Intellectual Property in History | Stephan Kinsella

[joeseth05]

My stance on the argument of patentability is, that things shouldn't be patentable if they can potentially change on their own/reproduce themselves.

A car can't reproduce itself, thus car should be patentable.

Any kind of living being may reproduce itself, thus living beings shouldn't be patentable at all.

Neatly, this argument also works for any kind of living or sufficiently intelligent beings, like AIs, ETs, Spaghetti Monsters etc...

[ericfontainejazz]

The dogbarking is just great!

[joeseth05]

@ericfontainejazz woof!

[Hanksand]

not acceptable with dogbarking!

[LibertyJedi]

The dog barking is a joke, at least take the time to shut the dog up or don't post crappy work, it says how far one can trust what you are saying.

[MrAlpruitt]

So it should be 160 years (90 + 70)? What if were not understanding it properly? This also doesn't prove that he can't do basic maths. Just that he is capable of making mistakes. Even math teachers make mistakes. ^^

[UnhappyTestTubeBaby]

@MrAlpruitt It should be 130 years, I think. Publish at 30, die at 90. That's 60 years. Add 70 and that makes 130.

[MrAlpruitt]

@UnhappyTestTubeBaby I thought he said its 70 years when you die? This is what i mean by not understanding, I don't think i get it.

[UnhappyTestTubeBaby]

@MrAlpruitt He did say its active 70 years after you die. But if you want to establish the total term of the copyright you have to count from the time of publication. He's summing the total term of a copyright for a hypothetical person, who owned a copyright during their lifetime and the copyright remained enforceable for 70 more years after that.

[MrAlpruitt]

@UnhappyTestTubeBaby Ah haaaaaa, Thankyou for the clarification : D

[synestheticmonotony]

@MrAlpruitt You hold the copyright from the time of publishing until you die. Then, the copyright is enforced for an additional 70 years from the date of your death. The great thing is that there have not been too many great works written in the past century, so most of the classics and great works are public domain (i.e. free). In truth, there simply is no excuse (other than laziness) to not have a thorough education, especially with the internet. 

[synestheticmonotony]

@UnhappyTestTubeBaby You are correct, it is 130 years. He did say 140 in error, but he is human, after all. And, all humans are prone to error.

[richardcadbury]

This guy can't do basic maths.

[MrAlpruitt]

@richardcadbury Could you give us a time where he can't do basic maths plz. 

[richardcadbury]

@MrAlpruitt 19:55

[richardcadbury]

Human creativity is the scarcest of all resources.

[synestheticmonotony]

@richardcadbury I won't subscribe to that, ideas are not scarce at all. Everybody has them, and they have them all of the time. That doesn't exactly fit the description of something that is scarce. Good ideas are more scarce than mere ideas, but they still aren't scarce, they are just rare. However, what defines what is a good idea as opposed to a bad idea is completely subjective. There is no measure of what a good idea is as opposed to a bad idea.

[richardcadbury]

@synestheticmonotony Fair enough. 2 points:

1) I said creativity was scarce. Humans have been around for >100 000 years. And of all those people only Mises (for example) had the imagination, and put in the hard thinking, to write Human Action (for example).

2) Good vs bad depends on purpose. A design that collapses is a bad idea for a bridge. The gold standard is a good idea to keep ppl free and an economy productive. A round earth model vs a flat earth model is better at being true.

[synestheticmonotony]

@richardcadbury Creativity is merely the expression of ideas within a particular medium; usually contrasted with what was common practice before. It is a diversion from the norm, though not always a good diversion. As for your Mises example, you state that only Mises had the imagination. I love Mises (I like Rothbard a little better), but it is not that he merely had the imagination. It is more that he took the effort to publish his works. An idea is nothing without seeing it through.

[nanciqwerty]

Does this guy not have a 'pause' button on his recorder? :-)

[grraadd]

I started from my grandparents who fought for freedom (they lost when FDR left them behind the lines), my father who was denied education because his father was "rich". What he learned studying anyway he passed on me. And - much later multilevel marketing and people like Robert Kiyosaki and many others.

Obviously I had to get rid of indoctrination from public schools first...

Ayn Rand? I just watched her films and interviews a year ago :-)

[synestheticmonotony]

@grraadd While I agree with roughly 60-70% of Rand's conclusions, I still highly question her processes. Having delved into her Objectivist philosophy at some length, I have found that her processes of conclusion are without merit. It is as if she concludes that all humans have perfect knowledge, just so long as they are Objectivists. With that in mind, it is no wonder that she was as much as a cultist as L. Ron Hubbard, and that the prevailing Austrians of the time completely avoided her.

[grraadd]

@synestheticmonotony In her interview she mopped the floor with that sleazy marxist whatever his name was, so I like her.

But it would be very difficult to answer in depth to your comment because I don't know details of her life or who Hubbard is...

[603881]

The dogs barking was not that bad at all, it was maybe less than 3% (5% at most) of this wonderful lecture provided, mind us, for free as a courtesy.

Thank you for this.

[HelpWakePeopleUp]

Me too.

[AustinW90]

The dogs are killing me.

[slhines7]

The dogs barking killed my concentration and focus:)

[anyusmoon1]

@slhines7 I was rather pleasantly impressed with the fact that the lecturer was not distracted, thus I had no problem getting pas it either.

[slhines7]

@anyusmoon1 Me too overall.