This guy doesn't understand what intellectual property is. Most people who have an opinion on it don't.
No one has ever been able to copyright jeans or an omelette. That's why it never happened. You copyright the specific expression of an idea. So if you invent the standard blues chord progression, anyone can use it. If you put it down in some recognizable format (i.e.recording) only that specific recording is protected.
I guess they'll let anyone on TV. First bad RT spot I've seen though.
Copyright on books is the same as monopoly on goods. Imagine only one company is allowed to make bread. This company has the opportunity to dictate to price if the bread. Imagine there is no copyright on books and I wrote a book that I want to sell for $100; than nobody, who cannot afford to pay, will not have it. What if this is a textbook and students need it? Now imagine there was no copyright on textbooks. The some one will copy this textbook and sell it for $33;
I consider no property sacred. Any sort of property must be justified in a society separately in terms of its role in securing more fundamental human rights and keeping the society together. While private property is crucial (at least up to a point) in securing privacy and adequate free speech, intellectual property has no such function.
@coosoorlog Justified by who? To who? Without private property, other rights are meaningless. Without private property with which to make a living (via trade or self-sufficiency), one must use public property, and as such is forced to capitulate to the public's to survive. The most meaningful right is the right to be let alone, and without private property, no-one can find that right.
Progressives or "liberals" tend not to recognize the distinction between rights and entitlements.
@MisbehavingMal That said, I disagree with Intellectual Property. Intellectual property is an entitlement, and a non-specific one at that. I've considered the concept of intellectual property carefully and concluded that you have a right to your idea, but you don't have a right to prevent other people with whom you've shared it from doing as they wish with that idea, because in no reasonable way can that be considered aggression against you.
You could insentivise research and development for known wants and needs like a cure for cancer by building up a reward though something like a telethon that would be given to the first to provide a solution (an idea) and give it up to the public sphere. After that people would compete to provide the good using the idea in the best mannor.
@18StrokesPcketCaddy How did you estimate your loss? I don't believe that anyone is entitled to as much as 400 million dollars unless it is expedient to real economic growth - for instance, Steve Jobs, since he is a vital reason for life-enhancing products like iPhones. But for music (for example) there is no natural reward for creating it anymore - only performing it. If you are very good (popular) at it then you have no reason to worry, since you can draw big crowds.
I remember watching this when it was first aired, and asking you about it in chat on Patriot Polls. It was tough for me to swallow. I am now reading Ethics of Liberty and...I get it now :)
He is 100% right. Copyrights, Trademarks, patents, service, publicity rights, etc are nothing but a hidden form of welfare. Beyond that the whole system is profoundly unfair. Perhaps somebody can explain why a drug that cost a billion dollars to develop and test only gets 17 years protection, but a picture of Kim Kardashian gets her lifetime plus 75 years after she is dead? Probably not going to get rid of them, but all copyrights and patents should be limited to 10 years.
Intellectual property is not material. Hence, for so long there was no distribution of audio or video. Only when mediums (tapes, optical discs etc.) were created did it become both possible and profitable - w/ or w/o copyright - since only a few owned the means of producing the mediums. Now, essentially what has happened is the internet and PC's have expanded the bourgeoisie to the majority of the population. Does that hinder new ideas? The abundance of free material (e.g. this video) says no.
Now if we dissolved IP tomorrow, average joe could nonetheless plug away and invent, the naive and green little inventor he is, and then a corporate steals his idea....they market it more effectively, the have the capital to manufacture on a scale average Joe could not and then consequently average joe gets run out of business. How is that fair?
this Adamvstheman is a real dumb dumb......patents actually empower the average joe in his garage making inventions.............it means average joe owns his novel execution rights.............it means he hasn't wasted his time,money,resources,ingenuity and labour....he can reap what he sowed, the corporates simply cannot steal average joe's 'investment'.
And what if average joe can't afford a patent anyways? The corporation would steal it anyways. Perhaps we need an overhaul of what a patent is? Poor mans patent doesn't work in court anymore if I'm correct.
--Doesn't apply to when a corporation steals the intellectual property to the cure for cancer and keeps it to itself to prevent it from being public knowledge -- because it won't be able to keep it a secret when patents don't exist..
This is an extremely good point! As well as when corporations buy out patents for alternative fuel sources and then shove them away because they wouldn't make a profit. Without patent's we would have the cure to cancer and flying cars that run on water.!
I'm not sure Adam presented the other side well enough to debunk it. I mean, he's saying you can copy awesome movies and re-sell it? Well then the awesome movie wouldn't be made in the first place if they can't profit.
I've been against intellectual property rights for a long time. I support the market and the market supports things like Thepiratesbay. Corporations instead spending billions trying to prevent others downloading "their" software (which someone else actually bought), should be trying out new and inventive ways to make money. Movies can be watched in theaters and Musicians can ACTUALLY HAVE CONCERTS? to make money.
