1 vote

Support for Intellectual Property in the Constitution!: Dr. Paul supports it!

I am posting this because and Adam Kokesh video is posted prominently on this site promoting theft of intellectual property. Why is that posted so visibly???? That is not Ron Paul's position. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist, and supports the right of a person to own and control the fruits of their labor, in whatever form they take: "I favor enforcement of intellectual property rights..." -Ron Paul http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/08/02/05/1511225/Ron-Pa... It's fundamental to natural rights theory of property, held by our Founders and all classical liberals.

In Article 1 Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution it says that the government has the right "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Read the Constitution sometime, will you? It's one of the basic enumerated powers! I thought this was a site to help Dr. Paul get elected. If so, why is an anti-intellectual property video posted on the front page that disputes Dr. Paul's philosophy? If you care about Ron Paul, you'll remove the Adam Kokesh anti-intellectual property anti-Constitutionalist video (which airs on Russian-taxpayer funded television).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Article 1 seems flawed to me... or atleast your interpretation

Article 1: "To PROMOTE the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by SECURING for limited Times to Authors and INVENTORS the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and DISCOVERIES."

You can not invent a discovery for starters... Article 1 is flawed because it equated the two.

The idea of intellectual property should be to
"PROMOTE"(JEFFERSONIAN) not to "SECURE"(ADAMS AND HAMILTON.

which in its basic constitutional function should not be implemented by federal or state powers but rather should be rewarded by THE TRANSPARENCY OF MARKET MEDIA and if the "Invention" is hard to reproduce then the property is more secure but if it is a discovery then it is easily reproduced and is more universally accepted.

The idea of intellectual property as a government right is inherently socialist and against all Austrian economic viewpoints... this is what impedes human action in a free marketplace.

Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right. -Henry Ford

Jed, you are correct

Sure, if someone sees or reads anothers IP, they may have an idea on how to better the product or process. Patent Law allows for "provisional" patents, based on that premise.

Every time I read the thoughts of some of these "open source" idealogues, I have two thoughts.

1. They have never had a product or process innovation with which they could claim their rights.

2. In my minds eye I see "Looters" from Atlas Shrugged.

The anti-IP thoughts are very much in tune with other collectivist societies. Look at the innovation that has arisen over the years from the former Soviet Union... oh yeah, they bought our technology... okay, how about China? Oh yeah, they steal other peoples technology.

There are times when an "open-source" option is acceptable. That is when the originator allows for it to occur.

Tetris

Was developed under the Soviet Union...it's a great game. It should be noted, that the USSR owned the IP to Tetris for 6 years (I think) before the actual developer was able to own his own creation.

I'm a writer. I use the public domain when needed. I also like to have control over my ideas, at least for enough time to develop them fully.

Jack Wagner

I wonder who will understand

"where you sit is where you stand"?

Irrelevant...

We were discussing the merits of intellectual property rights philosophically. Not the legality of them within our current system. Any appeal to authority in a philosophic discussion is irrelevant.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

This is not a site for that.

This is a site to get Dr. Paul elected. It's not a site to publicly try to refute his ideas.

Dr. Paul doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job, isn't a Birther, supports intellectual property, doesn't believe in chemtrails, doesn't believe the Fema camp conspiracy theory, doesn't believe the Moon landing was faked, says Israel is a "close friend," su

Joη's picture

and how many times has be brought this up? Once? Twice?

I think fixing the enabling fallacy that economic energy is ok to counterfeit will go a long way to letting real market forces (IE, everyone thinking critically) determine what is and not acceptable.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Posting it on the front page makes it look

like Dr. Paul's and his supporters agree with theft. Not all of us agree with theft.

Dr. Paul doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job, isn't a Birther, supports intellectual property, doesn't believe in chemtrails, doesn't believe the Fema camp conspiracy theory, doesn't believe the Moon landing was faked, says Israel is a "close friend," su

Joη's picture

hyperbolic hackysack: denial promotes the thought police;

you can't tell someone what to do with his thoughts.

