logo

Against Monopoly

defending the right to innovate

Is IP Property

Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.





Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.


back

Objectivists: "All Property is Intellectual Property"

So says Adam Mossoff, Objectivist law professor, here:

Just FYI, I am just about to complete my first draft of my article, tentatively titled, "A Value-Based Theory of Intellectual Property," in which I explain why intellectual property rights are a fundamental property right. In fact, my thesis can be summed up as: All Property is Intellectual Property. As far as I'm aware, this will be the first full-length academic treatment of IP that is not only based on Rand's ethical and political theory, but also contextualizes this IP theory vis-a-vis both the Lockean labor theory of property and the utilitarian scarcity theory of property.

Of course, Kinsella and the other scarcity-based advocates for property rights with the libertarian movement, such as Timothy Sandefur, are appropriately taken down in my paper. I'm presenting my draft at the APA meeting at the end of this month in NYC, and, hopefully, I'll have a draft up on the SSRN website by the spring. So, people will either have to come to the APA meeting or they'll have to wait a few more months to download a draft.

I discussed Mossoff before in Objectivist Law Prof Mossoff on Copyright; or, the Misuse of Labor, Value, and Creation Metaphors. This was posted as a comment to An Objectivist Recants on IP??, a post by Objectivist Greg Perkins, who previously wrote DON'T STEAL THIS ARTICLE: On the Libertarian Critique of Intellectual Property (discussed in my post Elaborations on Randian IP). Perkins's post was a response to the Mises post An Objectivist Recants on IP; as I noted there, and in response to him on his post:

Greg,

For those interested, I've laid out why I think the entire Objectivist case for IP is flawed and unlibertarian in various articles and posts. I list these below; I encourage those Objectivists seriously interested IP to consider these arguments.

Articles: "Intellectual Property and Libertarianism" (in particular see here and the section on Libertarian Creationism); also "The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide"; for an alternative to the Randian approach to rights and politics, see What Libertarianism Is.

Media: I discuss problems with Rand's view at length on the Peter Mac show and at the Mises University this year; also The Intellectual Property Quagmire, or, The Perils of Libertarian Creationism.

Blog posts: Rand on IP, Owning "Values", and "Rearrangement Rights"; Libertarian Creationism; Objectivist Law Prof Mossoff on Copyright; or, the Misuse of Labor, Value, and Creation Metaphors; Inventors are Like Unto …GODS…. Also these blog posts: Intellectual Products and the Right to Private Property; New Working Paper: Machan on IP; Owning Thoughts and Labor; also Elaborations on Randian IP; and Objectivists on IP.

I'm not surprised has to claim that all property is intellectual property; this is at the root of the more consistent, but extreme and absurd, views of IP, such as those of Rand and Galambos. As I noted in Rand on IP, Owning "Values", and "Rearrangement Rights":

In Jeff Tucker's superb article If You Believe in IP, How Do You Teach Others?, he notes Rand's increasing focus on exalting the creator and elevating "intellectual rights" to such a height that they totally trump real rights. This is no exaggeration. As I noted in Against Intellectual Property, Rand actually, incredibly said that "patents are the heart and core of property rights." See also my post Inventors are Like Unto …. GODS….., noting Objectivist IP attorney Murray Franck approvingly repeating this quote: "intellectual property is after all the only absolute possession in the world."

And Galambos believed that man has "primary" property rights in his thoughts and ideas, and secondary property rights in tangible goods; see Against Intellectual Property. So, for those who take IP seriously, they have to relegate property in real things to lowly secondary status, and exalt patterns, information, ideas, "values," reputations, labor, a right to profit from labor, etc. etc. So no, it's no surprise Mossoff, trying to defend this system and take it seriously, ends up concluding that all rights are intellectual property.

As noted in the various posts and articles linked above, rights in "value," patterns, reputation rights, a Marxian-type labor theory of value, etc., all arise when rights to ideas are made primary.

Of course, as Rand herself knew, men are not ghosts; as she said, "Only a ghost can exist without material property." When she was thinking clearly she also knew that there cannot really be property rights in values or "creations"; as she once wrote:

The power to rearrange the combinations of natural elements is the only creative power man possesses. It is an enormous and glorious power and it is the only meaning of the concept "creative." "Creation" does not (and metaphysically cannot) mean the power to bring something into existence out of nothing. "Creation" means the power to bring into existence an arrangement (or combination or integration) of natural elements that had not existed before.