Exchanging ideas is the cost of all social interaction. its silly to think one can monopolize control over ALL knowledge and ideas in a unilateral direction
There aint any 'new' ideas. All ideas are either old or VERY old. There exists not a single 'new' idea in the world that didn't exist at least once in the past
I disagree, if people know they can own their idea and profit from it they will be much more likely to come up with ideas then if they know they'll have to keep on coming up with them
I humbly disagree. It would appear that where intellectual property rights are the strongest, innovation is most common. Under the soviet union, there effectively were no property rights, intellectual or otherwise and innovation was stifled. The idea that you do not own ideas that you came up with is extremely marxist, if one wants to protect their own ideas through some kind of trade secret, then the govt could still step in and force it to be "open". Its a catch 22.
@kev3d To further the point, if a chip designer designs a brilliant, fast and cool running processor, but the idea is simply lifted and used by less gifted but cheaper chip manufacturers, the brilliant designers will likely stop working on ideas from which they cannot profit. Much copyright is voluntary anyway, in the case of EULAs. Of course patents and copyrights should not extend beyond the death of the inventor but to throw out the entire concept seems rather Stalinesque.
Especially with something like a fast new chip, you can show a company THAT it works, without explaining HOW it works. After the demonstration you can negotiate compensation in various forms, like a fixed price for the blueprint or a % of the revenue of the sold end-product.
After that, lots of big company would probably love to hire you, at a good salary.
@janc71 And what stops me from stealing someone else's blueprints and selling it to the highest bidder? Whats to stop a large company who has the means to reverse engineer anything I make, then market and sell it a fraction of the cost I would, because they can sell in bulk? Besides, there is so much open source, public domain and fair use materials available, it can hardly be said that IP stifles innovation.
@kev3d "Under the soviet union, there effectively were no property rights, intellectual or otherwise and innovation was stifled."
They were the property of the government, not the common property of its citizens. It was an extreme case of monopoly, strengthening Kokesh's argument.
I understand the argument against intellectual property, but without something at least similiar to it, producing ideas would be a giant free-rider problem.
Eliminating intellectual property rights won't do anything to stop our corporatist system. If anything, it'll do the opposite. You'd support a system where corporations, who HAVE the means to distribute, can just steal anybody's idea, invention, or artistic work, profit off it, without any reimbursement to the original creator? Bullshit. People need to have legal rights to what they create.
I think the clause can be good. solution: put a short term stature of limitation on the rights. the constitution never gives a specific time limit. is it indefinitely or is it a one time only protection, to bring the ideas out into the world? done, problem solved.
If an artist of the seventeenth century drew a picture of 'golden arches'. ...he must assuredly be a thieving time traveler....for we know that McDonald's ORIGINATED GOLDEN ARCHES.....hahaha....basically the 'competitive' MINDSET sucks....it is the mean and strong against the weak and kind. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE FORGOTTEN BY THE MASS MEDIA OF COPYRIGHT? THAT WOULD BE MOST OF HUMANITY.
The Most money ever made on any Concert tour ever.
Consistently was the Greatful Dead.
For years this was the case, they released the rights to their music. You could record them while in the Audience, It didn't matter. They still sold out every show.
And the other thing is the world is full of people with UNRELEASED IDEAS...Just because you release your ideas into public does NOT MEAN THE IDEA originated in ONLY YOU...no...it just means you decided to run in an idea race: PUT IT OUT THERE, and won, but true it is...your idea in a world of billions, just because you make money on it DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONLY YOU OWN OR SINGULARLY ORIGINATED THAT IDEA. In a courtroom one cannot expect justice,unless it is GOD'S OMNIPOTENT HIGH COURT IN ETERNITY.
what is the incentive to invent things if you won't profit from them? That isn't supposed to be a rhetorical question, I'm just curious. I assume that there is still some kind of incentive...
@BagofHay The incentive of inventing things are different. Usually the last incentive is money. And if money is the incentive, or if you have come up with an idea, there are many ways to bring your product to the market, and being the first to develop the capacity for it leaves you with a temporary monopoly. First to market does not need extra incentive for business to strive for.
@theoriginalanomaly Thanks, that makes sense. Interesting point about a temporary monopoly--I guess this actually promotes sustained productivity also, and, like Adam said, it's great for consumers because the those who make what people want succeed. I see how intellectual property is actually a contradiction of free market now!
Anti-IP people like to talk about the abuses of copyright and patents by corporations, and the increasingly draconian measures being passed to enforce those rights, and I agree this is the problem. And the solution is to bar corporations from owning copyrights or patents. Only real human beings invent processes or create art, and only human beings -- not artificial "persons" created by the state -- can own them.
@scottbieser companies motivate inventors though, they provided the facilities and salaries to researchers, so in a sense the inventors had been paid. But, I still think your idea could work somehow... what do you think of this?
