Search Ideas

Do you agree that scarcity is at least a central consideration in determining whether copying information in disregard of consent should be considered a crime or not?

Edit: Dennis points out that copyright infringement is generally not treated as a crime. Perhaps I should have said: “[…] should be considered unlawful,” or “[…] should entitle the original author to seek a court order (e.g., a cease-and-desist) backed by state enforcement.”

Fair. I don't know much about the laws around this but I'll take your word for it.

Was there any other reason besides the claim that my argument rests on the “physical” nature of private property? If not, I believe I have already addressed that criticism. I don’t actually think property rests on physicality, but rather on whether something is zero-sum or non-zero-sum, physical or not. A useful concept in this context is “rivalry” in economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)

I can also think of ways this could be misused.

Edit: This alone is not a sufficient argument to discredit laws against defamation.

No disagreement here.

I don’t think the issue hinges on whether something is physically scarce, whatever that’s supposed to mean. After all, all information is physical, as David Deutsch likes to emphasize. The real distinction is this: stealing someone’s digital money deprives them of the ability to use it, while copying someone’s novel does not prevent the author from accessing or using their own work. The former is zero-sum; the latter is not.

Yeah fair. I'll admit, my example is rather contrived. My hope was to show that one could in principle maintain a belief in god in a rational fashion, at least for a time. However, just because it is theoretically possible doesn't mean that it is at all likely. I agree that this isn't what is usually going with believers.

I agree that a belief in god is mystical, but I disagree that the fact that god doesn't exist must be blatant and that believing in god must necessarily involve some dishonest refusal to look into the matter. Or, perhaps to be more precise: The refusal to look into the matter could be a result of genuine disinterest in the light of more pressing problems, rather than some irrational fear response to changing one's mind on the topic.

Perhaps consider a child growing up on a medieval farm in Europe. His entire social context is certain of the existence of god, the kid would never encounter any criticism of it without creating it himself. Water is wet, fire is hot and the universe was created by sky daddy. He didn't ask for this last "fact", it's just what mom and dad told him. He's young, he doesn't really care, he's much more interested in a thousand other things, so he heard of god once, thought to himself "alright, whatever" and went straight back to wondering about whether the dirt in the yard could possibly make for a tasty meal. Perhaps if this kid was to encounter some argument for why the universe cannot have been created by an omnipotent being, the child would just say "ah alright, now that you say it that way, it does sound a bit silly..." and upon examining the matter critically for a mere second the kid would ditch his belief in god without further ado. The reason why he hasn't done so is because he was occupied with things other than the big questions of the origins of the cosmos, the meaning of life and what not. Is this kid being irrational?

The idea that irrationality is a property of minds rather than individual ideas is interesting, I hadn't considered it.

I agree that a belief in god is mystical, but I disagree that the fact that god doesn't exist must be blatant and that believing in god must necessarily involve some dishonest refusal to look into the matter. Or, perhaps to be more precise: The refusal to look into the matter could be a result of genuine disinterest in the light of more pressing problems, rather than some irrational fear response to changing one's mind on the topic.

Perhaps consider a child growing up on a medieval farm in Europe. His entire social context is certain of the existence of god, the kid would never encounter any criticism of it without creating it himself. Water is wet, fire is hot and the universe was created by sky daddy. He didn't ask for this last "fact", it's just what mom and dad told him. He's young, he doesn't really care, he's much more interested in a thousand other things, so he heard of god once, thought to himself "alright, whatever" and went straight back to wondering about whether the dirt in the yard could possibly make for a tasty meal. Perhaps if this kid was to encounter some argument for why the universe cannot have been created by an omnipotent being, the child would just say "ah alright, now that you say it that way, it does sound a bit silly..." and upon examining the matter critically for a mere second the kid would ditch his belief in god without further ado. The reason why he hasn't done so is because he was occupied with things other than the big questions of the origins of the cosmos, the meaning of life and what not. Is this kids belief in god irrational?

