforce your IP claims. I'm not saying they don't have them, but that ultimately, in some cases, the cost of enforcement in public discontent, time, and money is simply too high to be profitable. This is similar to how often people will not press charges if someone hits them, for example (like in the case of a fight of some kind). It simply isn't worth it. In some cases, it is, like is the case with many patents, or with a for-profit illegal movie distribution ring, something like that. In fact, there are numerous crimes committed everyday that do not get reported, even though they are perfectly legitimate, for just this reason. So I'd advise not trying the "its unenforceable" argument, as it is simply highly costly to enforce, just as with numerous legitimate crimes that people don't bother reporting every day.


Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com