Libertarian inconsistency in intellectual property.

Post Reply New Topic

Libertarians often rail against things like copyrights, patents, and trademarks, decrying them as immoral. They insist of software, music, and other media that "I bought it, I should be able to do whatever I want with it." Well, no. A sale is a contract, of mutual consent. So far, so good, in libertarian terms. But the terms of the contract when you purchase software or music normally include restrictions on what you can do with it. Here libertarians get angry. "But it's MY music!" No, it's not, not unless you wrote, performed, and recorded it yourself. The CD vendor did not offer to sell you redistributive rights, so you can not have purchased them. By ignoring such licenses, so-called "libertarian" copyright protesters are violating a contract.

If you disagree with the terms of a contract, the solution is simple: do not enter into it. But that also means you can not obtain those materials elsewhere illegally. The libertarian principle of self-ownership should logically extend to the products of a person's intelligence, talent, and time, and not just physical items that you build. Under a libertarian ethic, you do not have a "right" to any of these things. You may have them if you can trade for them, and if people aren't willing to sell full rights to you, then you take what you can get-and abide by the contract offered- or go without.

All that said, I myself am not found of restrictive licensing. I use F/OSS software almost exclusively, and so should anyone who thinks MS and Apple licensing restrictions are so egregious. If I were ever to publish something, it would most likely be copyrighted through Creative Commons. There are alternatives to piracy if you don't like certain restrictions. There is no need to violate another's property rights- and that is what you are doing when you break copyright law.

I think copyright laws were one of the dumbest things to grace law history.. there needs to be a line drawn.. If I buy a cd and I own it then I can do what I want with it as long as I dont make profit from it. on Itunes you have to pay extra for a song to have the rights to burn it to a cd more than once Which is one reason I prefer the cd buying culture.. but who can waste money on cd's these days?.. well, I cant.. they aren't getting cheaper, and it's probably so they can start mass marketing the music via internet, and that will give them more control..

Wrong. You can do what you want with it as long as it within the terms of the contract you agreed to when you purchased the CD, which most likely includes some restrictive copyright laws. If you don't agree with those terms, don't buy that music. Not too complicated.

My irritation does not grant me the right to use other people's property outside of their willingness to let me do so.

Twoshots, that was a much clearer and more succinct explanation that I was able to give. Thank you. And I agree, of course.

I think without questioning which laws are right and which ones are wrong, then we're nothing more than slaves until told otherwise..

The issue is that by buying a product, you are implicitly agreeing to those laws. Thus you are not questioning which law is right and which is wrong, you are instead questioning yourself as you agreed to those rules. The externalization of this is what Orwell is pointing out as wrong.

btw, nice thread Orwell.

I know what AG voted.

And no, SW, we aren't slaves. We are free to go, as I often do, and seek out things with less restrictive licensing. In literary material, Creative Commons, in music there are various sources such as Jamendo that offer music for free. In software, there's always GNU/Linux. No one forces you to buy these products; thus, no one forces you to abide by a restrictive license for them.

Who said I voted?

I disagree.. if i sell somebody a Glass jar and tell them they can only buy it if they agree NOT to break it, does that mean he really can't break it if he buys it?.. no, thats ridiculous.. thats a personal agreenment, not a binding one.. i personally dont find the copyright law binding if I buy it, because I dont think i've agreed to obey it.. when i purchase the cd at the counter nobody says now don't duplicate this more than once!.. am i supposed to go out of my way to research a copyright law for the particular cd?.. no. It is meaningless to me. the only true laws are criminal offense laws.. not personal affairs which is what that is

Your example is ridiculous; glass jars are not broken intentionally.


But you have by purchasing the CD. A sale is a contract.


Of course not. The CDs, or at least their packaging, are typically labeled with copyright restrictions. In any case, you know the basics of what you aren't allowed to do with copyrighted material.


What that is is property rights violations that you are committing against someone else. That is not a personal affair, that is theft.

Well, basically, not breaking the glass *was* part of that agreement. Does the paper really matter? Is it somehow a special thing to have paper? I don't think so. Not only that, but the issue is not "legally binding" so much as "agreed", if you break the glass after the deal, then you are a liar in violation of their own words and own commitments.

It seems to me that a lot of IP things usually do have an agreement somewhere to obey it. Heck, when first installing most software, I am certain that not copying the software is one of the disallowed things that you have to contractually agree not to do in order to use the software.

I think that most copyright laws are the same or similar as well, so standardized law prevents the need for excessive research.

If the only true laws are criminal laws, then there are tons and tons of non-existent laws that your existence essentially depends upon.

theft? but i bought it, it's mine. Sorry but I'm old fashioned.. and a sale is not a contract unless it bears my signature

Im not disputing that.. but violating someone's trust aint the same as violating someone sexually.. one is wrong, and the other is just a pain for the artist.. but just because i put my stamp on something doesn't mean i have the right to tel somebody what to do with it.. and i would never assume that right.. it's not a right, it's a matter of trust.

No it isn't. It clearly says on the package what you are buying. Anything you take beyond that is theft. Not only that, but a contract is not a thing of signatures, it is a thing of mutual agreement. If the product they are offering is clearly defined, and you buy that product, then you have agreed to something. The money and goods changing hands is significant.

So, based upon the tautology that different things are different. We find out that one is wrong and the other isn't? That doesn't really make sense, especially since both are what people would typically consider wrong. This isn't just violating someone's trust, this is violating an agreement made by 2 parties, and thus lying to commit theft. Lying and theft hardly seem correct. This also isn't a matter of a plain stamp, but rather a set of words describing the product actually being sold. The issue isn't a "right to tell somebody what to do with it", the issue is that the agreement is already that you don't have the right to certain elements of it as you only bought some of the rights and not all of them. Sort of like how digging in your lawn doesn't allow you to go sell the oil you find by doing so if you do not have the mineral rights. This is not a matter of trust(even though violating that is clearly wrong by most standards of morality), but rather a violation of a mutual agreement.