Re: Intellectual Property Rights

[ObjectivistAesthetic]

People patent products in the fashion industry all the time (perfumes, zippers, velcro, fabrics, patterns, etc.).

[Omroon]

sorry if my english fails sometimes

[Omroon]

my commentaries start down there ^^

[Omroon]

The only way to stabilish propriety rights without using force would be:

The inventor/author sells whatver he did under the condition, in a contract, that this will not be copied by this person nor will be distributed nor lent nor given..... its very complicated... not very pratical...

[Omroon]

Intellectual property is not very defensable philosophically:

You would need to accept government using force against third parties, prohibiting then of copying work of other persons. The person who is copying did not signed any contract promissing not to copy what he obtained.

[Omroon]

Other example: If i see a poem, i can tell it to my girlfriend without the authorization of the author since they are my toughts too now. Not only yours.

I cant see a link between not-imposing intellectual propriety rights and forcing someone to make the toughts public. Of course that would still not happen, you are the owner of your body and you have the right to not publish anything. Any attempt to use force against you would be a violation of course.

[Omroon]

Jacob, contrary to you, i see no philosophical problems of having no intellectual property rights and see some pratical problems with that.

Let me adress the philosophical problem you noted: Once is in your head its yours, of course, however, if a similar/exact copy of it is in my mind this is mine too.

Example: You are an architect, you invent a new building design, which is very cool. If I see your work, this design is my tought too, therefore i can use however i want to use it.

[Eldxale42]

I've been working on this string of ones and zeroes. I've spent hours working on it. I finally finished twenty minutes ago. The result was this video. I didn't know this video existed even ten minutes ago. Do I not own my own thoughts?

Of course you own your own thoughts, but if someone else arrives independently at those thoughts, you can't accuse them of copyright infringement.

[egokick]

If you can control the flow of information without using intellectual property rights (force), i.e. keep the knowledge of how to create your product secret so that you may maintain a monopoly in that area, then I don't see a problem. However if you are only capable of making a profit with the use of force because your product is inherently easy to imitate then you should focus on either obtaining more loyal consumers or creating a better product than your competitors.

[bbb695]

How do you get from no IP to forcing you to reveal all of your ideas? Once the idea is in some else’s head it becomes part of their thoughts and so by your argument it becomes their property, you still own your thoughts they own theirs, no force and no violation of property rights. On the other hand if we have IP then you can own my thoughts and you can use force against me if I use my own property in a way you don’t like.

[bitbutter]

'if i own my mind and my body, then i necessarily own what derives out of my mind and body'

There are problems with this i think. The first that springs to mind is; it's not inconceivable that technology (that you own) would enable you to create a clone of yourself. We probably agree that you don't own this clone, despite it being the product of your mind and body (and property). [contd]

[bitbutter]

@bitbutter The other thing that i think is relevant here: I'm sympathetic to the idea that property rights properly apply to scarce resources only. Since ideas aren't scarce in the same way that, say, land is (a person can 'receive' an idea without its originator 'losing' that idea), it's not appropriate to apply property rights to them.

[MirageScience]

Meh idk I think intellectual property rights are good :/

[GumbaMasta]

And that shirt is still overpriced.

To be fair, looking at what most fashion designers make giving them away for free would be overpiriced.

[Libertarianist]

I am profoundly in doubt that Hollywood would still be making 300 million dollar movies without copyright laws protecting them.

Things are being published in the public domain, but I don't expect to see any motivator to cause public domain development to increase if copyright and patent laws were abolished. Progress would slow tremendously.

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist Having no IP is not the same as publishing everything in the public domain. All Hollywood would need to do is delay the release (or even production) of the DVD/Blue ray until after cinema takings have paid for the making of the film.

[Libertarianist]

@bbb695 I don't see that working out too well. It's not easy to stop people from copying the movie even before it's released on local media. Why make the industry have to do things that way when it's a lot easier to establish IP.

It's the tragedy of the commons, people can either donate, and have the movie come out or not. Or they can not donate and in all probability get the same result.

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist And yet cinemas still make money.

