Intellectual Property: Nonsense

[RightinNYC]

Secondly, IP right is a relatively modern legal phenomenon

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

Remember James Watt and the Steam engine? Watt didn't invent it, he just free borrowed the idea and improved on it.

And patented his invention immediately. Had he not been able to do that, he would likely not have bothered.

When it comes to creative ideas (arts, film and music), the line is not so clear, granted people should been given monetary value in exchange for their work.

Mighty kind of you.

Secondly, does anyone realize that Mercedes-Benz do not patent their safety innovations, but make them freely available to the rest of the industry?

And do you realize that the fact that one company doesn't patent minor safety innovations that are likely duplicative of other technology in existence demonstrates nothing about the larger field of intellectual property?

 

[Australianlibertarian]

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



And patented his invention immediately. Had he not been able to do that, he would likely not have bothered.



Mighty kind of you.



And do you realize that the fact that one company doesn't patent minor safety innovations that are likely duplicative of other technology in existence demonstrates nothing about the larger field of intellectual property?

Firstly do you have any evidence suggesting that if patent law was not available, he would have not gone ahead with with his invention? Aka causation?

Actually my point is very relevant. If you support IP on the basis that legal protection is necessary so that individuals can utilize and thus gain profit from their inventions, then Mercedes-Benz' success at marketing desirable safe cars, without specific patents, dents this central premise of IP.

Thirdly, many pharmaceutical inventions would not be possible, but for the research of others before them. Many pharmaceutical products would not be possible but for general research in chemistry, bio-chemistry, physiology and genetics. And yet the state grants, a time specific monopoly over a creation that is a result of the accumulation of mankind's knowledge ....

Lastly I am glad that you mentioned 'duplication' of technology, this also very clearly demonstrates why we should not be applying property rights to things that intangible and relatively common, things that are not scarce or finite, or physical.

 

[RightinNYC]

Firstly do you have any evidence suggesting that if patent law was not available, he would have not gone ahead with with his invention? Aka causation?

Basic logic and the fact that he took the time to patent it. Beyond that, we're all just pissing in the wind.

Actually my point is very relevant. If you support IP on the basis that legal protection is necessary so that individuals can utilize and thus gain profit from their inventions, then Mercedes-Benz' success at marketing desirable safe cars, without specific patents, dents this central premise of IP.

No, it absolutely doesn't, as nobody is saying that IP is necessary for everything. The fact that some company does not seek to protect a particular product has absolutely no bearing on the value of IP in other contexts.

Thirdly, many pharmaceutical inventions would not be possible, but for the research of others before them. Many pharmaceutical products would not be possible but for general research in chemistry, bio-chemistry, physiology and genetics. And yet the state grants, a time specific monopoly over a creation that is a result of the accumulation of mankind's knowledge ....

And your point is...?

Lastly I am glad that you mentioned 'duplication' of technology, this also very clearly demonstrates why we should not be applying property rights to things that intangible and relatively common, things that are not scarce or finite, or physical.

And you're free to think that. I think that's an incredibly misguided position, as demonstrated throughout this thread and throughout human history.

 

[phattonez]

Basic logic and the fact that he took the time to patent it. Beyond that, we're all just pissing in the wind.

It's not basic logic. There still would have been a reward even without IP. IP existed for centuries before it started up about 300 years ago. Things were still invented, there was no technological standstill (unless you count the Middle Ages, and that stagnation was not because of IP). No one has proven that the reward without IP is insufficient and that therefore we need government intervention to allow an even greater reward.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Basic logic and the fact that he took the time to patent it. Beyond that, we're all just pissing in the wind.



No, it absolutely doesn't, as nobody is saying that IP is necessary for everything. The fact that some company does not seek to protect a particular product has absolutely no bearing on the value of IP in other contexts.



And your point is...?



And you're free to think that. I think that's an incredibly misguided position, as demonstrated throughout this thread and throughout human history.

I thought that the ethical problems associated with IP, would be self-evident, but it seems that you don't have a problem with such legal fiat.

