Since property consists of physical (material) tangible entities or substances and ideas consist of psychological (non-material) intangible concepts, the pseudo-concept intellectual property, means non-material material, (non-material intellectual material property). It is a self-contradictory non-concept.

The original publishers did what most people do when the free market does not provide them with profit or income they expect or want. They appealed to the government to interfere in the free market and prevent others from printing "their" books. Their argument was, they had spent all the time and effort writing the book, others were profiting from their time and effort without compensating them for it. In other words, their argument was the Marxist argument, the value of there work was determined by their effort.

There is no rational basis in this argument at all. The only economic value of a book, or anything else, is the value the market is willing to pay for it. Presuming there is only one copy of the original manuscript, someone interested in having it might pay a great deal for it, but anyone only interested in reading it, would not pay so much. If the author decides to print (publish) it himself, he is entitled to all the income he can make from selling those published copies. The only products are the actual published books, not the idea contained in the original manuscript.

If someone else decides to publish the book, they cannot possibly make a profit if the author (or someone else) has already published the book and the market is saturated. To sell any books, the new publisher must offer something the original publisher does not, like a lower price, or larger print, or he must offer it to a market the original publisher has not reached. There is nothing to prevent the original publisher from doing whatever the new publisher intends to do, before the new publisher does it.

The original publisher always has the advantage of being first in the market, and of already having the "tooling" or whatever else is required to produce the product. If a competitor comes along and gains some of the original publishers market, it is because the new publisher is offering something the market wants and is willing to choose over the original publisher's product.

There is an even more foolish argument made these days for intellectual property, based on the notion that an idea can be property, even after it is shared with the public. It attempts to equate a grocer's inventory with an individual's idea, and goes something like this, "if it is OK for someone to sell someone else's property (idea) then it is OK to go into your local grocery store and take all the oranges in the store and set up your own orange stand on the sidewalk outside the store."

The obvious difference is that, "taking someone else's idea," (which only means they thought of it first), does not deprive them of the idea, or of selling it, while taking the grocer's oranges does deprive him of the oranges, which he no longer has to sell. This attempted argument from analogy fails, not only because it is false, but because it is a bad analogy.

There is no correct analogy along these lines, but one that would be less absurd is this: Suppose someone had an atomic duplicator and it could duplicate anything it could take a picture of. If the person with the atomic duplicator bought an orange in a grocery store, took a picture of it, and produced identical oranges with it which he subsequently sold, would that be a violation of property rights?

"taking someone else's idea," (which only means they thought of it first),

Now suppose someone buys a music CD, writes a program that can copy the CD and proceeds to make copies of the CD which he then sells. Is that a violation of property? The usual answer is yes. But how has anyone's property been violated? What property was taken away or destroyed? The actual case is just the opposite. If someone buys a CD, that CD is his property. If someone else prevents him, by force or the threat of it, from using his property, (the CD he purchased) in any way he pleases, it is his property rights that are violated. If he uses the CD he has purchased to produce new CDs and is prevented from selling the new CDs or has them confiscated, the product of his effort, a tangible "real" product is violated.

Obviously if someone buys something and agrees at the time it is purchased not to reproduce the product in any way, and does so in writing, it is a violation of that contract if copies are made. This is not the case with CDs however. No one signs or agrees to anything when they buy a CD, no matter what is printed on anything accompanying it.)

The most absurd argument for intellectual property is the argument that anyone who reproduces any of those things that are collected under that pseudo-concept is "stealing." If the producer of so-called intellectual property does an inventory before someone else makes their own copies and sells them (or gives them away) and takes another inventory after someone else makes their own copies and distributes them, they will discover that nothing is missing. The concept of theft is based on something being stolen, but if nothing is missing, just what is it the presumed violator of intellectual property rights stole?

Patent and copyright law, far from protecting property, are a violation of an individual's freedom to think and act on his own thoughts. If you think of, develop, manufacture, and sell a product which it is subsequently discovered someone else thought of first, and patented, you will be prevented from continuing to manufacture and sell that product, even if the patent holder never has and never does produce the product.

Copyright and patent law is just another government impediment hampering the affectiveness of the free market. Not only would the economy not suffer if these laws were abolished, there would be a great economic boom because of it. However, do not expect it to happen, and only defy these laws if you are willing to accept the risk of facing a totally irrational and vicious foe of unlimited power.

Ideas are psychological (not physical) existents consisting of concepts or combinations of concepts—ideas have no physical qualities. Ideas can be reproduced indefinitely without requiring any physical substances of components (resources). Ideas can be used indefinitely without limiting their availability or existence to other users. Ideas cannot be "used up or destroyed."