The reason most films are pirated before they are released is because the studios make preview DVDs to send to critics and sails departments.

"Why make the industry have to do things that way when it's a lot easier to establish IP."

You want to know why I want the industry to be responsible for protecting its own ideas when it’s easier to just trample on the rights of everyone else!

[Libertarianist]

@bbb695 Copyright law does not infringe on your freedom. I consider freedom to be your ability to do things. If a movie is never produced than you don't have the ability to see it, ergo hollywood is only INCREASING freedom by producing their films. To argue otherwise is like arguing that you have a right to their thoughts, like Jacob said.

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist If I sell you a DVD with movie on it what right do I have to then dictate what you can and cannot do with that DVD? If I am able to set limits on what you can and cannot do with the property that you have legally acquired then I am infringing on your rights. Every Copyright for the written word limits what you can do with your own paper and pen, every Copyright of digital media limits what you can do with your blank CDs and every patent limits what you can build.

[Libertarianist]

@bbb695 I'm glad you asked that question because the answer is that you have every right. Every transaction is a contract and can be written to include clauses prohibiting reproduction broadcasts etc.

Copyright law is effectively a law that enables that contract to be applied to the media itself, rather than to an individual transaction so that if someone person breaches the contract (which is virtually impossible to track down and prove) the material is still protected. continued

[Libertarianist]

@Libertarianist But I'm a consequentialist so if you want to convince me you're going to throw out those the philosophical appeals and base your arguments on the ultimate outcomes of whatever policy.

Here's what I see happening if we abolished IP.

1. Most producers would shut down immediately, it simply would no longer be an economically viable industry.

2. The few producers left would have no economic incentive whatsoever to publish anything on local media. continued

[Libertarianist]

@Libertarianist Meaning all new movies would forever be condemned to theatrical screenings.

3. To stay in business, the production companies would necessarily have to employ profoundly intrusive security on anyone who comes to their theater because ONE person sneaking in a camera, or one corrupt employee could potentially cause the theater to loose over 100 million dollars in revenue.

[Libertarianist]

@Libertarianist All in all, I would experience a dramatic reduction in freedom. I'd have a much smaller selection of songs, books, and movies to choose from. Movies would have much lower budgets, ticket prices would be much higher, and I couldn't watch them without consenting to being cavity searched.

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist You are getting confused between freedom and consumer choice. Assuming you are correct about the consequences of scrapping IP you would suffer a reduction in consumer choice, nothing more nothing less.

You can give the slave any number of books, songs and movies and he will still be a slave. The only real freedom is freedom from, freedom from slavery, government intervention, religion, confiscation.

[Libertarianist]

@bbb695 If your definition of freedom is so broad that you consider yourself more free if you are free to duplicate that which doesn't exist, than if the thing exists, but you have to purchase it through a specific entity, than fuck your definition of freedom. You're trying to argue semantics and that will never work on me.

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist this is not semantics its what the word freedom means, seriously go look it up on Dictionarydotcom. I consider myself more free if I can do whatever I want with my property and less free when some one else has a veto over what I can do with my property. You on the other hand seem to think that you are more free if governments are able to grant and enforce monopolies at the point of a gun.

[Libertarianist]

@bbb695 First of all, dictionarydotcom does give definitions consistent with my own, so there. Second, the very fact that you're bringing up the dictionary necessarily means that you are arguing semantics. Semantics is the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word. As in, I can't believe you made me discuss the semantics of the word 'semantics'.

If you're using a dictionary, you're just arguing semantics. Don't you get it?

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist over time the profet from any theatrical screening of a given film would be reduced to the point where no one will screen it (simply because they would make more by screening a newer film) at that point it becomes profitable to sell DVDs.

3 All buisnesses have a cost of exclusion, just take a look at how drive-in movies have changed over time to stop free-loaders. Production companies would need to police there own staff and impose penalties on those who break the rules.

[Libertarianist]

@bbb695 It becomes profitable to sell DVDs only if you have intellectual property rights, otherwise, as soon as those DVDs hit the shelves everyone in their world and their grandmother can just download the DVD for free, or buy it from someone who sells them for little more than the cost of a blank disk plus the packaging.

