Being radical is not the same as being stupid - Use your brains for once!

[DQ15]

whats the name of the song?

[dakshinamurti]

Music is by Coldfinger, a portuguese band. Don't remember the name :)

[davidsmind]

It's not, as you state, that one couldn't own anything besides land if no intellectual property rights existed. Logically, it is only that you couldn't own the IDEA of anything without IP. Which is well and good.

If farmer A had the rights to limit farmer B from planting corn in wet dirt as opposed to dry because farmer A did that first and therefore owned the idea of wet-dirt-planting....well I think you get the point. No progress could ever be made on anything. The world would simply stagnate

[dakshinamurti]

IP is not about owning an idea, but a concrete implementation of an idea. I know this can get confusing. From my perspective, I design t-shirts. If I could not lay any claim of property over my designs, anyone, let's say, a chinese could just copy paste it to his webstore, and sell it at half the price. While this is awesome for the consumer, it is awful for producers. I would not be making any more tee designs. Apply same principle to any invention. That, my friend, is halting production.

[dakshinamurti]

this is all a game of incentives. When you know you will be able to profit/explore the fruits of your labor, free from parasites, you feel highly motivated to express your creativity, solve problems, to be an entrepreneur. if you are at the mercy of everyone else, if you know that what you do will be expropriated from you, that your market will be diluted or even obliterated by a parasite, then you will feel highly motivated to be a leech. If everyone is a leech, nobody is a producer.

[dakshinamurti]

And if noone is a producer, leeches have nothing to leech, and consumers have nothing to consume. So it is in my opinion not in the best interest of the consumer to reward leeches. This isn't even a moral matter. It's recognizing what works in practice, and until anyone can demonstrate (not assert, but demonstrate) how it is awesome for all of us to take incentives from producers and give them to leeches, I stick to the proposition that IP is desirable, especially if you are a creator.

[davidsmind]

We must make a distinction between IP for artistic works (designs for shirts, works of art, songs etc.) and scientific improvements and discoveries.

It is a very new concept that the later be protected for anything but novel mechanical configuration (for which you would get a patent) and often times throughout history you'll find the patent-holders are not the creators nor producers, but brokers or hucksters who got to the patent office before the well meaning scientists. (Penicillin, Tesla's)

[davidsmind]

Many scientists (dare I say most) work not "to be an entrepreneur" but to solve problems. It is often useful for them if there is a benefactor, but certainly not always necessary.

Anyhow, Chomsky said it best in his book "On MisEducation":

[The current system imposes] "intellectual property rights" restrictions of an extreme sort that rich societies never accepted during their period of development but that they now intend to use to protect home-based corporations:"

[davidsmind]

"To destroy the pharmaceutical industry in poorer countries, for example--and, incidentally, to block technological innovations, such as improved production processes for patented products. Progress is no more a desideratum than markets, unless it yields benefits for those who count."

So, essentially, IP Laws could theoretically be used as a protection for the enterprising scientist, but not in their current form and/or implementation. Currently IP is used as an attack.

[reddwarf2300282]

From economic point of view copyrights and patents bring more damage to economy than benefits. They reduce competition and create monopolies, which reduce economic growth and research. More on this subject can be found in book "Against intellectual monopoly".

[dakshinamurti]

Hi and thanks for commenting. Your assessment is wrong. It is true that artists in certain areas can still be profitable, despite being robbed. Like for instance, a musician can earn by throwing gigs. But one is not obligated to throw gigs. I personally know some musicians that never gave any gigs and don't want to. They just want to compose and sell their songs. So the fact that you can earn by doing something else, is dorta besides the point at hand, that is, that a creator be protected

[dakshinamurti]

from theft/expropriation. I am also against patents by the way. Murray Rothbard is favorable to copyrights but against patents. That's my view. If you want to know why one is cool and the other not, do a simple search for the chapter of ethics of liberty about intellectual property.

[reddwarf2300282]

I am strongly against copyrights and patents. They are not nessesary for artists, writers to earn money. If they are not nessesary, then we should abolish them. It would abolish also unnessesary coercion, violence and bring people closer to free society.

[delouseyourself]

Out of curiosity, you defend intellectual property, but what of other intangible properties, like the comeliness of a woman, the beauty of a tree on the lawn of a home, or the loveliness of a river that one observes?

Say I were to photograph a beautiful woman; who owns the photo, is it me who mixed my labor with the capital goods of the camera and film/SD card or is it the woman? I ask the same question of the tree or the river, assuming both were privately owned.

