Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 10:48:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are some decent arguments out there that argue in favor of a state, welfare rights, war, democracy, drug laws, and so on. They are all flawed, since libertarianism is right, but there are coherent, honest arguments that we libertarians have to grapple with.

But it is striking that there are no decent arguments for IP as Manuel Lora remarked to me, "You know, I haven't seen a good pro IP article ever." This is true. One sees the same incoherent or insincere claims made over and over, such as:

1. It's in the constitution (argument from authority; legal positivism)
2. Intellectual property is called property! (argument by definition?)
3. No movies would be made and kids would die without medicine (artworks and medicine have been produced for ages without IP law; and where's the evidence?)
4. If you "create" something you own it (despite all the exceptions, and despite the fact that creation is neither necessary nor sufficient for ownership; despite the fact that you either limit these rights in scope or time arbitrarily, or you extent them to infinity, choking off rights in real things and forcing life and commerce to a screeching halt)
5. It generates net wealth more value than its cost (no evidence, ever, for this contention just assumptions; not to mention the problem of utilitarian summing of values)
6. IP infringement is "theft" (even though the owner still has his property and ideas, and even though IP infringement is just learning and emulating)
7. People "could" create variants of IP via private contracts therefore artifical patent granting bureaucracies legislated by a criminal state are justified?)

There are other arguments, I suppose, but they are so incoherent as to defy description. They often involve crankish initial caps, like Property and Rights, the Internet equivalent of crayons.

I have truly never seen a coherent, good argument for IP. The advocates are either utilitarian, with all the problems that accompany that (not to mention they never have any evidence for their claims); or the advocate a more "principled", rights-based type of IP that, if taken seriously, would completely undermine all real property rights and make life on earth impossible, so they retreat from this and impose arbitrary, senseless limits on it. What a kluge.

In a recent discussion, What's Wrong With Theft?, one of the IP advocates, when pushed into a corner, ended up arguing that rights to own property include the right to control all "access to" and "interactions with one's property and that "interactions" include observing or knowing about or learning facts about the things owned by someone, and that when you use this knowledge you are "interacting with" the property, and thus "stealing" it (even though the owner still has it). So here we have it: IP means "interaction rights." Wow. This is how kooky all IP arguments ultimately are.

http://archive.mises.org...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you know a good argument for intellectual property, please post it below.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 10:59:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It could be argued that it encourages people to create works, but in practice, people tend to create new works only until they feel they are getting a good amount of money, then they stop, sit back, and let the cash flow. This would work quite a bit better with a 7-year copyright term, though.

But no, since knowledge isn't scarce, there's no reason to make it scarce.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Prodigenius
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 11:02:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Okay so how about you tell me a great idea of yours and I get money for it? I like this idea very much. :)
Live for the present, for it is a gift.

I surveyed 100 women and asked them what shampoo they used when showering, 98 of them said: How the hell did you get in here?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 12:00:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 10:48:49 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There are some decent arguments out there that argue in favor of a state, welfare rights, war, democracy, drug laws, and so on. They are all flawed, since libertarianism is right, but there are coherent, honest arguments that we libertarians have to grapple with.

But it is striking that there are no decent arguments for IP as Manuel Lora remarked to me, "You know, I haven't seen a good pro IP article ever." This is true. One sees the same incoherent or insincere claims made over and over, such as:

1. It's in the constitution (argument from authority; legal positivism)
2. Intellectual property is called property! (argument by definition?)
3. No movies would be made and kids would die without medicine (artworks and medicine have been produced for ages without IP law; and where's the evidence?)
4. If you "create" something you own it (despite all the exceptions, and despite the fact that creation is neither necessary nor sufficient for ownership; despite the fact that you either limit these rights in scope or time arbitrarily, or you extent them to infinity, choking off rights in real things and forcing life and commerce to a screeching halt)
5. It generates net wealth more value than its cost (no evidence, ever, for this contention just assumptions; not to mention the problem of utilitarian summing of values)
6. IP infringement is "theft" (even though the owner still has his property and ideas, and even though IP infringement is just learning and emulating)
7. People "could" create variants of IP via private contracts therefore artifical patent granting bureaucracies legislated by a criminal state are justified?)

There are other arguments, I suppose, but they are so incoherent as to defy description. They often involve crankish initial caps, like Property and Rights, the Internet equivalent of crayons.