In the current it is profitable to release the DVD because they can mark it up. Otherwise, screenings would become infrequent but never stop as demand never quite reaches 0.

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist We need IP so that production companies can charge more for DVDs! Without IP all DVDs would cost a fraction over the production cost. People are fully capable of getting films for free now and yet people still buy DVDs. watch that video I linked to, He talks about they have made money selling books under creative commons

Screening would stop when the opportunity cost (the profit that they could make by screening a more popular film) exceeds the profit they and currently making

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist Take a look at the videos that Jacob posted of how this works in the fashion industry;

full version here watch?v=8KSua3Nczjk

Here’s my view

1Ineficent producers that only survive today because of IP law would go out of business and there assets would be purchased by more efficient producers.

2 The remaining producers would find ways to reduce the cost of exclusion.

3 Everything would be produced by the most efficient producer and not by the guy who came up with the idea first

[Libertarianist]

@bbb695 I admit that IP is unnecessary and occasionally hindering in some industries, but not all. The fashion industry is very different from say film and pharmaceuticals. In the aforementioned industries, the aforementioned industries require multi-million dollar investments that, once a product is produced, can be easily duplicated.

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist Pharmaceuticals are only easy to duplicate because drug companies are required to divulge the recipe, and I have already outlined a system where the film industry could still make money.

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist If you are a consequentialist then why call yourself Libertarianist? sounds like false advertising to me :-)

[Libertarianist]

@bbb695 I am a libertarian because I think libertarian policies produce greater results across the board. Smaller government means the rich get richer, but it also means the poor get richer.

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist So you are a libertarian who has no actual interest in liberty?

If totalitarianism produced the best results would you call yourself Totalitarianist?

[Libertarianist]

@bbb695 I already told you arguing semantics is pointless, so why do you persist? You draw an arbitrary distinction between consumer choice and liberty and I don't. I think men are much freer today than they 100 years ago when the government was smaller because back then, a lack of technology made the world itself a coercive force. You can't convince me that I'm anti-liberty if you refuse to consider my perspective. Stop being childish and think about what arguments I might consider relevant.

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist I think its interesting that you are unable to see a destinction between consumer choice and liberty, I also think it is interesting that you would call me childish for not considering what you might consider relevent when you chose to ignore a comment I made that refuted your IP as a contract argument. But lets try a slightley diffrent tact. If a componey discontinues a product and no alternative product is produced is brought to market has your freedom decreased and if so why?

[Libertarianist]

@bbb695 Yes, because you no longer have the ability to consume that product. A PERSON isn't forcing you to go without that product, but the new circumstances are. It doesn't matter if you are being forced by circumstance or by men with guns, you have less freedom in both cases. And don't object by arguing that you have the freedom to produce the good on your own, because that would be akin to arguing that you have the freedom to break the law.

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist So doesn’t that mean that any producer who fails to make his goods available at the lowest possible price is oppressing you? After all if he sold his goods at the lowest possible price you would be "Free" to consume more both in terms of quantity and variety, by not doing so he is placing limits on your freedom (I am assuming the lowest possible price is one that still provides a profit so that there is an incentive to produce in the first place).

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist A sail is a transfer of ownership; if there is any restriction on what I can do with it I don’t own it. If you want to set up a contract detailing how an item can be used then fine but don’t pretend it’s a sail.

Copyright law is not contract enforcement, if it was that it would have no power over 3rd parties. I have never purchased any harry potter book or paid to see any of the films so no contract can exist, but I am still restricted from writing and selling my own version.

[Libertarianist]

@bbb695 A sail is a big canvas triangle used to propel boats by redirecting the wind.

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist  You had the choice of responding to my point or my grammar, you decided to take the cheap shot and ignore the argument

[Libertarianist]

@bbb695 That's mainly because your point was semantical and irrelevant. And I wasn't pointing out a grammar mistake, I was pointing out a spelling mistake. See? Isn't it annoying when someone ignores the issue and deviates to semantics?