[dakshinamurti]

Hey thanks for reaching out. I had never thought about that before. I'd say it is you who owns the photo. The inanimate objects can't do no owning (trees, rivers, etc) mostly due to lacking a mind. Now the woman, I'd say she doesn't own the pictures (unless she hired the photographer to take them for her). If she is a model, she could be hired by the photographer for a fee. It would be wise to lay down the terms of the photographic session beforehand. That way, all is safeguarded.

[delouseyourself]

Let me try and clarify my question:

Let's focus on the tree: You're driving down a private road. While on the road you happen past a farm, owned by a farmer who lives elsewhere. There is a tree on his property wish to photograph. Without a great deal of research you couldn't know who owned the tree but the lighting is perfect and you snap the photo and sell it later on your website.

Who owns the photo? Is it the unsought farmer who owns the land and the tree, or is it you, the photographer?

[delouseyourself]

For further clarification, you photograph the tree from the private road which you have permission from the owner to use, so you never trespassed.

[dakshinamurti]

In my opinion, and this is just hypothetical, as in reality, in anarcho-capitalism, all that matters is the opinion of the judge (private court/arbitration firm), I think that it is the photographer that owns the picture. That's how I would decide, if I was the judge, since no harm/loss was caused in the process, and since privacy rights are dependent on people covering the space they do not wish others to see. I can see things all around, for miles. My camera can see them 2.

[dakshinamurti]

I would not be causing any devaluation of the property by taking a picture (in principle, and any claim to the contrary would need to establish nexus of causality between me taking a picture and the tree losing market value, within reason). You can take pictures from the streets and capture images from inside people's houses I believe. There are curtains to uphold privacy :)

[dakshinamurti]

Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but I follow the KISS principle (keep it simple stupid) :) I see myself as a very pragmatic person.

[delouseyourself]

Excellent points and while I disagree with the subjectivity of the arbiter to make the decision and thereby establish case law, I agree that the photo belongs to the photographer.

Let's move further: Let's say there was a rock face on the same property, and the owner painted a large and colorful mural on the rock. A photographer snaps a photo of the rock-face mural (again from the road, so no trespassing occurs) and subsequently attempts to sell the photo.

Who owns this photo?

[dakshinamurti]

In principle it is the same. Just as long as there is no harm done to the mural painter. I assume he is not trying to hide the mural or anything hehe, so I see no difference from the previous example.

[delouseyourself]

Okay, I agree with you.

Moving on, let's presume a craftsman blows glass and sells it to an individual who then photographs the blown glass and attempts to sell the photo.

Who owns this photo, the glass blower or the photographer?

[dakshinamurti]

photographer.

[ybworld]

(...) used...though you might say STOLE an idea from COMPAQ and they made a ton of money on it! But it's legit...why? Because it's legal. So all you are doing, my friend, is supporting the law. This law is founded in NO PRINCIPLE whatsoever. It is loosely based on one, but it is not founded on a principle. What I have shown here is that designs can be copied in a basic manner, and that is 'competition,' but should something be 100% copied, it is considered immoral and illegal. Hipocrisy.

[ybworld]

(...) release a copycat product, and take most of the profits away in the market. Now...is that fair? In this day and age, that's BUSINESS. If motorola decides to release an iPhone clone and it spreads like wildfire and steals 80% of the iPhone's market, Apple can sue, but if they lose, that's BUSINESS. Why is this an acceptable argument, but spreading warez and pirated songs/books/movies is not? How is stealing a design fair but a duplicate somehow theft? The difference is in the law.

[ybworld]

(Now do not split hairs and say 'blueprint copies of a product is infringement' - I know that)...but consider this. Compaq...yes COMPAQ was the first company to release a digital audio player with a large harddrive in it (5gb, check wikipedia) and they did it in 1998, I believe...yet it was Apple who rocketed to profit heaven when the iPod's sales took off in 2004. Apple did not break any laws (afaik) and is not likely the subject of your video...yet they did the same thing, they used (cont)

[ybworld]

See...the funny thing about this is that I just wrapped up a class where we discussed how a company basically could not succeed in the market it tried to enter, because its competition was far more effective at marketing, had a distribution network that it couldn't compete with, and could offer coupons and price promotions out the wazoo. Because of this, this new player would introduce an innovative product that the market had never seen, and the big players would just (continued)

[ybworld]

Understand that having 20 year patents and 75 year copyrights is exploting the many for the benefit of the few. And the excuse used to perpetuate it is the little guy. This is farcical and you know it! Observe reality! Prescription drugs have gone the way of pop culture..."we'll only back this if we can make a killing selling it"(pun intended). Why help the fucking problem! Use your time for more productive issues (like the loss of civil liberties for 'security')!