Copying from another chat where Dennis and I were discussing Rand's conception of irrationality:

Amaro:
What's an irrational idea to you? I understand anti-rational (immunized against criticism) and rational (subject to criticism). Is irrational just "false" or is there something else to it? Are there true but irrational ideas? I think rational but false ideas must exist, no?

Could the same mistaken idea (belief in god, say) be either rational, anti-rational or irrational depending on how exactly it is instantiated in the mind? Or must any particular idea always fall within one and only one of those categories?

Dennis:
Great questions. You’ll find answers to most if not all of them here: https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rationality.html

I disagree with some of it, but if you basically just ignore the small bits about perception and the senses, the rest is still very good

Amaro:
Okay I read it. Not sure I'm clear on my questions after doing so to be honest.
To Rand, it seems that irrationality is tied to a lack of commitment to truth, almost like an internal insincerity.

If I get her right, one could in principle hold a rational belief which is false —a belief in god, say— so long as this belief stems from a sincere effort to explain the world and so long as the believer is ready to jettison his belief if he were to think of some reason why it cannot be true.

So the same mistaken idea could be rational in one person's mind and irrational in another person's mind depending on whether that person is committed to the truth and ready to ditch the idea should they find some reason to do so.

Did I get this right?

Just intuitively, I feel like there's a difference between forcing others not to force you, and forcing others not to copy you. I feel like defending against others using your scarce means towards their ends is just, while defending against others using non-scarce means towards their end is wicked. Since I impose no opportunity cost on someone by copying information, they have no claim on my scarce means as recompense. The copy-ability of information gives us this nice non-zero-sum situation where we can have our cake and eat it too because we don't have to economize on non-scarce things.

Correction: In some sense copying information does impose a cost, but I think of that cost more akin to the cost imposed on an incumbent producer by his competing alternatives in a free market.

When I distribute Harry Potter for free, I am simply offering better terms for access to the information than JK Rowling, so in a free market I should be the one that ends up distributing because I solve the same problem at a lower price.

Do you agree that scarcity is at least a central consideration in determining whether copying information in disregard of consent should be considered a crime or not?

Just intuitively, I feel like there's a difference between forcing others not to force you, and forcing others not to copy you. I feel like defending against others using your scarce means towards their ends is just, while defending against others using non-scarce means towards their end is wicked. Since I impose no opportunity cost on someone by copying information, they have no claim on my scarce means as recompense. The copy-ability of information gives us this nice non-zero-sum situation where we can have our cake and eat it too because we don't have to economize on non-scarce things.

Going in circles now.

I have received a pattern of information. Information cannot be owned as it is non-scarce. JK Rowling is asking me to give her money for something that was never hers to begin with.

But I didn't agree to buy the book. I wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't found it on pirate bay, let's say.

There, the owner is short of a bike. Returning it to him will make him whole. The situation looks quite different in the case of information, at least in my eyes. What exactly is to be returned?

But I was never party to that contract! I never agreed not to distribute it, and I also didn't actually distribute it. I just downloaded it from Pirate bay.

So then JK Rowling can use violence against me to extort the value that I have supposedly stolen by downloading a book that was uploaded in violation of a contract by a third person?

There's this nice bit in Man, Economy & State where Rothbard explains that durable goods can be broken down into their unit services (not sure that's the term) and that all durable goods get used up as they provide service.

So I guess someone would reduce the serviceable lifespan of the bike by using it during the times that you aren't using it.

It's a good point, but I don't think those two compare. Again, bicycles are scarce. My use prevents your use.

It's a good point, but I don't think those two compare. Again, bicycles are scarce.

Midjourney wouldn't exist... Our cool pics of Mujahideen eating Bacon wouldn't exist.

I doubt it. I hope they keep doing it. I hope to live in a world where copyright isn't enforced. I expect to see more creation and novelty.