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist No word was misspelled I simply used the wrong word making it grammar not spelling. Want to defend your IP as contract position yet?

[Libertarianist]

@bbb695 No, you misspelled the word, and the way you misspelled it happened to match the spelling of a completely different word. So, unless you were actually thinking of actual sails, as opposed to sales, when you wrote that comment, it was a spelling mistake.

As for your question, you said, "If you want to set up a contract detailing how an item can be used then fine but don’t pretend it’s a sail." That's a semantical distinction, not a philosophical one, so your point is irrelevant.

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist It’s not semantical at all, if it is a sale ownership is transferred for a set price, if it is a contract then each party can set terms by which the other must abide. But IP is neither of these, IP sets terms that apply to an arbitrary selection of goods that are negotiated by neither the buyer nor seller are binding on 3rd parties that had nothing to do with the deal and the terms of the agreement can change at any time despite the wishes of any party involved.

[Libertarianist]

@bbb695 It is entirely semantical. Without IP, a company could still write a contract that says "If you pay me X, I will give you this information under the condition that you do not copy the information or transfer it to another person without requiring that they also agree to this contract." It doesn't matter whether you call that a "sale" or not, it's a legitimate tactic.

continued

[Libertarianist]

@Libertarianist A government that finds that such a contract can be attached to the information itself, thus transcending breaches of that particular contract, is philosophically indistinguishable from one that honors IP.

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist "a company could still write a contract that says "If you pay me X, I will give you this information under the condition that you do not copy the information or transfer it to another person"" This is not IP. IP is able to affect 3rd parties, a contract between 2 parties only binds those 2 parties and if one of them shares the information with a 3rd party that 3rd party cannot be held to account. Any attempt to hold the 3rd party to account is to force a contract upon them.

[Libertarianist]

@bbb695 It's not forced upon them because they always had the option of not acquiring the product in the first place.They are consenting to the contract that is attached to the information. Since it requires a breach of contract to separate the contract from the information, and because it is not only extremely difficult trace released media back to the original breacher of contract but there is often no way for the breacher to fully compensate for the damages caused, continued

[Libertarianist]

@Libertarianist AND since most unauthorized duplications would be committed in full knowledge that the material originally had such a contract attached to it, it is fairly legitimate to say that the contract still applies in these cases. Assuming this, it's legitimate to establish "copyright" as a generic template. Also, in current IP law, ignorance that the material was protected is a legitimate defense if the source did not post notice of the copyright.

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist A few points;

I can acquire copy written information by overhearing a conversation and requiring no conscious decision on my part.

If I don’t consent to the contract I cannot buy entire classes of products (seriously reducing my freedom) regardless of whether or not the seller wants to enforce the contract

Just because it’s difficult to enforce doesn’t give you the right to criminalise the entire population.

[Libertarianist]

@bbb695 Your arguments are getting more and more non-sensical. Your ignorance of the law is demonstrated quite well as you even think the past tense of copyright is copy written, or that you can be charged with copyright for overhearing a conversation.

The only way I can make sense of this last comment is if I assume you have serious misconceptions as to both the law and my position. I'm not going to play teacher, I'm done. You can pretend like you won if it makes you feel better.

[bbb695]

@Libertarianist

I don’t think you can be charged with copyright infringement for overhearing a conversation, I do think it is possible to acquire copyrighted information by overhearing a conversation, giving lie to the idea that you "always had the option of not acquiring the product".

[zuiprax]

Keeping your ideas secret is cool. NDAs are cool too. But as soon as you share your ideas with someone they are copied into their brain. And they own their brain, don't they?

99.9% of all you know is copied from someone else. If there were patents for everything, you couldn't do anything. Intellectual property is about a lobbying the state to keep away competition.

You see a business model that works, and you copy it, Is this "unfair"? No, it's natural. And it maximizes productivity.

[SpamSpamNEggs]

Thinking about it Intellectual Property should be broken down Into Informational property (not protected) this is knowledge. You shouldn't be able to claim to own knowledge. Facts exist, just because you are the first to think up a use for the fact should not give you ownership of it. Regardless of how much labor went into finding the truth, the truth existed without your labor.

