INTRODUCTION
The United States Constitution states that Congress shall have the power 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” [1]. Our Founding Fathers understood that protection of novel ideas and information falls within the realm of the proper role of government. Protection of novel ideas has become known as intellectual property (IP), wherein works of art, such as music, paintings, and movies, and inventions, such as processes and configurations, are protected by law through copyrights, patents, and trade secrets.
Modern prophets have taught that IP should be protected. The latest Gospel Principles manual states, “Copying music, movies, pictures, or written text without the permission of the copyright owners is dishonest and is a form of theft” [2]. Elder Bednar has said “Deceitful acts supposedly veiled in secrecy, such as illegally downloading music from the Internet or copying CDs or DVDs for distribution to friends and families, are nonetheless deceitful” [3]. Protection against theft and deceit clearly falls within the role of government [4].
The following is my understanding as to why protection of IP falls under the proper role of government as taught by prophets. After writing this article, I realized how long it had become. Therefore, first I will give a very brief overview of the major points. A better explanation of the major points with examples is then provided throughout the article (matched to the outline).
To skeptics of IP protection: please read the longer explanation of points you disagree with (including Common Arguments Against IP). I’d be happy to hear your criticism, but only after you have read my longer explanation of what you disagree with.
OUTLINE
- Property is defined as the fruit of our labors. Much labor is goes into creating truly novel ideas of value.
- Individuals can give others limited use of their property through contract, including implied contract. This applies to both physical property and IP. A breach of contract is a crime.
- IP is protected under a contract that the creator of a novel idea will only share the idea with others who enter a contract to only use the idea in a limited way and promise not to share or distribute the idea to others in an unauthorized way. Part of this contract is that the person who receives the idea will only reveal it to a third party in an authorized way after they put the third party under the contract.
- Someone who knowingly assists in a crime, even if they don’t use force directly, is guilty to that crime. Therefore, if you knowingly assist someone in breaking a contract to only use an idea under limited terms, you are also guilty of a crime.
- Just as there are benefits to having government issued documents to protect valuable physical property, there are also benefits to having government issued documents, in the form of copyrights and patents, to protect IP.
- The current US government has some policies in place that help protect IP based on principle. However, there are some areas where they have moved away from principle. For example, currently it is illegal for someone to distribute an idea they have independently created if a similar idea is registered as a patent by someone else. This is wrong because the “second creator” legitimately could distribute the idea without breaking any contract, and therefore force is not used.
- It is a breach of implied contract, and therefore a crime, to violate a Trademark because you are claiming something which is false.
- Responses to common arguments against IP (arguments are listed here, see actual responses below in article)
- My right to physical property trumps your right to an idea.
- I can’t be punished for violating a contract I didn’t make myself.
- It’s impossible to violate someone’s right to an idea because an idea cannot truly be stolen.
- There can be no enforced punishment to violations of intellectual property because nothing is lost.
- Ideas can’t be owned as property because duration of the copyright/patent/etc. is somewhat vague.
- Ideas can’t be owned as property because they have vague boundaries.
- Something must be scarce in order to be property, and ideas aren’t scarce.
- Property can’t be defined by labor because that corresponds with the Marxist theory of value.
- I didn’t know that the author was claiming a copyright (or inventor was claiming a patent)
- Protection of intellectual property inhibits progress as a society.
- Someone cannot retain an exclusive right to IP if they freely offer their idea in public.
- Implantation of IP protection: the same principles that are applied to protect physical property should be applied to protection of IP
- References
1. The Definition of Property: The Fruit of Our Labors
The Doctrine and Covenants states that government should “secure to each individual… the right and control of property” [5]. On multiple occasions, President Ezra Taft Benson defined property, which is an unalienable right, as the fruit of our labors [6,7]. Defining property by labor is in harmony with what God told Adam Eve upon falling and leaving the Garden of Eden, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread” [8]. Adam and Eve now had earn their way by working for sustenance.
One way to comprehend the definition of property as the fruit of our labor is through considering how property rights should be established when people migrate and discover a new land. Consider those traveling with Lehi and arriving to the Americas for the first time. As they were crossing the Pacific Ocean, could one of them, upon spotting the first island, point at it and say “mine”, while a second person upon being the first to spot the main continent point and say “mine”, while a third person pointed at the moon and said “mine”? Merely claiming something as property wouldn’t give them a right to it. However, by laboring for it, they could. For example, upon arriving, one of them could go to an un-owned field and labor to bring forth crops, upon which they could claim the field as their property. Another could go and cut-down some un-owned trees and labor to build a house, and be able to claim that house as their property. A third person could labor to obtain ore from the ground, and claim the ore as their property. Following this pattern, people could take that which wasn’t previously owned, and upon laboring for it, claim it as property. Upon claiming it as property they could also transfer ownership to others through trade or gifting it. This same pattern is followed today. People can labor upon that which isn’t previously owned and claim it as property. They can also trade for property, whether they trade a different type of property for it, or perform some kind of service in exchange for property.
Property, which is the fruit of our labors, doesn’t necessarily have to be physical items. In the gospel, fruit doesn’t always refer to physical items. For example, in Lehi’s dream, the fruit of the tree of life represented the love of God [9]. When Christ taught us that we could determine whether someone was a true or false prophet by their fruits [10], they weren’t teaching us to examine their physical possessions or characteristics. Fruit can also refer to ideas. People can labor to create new ideas in the form of inventions and works of art. For example, there is much labor that goes into creating a movie, in the form of thinking up ideas, acting, filming, editing, etc. There is also much labor that goes into novel inventions in the form of thinking, trial and error, experimenting, building prototypes to validate, etc. If someone works hard to create an idea which is truly novel and of value, it can be claimed as property, which is consistent with the definition of property as given to us by prophets: the fruit of our labors.
Patents, trade secrets, and copyrights essentially involve protecting an idea. An invention that is patented is essentially a specific configuration of matter to perform some process. A book is a specific configuration of words and ideas. Pictures are configurations of colors. Music is a configuration of sounds, and movies are a combination of pictures, music, ideas, etc. Intellectual property basically breaks down to protecting an idea to limited use.
2. Giving Others Limited Use of Property Through Contract, Including Implied Contract
Under the reign of the judges in the Nephites’ time, which was a government established by prophets, we learn that the people “durst not lie, if it were known, for fear of the law, for liars were punished” [4]. The law can have hold over those who lie through breaking contracts or committing fraud (fraud generally refers to breaking an implied contract). Breaking a contract is a violation of our right to liberty and/or property. When we contract, we have given a portion our liberty or property to another with a promise from them that they will give us a portion of their liberty or property. If they lie and break the contract, they have stolen our liberty or property.
Contracts can be written, verbal, and even implied. To illustrate implied contracts, consider all the implied contracts that are made when you visit a restaurant. If the restaurant owner posts a sign out front indicating that it is a place of business and provides a parking lot, there is an implied contract that even though you park and leave your car unattended (for a reasonable amount of time), you remain the owner of the car. There is an implied contract that you can enter the property without being charged with trespassing. You are agreeing to respect the property (such as not damaging anything and complying with whatever rules they establish, such as requiring shoes/shirts, prohibiting drugs, etc.) and respect other patrons; in exchange they agree to not abuse you and respect whatever personal property you are bringing (note: they retain the right to have you leave their property for any reason, but they agree to notify you and give you an appropriate amount of time before forcing it). By ordering food, you enter another implied contract. You agree to pay for the food and service as long as it is presented to you in a reasonable condition. Although the cook has some flexibility with ingredients in the food, they agree to not to add something they know is harmful (unless you know, such as alcohol). When you hand over your credit card to pay, another implied contract is made: you agree to allow them to create a debt in your name with a financial institution, and they agree to only make that debt in the amount indicated that you will pay, they also agree not to write down the credit card number, your personal information, and charge more or share it with someone else at another time without your permission. These are just examples of several implied contracts made when simply going out to eat. We use implied contracts all the time, and they are generally based on what the understanding of the culture is. Implied contracts make life more enjoyable and efficient—if we didn’t have them, it would be a big hassle every time we wanted to trade property for property and/or labor.
Through contract, we can give others limited use of our property. This done all the time with physical property; some examples are renting a car, using a hotel room, and visiting an amusement park. As part of the contract, the property owner can set limits on how the property is used. For example, dictating that only people over a certain age can drive the rental car, that noise will be kept to an appropriate level in the hotel room, and that the patron won’t cut in line or be abusive to others at the amusement park. An example of an implied contract with physical property is valet parking. As you hand over the car and keys, you are not giving them permission to take the car permanently, but that they will simply park it and return it upon your request (and after you pay). Often keys are handed over without saying anything, and certainly not signing anything, so it is very much an implied contract.
3. Intellectual Property: The Principles of Contract Applied
The principles behind intellectual property are basically based on this: someone labors to create a novel idea. To maintain control over this idea (and hence, they can be considered the “owner”), they only share the idea with others who enter a contract to only use the idea in a limited way and promise not to share or distribute the idea to others in an unauthorized way. Part of this contract is that the person who receives the idea will only reveal it to a third party in an authorized way after they put the third party under the contract. Anyone has a right to refuse to enter such contract, but they do so by refusing to see details associated with the idea.
As an example of a copyright, consider a movie. A team labors to create it. They advertise brief parts of it to give you a taste. However, when you go to the movie theater, rent it, or buy it on DVD, you enter a contract with them not to distribute it without authorization. When you go to the theater or rent it, this includes not recording or copying it in any form. When you buy a DVD of it, you can create copies for your own use (such as back-up or to view it on different devices), however you promise not to distribute it to others, or allow them to make copies of it. When you buy it, you are contracting with the creator of the movie to put anyone that you invite to see it under contract not to copy it in any form, and therefore anyone that comes over to see your copy of it is also entering the contract. Of course, anyone can refuse to enter this contract by refusing to see the movie. However, once they go to a movie theater to see it, they have agreed to enter the contract. Once they see the movie by watching someone’s copy, they agree to enter the contract (upon buying the DVD of the movie, the purchaser has contracted to put anyone they share it with under contract).
Patents follow these same principles. The creator is offering to reveal or sell their idea to others as long as they contract to only use their idea in the way the creator tells them they can. Those who enter this agreement with the creator also contract to only reveal it to third parties if the third party also enters into the contract, that they won’t use the idea revealed to them unless specifically buying such from an authorized distributor. If others want to apply the invention that has been revealed to them in another way, they must get authorization from the creator. (Note: it is possible that someone else can labor to create the same invention or novel idea independently. Such a person should be permitted to use and distribute this idea on their own, provided they legitimately created the idea on their own and not by copying the idea in a way that broke a contract made by them or someone else. This will be discussed more later on.)
Basically, Person A, the creator of the idea, is telling Person B that they have labored to create a novel idea. However, they will only disclose details of it with Person B if Person B promises to only use it under Person A’s terms. Person B can refuse to enter such contract, but if they do, they refuse to get the details from person A and therefore are left pondering what in the world Person A’s idea is.