Next point, you talk as if the need for IP is axiomatic or proven beyond doubt, by history or empirical study. And yet history shows that people will invent and create regardless of IP. Secondly, there are very little empirical studies showing that IP increases rates of technological innovation or the ability to generate profit. So how am I misguided, because I reject legal orthodoxy?

If you look to the reasons for the development of IP, you will find that this area of law was not developed out of concern for technological progress, or the rights of the individual, but rather it was designed to create a covenant between the state and the individual. Where the state guarantees certain legal protections, and in return the state gains monopoly of the idea within their territory. Thus, sovereign states could prevent other states from freely exchanging the idea. Aka IP, was primarily used a state tool to guarantee, comparative advantage over other states.

The Allied demand that the German's give up the patent on aspirin, is indicative of the state centric nature of of IP. Granted that the rational for IP, has moved on. But the assumption as to why the law allowed it in the first place is false, and secondly the current rational for is existence is not backed up by empirical evidence.

Consequently, are my critiques or Phattonez's critique's of IP, really that misguided?

 

[obvious Child]

It's not basic logic. There still would have been a reward even without IP. IP existed for centuries before it started up about 300 years ago.

Except that you ignore that IP in the Middle Ages was largely geared towards sales towards the rich who respected the IP rights of those they hired. If you ripped off the inventions of your engineers, they'd go work for your enemy. Not a good idea. By keeping IP to a subsection of society that wasn't going to rip you off, there wasn't a need for strict IP controls. That in no way resembles the world today.

 

[Ahlevah]

Why shouldn't knowledge be available to everyone for free?

Because some "knowledge" is created; it doesn't just exist. That creation requires time, effort, and possibly money. When the creator imparts his time, effort, or money into something, he obtains an ownership interest in it. It should be up to him if he wants to give it away for free.

 

[phattonez]

Because some "knowledge" is created; it doesn't just exist. That creation requires time, effort, and possibly money. When the creator imparts his time, effort, or money into something, he obtains an ownership interest in it. It should be up to him if he wants to give it away for free.

If I create a knife with someone else's metal, is it my knife?

 

[phattonez]

Except that you ignore that IP in the Middle Ages was largely geared towards sales towards the rich who respected the IP rights of those they hired. If you ripped off the inventions of your engineers, they'd go work for your enemy. Not a good idea. By keeping IP to a subsection of society that wasn't going to rip you off, there wasn't a need for strict IP controls. That in no way resembles the world today.

So what's your point? That doesn't mean that it's necessary today, only that the world is different today.

 

[Ahlevah]

If I create a knife with someone else's metal, is it my knife?

Define "someone else's metal," please.

 

[phattonez]

Define "someone else's metal," please.

Meaning I stole the metal to make the knife.

 

[Ahlevah]

Meaning I stole the metal to make the knife.

Ethically, I would think you would not own the knife under that circumstance. You might be given legal ownership of the knife if you compensated the owner for the value of the metal you stole.

 

[phattonez]

Ethically, I would think you would not own the knife under that circumstance. You might be given legal ownership of the knife if you compensated the owner for the value of the metal you stole.

I had no right to work on the metal in the first place, so it is still his. Nothing has changed that fact. Nor would the person who worked on the metal be entitled to the value of that knife. You are not allowed to steal his property and determine what a "fair" value is because he may value it more than what would be considered a "fair" value. In such a case, he would be worse off. This is why transactions are based on mutual agreement, not predetermined rules (aka government planning).

Now, related to the idea of intellectual property: most people that have been posting here would call themselves conservative. I would assume that means that for the most part, you're against government intervention into the market because it would distort prices; that the free market sets prices than any government planner could.

If it is true that the economic value of things cannot be ascertained without subjecting a particular good to individual value judgements in a market, then governments may have difficulty justifying, to economists, setting the prices of goods and services for society. This is also a technical problem for governments wishing to implement a planned economy. Those who espouse the subjective theory of value tend to advocate that individuals should be allowed to choose for themselves what price they are willing to pay for, or part with, any given good or service. They tend to maintain that forcible interference by the state in the process of individuals arriving at a mutual value judgement when making a trade is irrational, unworkable, and/or immoral.