@Melki Companies hire inventors on salary based on the anticipation that they will own the invention. If they cannot own the invention, they have no incentive to hire inventors, but instead, to spy on inventors and use their superior material resources to bring the unpaid inventors' ideas to market before the inventors are able to do the same.
@scottbieser I have to agree with you because that's the current situation, and thank you for saying it. But I want to add, that publication matters in this era of onslaught of information. Some might invent something super good, but instead paying attention to them and invest to it, people watch advertisements on mass medias and took it like there's no other products out there. Took big money to advertise, and this too needs return.
sorry but you should read "Against Intellectual Property" by stephen kinsella. And also read "Against Intellectual Monopoly" before you even dare to even propogate such a ridiculous notion that govt instituted Monopolies & Censorship (thats exactly what copyright & patents are) are 'necessary' for innovation to occur.
I doubt you even understand what REAL property is or what is innovation
And proponents of the fictitious IP should lay down a very thorough explanation for ALL the innovations that have taken place prior to IP laws & outside of IP laws
so youd have to explain just how the hell & why like 99.99999% of all innovations take place- How did the wheel come about? why the Cart came about? explain the very existence of Martial Arts. explain the cooking industry & explain the ski industry & explain the fashion industry... etc
So, if I spend two years building a custom automobile, I can claim it as my property. Even though I didn't learn how to build a car all by myself, but stand on the shoulders of generations of engineers and the people who taught me the skills. But if I spend two years writing and drawing a graphic novel, it stops being mine the moment someone else reads it?
What if Governments recognize inventors or solutions creators including new business models creators and clothes designers as "modern time heroes". The scarcity of the world is not of time nor energy but of solutions anyway. So their rewards came from tax money? This way its all about spreading the use of solutions instead of keeping them for themselves.
So how do people suppose to reward people who came up with solutions? The problem is, sometimes the simplest form of invention such as aerodynamic tweaks of a car's body demands so little from reproducers but so much to the thinker...
this might actually be a cogent arguement, except that it is RT television, the propaganda arm of the Putin gov,t! how much "intellectual" development do you think there would be without rewards? This smacks of a russian propaganda move and frankly while you try your best at "intellectual honesty" this is SERIOUSLY lacking!
Im starting a project building the biggest pyramid in the world, in the center of America. It will be bigger then all the pyramids of the world! At the same time Im gonna create a huge number of jobs, and people can be apart of something that will go into the future, way beyond there lifetimes. Something positive, an alternative to the current. contact me if intrested. All needed, Lol.
im an artist and i disagree, their is a lot of competition out their and would hate someone else to take my hard work and earn profits from it while i slaved my self to become a professional, they dont deserve to sit back and wait till i come up with something better so that they can steal it.
@RangoDurango I'm a programmer and i disagree with YOU. People "cover" other artist's songs all the time, but people a majority love the original more. You can't "steal" an idea, bro. It's not real or tangible. If somebody is passing off your work as theirs then sells it to consumers as such, it can be fraud. However, if they credit you for the original lyrics and sing your song their way, i don't see what the issue is.
@s0beit but for that to happen it requires a copyright. My argument is that i support some, i repeat some of the copyright laws especially those of which protect artist like my self. YOU see without copyrights no one would know who was the true creator of the idea, i do believe open forums are great, but i also believe that credit should be applied to those who work on it, you wouldnt be able to get credit without copyright which i now believe they have stolen your right & made an official slave
@AtlasHBS, Im not sure where your logic is (if you have any) and your comment doesnt make any sense at all. Take a look at Linux for example or firefox (mozilla).. Or Android OS.. They are all major fantastic and most innovating companies in the world.. Open Source is the future and the only way for evolving and development in the world. Otherwise we would still be using rock wheels.. This stupid law is a desperate cry for saving an industry that has gone obsolete.AND it will cost the taxpayers!
You have it all backwards. If we took away the concept of IP the country would de evolve into a few select factory owners churning out products that are copies of products invented by individuals. Small factories would be unable to scale up and compete. The monsters would squash all others.
IP is the heart of invention, your "open source" utopia is the fiction.
@AtlasHBS Thank you, i also believe copyrights protect artist, sure it only protects them for 75 yrs but it does its job until the next registration. but i only believe some copyrights are justified some other copyrights are literally killing us like monsanto products, other copyrights are their to keep the public from knowing something important.
@RangoDurango So you only like copyrights that you like? Copyrights will always bend to benefit corporations. Fraud cases wouldn't require copyright or proof of who made what first, there could be institutions set up to protect against that privately. There was many times throughout history where things were public domain, with the internet people can trade information faster. All a copyright or a patent is, is whoever is first owns an idea and can sue other people frivolously with it.
@RangoDurango Fraud is a crime, and each case would be examined by a court of law. The same as it is now in patent violations, except the person who submitted the patent first wouldn't be the benefactor. The difference between copyright privilege and fraud is, if somebody says they wrote the song or presents themselves as your band, you can disprove that is true. Proving them guilty. People will need to take certain measures to protect their info, but at least corporations won't rape us.