With intellectual property, sometimes this sharing of an idea after putting the other person under contract happens very formally with written contacts, however usually it tends to be under an implied contract that is entered. For example, this implied contract is entered upon going to a movie theater, visiting an art museum, buying a book, or buying a device marked with a patent number.
So how long does the contract last before the purchaser of the idea can freely distribute it? I believe the principle behind determining how long a copyright or patent should last is to consider how long would it be before someone else could reasonably create the same idea independently (generally, trade secrets naturally terminate at this time anyway). For example, if person A tried to put person B under contract not to distribute their invention without authorization for 50 years, but person B thought he could create it on his own in 25 years, person B wouldn’t enter the contract until it was negotiated down to 25 years.
For complex artistic works which are protected under copyright, such as novels, songs, paintings, and movies, entering a contract for at least the lifetime of the author shouldn’t be very arguable. For example, it seems essentially impossible that someone could independently create the same exact movie by coming up with the same plot, scenes, dialogue, actors, camera angles, etc., and therefore entering a contract for a hundred years or longer isn’t unreasonable. Non-complex ideas, such as a simple note, tone, or color, shouldn’t be protected as a copyright, for those probably could be legitimately created independently a short time later (or perhaps they should be protected by copyright only for a few years).
Patents are a little trickier, because often they could be legitimately created by someone else independently after a time, so judgment must be used. Currently in the United States, patents are protected for 20 years after they were filed (or 17 years after the patent was awarded if in 1995 or earlier). Perhaps a more principled approach would be to use a graded system. For example, patents could be ranked by complexity and given term lengths of 5, 10, 20, 50 years, etc. Once again, the principle should be that the patent lasts until someone else could reasonably create the idea independently (without copying it due to someone breaking a contract).
If someone disagrees with the term of the implied contract associated with a patent or copyright but still wants access to the idea, they are free to negotiate with the owner of the idea a different contract, but they must do so before entering the contract (for example, before buying the DVD of the movie or learning details about a patent). Such can’t be done after the implied contract is entered. To give an example with physical property, when a place of business has a parking lot out front, there is an implied contract that when a customer parks, the customer retains ownership of their car. After a customer parks, the business owner can’t suddenly change the terms of the socially understood implied contract and claim that he never explicitly agreed to allow the customer to keep their car, so he is now the owner. To do so, the business owner would first have to inform the customer of his new modified contract (any parked car in his lot now belongs to the business) and allow the customer the opportunity to accept or reject this new contract. The customer must first have the option of driving away. Same principle applies to a copyright. If you don’t want to be bound to the socially understood terms of the implied contract, you must first renegotiate the contract with the owner of the copyright and give them a chance to reject your offer, before you buy the DVD and decide to freely distribute it.
4. IP Protection from 3rd Parties Who Don’t Directly Enter a Contract
Sometimes it is argued that, while IP can be protected against those who directly enter a contract (such as through buying a DVD), it can’t be protected against 3rd parties who didn’t directly enter the contract. For example, let’s say person A creates a movie, then person B enters a contract by buying the DVD from an authorized distributor, and then person B makes a copy and makes an unauthorized distribution to his friend, person C. Can person C accept the copy and claim that since he didn’t specifically enter a contract with person A, he hasn’t violated any rights? No, because he has assisted in breaking the contract. Knowingly and willingly assisting in a crime makes one guilty of the crime, even if they didn’t directly use force themselves. As a parallel example, if person B steals a car from person A and then sells or gives it to person C, can person C accept the car and claim that he’s not violating any rights because he didn’t actually steal it himself? Of course not—especially if person C knows it was stolen. By accepting the car, person C is assisting in the crime and is therefore liable. Breaking a contract is a crime, and therefore knowingly and willingly assisting someone in breaking a contract also makes one liable of the crime.
Only if person B legitimately created the movie independently (thought up the script, filmed it, edited it, etc. without copying person A), then person C can accept it from person B without violating another’s rights. However, such a scenario actually happening would be highly unlikely.
5. Benefits of Using Government Documents to Protect Property
There are distinct advantages to having government documents to protect property. First, let’s look at an example of physical property. Person A owns a car and person B steals it. Person A hunts down person B and takes him to court to lawfully repossess his car by force (or get monetary compensation for what he has lost). Person B tells the court that he doesn’t owe anything because person A gave the car to him as a gift. It would be unrealistic for person A to prove to the court beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not gift the car to person B. Instead, person A can show government documentation (car title) that he was the original owner of the car, and then use the argument that it is unlikely that he would have gifted the car to person B without unless there was formal documentation that such has happened. Now person A probably shouldn’t be forced to have government documentation showing ownership of the car, but freely obtaining it is in his best interest in the event that it is stolen. Therefore, it should definitely be a service offered, but not enforced, by the government to have document for valuable property, such as cars, boats, plots of land, etc.
The same principles apply with intellectual property: the government should offer documentation through providing patents and copyrights. For example, the creator of an invention shouldn’t be forced to have a patent, but it is in his best interest to get such to protect his idea. In the case of litigation, it provides the creator solid evidence that he did in fact create the idea. If person B claims that he was freely gifted the idea, person A can show the documentation and use the same logic shown above, that it is unlikely that he freely gifted the idea to person B unless there was formal documentation.
6. United States Intellectual Property Laws: Incorporate Some of These Principles but Violate Others
Many of the above principles are incorporated into US IP laws. Protection of trade secrets isn’t very disputable because usually a contract is explicitly signed. Protection against the majority of copyrights is also difficult to dispute. For example, think of how long it would reasonably be before someone else could independently create ideas such as Star Wars, Harry Potter, or The Book of Mormon. Protection for centuries isn’t unreasonable.
Patents are a little trickier. However, many principles are incorporated in our US laws.
- For something to be patentable, it must be novel, non-obvious, and useful. Simple combinations of ideas aren’t patentable. These conditions establish that basically one must labor to create the idea—for property is the fruit of one’s labor.
- An idea is only patentable if it is kept secret up until the patent is applied for. While the idea is in its infancy and one is laboring to develop it, it can only be shared with others if they are under contract to keep it secret. There can be no public disclosure until it is fully developed, which is signified by applying for a patent. This helps ensure that others don’t hear your idea and go copy it without realizing that they have entered a contract with you not to copy or distribute it without authorization.
- When selling a device which contains a patent, the patent number must be clearly visible on the device. This informs others that upon examining or buying the device, they are entering a contract not to copy and distribute the idea without authorization.
There are some areas where US IP law needs to be changed because they violate the principles on which IP is founded. Sometimes someone does independently create the same idea before a patent held by another expires. Under current law, such individual is not allowed to distribute the idea. This is a violation of principle, because if the second person could legitimately distribute the idea without any contract being violated.
If two people create the same idea independently, one thing that should be considered is whether the idea is truly novel and complex enough to be patentable—if multiple people came up with the same idea, that could very well be an indication that the idea isn’t really novel. After considering this, it may be that both did labor for years to create a truly unique idea that should be patentable. In this case, both should be awarded with patents—for both should be free to put others under contract that they will share the idea under limited terms. Neither would be violating the right of the other because no contract has been broken to put a third person under contract. Of course, most often it would be in both of their best interests to collaborate and distribute the idea together under agreement where they each take a certain percentage of the profits, but that’s up to them to decide and contract about under the free market.
However, there may be the case that the first person to file a patent for the idea claims that the second person copied the idea from them out of contract (either directly or through assisting a third party in breaking a contract with the first person). Such a case should be investigated, and if the second person didn’t create it independently, the first person should have exclusive rights to it.
7. Trademarks
Up to this point, I’ve generally spoken to principles concerning copyrights, patents, and trade secrets. I’d like to briefly touch on trademarks, which are a little different. Trademarks refer to protection of a brand name, logo, etc. For something to be eligible for a trademark, it must be a novel idea—such as a novel word or combination, for it would violate principle to suddenly allow someone exclusive use to a word or idea that is already commonly used among the population. Trademarks can, under principle, be protected by law. Referring back to Alma 1:17, liars, and therefore those who commit fraud, can be punished by the law. If someone labors to build up a business reputation under a unique name, and then someone else suddenly comes in and purposely sells under the same name to trick people into buying a product, they have committed fraud and therefore can be punished by law. For example, it would breach of an implied contract, and therefore fraud, for someone to manufacture a cheap watch and sell it under the Rolex trademark, because a customer would be willing to pay a fair amount of money based on expecting a certain amount of quality.
8. Response to Common Arguments that Oppose the Right of Intellectual Property
Below, are several common arguments I’ve heard from those who oppose protection of intellectual property. Usually the best way to show that anti-IP argument is flawed is to apply it to a physical property example.
Argument A: My right to physical property trumps your right to an idea.
Often people claim that when physical property and an idea come into conflict, the right to physical property should trump the idea. For example, if person A owns a writable DVD, they should have the right to do whatever they want on it, such as copying another’s copyrighted movie. However, anyone that claims that one type of right trumps another doesn’t have a good understanding of rights. We have a right to life, liberty, and property. Our right to any of those is bound by the rights of others to those. For example, Person A can’t say that his right to property allows him to do whatever he wants with his property, so therefore he can take his baseball bat and kill Person B; such would be claiming that right to property trumps right to life. On the other hand, person B can’t say that his right to life allows him to steal money from person A to pay for healthcare to extend his life at any cost; such would be claiming that the right to life trumps the right to property. Person A’s right to property is bound by Person B’s right to life, and Person B’s right to life is bound by Person A’s right to property.
Therefore, Person A’s right to physical property is bound by Person B’s right to a novel idea and contracts. Person A cannot use his property to violate the right of life, liberty, or property (including intellectual property) of someone else.
As further evidence of the flaw of this argument consider the following. A contract itself is an idea; a contract is simply an agreement between two or more parties. Let’s say person A contracts that he will pay a gold coin if Person B mows the lawn. After Person B mows the lawn, can Person A claim that his right to physical property (the gold coin) trumps Person B’s right to an idea (the contract to mow the lawn) and therefore refuse to pay? Of course not!
Argument B: I can’t be punished for violating a contract I didn’t make myself.
For example, Person B enters a contract with by buying Person A’s movie from an authorized distributor, and then distributes an unauthorized copy of it to Person C. The claim here is that Person C is not liable to copyright violation because he never directly entered a contract with Person A.
Breaking a contract is a crime, and therefore an unauthorized use of force. So the flawed argument here is essentially that since Person C didn’t directly use force themselves, they can’t be liable to the crime. However, one must realize that willfully and knowingly assisting in a crime makes one liable to that crime, even if they don’t directly use force themselves. For example, if Person B steals Person A’s car, and then sells it (at a very low price) it to Person C, can Person C claim that he can keep the car because he didn’t steal it himself, especially if he know it was stolen when he bought it? One might argue that Person B has more liability to the crime and Person A should go after Person B, but what if Person B can’t be found while Person C is found with the car? Person A can rightfully claim damages from Person C. As another example, if someone drives the getaway car from a robbery, although they may not have broken in and stolen property themselves (and therefore didn’t directly use force), they are still liable to the crime because they assisted in it.