She should have realized that this means there cannot be property rights in value since this would have to mean property rights in arrangements or patterns, which would then give the owner of the arrangement rights in other people's already-owned property. If she had kept her focus on the fact that rearranging already-existing property can indeed make that property more valuable, she would have realized that creation (rearrangement) is not an independent source of property rights: if you rearrange your own property, even if this makes it more valuable, you already owned the property that you have rearranged (made more valuable). Yet this does not give you rights in other people's property. You can re-word the Randian view as follows: if you make your property more valuable, it gives you additional property rights-the right to prevent other people from making their own property more valuable. And this makes it all the more obviously flawed.

More on this in Rand on IP, Owning "Values", and "Rearrangement Rights". The Randian system, however, applied consistently, would lead to stagnation and death, total absurdity from the point of view of justice. No action in the real world would be possible, as IP would be much broader in scope and term than now--no reason to limit IP to original artistic works (copyright) or practical inventions (patents), it would also have to cover not only reputation (another way we "create value") but abstract ideas, clothing designs, philosophical systems, anything you can imagine that "has value" ... and the term would have to last forever; it couldn't stop at 20 or 120 years. After all, property rights don't expire.

And so we would end up with a stagnant, dead society where no one was allowed to do anything, because every action would have to employ knowledge and implement patterns someone else thought of... man would be trapped in a prison of having to ask permission for every single action worse than imaginable even in the most totalitarian regime. Life would be by permission, not by right; and it would be impossible to obtain the millions of permissions needed. As I noted in Against Intellectual Property, pp. 27-28:

By widening the scope of IP, and by lengthening its duration to avoid making such arbitrary distinctions as Rand does, the absurdity and injustice caused by IP becomes even more pronounced (as Galambos demonstrates). And by extending the term of patents and copyrights to infinity, subsequent generations would be choked by ever-growing restraints on their own use of property. No one would be able to manufacture or even use a light bulb without getting permission from Edison's heirs. No one would even be able to build a house without getting permission from the heirs of the first protohuman who left the caves and built a hut. No one could use a variety of life-saving techniques, chemicals, or treatments without obtaining permission of various lucky, rich descendants. No one would be able to boil water to purify it, or use pickling to preserve foods, unless he is granted license by the originators (or their distant heirs) of such techniques.

Such unbounded ideal rights would pose a serious threat to tangible-property rights, and would threaten to overwhelm them. All use of tangible property would by now be impossible, as every conceivable use of property, every single action, would be bound to infringe upon one of the millions of past, accreted IP rights, and the human race would die of starvation. But, as Rand noted, men are not ghosts; we have a spiritual aspect, but also a physical one.[54] Any system that elevates rights in ideas to such an extreme that it overrides rights in tangible things is clearly not a suitable ethical system for living, breathing human beings. No one living can actually act in accordance with such an unrestricted view of IP. The remaining advocates of IP all qualify their endorsement by limiting the scope and/or terms of IP rights, thus adopting the ethically arbitrary distinctions noted above.

In other words, if you take a principled approach to IP, you endorse a system that condemns society to stagnation and death. So most proponents, like Rand, realizing this, start making ad hoc, unprincipled, utilitarian exceptions to avoid the most obvious, harsh consequences of a principled implementation of their confused IP ideas.

[Mises post; SK post]


Comments

I take a principled approach to IP, i.e. one based on the principles of natural rights, that finds the privileges of copyright and patent as intrinsically unethical (injustices as Paine might put it).

I suppose you would say I therefore endorse a system that condemns society to stagnation and death?

Crosbie, no, because you don't actually favor IP. You just misuse terminology and are confused. This may be annoying, but it doesn't threaten civilization.
Crosbie,

Paine forfeited his copyright in "Common Sense" so that any printer could publish it (this was prompted by a dispute with his printer, if memory servies), but he later defended copyright. For what it's worth, he also defended the evil Pennsylvania Test Oaths, and expounded a variant of socialism in land in "Agrarian Justice." A few more libertarians like Paine, and we'll be laboring in slave camps.

I could never figure out why libertarians are so quick to embrace Paine (ditto for Andrew Jackson, who didn't put an end to the 2BUS for any high-minded libertarian reasons, but so that its deposits would go into the pet banks owned by his political backers and cronies).

I agree to you. All will be your intellectual property. I am puzzled a bit, does home an intellectual property too?The immediate reaction by mortgage companies to the housing market collapse was to tighten credit. They pulled in the reins so much that almost no one who needed money could get it. This seemed a justifiable reaction considering the magnitude of the economic turmoil. A problem with looking back too long is that it doesn't encourage moving forward. The role of appraisers now has become one of defender of the bank. They may have swung too far the other way, and are being reactive to the crisis just like they were to the conditions that caused it - and those that don't study the past are doomed to repeat it. The truth is that no deals mean nobody gets any money.

