1st off: Art, Science, Music, and a host of other social good progressed perfectly well over the millenius without IP so I call this "lack of incentive" argument B.S.
But lets play a thought experiment. Say you sell me and apple and I use a magic box to duplicate the apple (which is MY PROPERTY) exponentially and proceeded to distribute them amongst the general populous.
I have used MY PROPERTY to give society a good. The fact that my magic box destroys the market for you is irrelevant.
Why does this seniority apply only to technological innovation? Why not distribution methods, or locality, or target audiences? Your argument applies to almost all enterprise:
"Why should I start offering taxi services in my town, when just anyone can copy my idea and start doing the same thing at lower prices?"
"Why should I take you up on your job offer, if I can later be replaced by someone more efficient?"
Yours is the same rationale which has been fuelling Mercantilism for 300 years.
@PanzerDivisionBOM I don't argue against competing against people who can offer lower prices than you. I'm arguing against people who are able to sell your ideas at $0. How could I possibly underbid $0? But lately I've been coming around to realizing IP as a protectionist racket. I just don't think I'm all the way there yet.
Most of the comments here are by people who have no idea of what IPR are.
You can't claim ownership of an IDEA under any form of copyright law. You can claim ownership of a unique invention or process or work, but not the generic IDEA. Xerox may have ownership of the Xerox process but it doesn't have a monopoly on photocopying.
Terrence Kealey has some vids on this and it's why we don't need public funding of scientific research and development. The cost of copying is about 60%, but the total cost of reproduction is close to 100%.
As for the incentive to create - the answer is natural monopoly for a period of time. The way the creator gets more profit is by being the first person to market with the product.
Maybe one option could be advertising reservations(think about reserving a video game) made in advance
Most libertarians, (especially left libertarians in my personal experience) oppose intellectual property rights because they believe assigning a monopolistic nortion to a creator is totalitarian and granting an individual exclusive rights over IDEAS to keep away others from using their own central nervous system and profiting out of it is unjustified..But intellectual property right is necessary because it works as a defense mechanism that protects small business from greedy corporations.
In life under the State people have this unwarranted sense of entitlement. How did things work before we had this ridiculous system? You would come up with new magic tricks keep them a secret as best you could and be the best damn magician you could at performing the magic trick you invented. All of the time that you spent inventing it also would make you an expert at performing it. An other magician would have to work hard to gain the skills it would require to successfully copy your trick.
I don't believe in intellectual property rights, so I can download whatever I want for free. However, whenever I get the chance, I will buy the things I want. I like to have hard copies of things, but more importantly, I like to support the artists I like. I think that a lot of people feel this way, and in a society with no intellectual property laws, artists will still make plenty of money.
Most of the disputes are really vague too. I don't see how you can honestly call that productive. On the other hand I don't think someone should give away their idea either. Why does it have to be so black and white? Why couldn't someone make some kind of worthwhile bonus based on importance or something. I think anything is better than some people prospering to amounts that are pretty much damaging in the long run to society.
This is a really tough one, and I can't say I stand on either side completely. It's good that you can patent something so no one else can run up and take credit for it. But it's completely ridiculous that large companies have swarms of legal teams battling constantly, ranging from normal to almost un-fucking-believable claims against anyone they can think of. It's a massive waste of court time and tax money. Look how often tech companies sue each other every year over cell phone patents alone.
I think the more liberal we get as a society the less people feel the need to create new things. With the exception of corporations of course since they are encouraged to create because they will be paid for it. But in a liberal utopia where everyone owns everything then there is no drive to create. Russia and China are great examples of this fact.
I'm a music producer. In a free society, how could I stop artist's from stealing my instrumentals and using them to make money without paying me a cent?
A community as a whole can help enforce intellectual property. For example, as a songwriter, when I perform a track live, my community knows it's mine and when i performed it. If you do the song 6 months later, my community will catch you on it and force you by pressure, if i don't take it to court, to give due credit and royalties. That's also, strangely enough, how it is protected these days for the most part - and it's done so without going 1984... so i fail to see your dilemma, old friend
Your incentive is to be known for what you have created. Being known for it is your profit.
If think that this incentive is poor then let me tell you that there are A LOT of people who make youtube videos (with ideas) and at the same time are not partners. This includes you Jacob.
But would I make a hell of a lot more youtube videos at an even better quality if I were paid to make them? Absolutely! You can't tell me that drug companies would spend billions of dollars to come up with a cure to a common disease just out of the kindness of their hearts, because they want the world to thank them.
One could argue that some people would make better videos if they didn't get paid for it. For example someone who has to make some video in order to get paid may do a poorer job than someone who simply does it to inform or out of passion.
Going back to talking about some cure. I think that many people would look for the cure just to be known for it. Wouldn't you want to be known as the guy who funded the guy who cured cancer? A drug company may get more customers if they donate to a cause.
My point is that there are many incentives. (fame, wanting to cure a sick family member, getting more customers because you donate to a noble cause, ect...)
But I still agree with you, the incentive would be even greater if people had to pay for an idea and the idea could not be given out for free by the buyer.
