5 ms·

Original US copyright law was for 14 years, with an optional extension for an additional 14. I think that's more than adequate for the original author to benefi

by jstalin 13y ago

Original US copyright law was for 14 years, with an optional extension for an additional 14. I think that's more than adequate for the original author to benefit from a government-created monopoly.

tptacek 13y ago
Aren't all property rights "government-created monopolies"?
- scottjad 13y ago
  "Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property" -- Bastiat The idea being that proper governments recognize rights that already exist, they don't create those rights. One could argue that so-called intellectual property rights aren't rights that existed before governments created them.
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    The idea being that governments recognize rights that already exist, they don't create those rights. I keep my copy of Hobbes bookmarked for occasions such as this. Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man. And, a few paragraphs later, the refutation of your assertion: To this war of every man against every man this also is consequent, that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ distinct, but only that to be every man’s that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it.
    - redblacktree 13y ago
      So might == right? I think most reject that argument, myself included.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        So does Hobbes. Read carefully.
      - baddox 13y ago
        And yet most people approve of government, which is the embodiment of the idea that might makes right.
        redblacktree 13y ago
        Not exactly. The government rules by consent of the governed.
        tptacek 13y ago
        Obviously not the consent of all the governed, all the time.
        tedunangst 13y ago
        That's what democracy is all about. The majority rules, unless the majority is wrong, then the minority rules.
        baddox 13y ago
        Exactly. Democracy, like all government, is about might makes right. That was my point.
        baddox 13y ago
        Which is why I think that phrase in the Declaration of Independence is philosophically deceptive, and perhaps deliberately so. To someone who does consent to most or all other their government's actions, it will give them a warm fuzzy feeling. To someone who doesn't consent, even if they're in the minority, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What's the real philosophy there? Is it really just that, if 50% plus one person consents to the government, everything is cool, but if one less person consents, they are all obligated to alter or abolish it?
  - wwweston 13y ago
    "Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property" -- Bastiat A prime example of Bastiat's reasoning skills and demonstration of how much respect should be afforded him.
- rmc 13y ago
  Don't most legal systems view rights as people's birth right, or "government created"?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I thought they tended to see rights as the product of a social contract.
    - baddox 13y ago
      Is that the case? I thought social contract theory was primarily a response to the moral crisis experienced by Enlightenment philosophers upon the realization that government does many things which appear to be clear violations of "natural" rights.
  - cheald 13y ago
    The Founding Fathers didn't. In their view, government exists to secure rights, not to grant them. > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Anarchists typically have a concept of "possession" (as opposed to "property", a concept that comparatively fewer anarchists support), if that is what you are asking. "Possession", as a concept used by anarchists, has always seemed rather poorly defined (surprise surprise), but if we are willing to permit some very slight anthropomorphism, there are non-human examples of the recognition of a concept that we could reasonably call "possession". It seems therefore that whatever "possession" may be, it is a concept that can exist in the absence of governments.
- adventured 13y ago
  No. Enforcing a monopoly requires the application of violence to maintain it. In the absence of violence, anybody may compete. Physical property rights, as an example, exist at all times in the absence of force. To physically take something from someone you must use violence in one form or another. That ownership is not granted by the government, it's granted by my having acquired it without using any form of violence to get it, and you must take the thing from me to change that. The government doesn't guarantee I'll always own my property, they provide no guarantee to a monopoly over my car. A thief can come and steal it, and I may never see that car again. The government will not then replace it. The government provides justice, not property guarantees.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I don't understand this comment at all. How do physical property rights exist in the absence of force? How are you yourself not demonstrating that they don't when you talk about thieves stealing your property?
    - baddox 13y ago
      My response would be that violence-enforced monopolies on scarce resources like land and physical objects are more "natural" than those on non-scarce resources like digital media. Note that I don't mean to appeal to nature, because I'm not concluding that one is more "right" than the other. But considering territorial animals practice monopolies on scarce resources enforced by violence, it's clear that government is not a strict requirement for violence-enforced monopolies of scarce resources (unless we propose a very loose definition of "government" that includes the social activity of territorial animals).
- baddox 13y ago
  It, like many things in political philosophy, depends on your definition of "property" and "government." In fact, I would argue that most "big debates" in political philosophy come down to semantic arguments over these terms and related ones like "rights." But using a vague definition for government like "resources which most of society recognizes to be under the rightful possession of a specific individual or group and for which most of society expects attempted trespasses to be met with violence from the possessor or people serving the interests of the possessor" and a vague definition for (at least modern Western) government like "the organizations which are funded primarily by taxation and which have the sole legal authority to make and implement policy," both of which I think line up with most people's everyday definitions, I would say that property predates government and can easily be conceived of in modern times without government.
- andrewfong 13y ago
  Sort of, but we normally think of monopolies in terms of controlling a market. If I own a car, I may have a "monopoly" over a subsequent sale of that particular car, but it's an extremely limited market with n = 1. And the rationale for protecting my property rights here isn't just theft of my car would deprive me profits from resale, but that it would deprive me of actually using the car and driving around. In contrast, intellectual property concerns the control of a particular market where n > 1. Copyright isn't necessary to protect my ability to use a particular copyrighted work -- I can still read my book, write sequels, etc. even if someone infringes. Rather, the rationale for copyright is to enable me to capture 100% of the profit from any market for my copyrighted work -- i.e. a monopoly.
- iand 13y ago
  I can conceive of property existing without government.
- adamlett 13y ago
  It's understood to mean a monopoly on the right to produce copies. Not on the right to sell them. Which is why it is (still) legal to sell used books.

