4 ms·

i would love to hear from our libertarian friends on what they think about copyright and the public domain.

Symmetry 13y ago
"Government enforced monopolies are bad" is what particularly doctrinaire libertarians say, but libertarians aren't know for their ability to agree with each other.
- praxeologist 13y ago
  I guess I am a PDL but I fail to see how any government-enforced monopoly could be a good thing ever. I genuinely see people who believe such things as backwards, primitive fucks. Anyhow, among hardcore libertarian circles there is actually pretty wide agreement these days that IP laws are unjust. The work you want to look at for the sea change is Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property free online here: http://mises.org/document/3582 http://mises.org/document/3582
- analog31 13y ago
  In my view, a copyright system could reach a middle ground between libertarians and the rest of us. Limiting the term of copyrights is such a middle ground.
logfromblammo 13y ago
That would probably depend on whether they were minarchist or anarchist libertarians. Minarchists would likely defend copyright with more rational time limits, whereas anarchists would contend that copyright is not rational or enforceable, and that artistic patronage is the only viable business model. In either case, "stealing" an artistic work would be interpreted as plagiarism rather than unauthorized copying. Artists capable of doing live performances could also sell tickets, I suppose. Authors might be paid to attend conventions and book signings. Without copyright, the works are disseminated widely to generate a fan base, and the revenue is derived from the truly limited resource: the artist's time.
- pavel_lishin 13y ago
  > plagiarism rather than unauthorized copying Isn't that the definition of plagiarism?
  - austintaylor 13y ago
    Plagiarism is passing someone else's work off as your own. Unauthorized copying is just providing a work for others to consume without claiming credit for it, but without having a legal right to do so. Plagiarism doesn't really relate to authorization at all. If you have permission from someone to put your name on their work, that doesn't change the fact that you are lying, which can have consequences of its own (especially in an academic context). I thought this was obvious, but maybe it isn't? I see disclaimers on Youtube all the time ("I don't own this") which seem to imply the person posting the video doesn't understand the difference.
    - Turing_Machine 13y ago
      Yep. The way I used to explain it to my students was this: Distributing "Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare": not plagiarism or copyright violation. Distributing "Romeo and Juliet by Turing Machine": plagiarism, but not copyright violation. Distributing "The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien": Copyright violation, but not plagiarism. Distributing "The Lord of the Rings by Turing Machine": both plagiarism and copyright violation.
      - JetSpiegel 13y ago
        Distributing "The Lord of the Rings by George RR Martin": Boatloads of cash
    - simbolit 13y ago
      I remember reading an article about this phenomenon, and arguing from that "plagiarism" as a concept will eat the "copyright" concept. unfortunately i cannot find it right now.
  - 13y ago
iand 13y ago
Copyright (patents/intellectual property) is one of Benjamin Tucker's Four Great Monopolies[1] that give rise to monopoly capitalism[2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker#The_Four_Monopolies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker#The_Four_Monopo... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly_capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly_capitalism
- simbolit 13y ago
  i thought that to be the one obvious position. the other (imho) equally obvious position seems to be the following: copyright is protection of intellectual property, and securing property rights is the prime reason for goverment to exist. according to the second position (and taking opposition to the estate/death tax into account) it seems consistent with a libertarian position to argue for infinite copyright terms. am i wrong? i am not a libertarian, but i try to understand you folks.
  - iand 13y ago
    There are some people who have argued for infinite copyright terms or perpetual ownership over every utterance they make. Rand argued for IP, saying (roughly) "a man has rights to the product of his mind." In general though, I think the modern consensus in Libertarian circles has fallen on the side of opposing or greatly limiting IP in general. See http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Intellectual_property http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Intellectual_property for a reasonable overview.

"Government enforced monopolies are bad" is what particularly doctrinaire libertarians say, but libertarians aren't know for their ability to agree with each other.

praxeologist 13y ago
I guess I am a PDL but I fail to see how any government-enforced monopoly could be a good thing ever. I genuinely see people who believe such things as backwards, primitive fucks. Anyhow, among hardcore libertarian circles there is actually pretty wide agreement these days that IP laws are unjust. The work you want to look at for the sea change is Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property free online here: http://mises.org/document/3582 http://mises.org/document/3582
analog31 13y ago
In my view, a copyright system could reach a middle ground between libertarians and the rest of us. Limiting the term of copyrights is such a middle ground.

logfromblammo 13y ago

That would probably depend on whether they were minarchist or anarchist libertarians. Minarchists would likely defend copyright with more rational time limits, whereas anarchists would contend that copyright is not rational or enforceable, and that artistic patronage is the only viable business model. In either case, "stealing" an artistic work would be interpreted as plagiarism rather than unauthorized copying. Artists capable of doing live performances could also sell tickets, I suppose. Authors might be paid to attend conventions and book signings. Without copyright, the works are disseminated widely to generate a fan base, and the revenue is derived from the truly limited resource: the artist's time.

pavel_lishin 13y ago
> plagiarism rather than unauthorized copying Isn't that the definition of plagiarism?
- austintaylor 13y ago
  Plagiarism is passing someone else's work off as your own. Unauthorized copying is just providing a work for others to consume without claiming credit for it, but without having a legal right to do so. Plagiarism doesn't really relate to authorization at all. If you have permission from someone to put your name on their work, that doesn't change the fact that you are lying, which can have consequences of its own (especially in an academic context). I thought this was obvious, but maybe it isn't? I see disclaimers on Youtube all the time ("I don't own this") which seem to imply the person posting the video doesn't understand the difference.
  - Turing_Machine 13y ago
    Yep. The way I used to explain it to my students was this: Distributing "Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare": not plagiarism or copyright violation. Distributing "Romeo and Juliet by Turing Machine": plagiarism, but not copyright violation. Distributing "The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien": Copyright violation, but not plagiarism. Distributing "The Lord of the Rings by Turing Machine": both plagiarism and copyright violation.
    - JetSpiegel 13y ago
      Distributing "The Lord of the Rings by George RR Martin": Boatloads of cash
  - simbolit 13y ago
    I remember reading an article about this phenomenon, and arguing from that "plagiarism" as a concept will eat the "copyright" concept. unfortunately i cannot find it right now.
- 13y ago

iand 13y ago

Copyright (patents/intellectual property) is one of Benjamin Tucker's Four Great Monopolies[1] that give rise to monopoly capitalism[2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker#The_Four_Monopolies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker#The_Four_Monopo... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly_capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly_capitalism

simbolit 13y ago
i thought that to be the one obvious position. the other (imho) equally obvious position seems to be the following: copyright is protection of intellectual property, and securing property rights is the prime reason for goverment to exist. according to the second position (and taking opposition to the estate/death tax into account) it seems consistent with a libertarian position to argue for infinite copyright terms. am i wrong? i am not a libertarian, but i try to understand you folks.
- iand 13y ago
  There are some people who have argued for infinite copyright terms or perpetual ownership over every utterance they make. Rand argued for IP, saying (roughly) "a man has rights to the product of his mind." In general though, I think the modern consensus in Libertarian circles has fallen on the side of opposing or greatly limiting IP in general. See http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Intellectual_property http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Intellectual_property for a reasonable overview.