Youtube just took down one of my vids because I was teaching people about how the USA has been bankrupt since 1933 because they said it was a scam. Unfortunately it is true and has been true since 1933. This is why FDR said all property is now owned by the state, this includes copyrights.
Thomas Jefferson himself was direly opposed to patent and he didn't want anybody to own a patent for more than 2 years. Oh & by the way Adam you do realize you are arguing on behalf of both libertarianism and socialism.
@erelpc Socialism not in terms of spooky soviet or Chinese boogieman but real socialism shares many of the freedoms of libertarianism such as the liberation of ideas considering its the scientifically sound thing to do considering monopolies hording ideas stifles innovation thus holding society back. In way what he is saying will democratize ideas IMHO Socialism is not to be confused with globalism: I consider myself a libertarian socialist, not to be confused with Stalin, Mao or Hitler.
yeah it's defo better to have information and ideas flowing freely... Ok it won't make the inventors rich... Well not in the monetary sense... But if humanity benefits then that would include them surely? Imagine if all the inventors could work on each others projects? Imagine if during the design process everything was out in the open for everyone to work on! Our civilisation would move on leaps and bounds! I've always said, money and wealth are the things that hold us back the most!
I love this segment. It is freedom based. I think the founders were on Adams side, but also stated 'for a limited times'. The limited time, in my opinion, gives the thinker the incentive to think new things, by adding the exclusivity of that idea to him, for a limited time, so that the individual could capitalize on 'cashing in' so to say in the idea. What do you think?
@benzaintarental No, they got that part wrong, too. By what arbitrary decision of government should that length of time for a forced monopoly exist? See? Doesn't work. Still immoral.
I'm an artist, and before I share my work with the public, I naturally have exclusive rights to it without relying on government coercion. I simply charge a higher price the first time I release it to another party. This way I can make a decent living without relying on copyrights. And as with anything valuable that I possess, I must cover the expense of defending it, and in this case keeping it a secret until I do release it. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay that expense.
@truthadvocate Excellent! That's a great moral system without IP!!! However, I still don't think it's appropriate for you to consider the idea property. A song is composed of notes, and bars, and chords and made with instruments that are the products of other ideas. Your recombination of those ideas into a song does not somehow create property that you can "possess" only an idea that you can temporarily control.
This guy doesn't understand what intellectual property is. Most people who have an opinion on it don't.
No one has ever been able to copyright jeans or an omelette. That's why it never happened. You copyright the specific expression of an idea. So if you invent the standard blues chord progression, anyone can use it. If you put it down in some recognizable format (i.e.recording) only that specific recording is protected.
I guess they'll let anyone on TV. First bad RT spot I've seen though.
SkormFlinxingGlock 1 week ago
Copyright on books is the same as monopoly on goods. Imagine only one company is allowed to make bread. This company has the opportunity to dictate to price if the bread. Imagine there is no copyright on books and I wrote a book that I want to sell for $100; than nobody, who cannot afford to pay, will not have it. What if this is a textbook and students need it? Now imagine there was no copyright on textbooks. The some one will copy this textbook and sell it for $33;
cosmopolite66 2 weeks ago
Intellectual Slavery.
Kaleidomorph 2 weeks ago
I consider no property sacred. Any sort of property must be justified in a society separately in terms of its role in securing more fundamental human rights and keeping the society together. While private property is crucial (at least up to a point) in securing privacy and adequate free speech, intellectual property has no such function.
coosoorlog 1 month ago 2
@coosoorlog Justified by who? To who? Without private property, other rights are meaningless. Without private property with which to make a living (via trade or self-sufficiency), one must use public property, and as such is forced to capitulate to the public's to survive. The most meaningful right is the right to be let alone, and without private property, no-one can find that right.
Progressives or "liberals" tend not to recognize the distinction between rights and entitlements.
MisbehavingMal 3 days ago
@MisbehavingMal That said, I disagree with Intellectual Property. Intellectual property is an entitlement, and a non-specific one at that. I've considered the concept of intellectual property carefully and concluded that you have a right to your idea, but you don't have a right to prevent other people with whom you've shared it from doing as they wish with that idea, because in no reasonable way can that be considered aggression against you.
MisbehavingMal 3 days ago
You could insentivise research and development for known wants and needs like a cure for cancer by building up a reward though something like a telethon that would be given to the first to provide a solution (an idea) and give it up to the public sphere. After that people would compete to provide the good using the idea in the best mannor.
MirageScience 1 month ago
There is Intellectual Property.....its called a secret! Everything else should be free for the public!