Knowingly and willingly assisting someone in violating the intellectual property of another makes one liable to the crime. Technically, the idea isn’t distributed without authorization unless a third party actually accepts the illegitimate copy, so therefore they are directly assisting in the crime (breach of contract).
Argument C: It’s impossible to violate someone’s right to an idea because an idea cannot truly be stolen.
The claim here is that because an idea can’t be “stolen” in the same way physical property is stolen, the right to IP cannot truly be violated. For example, if Person A steals Person B’s car, Person B no longer has the car. However, if Person A gets an illegitimately copy of Person’s B movie, person B still has the movie themselves (they can still burn and distribute whatever copies they want) so it isn’t technically “stolen”.
Just because “stealing” an idea is different than “stealing” physical property, it doesn’t mean that a violation of rights hasn’t occurred. First of all, one must realize that the right to physical property can be violated in ways other than theft. For example, in the cases of trespassing or damaging someone’s car, a right is violated even though the owner is still in possession of the physical property. This in itself proves the argument flawed.
Second, consider identity theft. One’s identity isn’t “stolen” in the same way a car is “stolen”; what has happened is that a second person is distributing without authorization an illegitimate copy of someone else’s identity. Clearly identity theft is a violation of rights. Violation of IP is also unauthorized distribution of illegitimate copies. In fact, one’s identity itself can be considered an idea.
Finally, consider the words of modern prophets. The most recent Gospel Principles states, “Copying music, movies, pictures, or written text without the permission of the copyright owners is dishonest and is a form of theft” [2].
Argument D: There can be no enforced punishment to violations of intellectual property because nothing is lost.
The argument here is that punishment for a crime should be based on restoring what has been lost, and if a novel idea is distributed without the creator’s consent, the creator still has use of the idea themselves so there is nothing actually lost which needs to be restored. However, violation of rights often involves losses of non-tangible items. This is especially true regarding violation of contracts. For example, let’s say person A contracts to mow person B’s lawn in exchange for a meal. It would be a violation of person A’s rights if person B refused to provide a meal after the lawn was mowed. However, in this case, person A didn’t physically lose anything. So what must be restored? One thing is that person A lost time, but it would be impossible for person B to restore the time to person A. If what is damaged can’t be restored, our best judgment must be used for resolution. Often, money is used to resolve such.
For an example of IP, let’s say someone buys a movie and then distributes it without authorization over the internet to thousands of others. Through a breach in contract, the unauthorized distributor has now robbed the creator of all the time and work put into creating a movie and creating the movie’s value by limiting distribution to only certain authorized parties. To restore what has been lost, the perpetrator must destroy all the illegitimate copies circulating around the world and erase the movie from all the minds of those who have watched an unauthorized copy (the movie has lost much value because many that have now seen it are no longer willing to pay to see it for the first time). Of course, such would be impossible so often money is used to restore what has been lost, according to our best judgment.
Those who oppose IP often don’t realize all the time, resources, and work that are invested in creating a valuable idea. To protect the value of the idea, recover the investment, and gain an honest profit, the creator may only distribute the idea under contract of limited use. If a contract is breached which devalues the idea, the creator is robbed of all the work put into creating value of the idea
Argument E: Ideas can’t be owned as property because duration of the copyright/patent/etc. is somewhat vague.
Often judgment must be used to determine the length of IP protection. However, that in itself doesn’t invalidate it as a right. Consider physical property: how long does something have to be left alone (e.g. abandoned) before someone else can claim it? For example, consider a car vs a t-shirt left in the mountains at a trailhead. Consider a t-shirt in a plastic bag left by the side of the road vs a t-shirt left in a car by the side of a road. Judgment must be used, and is often based on complexity, intent, how it is packaged, etc. The same concepts apply to IP.
Argument F: Ideas can’t be owned as property because they have vague boundaries.
The argument here is that because ideas don’t have clearly defined boundaries, they can’t be considered property. For example, how similar can a novel that I write be to another’s novel before I have violated their copyright?
Just because boundaries aren’t exact and judgment must be used to determine when a violation has occurred, doesn’t mean that a right can’t be violated. Consider traffic accidents. Judgment is used all the time to determine who is at fault and therefore liable to the damage. It isn’t always clear. Further, consider a plot of land. How far down must Person A go before they can dig directly below Person B’s land to take resources? 1 foot? 50 feet? 50 miles? How far above Person B’s land can Person B fly some kind of device without trespassing? 1 foot? 50 feet? 50 miles? Perhaps it depends on what kind of device (kite vs airplane), and what Person A’s intentions are (traveling to get somewhere else vs spying on Person B). Often the form of the “copy” and the intention behind it are used to judge whether a violation of IP has occurred.
Argument G: Something must be scarce in order to be property, and ideas aren’t scarce.
The claim here is that something can only be considered property if it is scarce, and ideas can be used by multiple people at the same time so they aren’t scarce. For example, a specific car is scarce because only one person can drive it at a time, but a specific movie isn’t scarce because many people can watch it at the same time in multiple locations.
On multiple occasions, President Benson defined property as the fruit of one’s labor [6,7]. IP clearly falls within the realm of this definition. I don’t know of any authorized servant of God that has used scarcity to define property as a right. Scarcity often contributes to the value of property in a free market, but it doesn’t in itself define ownership or property.
God is the ultimate owner of anything on Earth, for Earth is the fruit of His labors. Anything that we claim as property ultimately belongs to Him. However, He has granted us temporary stewardship over certain portions of Earth, which is our God-given right to property. It seems self evident that He grants it to us on the basis of working for it, as a reward for our labors, rather than granting it to us on the basis of something being scarce.
There are other ways rights can be violated which don’t fall within the definition of “scarcity”. For example, when the Nephites first arrived to the Americas, they had a right to claim plots of land by being the first to labor upon it. If someone were to build a house on a plot that another had already built a farm, it would be a violation of property rights even though plots of land weren’t scarce. A second example is our right to privacy. We may choose to give limited use of our privacy to certain individuals, such as a spouse, doctor, etc. However, usually there are contracts (implied or explicit) in their limited use, and if they violated by giving it to third parties in an unauthorized way, it can be a violation of rights. A third example is that someone could copy your credit card information, and therefore it can be used by multiple people at the same time in multiple locations. What is violated is an idea (credit card info) which is simply linked to an idea (debt contract). Related to this is a right to our identity, which could be used without authorization by multiple people at the same time.
However, even to address the IP cynic that insists on defining property by scarcity rather than the fruit of one’s labors, surely they should agree with IP on the basis of contracts. Perhaps rather than calling it intellectual property, they can think of it as protection of a novel idea through contract. It is fraud to agree to use a novel idea under limited terms, and then later break the contract after the novel idea is fully revealed. It seems easier to think of protection of a novel idea through limited use contracts as “property” by convention, but whether or not one prefers to call it “property”, a breach of contract is an unjustified use of force.
Argument H: Property can’t be defined by labor because that corresponds with the Marxist theory of value.
Surprisingly, I’ve heard this argument from multiple people. However, such individuals don’t understand Marxism or private property because these are two completely different concepts. Under the Marxist theory of value, rather than letting the free market determine the value of goods, the value of goods is determined by the amount of labor put into it. For example, let’s say the Marxist government determines that one man-hour is worth $10. If two houses are built, and it takes Person A 10 hours to build one, while the other takes Person B 20 hours (because he used less efficient tools and was less skilled at building), even though the houses may be exactly the same, the first one will be priced at $100 and the second will be priced at $200 by government mandate. Also, neither house is owned by the person who built it—it is owned by the community at large. The price is only used to determine equal redistribution of goods to everyone, regardless if they work full-time or not at all.
However, under a free market where private property is defined as the fruit of one’s labor, Person A owns the house he built, while Person B owns the house he built—the houses are the reward of their labor and their God-given right to property. Each can decide on their own whether to keep it or sell it. If they do decide to sell it, they can sell it for whatever price they’re able to negotiate with a buyer wish, regardless of whether it took 10 hours or 20 hours to build.
Defining property as the fruit of one’s labor is truly a prophetic definition—it is rewarding ownership based on labor and allowing a free market, which gives the biggest benefit to society as a whole.
Argument I: I didn’t know that the author was claiming a copyright (or inventor was claiming a patent)
Some anti-IP people argue that it isn’t practical to protect IP because they claim it is difficult for a third party to know when an idea is protected under limited use by contract. However, by applying this same argument to physical property, the flaw in it becomes apparent. For example, when going to the park, how are you supposed to know what is currently claimed by someone as physical property? If you see cars parked in the lot, do you assume that they are freely available to the public as whole, or is someone still claiming it as property? If a random stranger offers to give you a computer for free, do you take it on the assumption of trusting the person, or are you skeptical that they stole it and proceed with caution? The rule of thumb seems to be that if an object is complex and has significant market value, it is best to assume someone is claiming ownership. The same rule of thumb and common sense should also be applied to IP. Complex and valuable novel ideas should be assumed to be protected under copyright or patent, and you should investigate before accepting them for free or ridiculously low prices.
Argument J: Protection of intellectual property inhibits progress as a society
Some claim that by limiting use of novel ideas through protection of intellectual property inhibits a society’s progress. However, history has shown the contrary. For example, from 1875 to 1975 the United States probably had a government system protected physical and intellectual property better than any other nation (note: it wasn’t perfect, but better than any other). The US also became the most advanced, well-off nation. This comparison is especially apparent when comparing the US to countries which had little to no protection of physical and intellectual property during that time, such China and the USSR. Protecting someone’s ownership of the fruit of their labors, in the form of both physical and intellectual property, encourages individuals within a society to work and produce, which fosters more progress. Unfortunately progress in the US is slowing down as property rights are degraded over time and redistribution is happening through force rather than through free market exchanges and charitable giving.
Argument K: Someone cannot retain an exclusive right to IP if they freely offer their idea in public.
This argument generally stems from misunderstanding of what it means to “freely offer” something to the public. For example, when an author puts out a book or movie, they aren’t freely offering the idea to everyone to use and share the idea however they wish. Under copyright protection, they are putting all those who go to see the movie or read the book under an implied contract to limited use of the idea.
For a parallel physical property example, consider a restaurant owner. He opens the doors to the public, allowing people to come in and use it. However, this doesn’t mean he “freely offers” the restaurant to the public, in that they can come in and do whatever they want, such as disturb other customers, vandalize furnishings, and take home whatever they find inside. Individuals that choose to enter the restaurant agree to limited use of the property under an implied contract made once they enter the premise.