If you agree with this, then you would support the subjective theory of value. And if you do agree with that, then you have a problem because "[t]he subjective theory of value (or theory of subjective value) is an economic theory of value that holds that to possess value an object must be both useful and scarce, with the extent of that value dependent upon the ability of an object to satisfy the wants of any given individual." This is why only markets can set prices and why government will always fail when they attempt to control prices. The most relevant part of this theory is that goods must be scarce to hold value. Only the market can determine what a good is worth. So an idea, because it is scarce, would not have any value in a free market.

So then, you say that an idea has intrinsic value? Then you subscribe to this theory: the labor theory of value. "The theory contrasts with intrinsic theories of value that hold that there is an objectively correct value of an object that can be determined irrespective of individual value judgments, such as by analyzing the amount of labor incurred in producing the object (see labor theory of value)." According to this model, government can determine what a product is worth and so plan an economy. Now I know that most of you who posted in here don't believe that. So then why make an exception for intellectual property? There is no way for the government to price it well.

 

[rathi]

According to this model, government can determine what a product is worth and so plan an economy. Now I know that most of you who posted in here don't believe that. So then why make an exception for intellectual property? There is no way for the government to price it well.

It is interesting how even the most fervent non-government interventionist is still typically in favor of copyright. Than again, it is nearly impossible to follow such a ideology all the way to its conclusion. The government is involved in our economy, and removing it would just as radical as communism. Most people just argue exactly to what degree the state should be involved.

 

[phattonez]

It is interesting how even the most fervent non-government interventionist is still typically in favor of copyright. Than again, it is nearly impossible to follow such a ideology all the way to its conclusion. The government is involved in our economy, and removing it would just as radical as communism. Most people just argue exactly to what degree the state should be involved.

Slippery slope?

 

[Ahlevah]

You are not allowed to steal his property and determine what a "fair" value is because he may value it more than what would be considered a "fair" value. In such a case, he would be worse off. This is why transactions are based on mutual agreement, not predetermined rules (aka government planning).

The operative words here are "mutual agreement." Personally, I wouldn't want to, say, spend years learning how to orchestrate an opera and write the libretto, actually write one, only to have some schmuck steal it. I'm not sure what my efforts would be worth, but I don't think I'd say "nothing." In that circumstance, for there to be a truly free market, the thief would have to have the right to put a bullet in my head and walk out of my house with my opera for nothing. I'd agree because I'd be dead, while he'd agree because he never wanted to pay more than zero for it. In point of fact it's government intervention that permits me to get any value for my efforts.

 

[Glinda]

I never said that it would publish something it hasn't seen.

No, you were much more vague.

The question originally posed to you:

Teachers are using books How do we pay the people that write and produce these books?

'

Your response:

If you're an author, go up to a publishing company (sign a contract first) and show them the book. If they like it, they'll publish it.

If your comment about signing a contract first had nothing to do with how the author would be paid for the book, perhaps you should have actually said that.

The contract is that if it does sell it even after it rejects the idea, then the author is owed some money (speculation though, it would be some kind of contract to protect the author when he shows the publisher the work).

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

The author doesn't need a contract to protect his work against theft by the publishing company because

he already has a built-in copyright simply by having created/possessing the original manuscript / mechanical invention / musical composition / whatever.​

:doh

 

[misterman]

If I create a knife with someone else's metal, is it my knife?

Crappy analogy.

 

[misterman]

Firstly do you have any evidence suggesting that if patent law was not available, he would have not gone ahead with with his invention? Aka causation?

Perhaps the fact that he fought vigorously to protect his patent, as most inventors do, is evidence of that.

 

[misterman]

Has nothing to do with the goodness of copyright.

Yes it does. You're trying to come up with these elaborate contract schemes to replace it. You can't. A creator can't sign a contract with the whole world to protect his work.