Zwerggoldhamster 1 month ago 7
@18StrokesPcketCaddy How did you estimate your loss? I don't believe that anyone is entitled to as much as 400 million dollars unless it is expedient to real economic growth - for instance, Steve Jobs, since he is a vital reason for life-enhancing products like iPhones. But for music (for example) there is no natural reward for creating it anymore - only performing it. If you are very good (popular) at it then you have no reason to worry, since you can draw big crowds.
acphenom 1 month ago
I remember watching this when it was first aired, and asking you about it in chat on Patriot Polls. It was tough for me to swallow. I am now reading Ethics of Liberty and...I get it now :)
drootshnoot 1 month ago
He is 100% right. Copyrights, Trademarks, patents, service, publicity rights, etc are nothing but a hidden form of welfare. Beyond that the whole system is profoundly unfair. Perhaps somebody can explain why a drug that cost a billion dollars to develop and test only gets 17 years protection, but a picture of Kim Kardashian gets her lifetime plus 75 years after she is dead? Probably not going to get rid of them, but all copyrights and patents should be limited to 10 years.
jmaximus9 1 month ago
Intellectual property is not material. Hence, for so long there was no distribution of audio or video. Only when mediums (tapes, optical discs etc.) were created did it become both possible and profitable - w/ or w/o copyright - since only a few owned the means of producing the mediums. Now, essentially what has happened is the internet and PC's have expanded the bourgeoisie to the majority of the population. Does that hinder new ideas? The abundance of free material (e.g. this video) says no.
acphenom 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Informatics Outsourcing is an Intellectual Property service Company providing services for Bio-Chemistry and Bio-Technology Worldwide.
more information visit Informatics Outsourcing from Google search.
kalpanaganeshm 3 months ago
Now if we dissolved IP tomorrow, average joe could nonetheless plug away and invent, the naive and green little inventor he is, and then a corporate steals his idea....they market it more effectively, the have the capital to manufacture on a scale average Joe could not and then consequently average joe gets run out of business. How is that fair?
borgiaforlife 3 months ago
this Adamvstheman is a real dumb dumb......patents actually empower the average joe in his garage making inventions.............it means average joe owns his novel execution rights.............it means he hasn't wasted his time,money,resources,ingenuity and labour....he can reap what he sowed, the corporates simply cannot steal average joe's 'investment'.
borgiaforlife 3 months ago
@borgiaforlife
And what if average joe can't afford a patent anyways? The corporation would steal it anyways. Perhaps we need an overhaul of what a patent is? Poor mans patent doesn't work in court anymore if I'm correct.
panzeraid 2 months ago
@panzeraid
--Doesn't apply to when a corporation steals the intellectual property to the cure for cancer and keeps it to itself to prevent it from being public knowledge -- because it won't be able to keep it a secret when patents don't exist..
SUPREMEMASTER1 2 months ago
@SUPREMEMASTER1
This is an extremely good point! As well as when corporations buy out patents for alternative fuel sources and then shove them away because they wouldn't make a profit. Without patent's we would have the cure to cancer and flying cars that run on water.!
panzeraid 2 months ago
I'm not sure Adam presented the other side well enough to debunk it. I mean, he's saying you can copy awesome movies and re-sell it? Well then the awesome movie wouldn't be made in the first place if they can't profit.
gotitans999 4 months ago
I totally agree, thumbs up.
repatte 4 months ago
Sorry, I normally would agree to you. On this, nope.
magiccatphoto 6 months ago
I've been against intellectual property rights for a long time. I support the market and the market supports things like Thepiratesbay. Corporations instead spending billions trying to prevent others downloading "their" software (which someone else actually bought), should be trying out new and inventive ways to make money. Movies can be watched in theaters and Musicians can ACTUALLY HAVE CONCERTS? to make money.
CelticAlphabet 6 months ago
Amazing that you should go to the trouble of making a high end video about a topic you clearly don't understand very well.
You can't copyright ideas, only the execution of those ideas.
billburns2 6 months ago
Exchanging ideas is the cost of all social interaction. its silly to think one can monopolize control over ALL knowledge and ideas in a unilateral direction
There aint any 'new' ideas. All ideas are either old or VERY old. There exists not a single 'new' idea in the world that didn't exist at least once in the past
swu880 8 months ago
I disagree, if people know they can own their idea and profit from it they will be much more likely to come up with ideas then if they know they'll have to keep on coming up with them
landwalker88 8 months ago
You pwn bro.
skizzarz 8 months ago
I humbly disagree. It would appear that where intellectual property rights are the strongest, innovation is most common. Under the soviet union, there effectively were no property rights, intellectual or otherwise and innovation was stifled. The idea that you do not own ideas that you came up with is extremely marxist, if one wants to protect their own ideas through some kind of trade secret, then the govt could still step in and force it to be "open". Its a catch 22.
kev3d 8 months ago
@kev3d To further the point, if a chip designer designs a brilliant, fast and cool running processor, but the idea is simply lifted and used by less gifted but cheaper chip manufacturers, the brilliant designers will likely stop working on ideas from which they cannot profit. Much copyright is voluntary anyway, in the case of EULAs. Of course patents and copyrights should not extend beyond the death of the inventor but to throw out the entire concept seems rather Stalinesque.
kev3d 8 months ago
@kev3d Nonsense.