I have truly never seen a coherent, good argument for IP. The advocates are either utilitarian, with all the problems that accompany that (not to mention they never have any evidence for their claims); or the advocate a more "principled", rights-based type of IP that, if taken seriously, would completely undermine all real property rights and make life on earth impossible, so they retreat from this and impose arbitrary, senseless limits on it. What a kluge.

In a recent discussion, What's Wrong With Theft?, one of the IP advocates, when pushed into a corner, ended up arguing that rights to own property include the right to control all "access to" and "interactions with one's property and that "interactions" include observing or knowing about or learning facts about the things owned by someone, and that when you use this knowledge you are "interacting with" the property, and thus "stealing" it (even though the owner still has it). So here we have it: IP means "interaction rights." Wow. This is how kooky all IP arguments ultimately are.

http://archive.mises.org...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you know a good argument for intellectual property, please post it below.

Depends on your preusppositions. No matter what I posit, you can move the goal post unless I know the answer to one question:

Why do YOU think people should have property rights (non-intellectual sort)?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 1:35:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What about:
You don't have a right to profit from my labor, without my consent.

Profit can mean money, or enjoyment.
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 5:09:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 10:48:49 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There are some decent arguments out there that argue in favor of a state, welfare rights, war, democracy, drug laws, and so on. They are all flawed, since libertarianism is right, but there are coherent, honest arguments that we libertarians have to grapple with.

But it is striking that there are no decent arguments for IP as Manuel Lora remarked to me, "You know, I haven't seen a good pro IP article ever." This is true. One sees the same incoherent or insincere claims made over and over, such as:

1. It's in the constitution (argument from authority; legal positivism)
2. Intellectual property is called property! (argument by definition?)
3. No movies would be made and kids would die without medicine (artworks and medicine have been produced for ages without IP law; and where's the evidence?)
4. If you "create" something you own it (despite all the exceptions, and despite the fact that creation is neither necessary nor sufficient for ownership; despite the fact that you either limit these rights in scope or time arbitrarily, or you extent them to infinity, choking off rights in real things and forcing life and commerce to a screeching halt)
5. It generates net wealth more value than its cost (no evidence, ever, for this contention just assumptions; not to mention the problem of utilitarian summing of values)
6. IP infringement is "theft" (even though the owner still has his property and ideas, and even though IP infringement is just learning and emulating)
7. People "could" create variants of IP via private contracts therefore artifical patent granting bureaucracies legislated by a criminal state are justified?)

There are other arguments, I suppose, but they are so incoherent as to defy description. They often involve crankish initial caps, like Property and Rights, the Internet equivalent of crayons.

I have truly never seen a coherent, good argument for IP. The advocates are either utilitarian, with all the problems that accompany that (not to mention they never have any evidence for their claims); or the advocate a more "principled", rights-based type of IP that, if taken seriously, would completely undermine all real property rights and make life on earth impossible, so they retreat from this and impose arbitrary, senseless limits on it. What a kluge.

In a recent discussion, What's Wrong With Theft?, one of the IP advocates, when pushed into a corner, ended up arguing that rights to own property include the right to control all "access to" and "interactions with one's property and that "interactions" include observing or knowing about or learning facts about the things owned by someone, and that when you use this knowledge you are "interacting with" the property, and thus "stealing" it (even though the owner still has it). So here we have it: IP means "interaction rights." Wow. This is how kooky all IP arguments ultimately are.

http://archive.mises.org...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you know a good argument for intellectual property, please post it below.

If I can not profit off of my creativity, what is my incentive to create? The world of inventors is not comprised of Tesla-types, WSA. The world is full of creators who want to benefit from their contributions to humanity, and who have a right to.
Tsar of DDO
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 10:31:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 5:09:17 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/16/2013 10:48:49 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There are some decent arguments out there that argue in favor of a state, welfare rights, war, democracy, drug laws, and so on. They are all flawed, since libertarianism is right, but there are coherent, honest arguments that we libertarians have to grapple with.

But it is striking that there are no decent arguments for IP as Manuel Lora remarked to me, "You know, I haven't seen a good pro IP article ever." This is true. One sees the same incoherent or insincere claims made over and over, such as:

1. It's in the constitution (argument from authority; legal positivism)
2. Intellectual property is called property! (argument by definition?)
3. No movies would be made and kids would die without medicine (artworks and medicine have been produced for ages without IP law; and where's the evidence?)
4. If you "create" something you own it (despite all the exceptions, and despite the fact that creation is neither necessary nor sufficient for ownership; despite the fact that you either limit these rights in scope or time arbitrarily, or you extent them to infinity, choking off rights in real things and forcing life and commerce to a screeching halt)
5. It generates net wealth more value than its cost (no evidence, ever, for this contention just assumptions; not to mention the problem of utilitarian summing of values)
6. IP infringement is "theft" (even though the owner still has his property and ideas, and even though IP infringement is just learning and emulating)
7. People "could" create variants of IP via private contracts therefore artifical patent granting bureaucracies legislated by a criminal state are justified?)

