Copyright Infringement

Why should copyright infringement be illegal?

Let us take a step back and look afresh at the idea of property rights. Libertarians believe in property rights in tangible goods (resources). Why? What is it about tangible goods that makes them subjects for property rights? Why are tangible goods property?
A little reflection will show that it is these goods’ scarcity—the fact that there can be conflict over these goods by multiple human actors. The very possibility of conflict over a resource renders it scarce, giving rise to the need for ethical rules to govern its use. Thus, the fundamental social and ethical function of property rights is to prevent interpersonal conflict over scarce resources. [...]

ideas are not scarce. If I invent a technique for harvesting cotton, your harvesting cotton in this way would not take away the technique from me. I still have my technique (as well as my cotton). Your use does not exclude my use; we could both use my technique to harvest cotton. There is no economic scarcity, and no possibility of conflict over the use of a scarce resource. Thus, there is no need for exclusivity.
Similarly, if you copy a book I have written, I still have the original (tangible) book, and I also still “have” the pattern of words that constitute the book. Thus, authored works are not scarce in the same sense that a piece of land or a car are scarce. If you take my car, I no longer have it. But if you “take” a book-pattern and use it to make your own physical book, I still have my own copy. The same holds true for inventions and, indeed, for any “pattern” or information one generates or has. As Thomas Jefferson—himself an inventor, as well as the first Patent Examiner in the U.S.—wrote, “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”62 Since use of another’s idea does not deprive him of its use, no conflict over its use is possible; ideas, therefore, are not candidates for property rights.

It's like, if you can't touch it you can't own it. Is that your bottom line?

The trouble with this argument is that it only applies to inventions, music, texts, etc., that have already been produced. Once you consider the disincentive to produce them that an abolition of intellectual property rights would bring, intellectual assets are scarce, and the factual premise of Kinsella's case collapses.

So you're not anti-property, you're just anti-copyright -- and I'm having a difficult time seeing why you draw the line there. It appears, as best as I can tell, that you don't like intangible property. You're OK with telling people to stay off your lawn or keeping their mitts off your stuff, but it's the stuff you can't see that causes you some difficulties. It's like, if you can't touch it you can't own it. Is that your bottom line?

Property rights are based on scarcity. If we lived in a world where we had an unlimited to supply of everything then property rights would be meaningless. We could all have a mansion and a luxury car. Since that can't happen we have to work in some kind of system where property is owned.

Ideas aren't scarce. Yes, even if there were only one idea because we could still copy that idea an unlimited number of times.

Another problem with intellectual property is that it stakes a claim on property I already own. I own my pen and paper yet if I right a Harry Potter novel on it. I've broken a law. That's a limit on how I can use my own property.

I really don't understand. What did I say that was all so bad?

If I write a novel but only make a single copy and allow no one to make copies of it, and I charge people to read my single copy, then I've created a scarce commodity, even though it's still only intellectual property that I'm protecting. I could make an unlimited supply of those copies, but I choose not to. There's nothing making it scarce except my own desire to make it scarce. Does that mean that the law should protect the intellectual property I have in my novel just because I've made it scarce?

To suggest, then, that intellectual property is, by its very nature, plentiful, or that there is an unlimited supply of intellectual property out there, is to ignore the framework of laws that makes it advantageous to the creators of that intellectual property to make it available in a seemingly unlimited supply in the first place.

There are all sorts of limits on how you can use your property right now. If you use your paper to print counterfeit currency, you could also be in trouble with the law, and it really doesn't matter that it's your paper. Would you argue that the counterfeiting laws are just as unjustifiable as the copyright laws?

To suggest, then, that intellectual property is, by its very nature, plentiful, or that there is an unlimited supply of intellectual property out there, is to ignore the framework of laws that makes it advantageous to the creators of that intellectual property to make it available in a seemingly unlimited supply in the first place.

Nice try but that's not what is meant by the claim that ideas are not scarce. It's not about the count of the total number of ideas but the amount of any particular idea in demand in comparison to the amount of that idea available.

If you keep it locked in your basement and don't let anyone read it then it is scarce. However, intellectual property laws would be irrelevant. Someone would have to break into your basement to get to it or steal it from you. In either case it's trespassing or theft of the paper it's written on.