Implied contracts make life much more efficient. In the case of a restaurant or store owner, it wouldn’t be feasible to make him have every customer who wants to enter sign a long contract spelling out exactly what they can and cannot do if they choose to enter the property (plus, the customer may be able to find loopholes to whatever contract is there—does every little thing need to be spelled out?). In the same vein, it is often much more feasible for IP owners to function under implied contracts.
9. Implantation of IP protection: can you prove that someone else didn’t create it?
A discussion of protection of IP based on principles often leads to the question of how to enforce it. For example, if someone is caught distributing a patented or copyrighted idea without authorization, what is required to find him guilty? Is it necessary for the plaintiff beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant didn’t also create the idea independently?
This deals with implementation of the law and not the principles behind our right to protection of IP. Such a discussion is only valuable after it is understood that we have a right to IP in the first place.
Proper protection of rights in a society is dependent on the majority understanding and agreeing on basic principles, such as that lying, theft, and murder are wrong, and are a violation to our God-given rights. There will be some dishonest people in the society which try to get away with violating the rights of others, and dealing with this to restore damages will always have imperfections.
Protection of IP should be based off the same principles that are used to protect physical property. So first, let’s consider an example of physical property. If Person A hunts down Person B who is found in possession of Person A’s stolen car, what must Person A do to prove the car was stolen in order to claim damages for the crime? If the thief, Person B, claims that Person A had gifted him the car, to whom does the burden of proof fall? Must Person A prove that he did not gift the car? Or does the burden of proof now fall upon Person B to prove that Person A did gift him the car? Such is a difficult dilemma, for it would be difficult for either to prove one way or another. Due to the difficulty, does the thief, Person B, get to keep the car because Person A cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did not gift the car? Such seems unfair.
Our society has developed a method to deal with such: Person A can get a government issued car title indicating he is the owner. He shouldn’t be forced to title the car (this is where our system has gone too far), but it should be a service that he can freely choose to receive—and it would be in his best interest to do so for a valuable item such as a car. If Person B steals his car, to repossess it, Person A could show his car title, indicating he is the rightful owner, and then use the argument that it is unlikely that he would gift such a valuable item to someone else without formal documentation. If Person B claims that he created the car independently, Person A could make a similar argument: it’s unlikely that Person B happened to create the same type of car (with the same exact features, same VIN, etc.). Of course, if Person B has documentation or reliable witnesses that show that he did create the same type of car independently, he should then have the right to keep it.
Although not perfect, this system of offering formal documentation to protect valuable property is a good one to help protect against dishonest criminals. If such is the system used for physical property, then it is also reasonable to use it for IP. If Person A finds Person B in possession of an unauthorized copy of his idea, instead of having to prove that they did not gift it to Person B (or that Person B did not create it independently), it should be sufficient for Person A to prove that he is the original owner of the idea and it is unlikely that he would freely gift such a valuable idea to Person B (or it is unlikely that Person B created the idea independently) unless Person B has reliable witnesses or some kind of formal documentation. Such is the value of a government issued patent or copyright—to establish initial ownership of the fruits of one’s labor and help protect against those who would dishonestly claim a right to it.
10. References
- The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8.
- Gospel Principles. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 2009 Edition. Pg 181.
- Things as They Really Are. Elder David A. Bednar. May 3, 2009. [http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,538-1-4830-1,00.html]
- Alma 1:17–18
- Doctrine and Covenants 134:2
- The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner. President Ezra Taft Benson. Speech given at Brigham Young University on 16 September 1986. [http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6985]
- The Proper Role of Government. Ezra Taft Benson. God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties. Pg 281-303. [http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/ezra-taft-benson/the-proper-role-of-government/]
- Genesis 3:19
- 1 Nephi 11:21–23
- Matthew 7:15–20
A pretty powerful argument. But you still don’t have me convinced. If we define property as the “fruit of our labors” and also, necessarily, that “we work all the days of our lives.” Isn’t it necessarily that IP cannot be justified since you will not need to work after recording one hit song, or at least, you labored once but need not labor again? Wouldn’t continual playing of that song in concerts qualify as the work, not the song itself? Wouldn’t services related to the software development be what constitutes the continual work, not necessarily the software that was written?
I came of the engineering field and am currently programming, so I understand how much work is involved. But my disagreement is once the product is created anybody can lawfully (under God’s laws) copy it and make their own, since they are not using my labor to create the new item, oftentimes that will be approved upon.
If farmer A makes a labor saving device, patents it, and then farmer B visits farmer A and does not make a contract with farmer A to not make his own, decides he can make a better one and then sells it, he is not violating the rights of farmer A, he did not use his labor.
Let’s make another example. Person A is the first person to ever put an ice cream shop on a beach on the east coast, this is novel, no one else thought it would be profitable, person A patents the idea. Person B walks on the beach and sees the ice cream shop and decides it is a good idea and goes back to Korea and decides to put an ice cream shop on the beach, I cannot believe that person B is violating any rights of person A. Let’s say person C decides to build an ice cream shop next to person A, on his own property, person C has not violated person A’s rights either. The only person that could violate person A’s rights our those that made a contract not to, like person D that shops at person A’s ice cream shop and consequently makes a contract not to open an ice cream shop on the beach.
I do believe that if you do make a contract to not do something one should abide by it, but once the music is in the public domain (like on the airwaves) then it becomes the property the person that decides to copy it.
Jon, I’m not sure what kind of software company you work for. There are some people that freely give away to everyone software that they wrote, such as freeware over the internet. However, there are also many companies with valuable software that they claim copyright on, which when you purchase it, you enter a contract that you won’t share the software or code with anyone else. They are very careful about having you click “I agree” to this before they even reveal any of their code to you. You are entering a contract, and it is a crime to break a contract by giving it to others. Now, if you do pass it onto a third party, the third party might make the false claim “I didn’t commit a crime because I never directly entered a contract with the copyright owner.” However, by accepting the software from you, they are assisting you in breaking your contract, and knowingly and willing assisting someone in a crime makes them guilty of the crime with you.
Regarding your farmer example, if farmer A just throws his novel idea at farmer B without first informing him that it’s patented, then I agree that farmer B can go implement the idea himself. However, if farmer A first tells farmer B that he has a patented device before showing it to him, he is essentially telling farmer B that if B chooses to see the details of the device, then he is entering a contract of limited use (before farmer B decides to proceed, farmer A might give vague information about it, such as it reduces time for plowing wheat). However, if farmer B consents to see the details associated with the novel device, he then is entering a contract of limited use of the idea, whether or not he actually buys it. After farmer A reveals to him the details, it would be a breach of contract, and therefore a crime, for farmer B to go use the idea beyond the terms of their agreement. Farmer B can choose to avoid all of this by simply refusing to see the details associated with Farmer A’s vague new device when he is informed that A wan’t to show him something patentable.
Opening an ice cream shop on the beach is not patentable. It is a simple combination of two non-patentable things: selling ice cream and opening a shop on the beach.
Regarding your music comment, one thing you have to consider is the value of implied contracts. If you don’t like implied contracts, perhaps you would prefer a system where songs which want copyright protection only be broadcast via encrypted transmission (such as internet, satellite, or cell phone signal) and before each song is played on your device, you have to click “I agree” to an explicit contract that shows up. This would be very annoying, especially when driving or exercising. By rejecting implied contracts, you would also have other very annoying, inefficient situations, such as having to sign a contract every time before you park in a lot (that even though you’re temporarily leaving your car on their property, you want to retain possession of it), every time you entered any shop (that you would respect other customers, property of the store, etc.) and every time before you handed a credit/debit card to pay for something (that they don’t know of a third party nearby with a hidden camera that could capture a picture of your card which shows its numbers when held briefly at a specific angle). There is great value to implied contracts, which still allows for protection of rights. If you don’t want to enter copyright contracts, you are free to avoid listening to the radio, buying CDs, etc.
” However, there are also many companies with valuable software that they claim copyright on, which when you purchase it, you enter a contract that you won’t share the software or code with anyone else. ”
- But when I download it via torrent I don’t. When I download software I never even see a contract (either there isn’t one in the code or others have removed it from the code) so clearly I have not agreed to one.
“Now, if you do pass it onto a third party, the third party might make the false claim “I didn’t commit a crime because I never directly entered a contract with the copyright owner.” However, by accepting the software from you, they are assisting you in breaking your contract, and knowingly and willing assisting someone in a crime makes them guilty of the crime with you.”
- Nope not if the code has been altered to have the contract removed and therefore the third party never sees or knows about a contract.
“Opening an ice cream shop on the beach is not patentable. It is a simple combination of two non-patentable things: selling ice cream and opening a shop on the beach.”
- Why are neither of those patentable things? You are merely asserting this.
“If you don’t want to enter copyright contracts, you are free to avoid listening to the radio, buying CDs, etc.”
- Music I download never has any contract.
“Nope not if the code has been altered to have the contract removed and therefore the third party never sees or knows about a contract.”
-Let’s say person A steals your car, removes everything from it that has your name on it, and then sells it to Person B for $100. You find Person B in possession of your car but Person A is nowhere to be found. Do you have a right to claim damages (for example, retake possession of your car by force) from Person B? I believe you do. When you receive something valuable from someone else for free or for a ridiculously low price, that should raise a red flag to any rational person that perhaps they are receiving something as a result of someone else’s rights being violated, so they should take reasonable precautions. Going to a website that often offers a product which is in violation to a copyright is similar to going to a high crime area or organization to receive a “fantastic deal” on buying something.
Yes the owner can repossess his car from person B since it does rightly belong to him BUT person B has committed no crime so the owner cannot claim any damages from B. He can only take his car back but nothing else since B again has done no crime. Damages can only be claimed from the thief himself.
I agree that getting a fantastic deal could be a sign that something funny is going on but that doesn’t mean one should never go through with a fantastic deal nor does it mean that anyone getting a deal that is fantastic is guilty of anything.
Also note that the owner of the car can repossess his car because he no longer has it and is deprived of using his property. But what can an IP “owner” repossess”? Nothing since he is not missing anything. If I copied his book he still has his. How could he repossess something he already has? He can’t; this goes to show the illogical nature of attributing copying with stealing.
The act of repossessing the car from Person B is claiming damages from him (your damage is your lost car). What if Person B had caused an accident with your car? Can you claim damages from the accident?
What about the $100 Person B paid Person A? Do you have to repay that to Person B to claim your car? I would say no, Person B would have to reclaim that by charging person A with fraud. Applying this same logic to copyrights, the software copyright owner can reclaim damages from you if you are found in possession of it illegally. Then for you to reclaim your damages (parallel to the $100 dollars Person B lost), you would have to go after whoever frauded you into thinking it wasn’t copyright protected.
In IP violation, what the owner has lost (and has a right to reclaim damages for) is his right to contract–for you have assisted in breach of a contract. What is lost or damaged can’t always be repaired (such as Person B getting in an accident with a car), so often money is awarded instead.