There are other arguments, I suppose, but they are so incoherent as to defy description. They often involve crankish initial caps, like Property and Rights, the Internet equivalent of crayons.

I have truly never seen a coherent, good argument for IP. The advocates are either utilitarian, with all the problems that accompany that (not to mention they never have any evidence for their claims); or the advocate a more "principled", rights-based type of IP that, if taken seriously, would completely undermine all real property rights and make life on earth impossible, so they retreat from this and impose arbitrary, senseless limits on it. What a kluge.

In a recent discussion, What's Wrong With Theft?, one of the IP advocates, when pushed into a corner, ended up arguing that rights to own property include the right to control all "access to" and "interactions with one's property and that "interactions" include observing or knowing about or learning facts about the things owned by someone, and that when you use this knowledge you are "interacting with" the property, and thus "stealing" it (even though the owner still has it). So here we have it: IP means "interaction rights." Wow. This is how kooky all IP arguments ultimately are.

http://archive.mises.org...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you know a good argument for intellectual property, please post it below.

If I can not profit off of my creativity, what is my incentive to create? The world of inventors is not comprised of Tesla-types, WSA. The world is full of creators who want to benefit from their contributions to humanity, and who have a right to.

An idea alone is not a contribution. The application of ideas is a contribution. Genius is 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 11:24:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 10:48:49 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There are some decent arguments out there that argue in favor of a state, welfare rights, war, democracy, drug laws, and so on. They are all flawed, since libertarianism is right, but there are coherent, honest arguments that we libertarians have to grapple with.

But it is striking that there are no decent arguments for IP as Manuel Lora remarked to me, "You know, I haven't seen a good pro IP article ever." This is true. One sees the same incoherent or insincere claims made over and over, such as:

1. It's in the constitution (argument from authority; legal positivism)

It is not in the constitution. The constitution says "[The Congress shall have 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;"

This actually has some benefits, as it promotes innovations in art an science by increasing the rewards for their work. After a certain amount of time, it becomes counterproductive, by prohibiting competition. The optimal length of the temporary monopoly depends on the business cycle.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 4:49:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 11:24:58 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/16/2013 10:48:49 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There are some decent arguments out there that argue in favor of a state, welfare rights, war, democracy, drug laws, and so on. They are all flawed, since libertarianism is right, but there are coherent, honest arguments that we libertarians have to grapple with.

But it is striking that there are no decent arguments for IP as Manuel Lora remarked to me, "You know, I haven't seen a good pro IP article ever." This is true. One sees the same incoherent or insincere claims made over and over, such as:

1. It's in the constitution (argument from authority; legal positivism)

It is not in the constitution. The constitution says "[The Congress shall have 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;"

This actually has some benefits, as it promotes innovations in art an science by increasing the rewards for their work. After a certain amount of time, it becomes counterproductive, by prohibiting competition. The optimal length of the temporary monopoly depends on the business cycle.

In the patent system, it does prohibit competition from the start, and this simply is unavoidable. In the case of copyright, it's more of a case of discouraging further creation by giving too much incentive for there to be any reason to continue creating things.

But yes, IP industries need to realize that "securing for limited times" does not mean "you're entitled to a monopoly for an arbitrarily large amount of time".
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 6:37:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 1:35:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What about:
You don't have a right to profit from my labor, without my consent.

Profit can mean money, or enjoyment.

Once I purchase a medicine is sold on the market, it becomes mine. I can do whatever I like to it, including emulating it and selling it. That is not your labor that I am profiting from; rather, it is my labor.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 6:43:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind"s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.

An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object"s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.

It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it"but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in nature"an object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed.

The government does not "grant" a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it"i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner"s exclusive right of use and disposal."

- Ayn Rand -
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 7:15:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As I said, this goes back to the question: Why have property rights at all?

There's no inherent normative need for individuals to have "property rights" in any sense other than "this is mine and if you disagree I'll beat you silly." That is, there no inherent problem with a state of nature.