Two can play this game, but I prefer hyperbole in humor.

It's well down on the front page. Your continuous picking on this subject is currently its primary promotion.

I'd promote a marine who ran for congress and now has his own TV show centered on spreading liberty.

Regardless, there are vastly more important things to worry about.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Jed, Read or listen to NO

Jed,

Read or listen to NO TREASON
by Lysander Spooner

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=author&ID=1085

Spooner supported PERPETUAL intellectual property rights!

"The LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; OR AN ESSAY ON THE RIGHT OF AUTHORS AND INVENTORS TO A PERPETUAL PROPERTY IN THEIR IDEAS. VOL. I. BY LYSANDER SPOONER." http://lysanderspooner.org/node/10

READ THAT!

Dr. Paul doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job, isn't a Birther, supports intellectual property, doesn't believe in chemtrails, doesn't believe the Fema camp conspiracy theory, doesn't believe the Moon landing was faked, says Israel is a "close friend," su

That was posted in your

That was posted in your defense of the Constitution as a document to rule others without consent. If you are sighting this to be defense of current day patent laws or property rights you are making my case for me. No where does Spooner defend patent/intellectual property with Positive law. Where does he advocate creating new positive law to protect patent/intellectual property?

People do not make or create something then say I solely own this. In doing so would reject Spooner's view on "property"

Once I hear a song, read a quote, review some code. IT THEN BECOMES MY PROPERTY OF MY MIND AS WELL. Since it is now PROPERTY OF MY MIND TOO, you don't own my mind and cannot prevent me from doing with it as I want.

The only way you could advocate to stop this would be through positive laws into place and as I said if you use it to enslave others to your wishes, you should not be surprised

The constitution is a

The constitution is a communist document. Hell, it even included slavery!

Yes, it was liberating for its time, but we have evolved so far beyond it that it's soon time for a new constitution, embodying the true spirit of liberty!

What Constitution?

There are many "Constitutions" None of which I am a party to!

Did I sign some sort of "Constitution"? Show me the contract.

The Oracle

Not everything in the Constitution is just

The constitution sanctioned the institution of slavery because at the time of it's adoption, the morality and economics of slavery were inferior to our understanding today. Just as slavery is the restriction of the use of one's person and property by another, so to intellectual property is a restriction on the use of one's property by the individual granted the monopoly by the state. Once one sees the violation of real property rights that are inherent in the enforcement of intellectual property rights, it is impossible to maintain the position that intellectual property is compatible with freedom and the non-aggression principle.

If intellectual property were maintained through the user of contract and non-disclosure agreements, I doubt that any liberty lover could disagree with this approach. However the current intellectual property law makes criminal the use of property of third parties which otherwise would not be criminal in a natural law society.

Try as you might, but intellectual property entails aggression against third parties and places a restriction their use of persons and property. As with slavery, it is an idea and condition which is incompatible with liberty and as our understanding has advanced, it is time to excise it from our law and foundational documents. To the extent that Adam Kokesh is raising the awareness of this liberty issue, I encourage the Daily Paul to consider the issue from the vantage point of liberty and keep this issue visible so that the members of this site may consider their stance on the issue.

republic

The Constitution did NOT sanction slavery

I hear this again and agsin from my fellow libertarians as well as from freedom hating liberals. Slavery is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. It was illegal at the formation of the country.

That being said, I am still a Spoonerite, in that I don't worship the Constitution. If enforced, our society would be light years freer than it is now. So, in a sense, I am not so inflexible as to not take Constitutional gov't if it was offered to me.

Wrong

The Constitution DID implicitly mention slavery, in two major contexts. In Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 it increased state representation by 3/5ths of their "non-free" population. In addition, Article 4 Section 2 Clause 3 provided explicitly required the return of fugitive slaves as long as their bondage is in accordance with the laws of the state from whence they escaped, regardless of the laws of the state where they were apprehended.

