- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 25,775
- Reaction score
- 21,436
- Location
- Fort Drum, New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Just to point out, IP and copyright laws divide libertarians. Not all libertarians are against IP and some support them. However, in my experience it is rather a minor issues among libertarians.
Such as?
In that case, I would be more concerned about what is wrong with our kids than about the economy. Maybe that's just me though.
And he's a lawyer. He needs clients
In my mind, this is where the focus should lay, NOT believing it will cripple the economy.
Intellectual property laws both help and hurt the economy. They help by incentivizing invention and creation and whatnot. They hurt by limiting the use those inventions and creations can be put to.
Intellectual property laws are basically just physical property laws that have been squeezed and distorted to try to make them apply to non-physical property. What we really need is a new type of property law that is built from the ground up to deal with intellectual property. It has massive differences from physical property. For physical goods there is a low initial cost of production, but a high marginal cost. Meaning that if I want to sell t-shirts, it's going to cost me a certain amount for every t-shirt that I sell somebody. So, I need to charge per t-shirt I sell. Physical property laws, where you pay per unit purchased, fit well with that- people are getting paid in proportion to their costs and around the time they incur those costs. Works pretty smoothly.
But with intellectual property there is a high initial cost, but virtually no marginal cost. Once I've made the song or invented the process or whatever, it costs me nothing for somebody else to use it. Physical property laws, where we charge per unit distributed, doesn't really align well with that situation. They have to incur lots of costs up from without compensation, and then the amount of compensation they eventually get may have no proportion to those costs. Where with physical property one bike has a fixed value to society, the value of intellectual property goes up the more people get access to it. We should aim for a policy that allows intellectual property to be distributed as widely as possible.
There are lots of different options. The corporations could finally get it's act together to provide more all-you-can-eat services like Netflix where you pay a reasonable fixed fee, that money gets split up amongst the content owners, and you are free to watch as much as you like. The government could set up a system where taxes pay the content creators and everybody is free to access the information. Individuals can force the change by pirating. I don't know the best way to go, but our current intellectual property laws don't fit intellectual property well. They create incentives to exclude people from consuming your product and that's just waste.
Getting back to the topic of the economic impact of copyrights and other IP rights, supporters often claim that it gives an incentive to innovate, and therefore leads to economic prosperity.
I am skeptical of this view, as history is replete with examples of innovation and great works of arts, music, innovation, etc. being produced despite the absence of strong copyright and IP laws. In addition, allowing the free flow of ideas actually leads to economic growth rather than hampering it by monopoly privileges.
For example, lets imagine how stifled human progress would be if someone copyrighted fire or the wheel.
No biggie-we would just buy the pirated versions from China
Shouldn't we be paying China royalties on gunpowder?
Yes, but we are not talking about plagiarism and you are distorting the topic at hand. As I already noted, Long properly cites all his references in his works. I also use references in my writings. Enjoy your red herring.
Does freedom of speech mean anything to you or do you like to prohibit people from using, reproducing, and trading ideas that were supposedly original creation of the mind?
Shouldn't we be paying China royalties on gunpowder?
Arguments like this is why it's impossible to debate IP with a thief. They reduce their arguments to sheer absurdity.
While the comment itself was a bit absurd, I think he brings up a valid point, one I mentioned before - the distinction between an original work and an unoriginal one is often subjective and artificial, as is often the difference between an invention and a discovery.
Arguments like this is why it's impossible to debate IP with a thief. They reduce their arguments to sheer absurdity.
You obviously don't even begin to comprehend what I just explained to you. Your link states that memorization implies ownership. That on ANY field would be akin to plagiarism, fraud etc. That the author begins to argue that a person owns IP because they memorized it is at best a retarded understanding of ownership and at worst blatant dishonesty.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with copyright lmao.
While the comment itself was a bit absurd, I think he brings up a valid point, one I mentioned before - the distinction between an original work and an unoriginal one is often subjective and artificial, as is often the difference between an invention and a discovery.
I was being hyperbolic and facetious which escaped our dear friends Hatuey and TD. It was never meant to be an actual argument.
However, the "invention" of fire, the wheel, or gunpowder could be subject to copyright laws since at one point of time they were considered "original applications" of an individual. Afterall, wouldn't they be considered "original" works that could not be produced without the "owner's" consent?
Can't see how rent seeking makes the economy better, in fact the opposite tends to be true.
In many cases this is true, but not necessarily so. Either way, the distinction between an original and unoriginal work is often subjective and artificial, which is why I agree with some Libertarian arguments against IP law as it exists today.
But I still think people who put that much hard work and effort into the creation of a work are entitled to some sort of protection.
I don't entirely agree that IP law necessarily = rent-seeking, although when put into practice, many features of modern American IP law do indeed promote rent-seeking.
Like I've been saying throughout the thread, intellectual property isn't a black-and-white issue for me.
I don't entirely agree that IP law necessarily = rent-seeking, although when put into practice, many features of modern American IP law do indeed promote rent-seeking.
Like I've been saying throughout the thread, intellectual property isn't a black-and-white issue for me.
Some here like to distort my opinion on the subject, but I too think that someone is entitled to compensation for their work, whether it IP or other.
The problem I have is that the law gives more privileged benefits to IP producers, than is necessary.
With physical property, if you abandon it, after a certain amount of time, you lose the rights to it.
There is an implicit duty to maintain physical property, but none for IP.
That should be rectified, among other things.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?