As soon as you let a single person read it then it's no longer scarce. That person is free to write down, from memory, every word of that novel.

That's nonsense. The novel existed long before copyright laws. If your argument were true then Don Quixote, The Canterbury Tales, Robinson Crusoe and hundreds of other great works of literature shouldn't exist. Yet, they do exist.

The mere printing of counterfeit money shouldn't be illegal but trying to pass it off as genuine money is a form of fraud. It's no different than if I were to pass off a can of brown sugar water as Pepsi.

You're also making the same mistake that Thomas made. What is meant by the claim that intellectual property isn't scarce, isn't that there are millions of novels. There could be only one novel and it still wouldn't be scarce because an infinite number of copies could be made.

But if someone broke into my basement and stole my novel, they wouldn't be stealing it for the paper it's printed on. They'd be stealing it because of the expressions that I have put on the paper.

Likewise, the damage that I've suffered isn't the cost of the paper, it's the value that I could receive for those expressions in the open market. Given that the value of the novel is the expressions contained therein, not the paper, shouldn't the law recognize that fact by protecting those expressions?

If they can, but then it is the rare person indeed who could memorize an entire novel in one sitting. Such persons, no doubt, would soon become known in the literary community and would be banned from reading one-of-a-kind novels, in much the same way that known card-counters are banned from Las Vegas casinos.

We'll never know how many great novels weren't written in the past because there were limited economic benefits.

We do know, however, that more works of literature were written after copyright laws went into effect (like, e.g., Robinson Crusoe, which was published nine years after the first copyright act was passed).

I don't understand. You complain that copyright laws infringe on your right to use your property as you like, but you have no problem with fraud laws that prevent you from using your property as you like. Where do you draw the line?

Why does that make a difference? An infinite number of copies could be made only if the creator allows an infinite number of copies to be made. If the creator doesn't, then it's a scarce commodity. Or are you suggesting that the law should protect commodities that are naturally scarce but it shouldn't protect commodities that are only artificially scarce?

If you keep it locked in your basement it's scarce but intellectual property laws are irrelevant.

Night Ripper wrote:

If you keep it locked in your basement it's scarce but intellectual property laws are irrelevant.

What if he never wrote it in the first place, but could write it if there was a sufficiently great incentive?

The motivation behind a crime is irrelevant as long as there was a motive.

The value on the open market makes it worthless since it can be copied freely. The only value is in the original, because it's the original, which is what you rightfully own.

Right, and then instead of 1 person memorizing the entire thing you have 1,000 people memorizing part of it.

So what? Are you saying that even though we had Bach, Vivaldi, da Vinci, etc that we could have had more so therefore we need to take liberty away from people? That's greed beyond comprehension.

Wow, you found one mistake.

I'm sorry for that. I guess that means that the Greek epics, countless thousands of books, paintings, songs, architecture, machine designs, all came to exist about 300 years ago, right around the time copyright was invented?

Again, the prohibition isn't on using your property. It's on fraud. How is that so complicated? If I tell you I'm the King of France and therefore I need all your money, that's still fraud and has nothing to do with how I use my property.

The Alchemist (Portuguese: O Alquimista) is an allegorical novel by Paulo Coelho first published in 1988. It has been hailed as a modern classic.[1][2] The Alchemist was originally written in Portuguese and has since been translated into 56 languages, winning the Guinness World Record for most translated book by a living author.[3] It has sold more than 65 million copies in more than 150 countries, becoming one of the best-selling books in history.[4]

Paulo Coelho is a strong advocate of spreading his books through peer-to-peer file sharing networks. He put his own books on file-sharing networks like BitTorrent, and noted that The Alchemist received a boost in sales due to this.[12] He stated that "I do think that when a reader has the possibility to read some chapters, he or she can always decide to buy the book later."[12] Currently, chapters from The Alchemist can be found on Google Books and Coelho's agency Sant Jordi Associoados.[13][14] Entire copies of his books, including translations, can also be found on Pirate Coelho, a blog off Coelho's main blog.[15]

I've already covered this. If you keep it locked in your basement it's scarce but intellectual property laws are irrelevant. As soon as it's exposed to another person they can copy it all they like. There's no such thing as allowing a single copy because allowing a single copy allows for unlimited copies.