The Constitution of these United States was an incredible step forward in governance when adopted, and even today it is an exceptionally well-written and framed foundational document, but it isnt perfect and just jettisoning the less admirable parts down the memory hole and pretending they dont exist is pointless.

I will not entirely agree. If

I will not entirely agree. If you accept spooners position on natural meaning then yes, but if you prescribe to the notion on natural intent then yes it did endorce slavery. One flaw indeed.

If you follow natural meaning then the constitution is void today and give the govt unbound authority to do whatever it wishes.

I do not wish to travel down that path. That is a dangerous one.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

You don't undersand some very basic things

about the natural rights philosophy of property..

If I build a house, even though I make no contracts with other people, it's not "aggression" to prevent other people from using my house. The aggression is committed by the person who comes in and uses my house against my will. In the same way, if I invent something or create a work of art, the aggressor is someone using my invention against my will or in a way that I did not consent to. No contract is required to own/control the fruits of your labor under natural rights theory. Either you don't accept the natural right of a person to own the fruits of his labor or you're just confused and being inconsistent.

(And, no. Slavery was never Constitutional.)

Dr. Paul doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job, isn't a Birther, supports intellectual property, doesn't believe in chemtrails, doesn't believe the Fema camp conspiracy theory, doesn't believe the Moon landing was faked, says Israel is a "close friend," su

Intellectual Property incompatible with Property Rights

No libertarian would deny the homestead principle for real property. Real property has the intrinsic property that it is scarce. Intellectual property on the other hand is not scarce once it has been disseminated. While it is very easy to see that party B which has taken the physical possessions of party A without his consent has caused an aggression against party A, it can not be said that party B who has further disseminated intellectual property that he received from party A (sans aggression) had caused a likewise aggression, absent a contract preventing him from making use of his person in this manner. In the absence of a contract, allowing A to prevent B from using his person and property as he wishes is clearly permitting A to aggress against B.

Furthermore, parties C, D, and F who received the information from party B are under our current system held to have aggressed against party A when this aggression can not be shown in fact. This says nothing of the party Z who independently created a similar idea, and who under the system of intellectual property is prevented from making use of his creation.

In order to say that the receiving party of intellectual property who further disseminates it has aggressed against the creator, we must hold that there is a property right in the VALUE of our property and creations. This implies that the creator has the right to force others to arrange their preferences in such a manner that his personal valuation of his creation is imposed on all others. I am sure you can see the ridiculousness of this situation. If you can not, I hope you have a million dollars to send me, because I value this response as such, and demand you do too. :)

While we are at it, we should collect for all the buggy whip makers and elevator operators who have lost their jobs due to the callous aggression of individual consumers who insist on maintaining their own schedule of preferences.

Joking aside, I see nothing wrong with contract restrictions on the dissemination of intellectual property, but contracts can not bind third parties as our current system does. Furthermore, a contract system could not violate the rights of independent creators as we do today. I feel badly for those who have built their livelihoods on the legal structures and promises of a government, just as I feel terribly for those who have built their houses in the government flood plains. Unfortunately, charity and not coercion must come to the aid of those who can not adapt to a more just society.

republic

You make an error

when you say "it can not be said that party B who has further disseminated intellectual property that he received from party A (sans aggression) had caused a likewise aggression, absent a contract preventing him from making use of his person in this manner." Yes it can be said. You're not grasping that aggression is always against PROPERTY. When you commit and act of aggression against a person, you're making one against his bodily property. There is no moral distinction in classical natural rights philosophy between the body and what the body produces with its labor. A house is the fruit of my labor. An invention is the fruit of my labor. So, when you use my invention without my consent, then you have committed an aggression against my property. To commit aggression is simply to use someone else's property against their will or in a way that they oppose. That's what aggression IS. No contract required. And so are all other users of my invention aggressors, whether they have knowledge that they are or not (which of course has to be taken into account in settling the matter reasonably).

