Against Intellectual Property - part 1/12

[janc71]

@meberic Well, apparently you simply have a copyright by law, once you publish a book. It's simply exists, whether you like it or not. But you can download the book for free from the mises' and author's website.

[meberic]

Copyright 2008 Ludwig Von Mesis Institute??? WTF??

[bmac6446]

Personally, I wouldn't waste my capital on R&D without some type of patent protection. I would wait for some other sucker to waste capital on it then copy his gizmo or widget. He suffers the loss and I reap a profit off of his capital. It wouldn't take a modern electronics manufacturer very long at all to copy another's products.

[meberic]

@bmac6446 That's what Pepsi and Burger King thought... There´s and advantage of being the first and having the advantage of the information. And you can protect your "secrets" without the use of force.

[bmac6446]

Even as an Austrian myself I find it hard to wrap my mind around this idea. Where would the incentive come from for Research and Development if whenever your new product came out someone else is waiting by to copy it and sell it cheaper because they didn't waste their capital on Research and Development. I'm not being a smart_ss I just have serious questions about the IP issue.

[bmac6446]

As a follow up, where would innovation come from if their wasn't a profit motive for innovating? The USSR and East Germany stayed in a perpetual 1950's state due to a lack of innovation incentive.

[edgarloike]

@bmac6446 Youtube is a prime example. For every good original video, there is 100 re upoloads or copycats.

[bmac6446]

@edgarloike I understand the copyright end of the argument. But, what about the massive amount of capital that is spent on Research and Development of new products. Why bother wasting capital in developing a new product when someone else would just copy your product and sell it cheaper than you could because they don't have to recoup cost from R&D. I'm speaking primarily about patents. The removal of patent protections would also remove the profit incentive to develop new products.

[4lifejackhammer]

@bmac6446 It takes a long time to truly rip off a product. A new drug may have ingredients posted, but that doesn't tell you the quantity of each. Reverse engineering is a difficult process, which means a new drug receives plenty of time to make up the loss. Additionally, because one company came out with it first, it remains the "trusted" supplier of the drug, which is a difficult barrier to overcome.

[gavinjengel]

In an anarchist society, would the free-market have need for patent, trademark & copyright agencies? I think it would.

[Illyrien]

@gavinjengel

We should introduce such a society and find out :)  I seriously doubt patents would exist. Perhaps there is some room for copyright, but most of all I do expect trademarks would exists.

[swu880]

patents must be filed for. but copyright as it is currently doesnt require any "filing" of any kind

[johngeetar]

"Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella. Copyright 2008 Ludwig Von Mesis Institute..." Was I the only one who found this amusing?

[lazmodar]

@johngeetar

u are not the only one

[swu880]

@johngeetar

uh no- cuz theres no way to remove the copyright even if one wanted to. So its rather silly and moot to presume some contradiction.

[johngeetar]

@swu880 If I wrote a book right now, would it automatically have a copyright? No it wouldn't. I would have to file for copyright. So what happened here is a guy wrote a book against intellectual property and copyrighted it.

[swu880]

@johngeetar

actually- the book is AUTOMATICALLY copyrighted.

also, it should be noted that patents & copyright are not a right to produce something but a state granted privilege that defies all natural rights in the enforcement of EXCLUSION!

so many patents that exist today, not only are half of them never used but another majority of them are merely defensive patents- taken as protection against others from excluding them.

[swu880]

@swu880

A similar thing can be said about copyright. except that in terms of copyright, its automatically generated by law (not nature). You can't even remove the copyright if you wanted to! so people have to publish using an artificial workaround called the 'commons" which is still a type of copyright

[swu880]

@swu880

Understand, copyright & patents has its roots in censorship & government sponsored monopolies. Its wholly nonsensical to think that monopolies & censorship could somehow foster greater cultural diffusion & innovation

hect, theres absolutely no proof to show that IP increases innovation. All the evidence points in the reverse- it shows that there is a huge cost on the economy & countless innovations are thwarted, destroyed or never born cuz of IP

[mothertory]

Thank you for making me really think about my opinion on this subject. I'd never really thought about it before. I totally agree that copywright and patent laws have been grossly abused. On a personal level I think that if I invent a doodad people should be allowed to recreate it for personal use or improve it for any use, but if someone takes it and makes money off it just because they have more ad money I feel I should have some sort of protection.

[mothertory]

@mothertory I guess if there were more freedoms, I wouldn't be arrested for confronting the person in an old west style. Right? I don't mean just attacking them or shooting them, but definitely having the ability to call them out. Isn't that why they used to have different kinds of duels?

[swu880]

@mothertory

No person can have monopoly on "value". It makes no sense to have a monopoly on "value"- especially when that "value" is the subjective trait given by someone else. For example, if your house increases or decreases in value when there is say a change in the community, u did not lose any right. Securing profits is not a right

[mothertory]

@swu880 I didn't say it was.

[swu880]

@mothertory

Protectionism is a derivative of the fallacy of mercantilism. It is through protectionism, subsidies, tarrifs, and the unjust use of force of law & coercion that monopolies are formed. And its through such use & abuse that innovation is stiffened and lost. It is not only impractical but also amoral to say anyone may have claim on some 'value' which u were pushing for. If so, then the very process of learning is an infringement