Intellectual Property as the labor invested in the creation of a product (music, movies software) should be protect

[TheGravenIdol]

Finally someone mentions the fashion industry having not intellectual copyright. Makes things much more competitive and much more awesome. It's not just knock-offs either, there are certain trends and ideas that come and go and the ones that get popular can't really be predicted. Plus with something like a big shoulder pad (40s and 80s and nao-ish) one designer or house can't say "Mine!" and make the prices ridiculous, everyone can use that trend. Trick is finding out what the new trend is.

[AryanTroll]

I disagree because Ayn Rand is God and God is never wrong.

[Apptendo]

@AryanTroll Ayn Rand is an ugly Non-Libertarian communist BITCH!

[Morrakiu]

@Apptendo

You aint free market if you don't suck her dick, bwah!

[LibertarianWatch]

Software and music is based on contracts. If you say when you purchase it you will not copy and distribute it than that is breach of contract. Patents on the other hand have nothing to do with contract. It is the government prohibiting the use of capital in certain ways. Thats my 2 cents atleast.

[eagleeye1975]

It matters not how one could possibly make money... be it your way or some other... Their property is their property, and they have every right to manage the rights to it in any way they wish. If they say "you must pay me to have this song", they have the right to do so.

[Visfen]

You can't own ideas. You can only own the product of your labor. Because otherwise you are staking out a part of the theoretical world and prohibiting other people from entering that part of their minds.

The only form of legitimate intellectual property rights I can think of is terms of use. Like if you run a business that comes up with drugs, you sell it to a factory under the conditions that they don't take your design and sell it to somebody else.

That's my view on it at least.

[SpamSpamNEggs]

@Visfen What about IP that is the product of labor? Programing is labor, singing is labor. Should I not own my labor of programing a game because it is easy to copy and distribute?

[Visfen]

@SpamSpamNEggs Sure you do, you own that labor, that in no way means that people can't copy what you do. In fact most of the market process is simply copying what other people do and making small tweaks and changes to it.

Sure you should own your labor of programming a game. You can make terms of use, make it illegal to copy. That in no way makes it illegal to download nor do I really see why we would want it to.

[pzajk]

Spotify is great example. It has allkinds of goodies.. I gladly pay the 5 eur for (well mostly getting rid of the commercials :D) the community, playlists, radio etc. I've come across multiple new artists and albums - good ones - through the "radio channels" of the bands I like etc. etc. World evolves.. and those that can adapt and evovle with it.. stay alive. Same goes for technology. Its part of our evolution. Copying is now possible. Well we cant still copy bread and bikes, but we can copy

[pzajk]

@pzajk so many other things through computers. We should EMBRACE this phenomena, not strangle it with BAD IDEAS.

[credible2]

if someone uses or copies your ideas or what not, they're not stealing you're thoughts.

copying =/ theft.

If someone copies your ideas, you freely give it out to the world. They're not forcing you to reveal anything.

[dannidandannikins]

You should not describe yourself as a proponent of free markets while holding positions like this.

[return135]

@dannidandannikins huh? opposing the states intellectual property laws IS the free market position.

[dannidandannikins]

@return135 No it isn't, it's the anarchist/libertarian hippy-of-the-right position.

[return135]

@dannidandannikins and the "anarchists" and "libertarians" are not free market people? lol they're more free market then you and you're stupid objectivism. (saw on your channel page)

[dannidandannikins]

@return135 You don't understand what free markets are let alone how to defend them.

[return135]

@dannidandannikins kthxbai

[dannidandannikins]

@return135 your baby-talk is very cute.

[ImperfectPerspective]

Good arguments up until when you start talking about the film and music industries which are indeed the kinds of things which I believe need intellectual property rights

[Stargazer5781]

Congrats on reaching this point :-D

BTW, on the philosophical dilemma - saying that one does not have a right to one's thoughts does not mean other people have a right to them either. It could simply be that no one has a right to them and no one has the right to enforce such a right violently. Basically, rights and enforcement are not involved - whoever acquires the knowledge just... has it.