The one thing I will agree with that you said is "This says nothing of the party Z who independently created a similar idea, and who under the system of intellectual property is prevented from making use of his creation." That's a different issue. If you come up with the same invention independently, it's your property. Current patent law doesn't recognize this, and hence is an aggression in that type of case. But if you copy my invention, you're the aggressor. You used the fruits of my labor against my will.

Read some Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner on intellectual property, for more information.

Dr. Paul doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job, isn't a Birther, supports intellectual property, doesn't believe in chemtrails, doesn't believe the Fema camp conspiracy theory, doesn't believe the Moon landing was faked, says Israel is a "close friend," su

When is a sale not a sale?

If party A agreed to sell the product of his intellectual labor to B in a physical form (even verbal communication) without leasing it under contract, it can not be said that B has violated the property right of A. A and B freely engaged in the mutually beneficial transaction. Intellectual property only maintains the essential element of property as long as it is scarce. It ceases to be scarce upon dissemination. So you should aim as a creator to maximize your initial sales price and look into an alternate long term income stream, perhaps providing personal performance, or custom tailoring, etc.

While the rate at which an idea may be disseminated can be slowed through contracts, NDA, and lease agreements. The fact remains that ideas can be reverse engineered, and contracts are only binding on the parties who have agreed to them. The ultimate cost of ideas after they have been disseminated is the opportunity cost involved in understanding the idea. No one can force an inventor to expose his invention, or an artist to exhibit his work, but once there is an uncoerced dissemination of the information, it ceases to be the property of the creator and becomes the property of all who have been exposed to it. To understand otherwise is to say that the creator of a work has a right to dictate how others use their bodies, minds, and justly acquired property without their consent. If the original creator doesn't like the fact that he has shared his creation in whole, he should consider a contractual arrangement prior to dissemination.

Now you might say, why don't I put a huge penalty clause in my IP contracts for willful dissemination/breach of contract? The answer is that although you are free to do this, it this will be a deterrent to potential customers and the process of the market will determine what if any penalties are deemed acceptable by both creators and consumers. Just as I may sell my services for $1000/hour, I think I will find more (any) takers if I use something more in alignment with marginal productivity I can offer potential clients.

Ignorance of the nature of ideas isn't a crime (and I think it is safe to say that this discovery is a process and not an endpoint), but intellectual property laws which violate the natural order are bound to cause conflict and injustice by criminalizing lawful behavior.

republic

JedOne can make a case that

Jed

One can make a case that the "instantiation" for the specific program or the song written and played for the first time is yours. That is your intellectual property. It is static to you.

However, YOU DO NOT OWN all instances of that program or song created based upon the original instantiation. To do so prevents others through positive law of "owning" items in their mind. -- It's protectionism 101

When a new instantiation is created, it is OWNED by the person creating it. If I play back the song in my head that you created, this new instantiation in my mind is now mine. It belongs to me and lives inside my mind and it is my personal property.

What you are advocating here is protectionism for all instantiations ever to be used in the future by the persons who uses positive law to SAY they have created it (in many cases they didn't even do it)

It fails because you need positive law to enforce all instantiations of the object created which is not a natural law.

Your error

Copying something you have shown me is not aggression. If you lock it up and I break in to get a peak, sure, that would be. But the lynchpin of "intellectual property" is the ability to patent your idea and then sue me for all I am worth later when I come up with the same idea independently and make some money off it. Which you appear to be rejecting, confusingly, even as you attempt to defend the claims that logically underly it.

What you appear to be advocating is considerably more squishy, and not very property-like at all, if independent invention were allowed to invalidate a patent nothing important would ever be under patent very long, and the current system would collapse under such a rule in short order.