“The act of repossessing the car from Person B is claiming damages from him (your damage is your lost car).”
- This is confused. So if I loan you my book and stop by a month later to reclaim it that is “claiming damages”? Of course not. Merely reclaiming your own property itself is not “claiming damages” it’s just taking back what is yours. “Damages” would be in addition to taking back the property itself.
“Applying this same logic to copyrights, the software copyright owner can reclaim damages from you if you are found in possession of it illegally. ”
- This confusion results from yet again treating patterns as physical material which are fundamentally different. Yes the car owner can reposses his car because it’s a scarce, rivalrous, resource but what can the software aurthor reposses? He’s not missing his software so he cannot “take it back”. It was never removed from his possession and use to begin with.
“In IP violation, what the owner has lost (and has a right to reclaim damages for) is his right to contract–for you have assisted in breach of a contract.”
- It cannot be a contract if there is no implicit theft as a result of the breach nor can it be a contract if the “IP” is not property to begin with. You have yet to establish that patterns are property anyway so there is no contract; at most it’s an assisted broken promise.
Why is it not patentable to open an ice cream shop on the beach? It was a novel idea to do so, no one had thought of it before (according to this made up scenario).
Also, what if farmer B just saw farmer A working his farm with his patented device. Farmer B has no obligation to not see farmer A’s device and replicate it, just like the ice cream shop.
I agree, people can contract anything they want, even selling themselves into slavery. So my argument isn’t about the contracts, which I’m fine with, it is about the patents and copyrights. They seem so arbitrary since they have a time limit (in today’s law). Which is different from actual land property, as long as you work it it is yours, if you abandon it, under natural law, it shouldn’t be yours, likewise, with patents and copyrights once you create it and put it out for general consumption it is no longer yours since you abandoned it, unless you have people explicitly agree to a contract. So, for the radio station, people would need to explicitly agree to not copy the songs, you wouldn’t need this contract for every song, you could just have an announcer come on and say that all the songs played are not to be copied and listening you agree to those terms.
But really, I think we all become poorer by having copy rights and patents, it’s the fruit of our labor that matters, so for the song artist it is giving concerts, for the actor it is acting in the film one time, not getting paid for each time a film is played. Also, the service for the distribution of movies the service is distributing the film, the service of the movie theater is giving a nice place to watch the film, the service of being able to watch films on your computer is having a place to go and being able to pick out any film you want. But saying someone actually owns the stored electrons and dips and valley’s in a DVD besides the person that bought it is crazy. I don’t purchase a book and then have the book owner say that I can’t lend the book out or give it or sell it away, that’s because it is impractical and the money is made by selling the physical book, just like digital books the money is made in selling the electrons, after that it is fair game, unless an explicit contract is made.
I just think people should start being creative in learning how to make money, then we would all be better off. I also think the reason their was so much prosperity was because there was less of these “patents” compared when the British were in charge, like anyone being able to go and get skin pelts to sell rather than one single company with the monopoly.
“Also, what if farmer B just saw farmer A working his farm with his patented device. Farmer B has no obligation to not see farmer A’s device and replicate it, just like the ice cream shop.”
-You bring up a great point. I had actually thought about this while writing the article, but felt it was already getting too long to include something like this which is more in depth. Since a patent basically a contract that you won’t reveal your idea to someone else until they agree (often by implied contract) to only use it under limited terms, then another requirement should probably be that the idea is reasonable concealed. So if Farmer B can see Farmer A’s idea from his own property, perhaps the patent is nullified. However, if Farmer A puts his patented device in a metal box on wheels that rolls around his field and puts the word “patent” on the outside cover, the only way for Farmer B to see his idea is to enter his property and tamper with his device which is clearly marked as patented. At that point, he has taken action which indicates he agrees to the implied contract.
This also addresses the ice cream on the beach example because it can be seen from afar.
“…unless you have people explicitly agree to a contract. So, for the radio station, people would need to explicitly agree to not copy the songs, you wouldn’t need this contract for every song, you could just have an announcer come on and say that all the songs played are not to be copied and listening you agree to those terms.”
-Sounds like you don’t understand the concept of an implied contract. Please review section 2 of the article. For example, when you park your car in a lot when going to the mall, do you need an explicit agreement from the owner of the lot that the car remains yours? What’s to stop them from using your car, for you have left in on their property? You are protected by implied contract. Similarly, by going to the radio station, you are indicating by your actions that you agree to the implied contract.
“I think we all become poorer by having copy rights and patents”
-Can you give an example that supports this? I can give examples to the contrary. Today’s countries that protect IP have better economies than countries that don’t.
Like I said, you give a pretty good argument. I’ll have to think about it some more and do some more study. It doesn’t make intuitive sense to me that mere ideas thrown on paper or whatever can be considered property.
As for where has prosperity been created by copyrights not existing? How about Microsoft? Gates said himself Microsoft wouldn’t exist if copyrights would have existed before for coding. It didn’t stifle competition back then, there was plenty of it and innovation.
Anyways, more study for me to do!
“another requirement should probably be that the idea is reasonable concealed.”
- But “reasonable” is completely subjective. Doesn’t law need to be objective so it’s clear to everyone what is legal and illegal? Law based on what is “reasonable” is so vague that it would literally be chaotic and no one would ever know if they are in violation of the law or not.
“However, if Farmer A puts his patented device in a metal box on wheels that rolls around his field and puts the word “patent” on the outside cover, the only way for Farmer B to see his idea is to enter his property and tamper with his device which is clearly marked as patented. At that point, he has taken action which indicates he agrees to the implied contract.”
- this is very problematic. In this situation I would agree that tampering with the device is illegitimate but there is no way it constitutes agreeing to the terms of some contract B still has never seen. Contracts must be clear and understood by all parties but patents can and do vary greatly. How long is the patent for? What does it include? What does it exclude? What exactly are the terms? Farmer B hardly knows any of the details. Contract requires consent and while I concede there can be implied consent it’s a non-sequitur to say that merely looking at a box labeled “patent” constitutes agreeing to a contract.
“Sounds like you don’t understand the concept of an implied contract. Please review section 2 of the article. For example, when you park your car in a lot when going to the mall, do you need an explicit agreement from the owner of the lot that the car remains yours? What’s to stop them from using your car, for you have left in on their property? You are protected by implied contract.”
- Yes implied contracts can and do exist such as the parking lot but implied contracts, like all contracts, must be clear to the point that all parties understand the terms. This means that only simple terms are even possible to be implied contracts otherwise they would have to be written down on paper and signed. Complicated patents with heavy detail on design, length of terms, what it covers etc could never be clearly understood without a written contract.
I don’t think copyrights and patents are as complicated as you make them out to be. Most Americans have a basic understanding that it is wrong to copy movies, music, software, without the permission of the author/inventor. Elder Bednar’s quote from my article certainly supports this!
If farmer B doesn’t understand the agreement of the patent, he should ask Farmer A to clarify before he takes action which indicates he agrees to the contract (such as trespassing and tampering). Common sense is required to protect any kind of rights.
As far as “reasonable”, lets apply this to the parking lot example. How long must the parking lot owner wait until your car is considered abandoned? 5 minutes is obviously too short, but 5 years is obviously to long? So at what specific point can the lot owner move it? Obviously common sense and reason must be used!
Johnny,
Appeal to authority and appeal to popularity (or whatever that fallacy is called) are invalid arguments. Although, I agree that using logical arguments is difficult to determine the truth of the matter.
Both you and Kevin have good arguments and leave much thought and study to determine the truth.
You are right it does get complicated for both IP law and physical property and both have been bastardized over the years.
I guess my thought on IP is moving more towards this type of thinking. There’s a person A that likes to sell their body for sex to others. I don’t like it. But since person A hasn’t done any direct harm to anyone then I can’t use violence to stop person A. But I can shun that person. I can decide not to sell the person property or not do business with that person. But that is as far as my rights go. As a society we can make it uncomfortable enough that that person either has to leave to where there are like minded people or stop doing the actions that society deem inappropriate. Or, God can meet out justice for that situation, but as a people, we don’t have the right to do anything about it.
The thing is, these companies need to come up with other models of revenue that don’t use violence for things that are contrary to natural rights (assuming that it isn’t a natural right to own IP).
Great discussion. Much food for thought.
“I don’t think copyrights and patents are as complicated as you make them out to be. ”
- Have you ever seen a end user license agreement for a piece of software? Or have you seen a detailed patent? They are not even close to simple enough for someone to understand without reading such a contract.
“Most Americans have a basic understanding that it is wrong to copy movies, music, software, without the permission of the author/inventor.”
- Popularity does not make it right. At one time most Americans had a “basic understanding” that slavery was not wrong.
“If farmer B doesn’t understand the agreement of the patent, he should ask Farmer A to clarify before he takes action which indicates he agrees to the contract (such as trespassing and tampering)”
- Trespassing and tampering isn’t consenting to an unknown contract of unknown terms.
Kevin and Jon, it sounds to me like your biggest issue is understanding the value of implied contracts. However, even in a society that rejects implied contracts, IP can be protected under principle. In such a society, IP owners could protect their ideas by implement things such as the following: having customers sign an explicit contract before going to the theater (or art museum, library, etc.) or renting or purchasing a DVD (or book, painting, etc.); having customers sign an explicit contract before entering a store that sells novel devices; having people sign a contract before giving them a publication that describes the patented device; only streaming movies or songs by encrypted signal (such as cable, satellite, internet, cell signal, etc.) and only giving people the de-encryption code after they sign an explicit contract. Sounds like your core argument is then that we, as a society, need to move away from a system of implied contracts. To do such, I think you would be surprised as to how much this would also affect how we deal with physical property.
To say that contracts can only be made which involve physical property and transfer of ownership is to say there are limits to the free market. Saying this indicates you don’t understand contract law and what a free market system is. What about a rental car contract? The car owner does not transfer ownership, he is only offering his property under limited terms. What about an employer-employee contract? The employee is not transferring ownership of his body, he is merely offering limited use of his labor in exchange for money. How is this much different than offering limited use of an idea in exchange for money?
“Complicated patents with heavy detail on design, length of terms, what it covers etc could never be clearly understood without a written contract.”
So what if someone sees part of the design and it makes him think of another idea and he creates something new with that portion of the design should he be responsible to the patent holder for the new idea? I don’t think so because the majority of ideas are built on others work.
At the company I worked at before as an engineer they received a patent for creating a high pass filter. They told another company that they weren’t allowed to put that idea on their data sheets because it was patented. The customers of the other company were the customers of the company I worked for also. The idea wasn’t exactly novel, and it didn’t really help the customers to omit the idea from the data sheets. Sure, I think the other company should have cited who came up with the idea, but they shouldn’t have been obliged to do so.
Patents and copyrights just don’t make sense to me, even after all of your arguments. Like I said, I have much more to learn still to work it out in my mind.
