Vox reports:
Michela Giorcelli and Petra Moser, Stanford University economists, studied the Italian opera scene from the late 1700s through 1900 and found that after Napoleon invaded Italy — bringing with him French copyright laws — those copyright laws were associated with both more and higher-quality operas..
Copyright laws seem to have created significantly more operas that also had staying power and were of higher quality. States with copyrights ended up producing 2.68 additional operas per year, a 121 percent increase over states without copyrights. Historically popular operas (as measured by the Annals of Opera) grew by 47 percent, and durable operas grew by 80 percent.
Copyrights implied that composers could collect royalties on their works, the authors write, which incentivized composers not only to create more operas but higher-quality operas. Had they produced mediocre works, after all, no theater would want to do repeat performances. More performances, of course, meant more income. In addition, the authors also found that composers started moving into states with copyright laws after those laws were passed.
Can't wait to see how Kinsella is going to spin this one.
ReplyDeleteWeak, and yet you keep trying.
ReplyDeleteCorrelation/causation fallacy. The link between copyright/patent protection and increased growth/innovation/cookies for everyone at 4pm has been debunked long ago.
No mention of who was paying for these works to be written or if the Napoleon regime in Italy subsidized that work.
No discussion of the gradual extinction of various composer's works due to copyright controls well after the author's death.
How would an ancap society protect copyright without the state?
ReplyDeletePrivate security.
DeleteAsked and answered. Well done, Anonymous.
DeleteWhat if most ancaps don’t view copyright as property, but view it for what it really is; a statist rent-seeking racket?
Delete"What if most ancaps don’t view copyright as property"
Delete1. I have yet to see a poll substantiating that either way. (Doesn't really matter though)
2. If separate societies form on the basis of what their definition of property is and both follow the NAP independently from each other there shouldn't be a problem. My guess is that one of them will have more/better ideas(the ones treating IP as property), but I accept that some libertarians might not feel that way.
Find a non-coercive way to enforce your IP and it might make sense. Pointing to the benefits of a violent conquest is a clear case of Bastiat's 'seen and unseen'. Of course there is a boom in opera when composers steer the state towards providing a protection racket. Kinda like there was a boom in home building when the gov started guranteeing home loans. IP is for geriatrics who want the state to inhibit the whippersnappers.
ReplyDeleteThere is no non-coercive way to enforce property rights if someone is trying to violate them.
Deletethat great friend of liberty, Napoleon.
ReplyDeleteDude, funny comment! (you too Erickson!)
DeleteEven as a pro-IP guy I laughed my ass off.
You could say the opposite of the internet. Open violation of copyrights became acceptable on the market in the 90s, and drove the price of digital information down to nearly zero.
ReplyDeleteFree is now a thriving business model. There are no guarantees of royalties, ad revenue, or that you won't be relentlessly plagiarized, yet millions of people in countless occupations make it work to the advantage of everyone.
But even from an exclusively historical examination of what Napoleon may have accomplished, I would look to another fellow from post-revolution France:
"In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause—it is seen. The others unfold in succession—they are not seen: it is well for us if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference—the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil."
- Friedrich Bastiat, "That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen"
OMG! OK - ignoring the fact that Italian opera is nothing more than soap operas with mostly marginal music, what about Shakespeare? The most prolific play writer in history. Or Mozart:"One of the most prolific composers of all time, Austrian composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (January 27, 1756- December 5,1791) created well over 600 works during his short 35-year life. His catalogue of compositions includes works that are considered models of perfect of symphonic, piano, chamber, operatic and choral music in the classical style.." Mozart created many truly great operas. Not to mention Bach, Beethoven, Brahms,, etc. Actually the argument that Napoleon (one of the worlds worst tyrants) was a proponent of copyright laws is a great reason to oppose them.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't seem to be the case.
