Intellectual Property

-- Labor as Property -- Con has given several examples of entities benefiting from another's labor, though none of them profit from another's labor meaning these analogies do not apply to my argument. The overall economy might benefit from my labor, but that is an abstract contribution without a clear benefactor. Moreover choosing to enter the workforce is a voluntary action, meaning a worker agrees to this exchange. My neighbors might benefit from my kept lawn, but they are not profiting. There are only two entities I can think of that directly profit off another's labor: employers and the government. With employers, the worker understands this notion and agrees to it making it another voluntary exchange. With government, the worker does not agree to others profiting from their labor which is why capitalists consider it theft. Indeed the government profits from said labor even if there is no scarce item produced, such as income taxes for child care. -- Ownership -- Con writes, "Building a farm on un-owned land grants me the right to continue growing crops on that land." Of course this begs the question of what makes something owned. In the last round I explained that ownership is either inherent or granted. If land is un-owned, there is no rightful owner to grant it to another nor does it inherently belong to someone. My opponent suggests that because one's labor on it produces something useful, it therefore becomes property. In that case, my labor to write a song makes the final product useful (assuming others want to listen to it) meaning my labor should constitute as property by Con's own standards. Remember that property is merely defined as something which you own. This debate is about whether or not you can claim ownership of something you produce even if it's not scarce (though Con concedes the scarcity of good ideas). So far I've explained why labor rightfully "belongs" to the agent; it is something another cannot rightfully take or force from you without your consent. It also "belongs" to someone because a particular agent is responsible for its existence. This means it can be more legitimately owned than any piece of land in which any original grant of ownership was completely arbitrary. Con has not responded to this argument. So far Con's response has been that only useful labor constitutes property. If another wants to implement my idea, then clearly it's useful and Con has defeated his own argument. -- Scarcity -- Con clarifies "Ownership merely means the right to use something as you see fit." In that case I see no reason why labor would not apply, and again I maintain that if there's anything we should have complete control over it's our labor. Con's point is that you can only own something that is scarce. He writes, "My use of an idea does not stop you from using it, so it is not theft." First, I never claimed that using an idea is theft -- I claimed that using the fruits of another's labor without their permission and without compensation is theft. Second, this does not fit within the parameters Con has distinguished for ownership. Con clarifies, "If you take my car and are using it, then I can no longer use it -- that's what makes it theft." However I could easily take Con's car and utilize it how he sees fit, meaning he would still own it by his standards. Nevertheless an inventor or creator expects their work to be utilized the way they see fit just as a business owner expects their workplace to be run the way they see fit. Owning a business (not the structure itself -- in fact some don't operate within a specific structure) is just as abstract as owning an idea, yet Con does not seem to have a problem with owning one of those despite it not referencing a scarce material. In other words, you can own labor. -- Programmer Example -- In the last round I gave a programmer example and Con responded predictably with his first mover theory -- the one I already noted as unreliable. He claims that theft can only exist if one programmer took the literal piece of paper the algorithm was written on. This seems backwards: if property exists to protect that which is scarce, then clearly the knowledge behind the algorithm is A LOT more scarce than a piece of paper. By this logic the knowledge (or labor put into it) should again be rightfully considered property by Con's standards. Con cannot guarantee that one will be rightfully compensated for their contribution either. -- Value of Labor -- Suppose I spend a year writing a book and then sell 10 copies for $10 a piece. One buyer makes copies of my book and sells 10 more copies of it for $9 a piece. The second person profits immensely from significantly less labor which seems blatantly unfair. However Con writes "But what seems 'fair' or 'unfair' is not how property rights are determined." Oh? Then why is it determined that only scarce goods constitute as property? I'm assuming it has something to do with FAIR exchange and protection of that which is owned to protect from UNFAIR exploitation. The fairness of something seems absolutely relevant in a philosophical debate that is ultimately about a concept (property). I'm saying it's fair to protect one's labor just as it is fair to protect one's goods. If fairness isn't an issue, then let's scrap the concept of property all together and live in a commune. -- The Economy -- First, Con says that IP creates a monopoly which makes the laws of supply and demand ineffective. This is narrow-minded considering competition is not the only way to drive down prices. If Starbucks charged $10 for a coffee, then even without their competitors (Dunkin Donuts, Gloria Jeans, etc.) I wouldn't buy it. The price must be appropriate for the market to accept it. Second, Con first acknowledges that IP increases innovation and then says it doesn't. I've explained that (a) IP increases profits for inventors which provides incentive, and (b) innovation is not only likely but necessary if you cannot rely on replicating the idea of another to become successful. I also completely reject the idea that having to build on another's patented idea decreases profits and therefore incentives. People always come up with new ways to profit. For instance the Industrial Revolution was about factories; the Dot.com era was about the internet and now we're headed into an economy zeroing on in Green industries. This means the economy would evolve even with IP in place, because entire new industries are established. Con's also ignored my argument that patents are temporary, let alone the fact that they could become a lot more flexible. Finally Con says we cannot attribute the success of IP intensive industries to IP unless we demonstrate that IP itself was responsible for some of the growth. Considering this is a 4 round debate, I've utilized this round to discuss IP in a philosophical way -- in other words to explain why there is absolutely a justification for it's existence in a capitalist system. In the next round I will focus more specifically on the economic arguments and pharmaceutical example, as well as mention some other possible reforms. -- Conclusion -- The concept of property exists solely to protect one's assets and ensure that they can profit from their labor. Businesses sell either goods or services. Because people profit from their labor all the time without producing scarce goods (i.e. musicians, teachers, doctors, physicists, astronauts, etc.) then it makes no sense to suggest ONLY material items can be protected as property. Suppose Con agreed to pay me $20 for cleaning his room, and afterward refused to pay me because I did not provide him with a scarce material. You might say he is still liable for payment because of his agreement to pay me for my labor. Intellectual Property simply seeks to establish an agreement to pay an inventor for their labor. It is completely justified.