[dakshinamurti]

Well, I respect you opinion, though I, as a creator, an artist, an author, acting in my own rational self-interest and having pretty good reasons to back my claims up, obviously and respectfully disagree. I do think Stefan Kinsela makes a good point, but I find Rothbard's approach more correct. And I cannot support parasytic behaviour, living out of leaching another person's intellectual work for profit. It is not MY way.

[ybworld]

I personally do not have an opinion on the principles of intellectual property, and how they relate to those of personal liberty. Principles are more important than rules and arguments, because it is easy to obfuscate and then violate principles with a good argument. And I respect Rothbard. Since I have no principles regarding intellectual property, and actually prefer the constitutional ruling at this time, our disagreement is based in expansion and protection only.

[ybworld]

This is whining and hand-wringing. There is so much junk music out on the market and this is part of the reason for it, because 'everyone' wants money! When you take the money out of it, people find more productive things to do with their time. Reality is, if these people were so fucking talented, they would indeed earn a good living. People who are productive do well, and people who need to control others to do well are generally lazy.

[ybworld]

IP law advocates act as if people who produce works are not going to earn a cent or earn a living unless they are actually paid.

When people get huffy and emotional over IP protection, I feel it is time to step back and realize that they are really defending their 'right' to profit from the labor of others. Once you make something and bring it into the world, there is nothing 'yours' about it, unless you own it. And by own I mean posess, not CONTROL. IP protection = social control.

[ftkmnm]

what?

[dakshinamurti]

Yeah, I guess it's increasingly hard to grasp nowadays. Maybe because there is so much free stuff/technology, and freebies are used so much as a marketing tactic, that people have begun to actually feel that they somehow have the right/are entitled 2 just have value for free. Insane if you ask me :)

[ftkmnm]

oh ok.your really smart. are you like on youtube all the time cuz i just commented that like 10 minutes ago.

[kopper]

Whoever made this must assume everyone is a speed reader. Seriously, slow it down. I read a lot and I still couldn't keep up.

[dakshinamurti]

I'm sorry. I did my best, but I recognize that it takes above average skill to keep up. Still, It is pretty easy to get around that, simply by pausing the video :) Neat trick hehe

[AmazingAnarchist]

You're freaking awesome, dude. Word! Couldn't agree with you more. I am definitely putting this on my favorites as reference material for Noob atheists.

[anarkoFred]

Artist, Searcher, Inventors should be rewarded for their indispensable work, but without the taxing and spending power of a State the enforcement of an IP system as we know it is very unlikely. Theft is theft but stealing from others (through taxation) to protect your personal property (IP) is also theft. We must think of an alternative IP system.

[dakshinamurti]

Hello. I totally agree that the system should be built upon private entities. A creator could sue a person that steals his work, hurting him by several causes like market erosion. Since the court system would be fully private, only relevant parties have to pay for the verdict. I totally agree person A shouldn't be charged to support enforcement of person B's rights. In the video I try to point reasons as to why the right of property can and should be granted on non-scarce goods.

[dakshinamurti]

And above all, I mean to argue against what I perceive to be a false dichotomy between physical and intangible items, that, in my view, is not a solid basis to justify the difference in statute between those 2 types of items, that grant protection to one kind, and grant no protection to the other. I think it is artificial. And yes, I come from a moral objectivity frame of mind. Maybe that's y I don't see this case as Preference. Peace. Love 95% of your videos :)

[Moragauth]

The basis is not tangible/intangible, but scarce/non-scarce. The anti-IP view is based on Menger's theory of the good and neo-Lockean theories of appropriation.

[dakshinamurti]

Hi :) You can substitute tangible/intangible with scarce/non-scarce in my prior message, because deep down, that was what I meant.

[dakshinamurti]

Hello. I am glad you think it is optimal. I just don't see it as a matter of preference. The final slide I made was intentional. I defend that one of the common denominators of a polycentric rules system made of private courts is the protection and recognition of the reality of IP. I don't mean to defend IP because current LAW fixes an expiration date, and I don't get that from watching this video. That's a small detail in the ensemble that makes up the whole case.

[brainpolice2]

See Stefan Kinsella for the best libertarian counter-arguments to this that I've seen.

[dakshinamurti]

Sure will, my friend. It's always important to know the other side's best case :)