DeleteShakespeare was protected by copyright via the Company of Stationers (prior to the Statute of Anne which formalized copyright). This was the publishing guild that had a monopoly by royal decree. As I understand it, Shakespeare wouldn't have owned his copyright, the printer would but he paid them for privilege.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Stationers_and_Newspaper_Makers
Shakespeare's works were entered into the Stationers' Registry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationers'_Register
Mozart published under a system of imperial privilege (a "grant of privilege") which granted monopoly protection. Grant of privilege dates back to the early 16th c. There might not have been a formal law in Germany in his life time, but anyone of Mozart's caliber had monopoly protection from his patron.
As did Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, etc...
And Mozart died in poverty...
DeleteLack of good copyright protection is why so many artist starve.
Would you spend your whole life building your craft just to have it taken from you, to enrich others, without any compensation? That's totally Idiotic!
Where do you think the incentive to create comes from?
As Brandon Foreman points out in a post above, IP protection is a lazy way to make a profit. There is no way to justify IP via the NAP, that is why Wenzel posted this utilitarian example.
ReplyDeleteMy point is the Bastiat part. I'll use a modern example:
DeleteThe Goldman Sachs suddenly generated billions in profits thanks to The Ben Bernank stepping in with QE and zero interest rates where none had existed before.
But at what unseen cost? This is no different than the Napoleon example.
Other than that, I was countering one utilitarian example with another that shows the complete opposite result. Utilitarian arguments aren't terribly helpful in libertarian debates, or winning people over to liberty, either.
No comment on relevance to the NAP or pro-IP vs. anti-IP debate. I prefer to play devil's advocate here.
Nothing wrong with lazy profits, either. I'm always looking for them!
>> IP protection is a lazy way to make a profit. <<
DeleteSo is state granted monopoly of land ownership (which you probably enjoy). But the real lazy way to make a profit is to copy (ie steal) other people's IP...
>> There is no way to justify IP via the NAP <<
Then there is no way to justify for physical property either. The NAP depends on what is defined as property. Since IP is property, the NAP applies. I know IP is property because the law states that it is. You can deny this fact but it applies to land also. In the absence of law that defines land ownership as property, your only claim to it is your ability to fight off anyone else who wants it. That's called "barbarism"...
>> There is no way to justify IP via the NAP <<
DeleteIP is pure Lockean homesteading principle ie mixing labor with resources. And ideas are scarce, they're just easy to copy. I suppose if you leave the front door to your house unlocked and someone takes advantage and steals your TV, that's not a violation of the NAP either because stealing it was easy.
"Oh, but there's only one TV and now I'm deprived." So? You've been deprived of the value possessing the TV brings and so has the IP producer been deprived of the value his IP brings because some jerk-off copies it. He's no longer in control of his property and that's what it means to have property.
"You've been deprived of the value possessing the TV brings and so has the IP producer been deprived of the value his IP brings "
DeleteAwesome use of Bastiat my friend. "Thumbs up" for you.
Re: Plenarchist libere vivimus,
Delete"And ideas are scarce, they're just easy to copy. "
I'm seeing that you still have a penchant for equivocating, P. Ideas CAN'T be scarce if they can be copied over and over and over. Property is UNIQUE: you CANNOT hold someone else's property, but you CAN hold an idea that someone holds at the same time.
You continue to confuse a great mind with a great idea to then conclude the idea is scarce. The guy may be scarce, but not the idea. Stop equivocating.
By "lazy way to make a profit", I meant rent-seeking, and rent-seeking is anti-libertarian.
Delete"The value IP brings". Value is subjective. You are changing the word property and converting into value because you want to tie IP to it so you can pretend IP is property.
DeleteIdeas are not property.
"Value is subjective."
DeleteOf course, no one is debating that. The question is, does value "exist".(for some)
@Old Mex >> I'm seeing that you still have a penchant for equivocating, P. Ideas CAN'T be scarce if they can be copied over and over and over. <<
DeleteIdeas are scarce *until* they get copied... How many people independently came up with E=mc^2? One? The *positive* act of copying is what makes the idea no longer scarce...
Locke didn't include "scarcity" in his definition of property. Again, ease of stealing doesn't justify doing it. Property is a question of control - not scarcity. The product of one's mind is the rightful property of the mind that created it. Copying the idea without permission is depriving the owner control of his property.