 

[Ahlevah]

It is interesting how even the most fervent non-government interventionist is still typically in favor of copyright. Than again, it is nearly impossible to follow such a ideology all the way to its conclusion.

Without government, it's difficult to have a civil society. But government should serve to enable progress, not stifle it. When people are not adequately compensated for effort because stealing is permitted, then government is not serving as an enabler.

 

[Ahlevah]

So then, you say that an idea has intrinsic value? Then you subscribe to this theory: the labor theory of value. "The theory contrasts with intrinsic theories of value that hold that there is an objectively correct value of an object that can be determined irrespective of individual value judgments, such as by analyzing the amount of labor incurred in producing the object (see labor theory of value)." According to this model, government can determine what a product is worth and so plan an economy. Now I know that most of you who posted in here don't believe that. So then why make an exception for intellectual property? There is no way for the government to price it well.

An opera, a novel, or a sonnet--whatever--is more than an idea; it's a thing that gives people pleasure. It took time and effort to create. As such, it has value to the person who made it, AND it will have value to people who want to experience it. It will also have scarcity as long as people aren't allowed to steal it. If people could take anything legally without paying for it, wouldn't that affect the scarcity of the good, hence the "market" price?

 

[misterman]

An opera, a novel, or a sonnet--whatever--is more than an idea; it's a thing that gives people pleasure. It took time and effort to create. As such, it has value to the person who made it, AND it will have value to people who want to experience it. It will also have scarcity as long as people aren't allowed to steal it. If people could take anything legally without paying for it, wouldn't that affect the scarcity of the good, hence the "market" price?

He thinks it's easy to make enough money without copyright protection. You just sell lots of copies really fast before everyone else makes copies. Which means a matter of hours with the Internet.

 

[the makeout hobo]

I didn't say a contract whereby they would get money or even where the publisher agrees to publish the book. You're assuming too much. The contract would probably be something where if the author finds that the book had been published that he will be owed a certain percentage of the profits of each book.

But only if company A publishes it. If company B publishes it, he doesn't get a dime. Let's say that the book is a hit, and every publisher wants to make money off of it... Company A would only be a small part of the total market, so the author wouldn't get that much. Furthermore, Company A would have slightly higher prices since they need to pay the author and the other company doesn't.

There is still the money from coming out with the book first and getting those immediate profits. No one here has proven that those profits are not enough to stimulate creation of new works.

It's hard to prove something we have no basis for, since that presupposes a IP-less system.

Because the idea is not a piece of property that belongs to you. If I take your idea, then the idea is still with you. Ideas are not property because they are not scarce.

The point is I do work, years writing a book... something I may have even had to hire people to help me with, and I'm not making money off of my work. That's a problem



You know, we have a real life example of a major movie being released without IP protection. That movie was George Romero's Night of the Living Dead.

Night of the Living Dead lapsed into the public domain because the original theatrical distributor, the Walter Reade Organization, neglected to place a copyright indication on the prints. In 1968, United States copyright law required a proper notice for a work to maintain a copyright.[91] Image Ten displayed such a notice on the title frames of the film beneath the original title, Night of the Flesh Eaters. The distributor removed the statement when it changed the title.[92] According to George Romero, Walter Reade "ripped us off".[93]

Because of the public domain status, the film is sold on home video by several distributors. As of 2006, the Internet Movie Database lists 23 copies of Night of the Living Dead retailing on DVD and nineteen on VHS.[94] The original film is available to view or download free on Internet sites such as Google Video, Internet Archive and YouTube.[95][96][97] As of October 2, 2008, it was the Internet Archive's second most downloaded film, with 515,561 downloads.[98]

So George Romero makes pennies off of a movie that took lots of people and investment to make. The only reason he made more movies is that he knew he could make sure he got money for the rest of them.

 

[rathi]

Without government, it's difficult to have a civil society. But government should serve to enable progress, not stifle it. When people are not adequately compensated for effort because stealing is permitted, then government is not serving as an enabler.

Copyright has nothing to do with stealing. Copyright infringement is a civil violation while theft is a criminal charge. Completely separate issues.