If you and I agree on why there should be property rights, then it will be of no surprise when we disagree on whether intellectual property rights should exist in the first place.

For instance, I believe the government should enforce property for reasons related to how definition of property rights can minimize transaction costs between individuals and allow minimum government involvement in order to alter said costs (Coast Theorem). Better defined property rights = less need for externally imposed regulation when market failures occur.

Intellectual property rights allow for individuals to bargain for permission and profiting off of those whose investment is not physically manifested (such as planting wheat and crops) versus mentally manifested (a formula for a newly synthesized chemical).

One thing the knee-jerk opponents of IP rights ignore is that IP specifically allows for cases where individuals, upon witnessing anything which has already been patented, may engage in what some might call "infringement" if you are able to add value to the original IP product using what's called the Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents.

If a company spend a million dollars in R and D on synthesizing a new chemical, they can patent it in order to recoup the R and D.

If you took this new chemical and changed it enough so that although it may perform the same or similar function, it does so in a substantially different way, then regardless of whether you fall inside the patent's claims, you cannot be sued for infringement.

Patent law already allows for innovators who wish to create something of their own regardless of similarity as long as they create substantial differences of some sort.

Leesonia Corp v. United States
Texas Instruments in v US Int'l Trade Commission
Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 8:56:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
One thing I see that IP laws seem to ignore is the possibility of two people having the same idea, while never seeing each other's work. Who would be deserving of the IP then? The one who had the idea first? What would make them more deserving than a person who has come up with the same idea?

I also see no reason why a company would be unable to recoup R&D costs through profits from the new market they have created, nor have I seen anyone say anything about how patent trolls should be dealt with.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 9:24:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 4:49:58 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/17/2013 11:24:58 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/16/2013 10:48:49 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There are some decent arguments out there that argue in favor of a state, welfare rights, war, democracy, drug laws, and so on. They are all flawed, since libertarianism is right, but there are coherent, honest arguments that we libertarians have to grapple with.

But it is striking that there are no decent arguments for IP as Manuel Lora remarked to me, "You know, I haven't seen a good pro IP article ever." This is true. One sees the same incoherent or insincere claims made over and over, such as:

1. It's in the constitution (argument from authority; legal positivism)

It is not in the constitution. The constitution says "[The Congress shall have 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;"

This actually has some benefits, as it promotes innovations in art an science by increasing the rewards for their work. After a certain amount of time, it becomes counterproductive, by prohibiting competition. The optimal length of the temporary monopoly depends on the business cycle.

In the patent system, it does prohibit competition from the start, and this simply is unavoidable. In the case of copyright, it's more of a case of discouraging further creation by giving too much incentive for there to be any reason to continue creating things.

But yes, IP industries need to realize that "securing for limited times" does not mean "you're entitled to a monopoly for an arbitrarily large amount of time".

The increased profit at "for a limited time" gives a greater incentive to create and invent, because there is an increased profit. After that limited time has expired, it becomes counter productive to maintain the exclusive rights. The temporary monopoly does not deter them from seeking new inventions, just as entrepreneurs do not stop simply because one venture is a success.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 9:38:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 9:24:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/17/2013 4:49:58 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/17/2013 11:24:58 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/16/2013 10:48:49 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There are some decent arguments out there that argue in favor of a state, welfare rights, war, democracy, drug laws, and so on. They are all flawed, since libertarianism is right, but there are coherent, honest arguments that we libertarians have to grapple with.

But it is striking that there are no decent arguments for IP as Manuel Lora remarked to me, "You know, I haven't seen a good pro IP article ever." This is true. One sees the same incoherent or insincere claims made over and over, such as:

1. It's in the constitution (argument from authority; legal positivism)

It is not in the constitution. The constitution says "[The Congress shall have 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;"

This actually has some benefits, as it promotes innovations in art an science by increasing the rewards for their work. After a certain amount of time, it becomes counterproductive, by prohibiting competition. The optimal length of the temporary monopoly depends on the business cycle.

In the patent system, it does prohibit competition from the start, and this simply is unavoidable. In the case of copyright, it's more of a case of discouraging further creation by giving too much incentive for there to be any reason to continue creating things.

But yes, IP industries need to realize that "securing for limited times" does not mean "you're entitled to a monopoly for an arbitrarily large amount of time".

The increased profit at "for a limited time" gives a greater incentive to create and invent, because there is an increased profit. After that limited time has expired, it becomes counter productive to maintain the exclusive rights. The temporary monopoly does not deter them from seeking new inventions, just as entrepreneurs do not stop simply because one venture is a success.