Especially with something like a fast new chip, you can show a company THAT it works, without explaining HOW it works. After the demonstration you can negotiate compensation in various forms, like a fixed price for the blueprint or a % of the revenue of the sold end-product.
After that, lots of big company would probably love to hire you, at a good salary.
janc71 1 month ago
@janc71 And what stops me from stealing someone else's blueprints and selling it to the highest bidder? Whats to stop a large company who has the means to reverse engineer anything I make, then market and sell it a fraction of the cost I would, because they can sell in bulk? Besides, there is so much open source, public domain and fair use materials available, it can hardly be said that IP stifles innovation.
kev3d 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kev3d "And what stops me from stealing someone else's blueprints and selling it to the highest bidder?"
Prosecution?
"Whats to stop a large company .... sell in bulk?"
Nothing?
"there is so much open source..."
All consequentialism. I don't care very much about the outcome.
Ideas should not be owned and backed by violence. Like Adam said, IP puts a limit on normal property rights.
janc71 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kev3d "Under the soviet union, there effectively were no property rights, intellectual or otherwise and innovation was stifled."
They were the property of the government, not the common property of its citizens. It was an extreme case of monopoly, strengthening Kokesh's argument.
voltairinedecleyre66 3 months ago
@AdamVsTheManRT - on your next IP segment maybe give Stephan Kinsella a call.
furyofbongos 9 months ago
Such a fool!
amirh1982 9 months ago
I understand the argument against intellectual property, but without something at least similiar to it, producing ideas would be a giant free-rider problem.
Houshalter 9 months ago
Eliminating intellectual property rights won't do anything to stop our corporatist system. If anything, it'll do the opposite. You'd support a system where corporations, who HAVE the means to distribute, can just steal anybody's idea, invention, or artistic work, profit off it, without any reimbursement to the original creator? Bullshit. People need to have legal rights to what they create.
peffp 9 months ago
Absolutely Bang on Adam!
Brilliant!
Unh0lymystic 9 months ago
I think the clause can be good. solution: put a short term stature of limitation on the rights. the constitution never gives a specific time limit. is it indefinitely or is it a one time only protection, to bring the ideas out into the world? done, problem solved.
scalp340 9 months ago
God if someone said Hay check out my Lamborghini, do you wand me to burn you a copy I would be like YEAH!
jaminunit 9 months ago
copying is not theft, end copyright.
LibertarianChristian 9 months ago
If an artist of the seventeenth century drew a picture of 'golden arches'. ...he must assuredly be a thieving time traveler....for we know that McDonald's ORIGINATED GOLDEN ARCHES.....hahaha....basically the 'competitive' MINDSET sucks....it is the mean and strong against the weak and kind. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE FORGOTTEN BY THE MASS MEDIA OF COPYRIGHT? THAT WOULD BE MOST OF HUMANITY.
Solablueangel 9 months ago
The Most money ever made on any Concert tour ever.
Consistently was the Greatful Dead.
For years this was the case, they released the rights to their music. You could record them while in the Audience, It didn't matter. They still sold out every show.
americanbandwidth 9 months ago
And the other thing is the world is full of people with UNRELEASED IDEAS...Just because you release your ideas into public does NOT MEAN THE IDEA originated in ONLY YOU...no...it just means you decided to run in an idea race: PUT IT OUT THERE, and won, but true it is...your idea in a world of billions, just because you make money on it DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONLY YOU OWN OR SINGULARLY ORIGINATED THAT IDEA. In a courtroom one cannot expect justice,unless it is GOD'S OMNIPOTENT HIGH COURT IN ETERNITY.
Solablueangel 9 months ago
Great video---1 question:
what is the incentive to invent things if you won't profit from them? That isn't supposed to be a rhetorical question, I'm just curious. I assume that there is still some kind of incentive...
BagofHay 9 months ago
@BagofHay The incentive of inventing things are different. Usually the last incentive is money. And if money is the incentive, or if you have come up with an idea, there are many ways to bring your product to the market, and being the first to develop the capacity for it leaves you with a temporary monopoly. First to market does not need extra incentive for business to strive for.
theoriginalanomaly 9 months ago
@theoriginalanomaly Thanks, that makes sense. Interesting point about a temporary monopoly--I guess this actually promotes sustained productivity also, and, like Adam said, it's great for consumers because the those who make what people want succeed. I see how intellectual property is actually a contradiction of free market now!