by jstalin 13y ago

Original US copyright law was for 14 years, with an optional extension for an additional 14. I think that's more than adequate for the original author to benefit from a government-created monopoly.

tptacek 13y ago

Aren't all property rights "government-created monopolies"?

scottjad 13y ago
"Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property" -- Bastiat The idea being that proper governments recognize rights that already exist, they don't create those rights. One could argue that so-called intellectual property rights aren't rights that existed before governments created them.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  The idea being that governments recognize rights that already exist, they don't create those rights. I keep my copy of Hobbes bookmarked for occasions such as this. Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man. And, a few paragraphs later, the refutation of your assertion: To this war of every man against every man this also is consequent, that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ distinct, but only that to be every man’s that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it.
  - redblacktree 13y ago
    So might == right? I think most reject that argument, myself included.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      So does Hobbes. Read carefully.
    - baddox 13y ago
      And yet most people approve of government, which is the embodiment of the idea that might makes right.
      - redblacktree 13y ago
        Not exactly. The government rules by consent of the governed.
        tptacek 13y ago
        Obviously not the consent of all the governed, all the time.
        tedunangst 13y ago
        That's what democracy is all about. The majority rules, unless the majority is wrong, then the minority rules.
        baddox 13y ago
        Exactly. Democracy, like all government, is about might makes right. That was my point.
        baddox 13y ago
        Which is why I think that phrase in the Declaration of Independence is philosophically deceptive, and perhaps deliberately so. To someone who does consent to most or all other their government's actions, it will give them a warm fuzzy feeling. To someone who doesn't consent, even if they're in the minority, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What's the real philosophy there? Is it really just that, if 50% plus one person consents to the government, everything is cool, but if one less person consents, they are all obligated to alter or abolish it?
- wwweston 13y ago
  "Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property" -- Bastiat A prime example of Bastiat's reasoning skills and demonstration of how much respect should be afforded him.
rmc 13y ago
Don't most legal systems view rights as people's birth right, or "government created"?
- tptacek 13y ago
  I thought they tended to see rights as the product of a social contract.
  - baddox 13y ago
    Is that the case? I thought social contract theory was primarily a response to the moral crisis experienced by Enlightenment philosophers upon the realization that government does many things which appear to be clear violations of "natural" rights.
- cheald 13y ago
  The Founding Fathers didn't. In their view, government exists to secure rights, not to grant them. > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
jlgreco 13y ago
Anarchists typically have a concept of "possession" (as opposed to "property", a concept that comparatively fewer anarchists support), if that is what you are asking. "Possession", as a concept used by anarchists, has always seemed rather poorly defined (surprise surprise), but if we are willing to permit some very slight anthropomorphism, there are non-human examples of the recognition of a concept that we could reasonably call "possession". It seems therefore that whatever "possession" may be, it is a concept that can exist in the absence of governments.
adventured 13y ago
No. Enforcing a monopoly requires the application of violence to maintain it. In the absence of violence, anybody may compete. Physical property rights, as an example, exist at all times in the absence of force. To physically take something from someone you must use violence in one form or another. That ownership is not granted by the government, it's granted by my having acquired it without using any form of violence to get it, and you must take the thing from me to change that. The government doesn't guarantee I'll always own my property, they provide no guarantee to a monopoly over my car. A thief can come and steal it, and I may never see that car again. The government will not then replace it. The government provides justice, not property guarantees.
- tptacek 13y ago
  I don't understand this comment at all. How do physical property rights exist in the absence of force? How are you yourself not demonstrating that they don't when you talk about thieves stealing your property?
  - baddox 13y ago
    My response would be that violence-enforced monopolies on scarce resources like land and physical objects are more "natural" than those on non-scarce resources like digital media. Note that I don't mean to appeal to nature, because I'm not concluding that one is more "right" than the other. But considering territorial animals practice monopolies on scarce resources enforced by violence, it's clear that government is not a strict requirement for violence-enforced monopolies of scarce resources (unless we propose a very loose definition of "government" that includes the social activity of territorial animals).
baddox 13y ago
It, like many things in political philosophy, depends on your definition of "property" and "government." In fact, I would argue that most "big debates" in political philosophy come down to semantic arguments over these terms and related ones like "rights." But using a vague definition for government like "resources which most of society recognizes to be under the rightful possession of a specific individual or group and for which most of society expects attempted trespasses to be met with violence from the possessor or people serving the interests of the possessor" and a vague definition for (at least modern Western) government like "the organizations which are funded primarily by taxation and which have the sole legal authority to make and implement policy," both of which I think line up with most people's everyday definitions, I would say that property predates government and can easily be conceived of in modern times without government.
andrewfong 13y ago
Sort of, but we normally think of monopolies in terms of controlling a market. If I own a car, I may have a "monopoly" over a subsequent sale of that particular car, but it's an extremely limited market with n = 1. And the rationale for protecting my property rights here isn't just theft of my car would deprive me profits from resale, but that it would deprive me of actually using the car and driving around. In contrast, intellectual property concerns the control of a particular market where n > 1. Copyright isn't necessary to protect my ability to use a particular copyrighted work -- I can still read my book, write sequels, etc. even if someone infringes. Rather, the rationale for copyright is to enable me to capture 100% of the profit from any market for my copyrighted work -- i.e. a monopoly.
iand 13y ago
I can conceive of property existing without government.
adamlett 13y ago
It's understood to mean a monopoly on the right to produce copies. Not on the right to sell them. Which is why it is (still) legal to sell used books.