I think you are misunderstanding me Jon because patents and copyrights don’t make sense to me either. I am trying to show they are illogical and inconsistent.
Kevin, I was referring to Johnny, sorry, I didn’t put his name on that part of the comment.
Yes, I think your (Kevin’s) arguments make more intuitive sense to me. Maybe just because that is what I’m biased to believe.
Patents/copyrights just seems so stifling to innovation and progress and, therefore, has bad fruits, which makes it false in my mind.
Yes they are very stifling. Another book that clearly shows this in devastating fashion is the book “Against Intellectual Monopoly”. Of course it’s available for free online:
http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinalall.pdf
This one specifically shows how stifling IP is.
Cool, I’ll take a look at the book.
Jon, in Section 6 of my article I talk about how our current US law does stray from principle–it isn’t perfect! One of the main purposes of this article is to help others understand this so we can change it to be based more on principle.
One area I think is wrong is that if someone does invent a novel, non-obvious idea independent (without copying it) of someone who does hold the patent, they should be able to use it, for they are also an inventor and according to the constitution, also have a right to it. Another area is I think the US patent office has become way too lenient on awarding patents–I’ve seen some patents in my field which seem obvious. So in the case of the high-pass filter, first of all, was it truly a novel, non-obvious idea? If not, it shouldn’t be patentable. If so, did the other company also create something similar independently, or did they copy your design out of contract? These must be considered.
Kevin is quick to point out the specific situations with IP can be complicated, but doesn’t point out that specific situations with physical property are also complicated. Often common sense and judgement must be used. Here’s an example: let’s say there a new plot of undeveloped land is discovered. Person A brings his livestock to feed there in the Fall, while person B (not knowing about person A) harvests fruits off the land in the Fall. Suddenly, one winter person B decides to build a house there and fence off the property? Who owns the property? Can Person C exclude Person A and Person B from using land that they’ve already been using for years? Can Person A and Person B say that Person C can’t build a house there even though they didn’t clearly mark it as their land? Often, reason and judgement must be used.
One thing to remember is that with IP, new ideas are still being created frequently, while with physical property, we’ve discovered so much of the world already that it’s rare to find new farm land, mining areas, etc, so it’s easy for us to overlook how complex situations can be created. To compare IP to physical property, it helps me to think about people discovering a new land for the first time (such as Nephites arriving to the Americas). How would property be established and how would rights be best protected?
Bob owns a block of marble.
Jack steals Bob’s block of marble.
Jack carves out a magnificent statue out of the marble.
Does Jack now own the statue which clearly is “the fruit of his labor”? Can anyone honestly claim Jack has a right to this marble he stole?
This should make it clear that the very first principle the author here claims (property being “the fruit of our labor”) is invalid.
Copyright has nothing to do with contract. Everyone is bound by the terms of the “contract” regardless of consent which is required for contracts. This is the only way to enforce the illogical view of “intellectual property”; it cannot be done with actual contract based on voluntary consent.
Kevin, I highly recommend that you actually read this article, for both of your arguments are specifically countered.
1. Regarding the definition of property, Section 1 states: “[Someone] could go to an UN-OWNED field and labor to bring forth crops, upon which they could claim the field as their property. Another could go and cut-down some UN-OWNED trees and labor to build a house, and be able to claim that house as their property… Following this pattern, people could take THAT WHICH WASN’T PREVIOUSLY OWNED, and upon laboring for it, claim it as property.”
Obviously if someone violates the rights of another through the fruit of their labors (such as stealing to obtain materials), then they cannot claim what they have created as their own. In one of the recent New Hampshire Republican debates (January 8, 2012), Ron Paul said TWICE, “Rights mean you a have right to your life, you have a right to your liberty, and you should have a right to keep the fruits of your labor.” He sounded just like President Benson.
2. Copyrights are based on contract as explained in Section 3. Take a movie for example. You enter an implied contract when you go to the theater or rent/buy it on DVD. Part of that contract is that if you show it to anyone, you agree to also put them under the contract. This is based on consent–for you can refuse to enter the contract by NOT seeing the movie; no one is forcing you to see the movie.
“Obviously if someone violates the rights of another through the fruit of their labors (such as stealing to obtain materials), then they cannot claim what they have created as their own. ”
- This proves my point; It’s not true that you own the fruit of your labor. Your very first principle remains invalid.
“Copyrights are based on contract as explained in Section 3. ”
- No they are not. When I download a movie I never see ANY contract at all. How could I agree to a contract I have never even seen?
Another reason copyright is not based on contract is that copyright is automatic. Even if the author does not apply for or even want a copyright (he wants his work freely distributed) he does not have this choice.
“It’s not true that you own the fruit of your labor. Your very first principle remains invalid.”
-When I wrote this article, I made the assumption that most readers would understand that your right to life, liberty, property is bound by other’s rights. For example, your right to liberty isn’t that you can do whatever you want, but it’s that you can do whatever you want as long as you don’t violate someone else’s life, liberty, or property. So to clarify the definition of property, it is the fruit of your labor provided that you don’t violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else in the process.
“When I download a movie I never see ANY contract at all.”
Do you understand implied contracts? Please refer to section 2 and my response to Jon above.
“Another reason copyright is not based on contract is that copyright is automatic. Even if the author does not apply for or even want a copyright (he wants his work freely distributed) he does not have this choice.”
-The author does have this choice. When someone creates a house, the house is automatically theirs, but they can forgo this right by offering it to the public. If you want to freely distribute your copyright item, you could put a statement at the beginning such as “The author forgoes any claim to copyright and everyone is free to distribute this.”
“So to clarify the definition of property, it is the fruit of your labor provided that you don’t violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else in the process.”
- This too is incomplete and problematic. What about a gift? Is a gift the fruit of the recipients labor? No. By this definition no recipient of a gift can own the gift and it should be returned to the giver since it’s the fruit of the givers labor.
But this additional clause you have added actually prevents ALL claims of intellectual property. Let me give an example:
If I labor to produce ink and paper then they are rightfully my property since they are the fruit of my labor. If you take your ink and arrange it on your paper and call it a story, claim to own it this arrangement, and threaten me with fines and violence if I dare to arrange my own ink on my own paper in the same pattern you are literally violating my right to my paper and ink. My ink and my paper clearly are the fruits of my labor not yours. If you say your right to your story trumps my right to my physical property then you are guilty of a variation of the common objection A you attempted to refute above. As you said in response to this objection “However, anyone that claims that one type of right trumps another doesn’t have a good understanding of rights.” This is exactly what you are guilty of if you claim your right to your story trumps my right to my paper and ink.
Kevin, once again let me refer you back to Section 1 of my article where I state “Upon claiming it as property they could also transfer ownership to others through trade or gifting it.” If you contract to give away your property through trade or gift, then you don’t maintain ownership of it.
For example, consider a construction worker. He contracts with a company to work for pay. So you could say his paycheck is the fruit of his labors. If he contracts for a paycheck in exchange for his labor, and then later claims that the house he built is his would violate the contract rights of the company. A programmer for a software company has contracted to receive pay in exchange for the ideas he creates, so he doesn’t maintain the rights to the copyright–the company does. The fruit of his labors, once again, is his paycheck, which he can further trade for the house the construction worker built.
Your quote “If you take your ink and arrange it on your paper and call it a story, claim to own it this arrangement, and threaten me with fines and violence if I dare to arrange my own ink on my own paper in the same pattern you are literally violating my right to my paper and ink.”
-If you contracted with me that that you wouldn’t copy my idea, and then go and copy it, it is breach of contract no matter who’s physical property you are using. You can’t use your property to violate the rights of others. Do you believe that your right to that property allows you to use it to kill someone? Hopefully not–your right to that property is bound by the rights of others–so you can’t use your property to violate someone’s right to a contract just as you can’t use it to violate someone’s right to life.
By the way, you keep taking stabs at President Benson’s definition of property. How do you define property?
I also am not convinced by reading this article that IP is a good idea. One of the best laid out arguments against IP. If you haven’t watched this entire video yet, then I would highly recommend it. http://youtu.be/hoSWC_6mDCk
CORRECTION – The above comment reads incorrectly. I saved it too soon without making some final edits. Here’s what I meant to say:
“I also am not convinced by reading this article that IP is a good idea. One of the best laid-out arguments against IP is this video by Stephan Kinsella http://youtu.be/hoSWC_6mDCk. If you haven’t watched this entire video yet, then I would highly recommend it. Especially if you believe in free market principles.”
I haven’t seen the video, but I’ve read most of this speaker’s article “Against Intellectual Property.” Most of his arguments are easily countered in Section 8 (they’re common ones I’ve heard from others as well). Is there a specific argument I didn’t address?
If intellectual property is the fruits of my labor, then anything I produce for my employer, I own the intellectual property, or fruits of my labor. If that is the case, I could argue that when I leave a company I have a right to reclaim all the fruits of my labor to take with me and they cannot continue to use my fruits without my permission.
But you contract away that “property” to someone else when you work for an employer. At least that what I did when I agreed to work for engineering firms, it was a condition of employment.
One cannot contract away property unless he first owns it; but at no time has the employee EVER owned the property of his employer regardless of the labor he puts into it. The employers property has never been transferred to the employee so it’s nonsensical to claim the employee contracted it away.
The fact is the employer owns his property before the employee comes into the picture, while the employee is putting his labor into, and after. This again proves the “property is the fruit of your labor” theory invalid.
“Defining property by labor is in harmony with what God told Adam Eve upon falling and leaving the Garden of Eden, ‘In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread’ [8]. Adam and Eve now had earn their way by working for sustenance.”
What and incredulous and insane reach to make a point. I think this had to do with having to grow food and build shelter, not creating a monopoly to do so. Really?
Agreed. The author makes no rational attempt to draw a connection between “you have to work to eat” and “you own what you put your labor into”. The scripture he quotes doesn’t at all even hint at the possibility of Adam and Even OWNING anything they put labor into.
Apparently you missed the previous sentence to that. President Benson defined property as the fruit of our labor (multiple times). This scripture was simply support to that definition.
No I didn’t miss the previous sentence; President Benson too was mistaken (note that neither of the sources you reference are from general conference or remotely claim to be anything less than President Benson’s personal views on the subject). As I and others have shown it simply does not work to define property as “the fruit of our labor”. There are too many flaws and inconsistencies from that definition. Not only does my marble/statue example show this but so does my example of a gift and other examples of working for an employer.
The scripture frankly does not support this definition; it merely says they must work to survive. It in no way supports the illogical and inconsistent claim that property is the fruit of one’s labor.
One of them was at a BYU devotional. This is a Church broadcast to members of the Church, so he was speaking as the prophet.
What is your definition of property? Please back it up with prophetic support.
“Regarding your farmer example, if farmer A just throws his novel idea at farmer B without first informing him that it’s patented, then I agree that farmer B can go implement the idea himself.”