If I write a book,

and tell you that I will only let you read it under the condition that you do not copy it, and you copy it, then you've committed an act of aggression. It's basic private property rights philosophy. I have a write to control the fruits of my labor. That means the right to not let you use them at all, or to let you use them only in certain ways and under certain conditions.

If you come up with the same book independently or the same invention independently then of course that's not an act of aggression. Patent law is wrong when it prohibits people from independently coming up with the same ideas. I'm not defending all intellectual property law. I'm just defending basic intellectual property itself. A libertarian patent law would only restrict copying, not restrict independently coming up with the same thing. I'm with Murray Rothbard on this, who advocates doing away with patents and only having copyright law, extending copyright law to not only writings and art but inventions as well.

Dr. Paul doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job, isn't a Birther, supports intellectual property, doesn't believe in chemtrails, doesn't believe the Fema camp conspiracy theory, doesn't believe the Moon landing was faked, says Israel is a "close friend," su

That's contract law not property law

"and tell you that I will only let you read it under the condition that you do not copy it, and you copy it, then you've committed an act of aggression."

In that case I would be violating the contract or agreement that we made. That's wrong, it's a civil matter you can sue over, but it isnt anything like claiming property rights in an idea.

How about this though. Assume it happens just as you say. I copy it (violating our agreement, and subjecting myself to whatever penalties we agreed on) and I send the copy on to somone else. Someone who made no such agreement with you. And he in turn makes more copies and hands them out. He's not a party to the contract between you and I, so you have no right to prevent him from using his own property as he will.

"I'm not defending all intellectual property law. I'm just defending basic intellectual property itself."

You are confused and dont know what you are doing. "Intellectual Property" is a lawyers wet-dream that doesnt even exist yet, and a recipe for tyranny and regression. It is a conflation of copyright, patent, trademark, and trade-secret laws on the one hand with property rights on the other. None of these things can be discussed intelligently without being specific, which is exactly why those who wish to confuse prefer to stay as general as possible.

One *key* component of all real property is they are rivalrous - if you are using that tool, or driving that car, or living in that house, that really does block others from doing the same. We need property rights in real property for practical reasons - it just doesnt work otherwise.

But *ideas* are not in that class of rivalrous goods! They are a different sort of things entirely. If I take your car you dont have it anymore! If I take your idea then we both have it. Without that crucial quality of rivalrousness, intangible ideas just arent the stuff of which property is made.

Apropos of nothing...

Thumbs up for reviving the seldom used term "rivalrous".

Call it a contract if you like

but I think most IP opponents would say a copyright notice is not. If I place a copyright notice on my book, and you copy my book then you have violated my property rights. There doesn't have to be an explicit contract, per se. There just has to be the knowledge that I do not consent to anyone using my property in ways I do not authorize. That can be done by placing a copyright notice on the work or documentation of the invention, or just saying it. Any unauthorized use is a violation of my property rights.

If a subsequent person copies, he's also violating my property rights. And he does so whether he knows that I don't authorize anyone to use my property or whether he knows whose property it is.

You bring up practicality concerning physical property being rivalrous. Ok, but that's not relevant. Natural law isn't based on practicality. If one goes along with natural law, he needs to work around it rather than dispose of it because he doesn't like consequences of abiding by it. Private property natural law is the position that a person has a right to own the fruits of his labor. It's based in self-ownership. It's that simple. To "own" is to have a right of exclusive use. It doesn't depend on whether the fruits of the labor are rivalrous.

Dr. Paul doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job, isn't a Birther, supports intellectual property, doesn't believe in chemtrails, doesn't believe the Fema camp conspiracy theory, doesn't believe the Moon landing was faked, says Israel is a "close friend," su

Clarity is important

"Call it a contract if you like..."

You're implying that it doesnt matter what you call it. But it does. Calling things by their proper names is an absolute necessity if you want your thoughts to align with reality.

It is a contract, an agreement formed by mutual consent for mutual consideration, not an inalienable right required for human society. There is a huge difference between the two. Implying the difference doesnt matter just implies you dont understand the difference.