BagofHay 8 months ago
Legal slavery... it's right before our eyes
raw420x 9 months ago
Excellent!
srichman 9 months ago
Anti-IP people like to talk about the abuses of copyright and patents by corporations, and the increasingly draconian measures being passed to enforce those rights, and I agree this is the problem. And the solution is to bar corporations from owning copyrights or patents. Only real human beings invent processes or create art, and only human beings -- not artificial "persons" created by the state -- can own them.
scottbieser 9 months ago
@scottbieser companies motivate inventors though, they provided the facilities and salaries to researchers, so in a sense the inventors had been paid. But, I still think your idea could work somehow... what do you think of this?
Melki 9 months ago
@Melki Companies hire inventors on salary based on the anticipation that they will own the invention. If they cannot own the invention, they have no incentive to hire inventors, but instead, to spy on inventors and use their superior material resources to bring the unpaid inventors' ideas to market before the inventors are able to do the same.
scottbieser 8 months ago
@scottbieser I have to agree with you because that's the current situation, and thank you for saying it. But I want to add, that publication matters in this era of onslaught of information. Some might invent something super good, but instead paying attention to them and invest to it, people watch advertisements on mass medias and took it like there's no other products out there. Took big money to advertise, and this too needs return.
Melki 8 months ago
@scottbieser
sorry but you should read "Against Intellectual Property" by stephen kinsella. And also read "Against Intellectual Monopoly" before you even dare to even propogate such a ridiculous notion that govt instituted Monopolies & Censorship (thats exactly what copyright & patents are) are 'necessary' for innovation to occur.
I doubt you even understand what REAL property is or what is innovation
swu880 8 months ago
@swu880
And proponents of the fictitious IP should lay down a very thorough explanation for ALL the innovations that have taken place prior to IP laws & outside of IP laws
so youd have to explain just how the hell & why like 99.99999% of all innovations take place- How did the wheel come about? why the Cart came about? explain the very existence of Martial Arts. explain the cooking industry & explain the ski industry & explain the fashion industry... etc
swu880 8 months ago
So, if I spend two years building a custom automobile, I can claim it as my property. Even though I didn't learn how to build a car all by myself, but stand on the shoulders of generations of engineers and the people who taught me the skills. But if I spend two years writing and drawing a graphic novel, it stops being mine the moment someone else reads it?
scottbieser 9 months ago
What if Governments recognize inventors or solutions creators including new business models creators and clothes designers as "modern time heroes". The scarcity of the world is not of time nor energy but of solutions anyway. So their rewards came from tax money? This way its all about spreading the use of solutions instead of keeping them for themselves.
Melki 9 months ago
So how do people suppose to reward people who came up with solutions? The problem is, sometimes the simplest form of invention such as aerodynamic tweaks of a car's body demands so little from reproducers but so much to the thinker...
Melki 9 months ago
this might actually be a cogent arguement, except that it is RT television, the propaganda arm of the Putin gov,t! how much "intellectual" development do you think there would be without rewards? This smacks of a russian propaganda move and frankly while you try your best at "intellectual honesty" this is SERIOUSLY lacking!
Red9Man763 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Im starting a project building the biggest pyramid in the world, in the center of America. It will be bigger then all the pyramids of the world! At the same time Im gonna create a huge number of jobs, and people can be apart of something that will go into the future, way beyond there lifetimes. Something positive, an alternative to the current. contact me if intrested. All needed, Lol.
cstyle3435 9 months ago
im an artist and i disagree, their is a lot of competition out their and would hate someone else to take my hard work and earn profits from it while i slaved my self to become a professional, they dont deserve to sit back and wait till i come up with something better so that they can steal it.
RangoDurango 9 months ago
@RangoDurango I'm a programmer and i disagree with YOU. People "cover" other artist's songs all the time, but people a majority love the original more. You can't "steal" an idea, bro. It's not real or tangible. If somebody is passing off your work as theirs then sells it to consumers as such, it can be fraud. However, if they credit you for the original lyrics and sing your song their way, i don't see what the issue is.
s0beit 9 months ago
@s0beit but for that to happen it requires a copyright. My argument is that i support some, i repeat some of the copyright laws especially those of which protect artist like my self. YOU see without copyrights no one would know who was the true creator of the idea, i do believe open forums are great, but i also believe that credit should be applied to those who work on it, you wouldnt be able to get credit without copyright which i now believe they have stolen your right & made an official slave
RangoDurango 9 months ago
@AtlasHBS, Im not sure where your logic is (if you have any) and your comment doesnt make any sense at all. Take a look at Linux for example or firefox (mozilla).. Or Android OS.. They are all major fantastic and most innovating companies in the world.. Open Source is the future and the only way for evolving and development in the world. Otherwise we would still be using rock wheels.. This stupid law is a desperate cry for saving an industry that has gone obsolete.AND it will cost the taxpayers!
lazyx9 9 months ago
You have it all backwards. If we took away the concept of IP the country would de evolve into a few select factory owners churning out products that are copies of products invented by individuals. Small factories would be unable to scale up and compete. The monsters would squash all others.
IP is the heart of invention, your "open source" utopia is the fiction.