The "limited time" certainly shouldn't be life+70 years or 120 years for copyright. There is no practical purpose for copyright extending past the life of the creator - their great grandchildren can just get a job like everyone else. 20 years is a bit excessive for patents, too (5 would be better). With technological growth increasing exponentially, it makes sense to decrease the length of patents to make sure they don't get in the way of people applying these new ideas. Ideas aren't worth anything unless they are used.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 9:42:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"With technological growth increasing exponentially, it makes sense to decrease the length of patents to make sure they don't get in the way of people applying these new ideas. Ideas aren't worth anything unless they are used."

And ideas aren't worth anything if they're never forged in the first place.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 9:45:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The "limited time" certainly shouldn't be life+70 years or 120 years for copyright. There is no practical purpose for copyright extending past the life of the creator - their great grandchildren can just get a job like everyone else."

Just because you cannot think of any practical purposes off the top of your head doesn't mean there aren't any. I urge you to do a little research, because it's apparent you aren't aware of the opposition's arguments.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 9:48:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 9:45:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"The "limited time" certainly shouldn't be life+70 years or 120 years for copyright. There is no practical purpose for copyright extending past the life of the creator - their great grandchildren can just get a job like everyone else."


Just because you cannot think of any practical purposes off the top of your head doesn't mean there aren't any. I urge you to do a little research, because it's apparent you aren't aware of the opposition's arguments.

That's far too much, but what would you say to patents of seven to ten years?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 9:52:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 8:56:53 PM, drhead wrote:
One thing I see that IP laws seem to ignore is the possibility of two people having the same idea, while never seeing each other's work. Who would be deserving of the IP then? The one who had the idea first? What would make them more deserving than a person who has come up with the same idea?

I also see no reason why a company would be unable to recoup R&D costs through profits from the new market they have created, nor have I seen anyone say anything about how patent trolls should be dealt with.

The problem is these days it is quite easy to replicate new products destroying the "first-to-market" advantage with even minor amounts of R and D involved.
I personally know of a technology firm where if their R and D results were leaked before the patent was through, their competitors will almost immediately have products on the market that are identical but cheaper due to no R and D.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 9:56:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 9:48:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/17/2013 9:45:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"The "limited time" certainly shouldn't be life+70 years or 120 years for copyright. There is no practical purpose for copyright extending past the life of the creator - their great grandchildren can just get a job like everyone else."


Just because you cannot think of any practical purposes off the top of your head doesn't mean there aren't any. I urge you to do a little research, because it's apparent you aren't aware of the opposition's arguments.

That's far too much, but what would you say to patents of seven to ten years?

I would say it depends on the article in question. For books, movies, music etc, I think it should be the life of the author + 50; but for technological inventions it should be much less, especially in rapidly-advancing fields (as it's not moral to restrict would-be-inventors merely because of when they were born).
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 10:11:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 9:38:44 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/17/2013 9:24:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/17/2013 4:49:58 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/17/2013 11:24:58 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/16/2013 10:48:49 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There are some decent arguments out there that argue in favor of a state, welfare rights, war, democracy, drug laws, and so on. They are all flawed, since libertarianism is right, but there are coherent, honest arguments that we libertarians have to grapple with.

But it is striking that there are no decent arguments for IP as Manuel Lora remarked to me, "You know, I haven't seen a good pro IP article ever." This is true. One sees the same incoherent or insincere claims made over and over, such as:

1. It's in the constitution (argument from authority; legal positivism)

It is not in the constitution. The constitution says "[The Congress shall have 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;"

This actually has some benefits, as it promotes innovations in art an science by increasing the rewards for their work. After a certain amount of time, it becomes counterproductive, by prohibiting competition. The optimal length of the temporary monopoly depends on the business cycle.

In the patent system, it does prohibit competition from the start, and this simply is unavoidable. In the case of copyright, it's more of a case of discouraging further creation by giving too much incentive for there to be any reason to continue creating things.

But yes, IP industries need to realize that "securing for limited times" does not mean "you're entitled to a monopoly for an arbitrarily large amount of time".

The increased profit at "for a limited time" gives a greater incentive to create and invent, because there is an increased profit. After that limited time has expired, it becomes counter productive to maintain the exclusive rights. The temporary monopoly does not deter them from seeking new inventions, just as entrepreneurs do not stop simply because one venture is a success.