You contradict yourself in this statement. Current IP law requires Farmer B to do a patent search before reproducing the idea. He can’t make the claim that he didn”t know. You said this yourself in Argument I.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you?
“You contradict yourself in this statement. Current IP law requires Farmer B to do a patent search before reproducing the idea. He can’t make the claim that he didn”t know. You said this yourself in Argument I.”
-Actually current IP law requires the inventor’s permission, not a patent search. This is consistent with modern revelation: “Copying music, movies, pictures, or written text without the permission of the copyright owners is dishonest and is a form of theft” [Gospel Principles].
I don’t think I contradict myself regarding the Farmers and Argument I. Common sense must be used. Sometimes violation of a copyright or patent is obvious, such as if you were on a website which offered a download of a movie which is currently in theaters. Saying that you didn’t know a copyright was claimed is like seeing a car parked on the side of the road and taking it because you claim that you didn’t know someone was still claiming ownership because their name isn’t on it. However, sometimes violation of property isn’t obvious, like maybe you’re in an minimally developed area and you see a fruit tree that you think is wild, so you start picking fruit off of it regularly. Later, you find out that the tree is actually on someone’s property and they desire to keep all their fruit themselves to eat or sell. At that point, it would clearly be theft for you to continue picking fruit. This would be like you using a device given to you from a second party who know’s that they are violating the inventor’s patent. You may not know it’s a violation at first, but if you later find out it is, it would be wrong for you to continue violating the patent.
“This is consistent with modern revelation: “Copying music, movies, pictures, or written text without the permission of the copyright owners is dishonest and is a form of theft” [Gospel Principles].”
- Uh Gospel Principles isn’t modern revelation. Do you know how the gospel principle books are produced? Literally a bunch of members get together and write them; they are nothing more than the bundled opinions of a bunch of regular old members. They have never been even professed to be revelation. Various editions have had false doctrine in them and have had to be revised and edited.
” Saying that you didn’t know a copyright was claimed is like seeing a car parked on the side of the road and taking it because you claim that you didn’t know someone was still claiming ownership because their name isn’t on it.”
- Except that since the car is a scarce, rivalrous, resource multiple people cannot simultaneously use and control it. The same cannot be said about a movie; anyone and everyone can enjoy the very same movie without any conflict which goes to show that property rights make no sense and are not needed with such things. The whole reason property rights exist and are needed is to avoid conflict of usage; this does not occur with ideas and patterns. So if I took the car then I am excluding everyone else from using it while if I copy a movie this does not stop or exclude anyone from seeing and enjoying the very same thing.
The Gospel Principles Book I quote from is the recent edition from 2009. It wasn’t the first edition ever printed. It was used as the official church curriculum in both Priesthood and Relief Society for two years. It is still used for curriculum for new members of the church and investigators. All this considered, you better believe that every concept taught in it was closely reviewed by living prophets and apostles, not just random members of the church.
The biggest problem I see with the authors entire argument is that he bases pretty much everything off of the faulty premise of property = “fruit of our labors”. This is the ONLY attempt the author makes of establishing that ideas are property. As I and others have shown above there are too many examples that show that property cannot logically be considered the “fruit of our labors”. This means the author has failed to establish the fundamental core of his entire theory; that ideas can be property. Without this the rest of the theory fails. If ideas are not property then no one has a right to them.
It was a modern prophet that defined property as the fruit of our labors, on multiple occasions. I’ve never heard another definition from a prophet, or a prophet who later said that this definition is wrong. If you have a prophetic quote regarding this, I’d love to see it. It is not a faulty definition.
However, even if you refuse call copyrights and patents “property” by convention, they can still be protected based on the principles of contracts. See the last paragraph of Argument G where I address this. It holds true based on these principles:
1. A breach of contract is a violation of rights, and therefore a crime.
2. Implied contracts are valid.
3. If you knowingly and willingly assist in a crime, you are guilty of that crime.
“It was a modern prophet that defined property as the fruit of our labors, on multiple occasions. I’ve never heard another definition from a prophet, or a prophet who later said that this definition is wrong. If you have a prophetic quote regarding this, I’d love to see it. It is not a faulty definition.”
- President Benson never claimed this definition was anything more than his own personal opinion. The references you gave aren’t even from general conference and have no shred of revelatory claim in them. You’ve even pretty much conceded it’s a fault definition due to my marble/statue example. Other examples prove this as well. It simply cannot hold up to logic and reason.
“However, even if you refuse call copyrights and patents “property” by convention, they can still be protected based on the principles of contracts.”
- False. As I stated below there is a fundamental difference between a promise and a contract. Not all promises are contracts; there must be a transfer of property title for a contract to exist:
http://mises.org/rothbard/Ethics/nineteen.asp
“1. A breach of contract is a violation of rights, and therefore a crime.”
- If there is no implicit theft as a result of violating the terms then it’s not a contract to begin with (see the link above).
“2. Implied contracts are valid.”
- Only if the terms are simple enough for all to clearly understand which is never the case with the complicated and convoluted terms of IP.
“3. If you knowingly and willingly assist in a crime, you are guilty of that crime.”
- If it wasn’t a contract to begin with it’s not a crime at all. At most it’s a broken promise which is not subject to law.
President Benson’s “The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner” was given when he was President of the Church in a church setting. He was speaking as a prophet.
Your quote “there must be a transfer of property title for a contract to exist”.
-What if I contract with my company that I can use a company car in exchange for my labor? They are not transferring ownership of the car to me, and I am not transferirng ownership of my body.
In addition, by stating that contracts must involve transfer of ownership of physical property, you are now setting limits on the free market.
Also since the author fails to establish that ideas are property he cannot claim that copyright and other IP agreements are contracts since there is a fundamental difference between promises and contracts:
http://mises.org/rothbard/Ethics/nineteen.asp
At the most failing to abide by these agreements are not breach of contracts but merely broken promises. Not that breaking promises are good but they are not subject to law.
For example “I will only give you this book if you agree to not copy it or show anyone else” is not a contract since there is no implicit theft as a result of breaking it. It’s just a promise.
I’m amazed at how many people try to justify their theft.
Many other civic scholars and economist have also identified that property equals the fruit of your labors but I will not site any specific examples because if you cannot believe the prophet why would I think you would value the truth coming from anyone else.
As far as saying President Benson was not speaking as a prophet I would recommend this article by him http://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng&query=fourteen+fundamentals+following+prophet
Grant,
That is unjustified to say that just because people disagree with statements made by prophets that you don’t believe they are a prophet neither that you don’t believe many of their teachings.
As Joseph Smith said, those that blindly follow a prophet without thinking and questioning themselves will have his mind darkened and will lose even that which he has. And Brigham Young said similar statements, like he doesn’t respect the man that blindly follows him. Or that a person that just concedes everything to a prophet or any ecclesiastical leader is nothing but a slave.
Did not God reason with Joseph. Did not even Nephi question to find the truth? There is nothing wrong with seeking truth. But there is definitely something wrong with abdicating your liberty in the name of following man. Seek truth in all things.
If you believe that everything prophets have said then you must believe that man will never land on the moon, that little people live on the moon, that the current church is basically in apostasy (said by many a prophet as certain doctrines discontinued). No, it is better to seek God for the answers and if God has told a prophet the answer and the spirit has told you that that answer is true, then, yes, believe it; but did God not say that we should study it out and then ask Him?
Grant merely calling it theft doesn’t make it so. If you loaned me your book your wrote, I made a copy of it, and returned your book to you what in the world can you claim I stole from you? You still have your original book; my copy doesn’t destroy yours.
Again merely asserting that property equals the fruit of your labor doesn’t make it true. Again if I stole your marble and carved out a statue am I now the rightful owner of the statue? Of course not and this very simple example clearly shows that it’s simply illogical to claim everyone owns the fruit of there labors.
I believe the prophet when speaking for the Lord but the prophet is not an infallible Pope that we should unquestionably follow anytime he speaks. He is also a man and can and does speak for himself as well. Logic clearly shows that anyone claiming property is the fruit of labor is mistaken.
How about these statements from a prophet:
“It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works.”
“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” -President Harold B. Lee
Jon and Kevin, I find your positions very unique. Most LDS I’ve interacted with who agree that the role of government is limited to protecting life, liberty, and property, love to quote President Benson and agree with his views on government. He has made some powerful statements on government as President of the Church, such as “The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner”. I’ve also heard that prophets since him supported his views on government. For example, President Monson said: ““I think it is the inspiration of Almighty God that at this particular time we have serving as president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints President Ezra Taft Benson, one of the greatest advocates of freedom, and one of those who loves most the Constitution of this land.” (Thomas S. Monson, “Constitution Bicentennial”, LDS Church News, 30 December 1989 )
Johnny,
I suppose it is because I don’t believe the prophets to be infallible. I also believe in reason and logic and that God’s laws necessarily flow from logic because he is a God of logic and reason. So, if something contradicts with what a prophet says and logic then I must wrestle with what the truth is and then ask God. So right now I am wrestling. It is folly and contradictory to gospel principles to blindly follow man whether that man be a prophet or not. If you just put your trust in the arm of flesh then one reaps damnation, it is God who we should put our trust in.
I believe Benson was really good at what he taught and that he taught many truths but I don’t believe he knew it perfectly, neither do I believe that I know it perfectly either. The constitution is a great document, but it is folly to believe it is perfect either and that it represents the ideal government. If we say that the constitution holds a monopoly of truth then we say that God gives no more revelations and there is no more truth to be had and we become like those of the past that would refuse to believe that there is any truth beyond the bible, you can say the same of the prophets really. When they say something one should listen and then seek for the truth in their own lives to know if it is truth, otherwise we deny agency and liberty.
I couldn’t have said it better myself Jon. For all of the lip service so many members give to the “of course we don’t believe the prophet is infallible” too many pretty much act the opposite. How many times do you hear a member say “I heard the prophet say one time…” when the important thing is what the Lord has said.
It’s a sad state of affairs when a member ever questions anything that ever comes out of a prophets mouth and they are met with harsh reprimanded and warnings about rebelling against God.
Too many members ignore warning after warning in the scripture to refrain from putting there trust in man or the arm of the flesh.
I agree that a prophets can make mistakes–they are human. However, when it comes to IP, multiple church authorities have supported it. This isn’t a case of “I heard the prophet say one time…”. Consider the following:
1. President Benson’s definition of property was given multiple times (in a book he wrote, in a talk he gave in a church setting, in a talk he gave to a freedom group)
2. The latest Gospel Principles book states that violation of copyrights is a form of theft.
3. Elder Bednar’s quote about unauthorized distribution of music and movies.
4. The copyright symbol the Church puts on every Book of Mormon and Triple Combination it distributes.
5. The Church’s position on copyrighted materials as stated in Section 21.1.12 (Copyrighted Materials) in “Handbook 2: Administering in the Church”. This is the official Church handbook given to Bishoprics which came out only a few years ago. You can read it here: http://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#21.1.12
This, my friends, is a PATTERN in support of IP.