AtlasHBS 9 months ago
@AtlasHBS Thank you, i also believe copyrights protect artist, sure it only protects them for 75 yrs but it does its job until the next registration. but i only believe some copyrights are justified some other copyrights are literally killing us like monsanto products, other copyrights are their to keep the public from knowing something important.
RangoDurango 9 months ago
@RangoDurango So you only like copyrights that you like? Copyrights will always bend to benefit corporations. Fraud cases wouldn't require copyright or proof of who made what first, there could be institutions set up to protect against that privately. There was many times throughout history where things were public domain, with the internet people can trade information faster. All a copyright or a patent is, is whoever is first owns an idea and can sue other people frivolously with it.
s0beit 9 months ago
@RangoDurango Fraud is a crime, and each case would be examined by a court of law. The same as it is now in patent violations, except the person who submitted the patent first wouldn't be the benefactor. The difference between copyright privilege and fraud is, if somebody says they wrote the song or presents themselves as your band, you can disprove that is true. Proving them guilty. People will need to take certain measures to protect their info, but at least corporations won't rape us.
s0beit 9 months ago
This video needs to go viral on Youtube.
mercen144 9 months ago
Youtube just took down one of my vids because I was teaching people about how the USA has been bankrupt since 1933 because they said it was a scam. Unfortunately it is true and has been true since 1933. This is why FDR said all property is now owned by the state, this includes copyrights.
mercen144 9 months ago
Bill Gates is a fucking thug who loves intellectual property rights.
QuantumMaths 9 months ago
Copyrights & Patents are complete bullshit in the modern age,
Outside of a complete police state the internet has made them completely unenforceable.
BadSwineDOTcom 9 months ago
China will copy everything if u guys didn't have intellectual properties
superphi 9 months ago
@superphi imagine all the great and improved products they could sell to us based on that
modelmark 9 months ago
Will Ron Paul repeal the patent act?
erelpc 9 months ago
Thomas Jefferson himself was direly opposed to patent and he didn't want anybody to own a patent for more than 2 years. Oh & by the way Adam you do realize you are arguing on behalf of both libertarianism and socialism.
MadXMax187 9 months ago
@MadXMax187 In what way is he arguing for both?
erelpc 9 months ago
@erelpc Socialism not in terms of spooky soviet or Chinese boogieman but real socialism shares many of the freedoms of libertarianism such as the liberation of ideas considering its the scientifically sound thing to do considering monopolies hording ideas stifles innovation thus holding society back. In way what he is saying will democratize ideas IMHO Socialism is not to be confused with globalism: I consider myself a libertarian socialist, not to be confused with Stalin, Mao or Hitler.
MadXMax187 9 months ago
@MadXMax187 Yeah, true, I can see that. Libertarianism and socialism aren't always opposites.
erelpc 9 months ago
What I learned in school. As an artist. Art is not created in a vacuum! :)
Lurker1979 9 months ago
yeah it's defo better to have information and ideas flowing freely... Ok it won't make the inventors rich... Well not in the monetary sense... But if humanity benefits then that would include them surely? Imagine if all the inventors could work on each others projects? Imagine if during the design process everything was out in the open for everyone to work on! Our civilisation would move on leaps and bounds! I've always said, money and wealth are the things that hold us back the most!
snaz27 9 months ago
I hate how there is a ad of obama right next to this video. I have to look at that criminal obama face the hole time while I watch this video.
twn5858 9 months ago
I love this segment. It is freedom based. I think the founders were on Adams side, but also stated 'for a limited times'. The limited time, in my opinion, gives the thinker the incentive to think new things, by adding the exclusivity of that idea to him, for a limited time, so that the individual could capitalize on 'cashing in' so to say in the idea. What do you think?
benzaintarental 9 months ago
@benzaintarental No, they got that part wrong, too. By what arbitrary decision of government should that length of time for a forced monopoly exist? See? Doesn't work. Still immoral.
AdamKokesh 9 months ago
@benzaintarental,
I'm an artist, and before I share my work with the public, I naturally have exclusive rights to it without relying on government coercion. I simply charge a higher price the first time I release it to another party. This way I can make a decent living without relying on copyrights. And as with anything valuable that I possess, I must cover the expense of defending it, and in this case keeping it a secret until I do release it. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay that expense.
truthadvocate 9 months ago
@truthadvocate Excellent! That's a great moral system without IP!!! However, I still don't think it's appropriate for you to consider the idea property. A song is composed of notes, and bars, and chords and made with instruments that are the products of other ideas. Your recombination of those ideas into a song does not somehow create property that you can "possess" only an idea that you can temporarily control.
AdamKokesh 9 months ago
Comment removed
asetentay8 9 months ago
damn Adam!...stupid facebook! is acting like the criminals they were designed to be!...
MsJustanotherhuman 9 months ago
The movie industry started in NJ. I think we need to bring it back too!
atchisrj1 9 months ago