@Anon 6:44 PM >> Value is subjective. You are changing the word property and converting into value because you want to tie IP to it so you can pretend IP is property. <<
All value is of course subjective. Property is also subjective. Do "properties" run around in the woods? Do "properties" reproduce? What color are "properties"? How big are "properties"? Property is a concept of human invention and can be whatever humans decide it to be. You're just trying imposing your own definition and calling it "true" property.
The purpose of designating a thing "property" is *because* it has value to someone. Tell JK Rowling her novels have no value because they aren't real "property"...
>> Ideas are not property. <<
Yes they are. The US Patent Office has issued over 7 million patents. Over 7 million examples of ideas as property. Just because you arbitrarily wish them away doesn't make it so. Property is ANYTHING an enforcing agency is willing to kill someone over to protect the owner's monopoly. Just as the state is prepared to do to someone who decides to move into your house without your permission.
"IP protection is a lazy way to make a profit"
ReplyDeleteI like lazy ways to make profit myself. If you don't, I suggest you try street sweeping or porta potty cleaning for a living. I'm sure you'll find it rewarding in that you won't feel lazy.
"There is no way to justify IP via the NAP", sure there is, you just don't acknowledge it.
IP protection fits with the NAP if IP is property. The theft of property is initiation of aggression which warrants aggression to protect the property. The argument is not about the NAP, it's about what is considered property. My opinion is that IP or ideas are property. Similar to real property, the first to use it can claim ownership as in homesteading land.
ReplyDeleteI'm an ancap/voluntarist and I vehemently oppose IP as being property.
DeleteThat's the whole core of this debate: whether IP is property (or just a government-granted temporary monopoly privilege).
ReplyDeleteThe anti-IP argumentation notes that there are the following crucial differences between physical property and IP:
1. IP can be replicated indefinitely at essentially no cost (i.e. it is not scarce, unless artificially made to appear so). Physical property is scarce due to the physical law of conservation of matter/energy. (Space is also scarce for economic actors made of fermions (i.e. ordinary matter) due to Pauli exclusion principle).
Scarcity implies possibility of conflict for the exclusive control. The only reason to impose property rights regime as a law limiting freedom to do what everybody wants is to prevent the conflict between those who obey the rules of the regime. When there is no scarcity there is no conflict, and thus there is no reason whatsoever to have a property rights regime.
2. Real property is eternal. The property rights have no temporary limits, and time does not invalidate or dilute property rights. With IP even the most ardent proponents would admit that indefinite "property" in IP is insane. Like, somebody locking an idea forever. Of course, this immediately begs the question: why exactly would such property stop being a property at an arbitrarily assigned time limit?
3. There's the granularity problem: IP prponents would agree that having property rights in small slices of information is insane (can you own a word? and, no, trademarks do not convey "ownership" in words - but only in specific _uses_ of the words, with the intent being to prevent consumer fraud). I can refer to Nike without their permission to use word "Nike". But that position magically transmutes into being able to "own" larger collections of words (such as a novel). The arbitrary boundary when non-ownable snippets become an ownable work is not defensible on any logical grounds.
4. Information can be encoded (and routinely is encoded in this era of ubiquitous computers). In fact, any collection of bits can be converted into ANY OTHER collection of bits and back by a choice of encoding. It gets even better when one considers implications of Shannon's theorems: the meaning of a specific collection of bits (words, etc) depends not only on these bits but also on identity and state of mind of producer AND consumer. Thus, the idea that a specific collection of bits has a meaning (or value) in isolation is simply stupid and betrays the lack of basic familiarity with the information theory.
If I picked an encoding which converts my words into your novel (and the recipients of my message convert it back) - do I or you "own" it? See how insane the idea of owning classical information gets when you actually try to work through its logical implications?
>> That's the whole core of this debate: whether IP is property (or just a government-granted temporary monopoly privilege). <<
DeleteProperty is by definition a “government”-granted monopoly permanent or temporary. That’s what property is. Government can mean the state, private defense provider or Billy Bob with his double barrel. By definition, property means using violence to protect a thing a person claims to own i.e. to have exclusive control over. What property *should* be – since it *can* be anything – is the operative question.