Appeal to authority isn’t what is going to convince me (and probably not Kevin either). Although I take their thoughts into consideration, in the end it is logic and reason that must convince me and then after going to the Lord and asking him if my conclusions are correct or not.
There are many things which multiple prophets have taught, but that doesn’t make them true (as later prophets rejected those same teachings). Just one small example, like the Lamanites being the predominant ancestors of modern Native Americans. There are many others, some carrying more weight than others.
Like I said before, you have given a good argument for IP, Kevin, also, has given good points against IP. I’ll have to do some more research on the topic some time.
Common Sense, Logic, and Reason are very important in doing what is right. In fact I believe that plays a major role in how the Holy Ghost communicates with us. However, I have heard a church leader say that in the last days common sense will not be enough to save us and in fact using common sense may ultimately lead to our destruction. (Sorry I don’t have the reference readily available). However, an example of this doctrine might be shown in relation to the Lord himself rather than the Holy Ghost.
When Peter was fishing on his boat and had been all night the Lord told him to cast his net over the other side. This made no sense (No common sense, logic or reason) to Peter, a professional fishermen, however, he/they did it because the Lord asked them to do it and they ended up with more fish than they could bring aboard.
So when you try to decide the right side of the IP debate don’t just use common sense. Think about if you were the author of the work and your rights as the creator of the work. Then take the issue to the Lord through prayer and rely on the Holy Ghost trying to get personal prejudices out of the way. This is the way we can all be lead to the truth.
That’s what I’ve been trying to say. But you also need to imagine yourself as someone using code from someone else and creating a better society because of it. It goes all ways. Which is the truth, that is what we are looking for.
Grant the example you gave of Peter being told to do something that didn’t make sense to him was directly from the Lord himself. I too would follow the Lord in doing anything He asks of me; however to this day I have not received anything from the Lord contrary to my logical view of IP. IP still logically does not make sense and until the Lord tells me otherwise I will continue to operate on my understanding of it.
I personally have studied this subject out, pondered, and prayed about it and I feel completely confident in my conclusion.
No one has stated they will only use common sense. Common sense and logic however is a great starting point to truth.
The author has yet to prove that ideas and patterns can be considered property anyway. He says they are “the fruit of labor” but again I have clearly shown this is not sufficient to establish property (marble/statue, employee, and gift examples). His response is “but authority figures have said so” (he ignores the logic and switches to an appeal to authority). As I have stated no one is infallible and there is no indication that the authority figures in question even claimed there statements are inspired or from the Lord.
Everything else stems from the premise that ideas and patterns are property but since this premise is faulty frankly none of the rest matters.
Amen Kevin,
Johnny has NOT made his case. What he has attempted does not hold water. Saying that someone has the right to IP through contract is like saying that someone can secure their “right” to healthcare by saving money and shopping for the best prices. Albiet the means are righteous, they do not establish the premise which is that there is a right to healthcare. Likewise, voluntary contract is great and moral, but it does not show how an idea can be property.
Thr truth is this: “IP” or knowledge of truthful and useful principles is not a fruit of labor. It is a fruit of faith. No labor is required. When one prays or merely asks himself a question, he is showing faith that the answer can be had. Heavenly Father who knows all things reveals the information to whom he sees fit according to His desires. As many people as want to partake of this truth can, at the creator’s discretion.
No amount of twisting facts and logic can take something that has none of the characteristics of something that can be owned and turn it into such by simply saying that it is.
The concept of “IP” is an invention of man and I’m ashamed that this article is published at ldsliberty.org where eternal principles should be championed over the vain imaginations of men.
Very interesting article! Unfortunately, JC is correct about the twisting of the term, ‘fruits of labour’. Ideas are NOT property, nor can they be. Property may only be physical, tangible goods, or the manifestations thereof(labour). Aside from that, there remains the question of media duplication and what is right. There is only one correct answer to every question, as regular readers of this site know, and I do indeed have a testimony that Elder Bednar’s words are from the Lord. I do not profess to know everything about the issue, but I have studied long and hard about why his words are true, and offer the following links to my thoughts on the subject for those who wish to possess a big picture on the issue of IP, copyrights and property in general:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150317845310605 (the main article)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150565645765605 (a response to an objection)
Thanks to everyone who contributes to this site, and who are steadfast in keeping the commandments and word of the Lord!
The line of reasoning here breaks down when you come to “implied contract.” There is no such thing. Otherwise I could “imply” that you owe me $1,000. If you did not voluntarily enter into a contract, there is no contract.
Secondly, if someone was under a contract and violated it by copying or distributing information, you are not guilty of assisting him in breaking his contract by using this information, because YOU are NOT under the contract. Therefore the penalty of the contract is fully on the violator, because the contract has no force on you, because you did not make it.
The analogy: if someone made a contract not to walk on a sidewalk while holding hands with another, and you knowingly walk on the sidewalk while holding hands with him, even if you know he is under a contract, YOU are not guilty of violating the contract, because YOU are under no such contract, and YOU did not voluntarily entered into that contract. The penalty of the contract is fully on the one who made and broke the contract.
The analogy with B stealing a car from A and selling it to C, who knowingly buys a stolen car is inapplicable, because NOTHING was stolen from A. He still has his original. A contract was broken by B, but not by C. And while it may (or may not) be immoral for C to use that information without compensating A in some way, it is certainly IMMORAL for A to use FORCE upon C, because C was under no contract with A.
The statement that: “Modern prophets have taught that IP should be protected,” may be true. We did not say, however, that IP should NOT be protected. IP should be protected, but only in a way that does not violate the rights and property of others, and that does not grant government an authority it CANNOT properly have, because no one can delegate such authority to it, because no one has such authority, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.
Again, it may be immoral to use the fruits of someone’s labor without properly compensating them for it, but it is also IMMORAL to FORCE them to pay such compensation if they were under no contract to do so. Just like it is immoral not to help the poor if you can, for example, while it is also IMMORAL to force people to help the poor. Not everything that is wrong is right to forbid by government FORCE, and not everything that is good is right to FORCE to perform. What is the principle here? The Benson Principle: If you INDIVIDUALLY have no right to use FORCE upon your neighbor, you cannot ask your government, (or any third party for that matter) to do it in your behalf, because the only legitimate authority that the government has is what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.
The claim that US prospered exceedingly (as contrasted with China for example) because it had government forced protections for intellectual and tangible property, is a half truth. US prospered exceedingly because it had government forced protections of tangible property, DESPITE immoral use of government force in the form of copyrights and patents. If that immoral use of force was removed, US would have prospered even more. Now copyrights and patents threaten free speech on internet and thus Liberty itself, and thus, consequently, copyrights and patents now threaten the survival and existence of our country itself! It is time to do away with them!
For more information please see:
Thank you.
Kevin and JC,
The major problem with your counter-arguments is that they don’t address the logic of my argument, only semantics. You are simply arguing the definition of “property”. This is like bickering over the definition of “Christian”. I define it as someone who accepts Christ as their savior. However, others have further requirements, such as believing that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the same being and that we are saved only through grace. Mormons are Christians according to my definition, but they are not according to others’ definition.
Calling something “property” is a matter of convention, and obviously your convention is different than mine. However, rather than bickering about definitions, we should be discussing principles here. I’ve already countered your points in Section 8 Argument G of my article (see the last paragraph). However, since it keeps coming up, I’ll sum it up again here.
Whether or not you want to call certain ideas “property” is irrelevant. The logic of my argument in defense of copyrights and patents has to do with contracts. The contract is simple: Person A reveals his novel, useful, non-obvious idea to Person B in exchange for Person B agreeing to not use or distribute the idea without authorization. So the logic boils down to these two points:
1. A breach of contract (including implied contracts) is a violation of rights, and therefore a crime.
2. If you knowingly and willingly assist in a crime, you are guilty of that crime.
If you don’t agree with the contract, that’s fine you have a right to refuse to enter it–meaning you can refuse to see, use, and learn details about the movie, software, device, etc. You are not forced to enter this contract–it is your choice; just like it is your choice to agree to certain rules when you enter a restaurant or you can refuse by not entering the restaurant at all (just one of many examples of implied contracts). However, once you agree to use the idea (or restaurant) you can’t suddenly change the contract AFTER it has been entered. To change the terms, you must negotiate the terms with the copyright or patent owner BEFORE you use it and learn about it in depth (just like you should negotiate any change in terms to a restaurant’s rules before you use it).
The line of reasoning here breaks down when they come to “implied contract.” There is no such thing. Otherwise I could “imply” that you owe me $1,000. If you did not voluntarily enter into a contract, there is no contract.
Secondly, if someone was under a contract and violated it by copying or distributing information, you are not guilty of assisting him in breaking his contract by using this information, because YOU are NOT under the contract. Therefore the penalty of the contract is fully on the violator, because the contract has no force on you, because you did not make it.
The analogy: if someone made a contract not to walk on a sidewalk while holding hands with another, and you knowingly walk on the sidewalk while holding hands with him, even if you know he is under a contract, YOU are not guilty of violating the contract, because YOU are under no such contract, and YOU did not voluntarily entered into that contract. The penalty of the contract is fully on the one who made and broke the contract.
The analogy with B stealing a car from A and selling it to C, who knowingly buys a stolen car is inapplicable, because NOTHING was stolen from A. He still has his original. A contract was broken by B, but not by C. And while it may (or may not) be immoral for C to use that information without compensating A in some way, it is certainly IMMORAL for A to use FORCE upon C, because C was under no contract with A.
The statement that: “Modern prophets have taught that IP should be protected,” may be true. We did not say, however, that IP should NOT be protected. IP should be protected, but only in a way that does not violate the rights and property of others, and that does not grant government an authority it CANNOT properly have, because no one can delegate such authority to it, because no one has such authority, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.
Again, it may be immoral to use the fruits of someone’s labor without properly compensating them for it, but it is also IMMORAL to FORCE them to pay such compensation if they were under no contract to do so. Just like it is immoral not to help the poor if you can, for example, while it is also IMMORAL to force people to help the poor. Not everything that is wrong is right to forbid by government FORCE, and not everything that is good is right to FORCE to perform. What is the principle here? The Benson Principle: If you INDIVIDUALLY have no right to use FORCE upon your neighbor, you cannot ask your government, (or any third party for that matter) to do it in your behalf, because the only legitimate authority that the government has is what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.
The claim that US prospered exceedingly (as contrasted with China for example) because it had government forced protections for intellectual and tangible property, is a half truth. US prospered exceedingly because it had government forced protections of tangible property, DESPITE immoral use of government force in the form of copyrights and patents. If that immoral use of force was removed, US would have prospered even more. Now copyrights and patents threaten free speech on internet and thus Liberty itself, and thus, consequently, copyrights and patents now threaten the survival and existence of our country itself! It is time to do away with them!
For more information please see: Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=21106