I am not so sure about using a manufacturing concept (reproduce), which implies physicality, in conjunction with the reproduction of an idea, which, you state: “…have no physical qualities.”  If ideas have no physical qualities (I have no idea as to which sort of physical qualities ideas have, by the way) then just what is being reproduced?  Is reproduction of a non-physical entity possible?  

Clearly there is a context problem involved here: A) we have mental events, which, I do take as existing as, of course, mental events, and B) the bringing into existence, in the non-mental event context, the idea which represent the mental event.

This entire going from the mental to the non-mental, in my opinion, is too…awkward of a method of showing why an existing product ought to be legally replicated by a person whom does not hold the patent, or did not invent it.  

Although I do not agree with your “Ideas are not physical,” I do, however, agree that I should have the right to make my own “Cadillac.”  I mean, it is MY effort that is going into bringing THIS “Cadillac” into existence, not the men and women at the GM plant.

On the other hand, I would not feel comfortable calling it a Cadillac, and selling it as such, despite the fact it can be identical in every way, as I would be deceiving the purchaser of his perceived quality assurance that he/she is accustomed, or expects, from GM built Cadillacs. 

If it is clear as to who made the product, I see no problem in the replication and the distribution of the replicated, either.

Analogy time:

If I build a house that looks just like a house built by a housing development company, the only thing I can’t do is sell it as a house built by that housing development company. 

A person, who digs into the side of a mountain/hill in order to create for him/herself shelter, used his/her intellect/abilities to do so.  Should I be forbidden from making a similar shelter because I didn’t come up with the idea first?  I know that this analogy is technologically inferior to, say, MP3s or a modern house, but it holds.

 
If one is not willing to build a cave due to not being the inventor, then you must be willing to stand out in the cold.  I, for one, am not willing to do so.   

 Property consists of physical existents which can be counted or measured. Property consist of physical goods made from physical substances or components.

 If someone else decides to publish the book, they cannot possibly make a profit if the author (or someone else) has already published the book and the market is saturated. To sell any books, the new publisher must offer something the original publisher does not, like a lower price, or larger print, or he must offer it to a market the original publisher has not reached. There is nothing to prevent the original publisher from doing whatever the new publisher intends to do, before the new publisher does it.

When I said, "Their argument was, they had spent all the time and effort writing the book, others were profiting from their time and effort without compensating them for it. In other words, their argument was the Marxist argument, the value of there work was determined by their effort," you said, "This was not an argument about the value of the book ...," but that is the very argument you are now making. It is "preposterous to say ... Edison deserves no more right to the invention of the lightbulb," why? Because, "he spent thousands of man-hours in experimentation, identifying a material for the filament, determining the type of glass for the bulb, and designing a configuration that would work." But what is the patent protection for? to make sure he doesn't for get what he invented, or, to make sure he is able to make the amount of money he ought to because he put so much work into it.

Greetings, Jordan, Rodney, Regi, and Matthew.

Jordan, you wrote: >>Property, at least in the eyes of the law, is not restricted to material objects. Actually, quite the opposite is the case. In law, property is viewed as a bundle of rights, and rights are just claims of specific action (or inaction) in relation to certain objects. So technically, the law would say that we don't own, say, land, only rights in relation to the land. And similarly, we can have rights to services. Ex. if I pay someone to mow my lawn, then I have a right to their mowing it. It's a right to exclusive use of certain action (not an object)...very similar to intellectual property rights.<<

Well, it’s true our solons, when in a positivist bent, can enact anything into law.  Ideally what they should restrict lawmaking to is the protection and enforcement of our rights.  In turn our rights define the prerogatives that are naturally ours as human beings to enjoy life as each of us sees fit.  Thus, good law is rooted in what is true to our human nature.

For example, we can naturally possess physical things, because once we have it we can exclude others from it.  It’s that simple: Two people cannot have possession of the same object at the same time.  Similarly, in regard to land, only one person can exercise dominion over the same parcel at the same time.  (Yes, things can be possessed by more than one person in agreement with others, but the fact that we need to reduce such group possession to a singular entity like a joint tenancy, a partnership, or a corporation supports the point I am making.)  So, by nature we are capable of exclusive possession of physical things.

Therefore, we have a natural right to possess land and objects that we have earned a claim to – i.e., we have the right of property.  You’re correct that common law recognizes this right as ownership, therefore ownership legally means a person’s collection of rights to use, transfer, or destroy an article of property to the exclusion of all other people.  Thus, the law makes possible the translation of the tangible possession of a physical thing into an intangible right to mortgage, bequeath, option, or otherwise exploit one’s ownership of property without surrendering its possession.