I can see why some people would value tangible property less than inventions, designs, etc. Tangible property has a serious disadvantage that its ownership is based on society permitting that ownership. When someone can readily break down your door and throw you out on the street you suddenly realize that all you can ever truly own are your thoughts and your labor. Which has more value, the coins in your collection that can be damaged, lost, stolen or just plain taken from you, or your ability to exchange your labor, your inventions, or your ideas for something of value?

Quite the opposite.

Anonymous writes:

"Tangible property has a serious disadvantage that its ownership is based on society permitting that ownership."

Quite the opposite, really. Tangible property can be defended by an individual. It is so-called "intellectual property" that requires specific societal support to "defend" it from "appropriation" by others.

Ok, I would love to hear you force tangible goods and IP together.. In the course of your writing please illustrate how a tangible good can only exist in one place at one time and be held by only one person, where as IP can exist .. well you get the point. Also, copyright aside, how can you justify in anyones words the absolute ownership of ideas? Ideas are human nature, the ability to create works around your ideas is a fundamental human right. Assigning ownership of a concept to one person on the planet is.. well.. it's evil. Many of these ideas are thought of independently but never patented (I suspect your argument will go back to the old "if you failed to take action, it was your own fault")

Remember this though, if a solution is not elegant it's probably wrong.

Nobody:

Yes, you can use force to defend physical goods. In fact, you have to use force or the threat of force to keep people from taking what is yours. That force is in the form of societal support; i.e., the police.

However, the point is that the threat of force is required to prevent someone from taking your physical goods. If you have an "intellectual" property such as a design, and the only place you have that is in your head, it can never be taken from you, or cannot be taken from you as easily as a physical good.

Anonymous writes:

"Yes, you can use force to defend physical goods. In fact, you have to use force or the threat of force to keep people from taking what is yours. That force is in the form of societal support; i.e., the police."

But it doesn't, in theory, have to be. Enforcement of e.g. copyrights does have to be in the form of societal support.

"If you have an "intellectual" property such as a design, and the only place you have that is in your head, it can never be taken from you, or cannot be taken from you as easily as a physical good."

This much is true. Are you using Crosbie's definition of "intellectual property"?

Nobody:

Yes, you can use force to defend physical goods. In fact, you have to use force or the threat of force to keep people from taking what is yours. That force is in the form of societal support; i.e., the police.

But it doesn't, in theory, have to be. Enforcement of e.g. copyrights does have to be in the form of societal support.

In the "ideal" world that is true. However, the reality is that people absolutely love to take the tangible property of others the moment they believe they can. I am reminded of the looting that occurred in LA after the riots, in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and the looting that seems to almost always occur the moment the societal support (force) it takes to protect tangible goods is gone.

On the other hand, how many people attempt to steal intellectual property that happens to be lying around? Yes, such taking happens via internet all the time, but rarely anywhere else.

If you have an "intellectual" property such as a design, and the only place you have that is in your head, it can never be taken from you, or cannot be taken from you as easily as a physical good.

This much is true. Are you using Crosbie's definition of "intellectual property"?

I suppose I am. As the quote in the post notes, intellectual property is the ultimate property for if the person defending is willing to give their life, even death will not gain that property to an ostensible taker of that property. The death of an owner always renders tangible property available, leading to an interesting conundrum. When property can only be defended by violence, tangible property is immediately gained by the death of the owner, but intellectual property dies with its owner.

Quite the interesting situation.

Oh, great. Lonnie again?


Submit Comment

Blog Post

Name:

Email (optional):

Your Humanity:

Prove you are human by retyping the anti-spam code.
For example if the code is unodosthreefour,
type 1234 in the textbox below.

Anti-spam Code
SevenSevenNineUno:


Post



   

Most Recent Comments

Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do

Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous

IIPA thinks open source equals piracy Good post. Thanks for this information. By the way, if students want to get rid of their

Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,

What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic

Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the

Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples

Music without copyright Hundreds of businessmen are looking for premium quality article distribution services that can be

Les patent trolls ne sont pas toujours des officines

Les patent trolls ne sont pas toujours des officines

Patent Lawyers Who Don't Toe the Line Should Be Punished! Moreover "the single most destructive force to innovation is patents". We'd like to unite with you

Bonfire of the Missalettes!

Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? So, if our patent system was "broken," TFP of durable goods should have dropped. Conversely, since

Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? I wondered about TFP, because I had heard that TFP was increasing. Apparently, it depends on who

Music without copyright I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They are very convincing and will

Music without copyright It's strange, that sometimes the most simple suggestions are often the most useful! I will take the

Patents on 3D Printing Challenged by Prior Art To Loup Vaillant: "So, you think we wouldn't have had those 9 technologies without patents? I can

Patents on 3D Printing Challenged by Prior Art @anonymous: So, you think we wouldn't have had those 9 technologies without patents? I can accept