The "limited time" certainly shouldn't be life+70 years or 120 years for copyright. There is no practical purpose for copyright extending past the life of the creator - their great grandchildren can just get a job like everyone else. 20 years is a bit excessive for patents, too (5 would be better). With technological growth increasing exponentially, it makes sense to decrease the length of patents to make sure they don't get in the way of people applying these new ideas. Ideas aren't worth anything unless they are used.

I agree
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 10:16:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 6:37:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/17/2013 1:35:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What about:
You don't have a right to profit from my labor, without my consent.

Profit can mean money, or enjoyment.

Once I purchase a medicine is sold on the market, it becomes mine. I can do whatever I like to it, including emulating it and selling it. That is not your labor that I am profiting from; rather, it is my labor.

So the money you work for, I should be able to steal it because, I work at stealing it.

If we can't own IP, why should we own anything? Why do you own that land?
#BlackLivesMatter
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 10:19:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
" (as it's not moral to restrict would-be-inventors merely because of when they were born)."

To put more eloquently, " It would become a cumulative lien on the production of unborn generations, which would ultimately paralyze them. Consider what would happen if, in producing an automobile, we had to pay royalties to the descendants of all the inventors involved, starting with the inventor of the wheel and on up. Apart from the impossibility of keeping such records, consider the accidental status of such descendants and the unreality of their unearned claims." - Rand
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 10:22:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm just going to say this. I saw the topic, I saw who made it, that's it. I'm going to venture that WSA talks about IP not being property because it's not scarce and people will respond that it should be recognized because incentives or whatever.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 10:27:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 10:16:18 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:

If we can't own IP, why should we own anything? Why do you own that land?

Called it.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 10:41:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 8:56:53 PM, drhead wrote:
One thing I see that IP laws seem to ignore is the possibility of two people having the same idea, while never seeing each other's work. Who would be deserving of the IP then? The one who had the idea first? What would make them more deserving than a person who has come up with the same idea?

I also see no reason why a company would be unable to recoup R&D costs through profits from the new market they have created, nor have I seen anyone say anything about how patent trolls should be dealt with.

The person who filed the patent first would have the rights. If you re-invent the wheel without ever seeing one in your life, you still can't patent it because you weren't the first to do it.
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 11:05:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 10:27:23 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/17/2013 10:16:18 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:

If we can't own IP, why should we own anything? Why do you own that land?

Called it.

That's not what I'm saying? I'm just asking what is "ownership" really?
#BlackLivesMatter
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 11:17:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 11:05:45 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 5/17/2013 10:27:23 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/17/2013 10:16:18 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:

If we can't own IP, why should we own anything? Why do you own that land?

Called it.

That's not what I'm saying? I'm just asking what is "ownership" really?

Ownership is based on right to use. Some form of ownership has to be established for non-scarce goods to avoid overutilization or it might be limited to the amount of people that can use it at once.

This doesn't apply to intellectual property since ideas are not scarce and an be reproduced.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 11:19:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 11:05:45 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 5/17/2013 10:27:23 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/17/2013 10:16:18 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:

If we can't own IP, why should we own anything? Why do you own that land?

Called it.

That's not what I'm saying? I'm just asking what is "ownership" really?

My mistake. I was way off in how I interpreted that. But if you want to get into a discussion on property rights, I'd love to oblige. I assume WSA (haven't read the OP) takes the basic Hoppean approach i.e., property is only necessary inasmuch as resources are scarce, making norms for the proper appropriation/allocation of external objects necessary. These norms (on Hoppe's view) must be of the type that they (a) are objectively verifiable and (b) lend themselves best to the possibility of conflict-free resolution in the face of conflict (under ideal conditions of course-- no propertarian theory will necessitate zero conflict). Of course the only normative view he takes from this is the need for scarcity in property. IP prima facie doesn't lend itself to the fulfillment of any of these pre-requisites.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 11:22:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 11:17:37 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/17/2013 11:05:45 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 5/17/2013 10:27:23 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/17/2013 10:16:18 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:

If we can't own IP, why should we own anything? Why do you own that land?

Called it.

That's not what I'm saying? I'm just asking what is "ownership" really?

Ownership is based on right to use. Some form of ownership has to be established for non-scarce goods to avoid overutilization or it might be limited to the amount of people that can use it at once.

This doesn't apply to intellectual property since ideas are not scarce and an be reproduced.

So we shouldn't be able to own anything that can be reproduced? Like plants or crops?
#BlackLivesMatter