"If I place a copyright notice on my book, and you copy my book then you have violated my property rights."

No, I have not. I have violated the United States Copyright Law, I have not violated your rights.

And what you have, in this case (I keep trying to get you to see that specificity is important!) is not "Intellectual Property" at all, it's a copyright. A privilege granted by the government (natural rights pre-exist the government, and cannot be so granted) in accordance with the US Constitution and the US Code. That privilege, unlike any actual property right, comes with specific limitations. What kind of "Property" is only secured for "limited times?" If copyright were a natural right it would be secured for perpetuity!

And you cannot, crucially, claim copyright *of an idea* - only of a specific, concrete work. The author of Harry Potter, for instance, is only granted the privilege where it concerns printing *of that actual book* or of one that directly uses significant portions of it, rather than having a monopoly on childrens books about wizards in general.

The latter is more along the lines of what "Intellectual Property" implies. This would not be a copyright, but a different type of monopoly privilege inshrined in our law, a patent. You cannot, presently, get a patent on book ideas. However the scope of what can be patented has expanded so quickly and so broadly recently as software patents have become an issue, that it is forseeable. This is what "Intellectual Property" lawyers want, and it would mean that creativity itself would effectively be illegal, for those without the means to hire "IP" lawyers at least. In software in particular the problem of "IP" has already grown to the point where it is impractical for anyone to write software without heavy-duty legal firepower.

"You bring up practicality concerning physical property being rivalrous. Ok, but that's not relevant. Natural law isn't based on practicality. "

You couldnt possibly be more wrong. Natural law, liberty, freedom, they are important because they work. Just like good physics is proven when it produces good engineering, good philosophy produces good law. They 'just work' because they are consonant with reality. This is why it is called "natural" law - it is not a human invention, but only the apprehension of the implications of reality as it exists.

"It's based in self-ownership. It's that simple. To "own" is to have a right of exclusive use. "

Oh, I agree completely. Your definition of property is fine. But 'to have a right of exclusive use" over *an idea* is not. It's proof positive the two concepts dont belong together, in fact. Real natural rights are always such that you can have your right without intruding on my right. Owning ideas is not in any way congruent with that, because it would say that one person has ownership *inside another persons mind* - that one person can own anothers thoughts... that's as far from natural rights and liberty as you can possibly get.

Yes you have violated my property rights

if I tell you I'm only going to let you read my book under condition that you don't copy it, that is, that I put a copyright notice on it. Or, if I announce that I'm not going to allow anyone to create a clone of the machine that I'm selling (unless they come up with the idea independently). It's no different from if I put a sign on my yard saying you may only walk across it if you walk in a straight line. These are the conditions of my letting you use my property. If you copy my book or walk in a curved path across my yard, you have violated my property rights. You have used my property in a way that said I would not allow you to use it.

And yes, if the Constitution FULLY followed natural law, then intellectual property would be perpetual. You don't lose ownership of other products of your labor after so many years, so why would you use it for the product of intellectual labor? You DON'T lose that right under natural law, which is the law that a person has a right to own the fruits of his labor. The Constitution just doesn't go all the way in protecting your natural right.

Is not an idea the product of your labor? If so, then it's your private property. And therefore it's your natural right to use force to protect others from using it, like it is for any other product of your labor. That force would constitute defensive force.

In a free, libertarian society, the product of intellectual labor would be protected and be protected in perpetuity. All inventions, works of art, and so on, would only be legal to use in the ways authorized by the producer.

"So absolute is an author’s right of dominion over his ideas that he may forbid their being communicated even by human voice if he so pleases." -Lysander Spooner

Dr. Paul doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job, isn't a Birther, supports intellectual property, doesn't believe in chemtrails, doesn't believe the Fema camp conspiracy theory, doesn't believe the Moon landing was faked, says Israel is a "close friend," su