However, the fact that what is physical can manifest through the law intangible rights, does not mean what is inherently intangible in the first place, like an idea, can also be property – except by the positivist declarations of our legislators that it is.  In the real world A is always A, but under the capitol domes of this fine land of ours, A can be almost anything – for instance, an idea can be property.

Rodney says:  >>That's a relief, Bill. I hate preaching to the converted.<<

I know, but it’ll still do the lads some good, Rodney.

Regi had some comments about the distinction I was making between creation and discovery and therefore my belief in the validity of copyright and the invalidity of patents.

I said: >>I do not think this difference between creation and discovery applies to your real question, however. You said: I cannot quite put my finger upon the underlying principle, but even if patents are foolishness, there is an injustice in denying an artist the benefit of his work.  After all, when I buy a book, I am not buying the paper it is printed on, but the author’s composition.<<

You responded:  >>I think part of your concern, and the reason you cannot quite put your finger on it, is a very normal reaction to the facts, especially if you happen to be an author--"I know the hours of effort and creative energy that went into creating this book, dammit; why should some copy-cat punk cashing in on my effort be able to deprive me of the profit I could otherwise make?" (I assume this is what you mean by benefit of his [the artist's] work, since copyrights would not protect any other kind of benefit.)<<

While I understand the sentiment (and no doubt would feel it if I had something more at stake than a few modest technical works), the gut reaction I was referring to is my squeamishness at profiting from a work of art I did not produce without paying the artist.

I don’t have the same problem when it comes to reverse-engineering.  That takes a hell of a lot of work to do a precise knock-off, and as a practical matter, what happens is usually an improvement upon the product or its manufacture so that you can compete by making it either better or faster or cheaper.  Besides, as a practical matter, it is next to impossible to say who originated most ideas.  All new ideas rest upon old ones, and who’s to say what is truly new and what is not.  (Oh yes, I forgot.  The geniuses at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office!)

I look at a lot of things in my industry and I think, “Oh yeah, I would’ve thought of that if I had put my attention to it”, or even, “Hey, I did think of that already!”  So I’m not impressed by the fact that someone got to the patent office’s door first.  (And that people have this option, sometimes forces us who don't want the protection to still pursue a patent to prevent someone else from claiming a monopoly upon the idea.)   I cannot believe that there exists any invention that could not have been independently discovered by another.  (Indeed, that’s why the vast majority of patent applications are rejected, and vast majority of new ideas that do become products never even bother with the patent process.)

But that’s not true of a work of art.  While it’s true in a way that there’s nothing new under the sun when it comes to a story (that is, the idea of a book or movie), the particular composition an author produces is unique to his effort to tell that story.  No one can honestly say he would’ve composed a story he has read the same way.  Similarly?  On occasion, I suppose.  But not the same.  The creation of a work of art is unique unlike the discovery of new idea can never be.  Hence, my support of copyright.

Now, I do agree with you, Regi, that as a practical matter I think the market would re-organize itself in a non-copyright world in a manner that would still reward the artist.  Without copyrights, painters and sculptors will always enjoy the reward of having produced the original work.  Publishers need content and are not going to eliminate the incentives authors need to write.  Software companies will withhold support for knock-off versions of their products.  I’m not so sure about singers, musicians, and filmmakers – but then when everyone can do Hollywood out of his garage within a couple of decades, maybe the big buck market for these types of works is about to disappear anyway under a tidal wave of do-it-yourselvers.  (There is a lot of talent between New York and L.A.)

But I haven’t thought out the possibilities of all this to persuade myself that copyright is nothing more than utilitarian.  Your thoughts, as always, on what a non-copyright market would look like are of interest.

Matthew posed the idea: >>What would you all think to the idea of "copyright" being defended purely by contractual mechanisms?<<

You know, that may be the right path.  Get the government out of the business of policing knock-offs of an artist’s work.  In principle I don’t have a problem with making an agreement not to copy a condition of sale of an artist’s work.  I suppose it could contain a covenant like those attached to real estate that bind future owners of the work.  However, I do think that because such restrictions lack the explicit consent of the buyer, such agreements would not be valid if they are not as a practical matter enforceable.  (This would be akin to a blockade, the declaration of which is invalid under the rules of war if it is not enforceable.)

Whatever way the law would work this out, perhaps private contract can replace government-mandated copyright.  After all, look how badly the copyright law is now abused, with rights being retained by successors decades after the death of the originator and its application to things are not created in any meaningful sense, such as an actor’s image or voice.

Regards,

Bill