>> 1. IP can be replicated indefinitely at essentially no cost (i.e. it is not scarce, unless artificially made to appear so). <<
But it can’t be originated at no cost... only stolen at no cost.
>> Physical property is scarce due to the physical law of conservation of matter/energy. <<
If one accepts Locke’s definition of property (which libertarians should), IP *should* be property no matter how easy it is to steal. And it isn’t a matter of conflict since there won’t be any conflict over the thing that isn’t produced because the incentive to produce it has been taken away... There’s no conflict over private land ownership either if no one is allowed to own land in the first place. Everyone starves but there's no conflict over the land.
>> 2. Real property is eternal. The property rights have no temporary limits <<
But it doesn't have to be. The law reads that way but maybe it shouldn't. Maybe people shouldn't be able to own land forever. Maybe there should be a time limit for land just as there is for IP...
>> 3. ... The arbitrary boundary when non-ownable snippets become an ownable work is not defensible on any logical grounds. <<
Of course it is. It is the unique arrangement of the words that constitutes the property. This is all pretty well established in law. There are fair use conventions that seem work fine.
>> 4. ... the meaning of a specific collection of bits (words, etc) depends not only on these bits but also on identity and state of mind of producer AND consumer. <<
It’s not the meaning or use that matters but the form the IP takes. If a person uses another’s IP for profit, no matter how or why, doing so without permission should be considered an infringement.
>> See how insane the idea of owning classical information gets when you actually try to work through its logical implications? <<
No I don’t.
"When there is no scarcity there is no conflict, and thus there is no reason whatsoever to have a property rights regime."
DeleteObviously, by the nature of lawsuits over music/movie pirating, patent lawsuits, etc. et al in society today, that statement is untrue.
People are fighting over the VALUE of the above. The lack of scarcity isn't stopping people from fighting over VALUE. To say otherwise is ignoring reality.
"Real property is eternal."
Eternal is what sense? Even physical property has a natural shelf life to SOME extent. It's physical properties might last 10 years, 100, or 10,000...but is it someone's property the whole time even if it does exist? Not only is that not the case in regard to someone(and their heirs) claiming it as such(has their been a successful transfer of physical property for 5000 or even 1000 years of recorded human history?), but even those items that have the possibility of physically lasting forever(like gold) never remain in the same ownership as time goes by. There seems to be natural time limits to everything without even needing to codify it.
"IP prponents would agree that having property rights in small slices of information is insane"
Not me.
"can you own a word? and, no, trademarks do not convey "ownership" in words - but only in specific _uses_ of the words, with the intent being to prevent consumer fraud"
You are saying contradictory things here. You are saying you can't own a word, but then say you can own "specific uses of the words".
I don't understand how someone against IP can be FOR trademark in any way shape or form, as trademark is clearly IP IMO.
"Thus, the idea that a specific collection of bits has a meaning (or value) in isolation is simply stupid and betrays the lack of basic familiarity with the information theory."
I'm glad you seem to recognize the issue is less about property and more about VALUE. I think this is why Bastiat's argument as such is really important.
Yes, value is subjective, but people ARE FIGHTING over VALUE.
And, here's the self evident, self proving irony of all this discussion:
The "value appropriator" of a claimed property(IP), of a creator(or purchaser or rightful owner) in any shape or form, has by the very act of appropriation PROVEN that he values said property.
So even though value is subjective, the appropriator himself has proven said property has value(just like the creator values it) by the very act of appropriating it IPSO FACTO.
...and that...is why most likely a jury even in a private arbitration setting would rule against him if he didn't relinquish payment for said value.
The appropriator acknowledged it by his act, the creator obviously claimed his property right for said value, & the jury would rule subjectively(like is already done today in society over and over again, even though we all know it'd be better done by private forces) in the matter as well on VALUE.(after establishing that the creator is truly the creator/owner)