@TheSupremeSkeptic I completly agree. Money isn't the only incentive. You can actually imagine a utopian world without money, though we, as a race, have to solve some different issues first (so that we have an oversupply of energy, food and health for everyone, so it won't matter if I have more of anything then you).
Intellectual property rights are currently a pretty big problem with computer science at the moment. You get patent trolls, they file patents, don't produce anything, then when someone does make something that fits it, go and claim royalties.
One example I can think of straight away is with Carmack's Reverse, but there's far more.
Sure, copyright software so it's illegal for people to pirate, but ideas, or algorithms? Actually claiming the method on how to do something? No.
I think you are talking about the free rider problem and it has been thoroughly researched in increadably diverse fields. It turns out that to copy a new concept/device costs 60-80% of the cost to develop the original. However the original in almost all cases continues to demand a higher price not to mention the monopoly condition that exists while copies are developed.
If it takes you a year concept to first performance it is almost certainly not trivial. It takes them time to figure it out and time/money to build and to train. They have to know or have people who have all the skills whom they have to pay.
im not saying being all totalitarian on peoples asses, but i hated what Napster did, i hated what lime wire allows one to do, you should get sued for stealing. it's stealing plain and simple. people just rationalize it for they're own benefit.
Intelectual property rights are bullshit, they just lead to technological stagnation, and sell out pop artist being played instead of real music like KMFDM.
Anarchists don't really have a leg to stand on with utilitarian arguments. Their claim to being right is not being utilitarian. Intellectual property is much like the existence of government. As bad as it may be we need it. It is not moral but far more practical than the alternative.
I completely concede that ideas are different from tangible things in that you can copy an idea. But imagine that we lived in a world where someone has to plant a seed in the ground and wait a few years carefully nurturing that tree until it starts to produce apples . . . and then someone comes along and types in a matrix code that copies the apple tree. They're able to get the same thing without devoting any of the hard work. What then is my incentive to make the original tree?
The problem in this analogy is that the labor of the person who grew the tree is stolen by the fact another can plant or clone another like it. That doesn't follow in terms of labor theory of ownership. I labor to understand a problem, and I solve it independent of you, thus my labor is mixed with my work/solution free of your labor and yours. Any attempt to justify the cartelization of either's works is immoral and illogical.
Now... let's get serious XD
Probably it will only be defensible by prestige: if anyone realizes the idea is stolen, get them in the black list, if u know what I mean :3
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 8 months ago
I can't give you my thoughts... someone might steal them D:
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 8 months ago
1st off: Art, Science, Music, and a host of other social good progressed perfectly well over the millenius without IP so I call this "lack of incentive" argument B.S.
But lets play a thought experiment. Say you sell me and apple and I use a magic box to duplicate the apple (which is MY PROPERTY) exponentially and proceeded to distribute them amongst the general populous.
I have used MY PROPERTY to give society a good. The fact that my magic box destroys the market for you is irrelevant.
wood9670 1 year ago
Why does this seniority apply only to technological innovation? Why not distribution methods, or locality, or target audiences? Your argument applies to almost all enterprise:
"Why should I start offering taxi services in my town, when just anyone can copy my idea and start doing the same thing at lower prices?"
"Why should I take you up on your job offer, if I can later be replaced by someone more efficient?"
Yours is the same rationale which has been fuelling Mercantilism for 300 years.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM I don't argue against competing against people who can offer lower prices than you. I'm arguing against people who are able to sell your ideas at $0. How could I possibly underbid $0? But lately I've been coming around to realizing IP as a protectionist racket. I just don't think I'm all the way there yet.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
have you ever been on the internet?
Its full of websites ripping off each other. IP is garbage. Bring on the Venus Project.
meadowsirl 1 year ago
OMG. I'm actually agreeing with Jacob !!
Most of the comments here are by people who have no idea of what IPR are.
You can't claim ownership of an IDEA under any form of copyright law. You can claim ownership of a unique invention or process or work, but not the generic IDEA. Xerox may have ownership of the Xerox process but it doesn't have a monopoly on photocopying.
billburns2 1 year ago
Terrence Kealey has some vids on this and it's why we don't need public funding of scientific research and development. The cost of copying is about 60%, but the total cost of reproduction is close to 100%.
As for the incentive to create - the answer is natural monopoly for a period of time. The way the creator gets more profit is by being the first person to market with the product.
Maybe one option could be advertising reservations(think about reserving a video game) made in advance
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
Yeah the thought police. copyrighting ideas....
HypnoticGorilla 1 year ago
Most libertarians, (especially left libertarians in my personal experience) oppose intellectual property rights because they believe assigning a monopolistic nortion to a creator is totalitarian and granting an individual exclusive rights over IDEAS to keep away others from using their own central nervous system and profiting out of it is unjustified..But intellectual property right is necessary because it works as a defense mechanism that protects small business from greedy corporations.
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago
In life under the State people have this unwarranted sense of entitlement. How did things work before we had this ridiculous system? You would come up with new magic tricks keep them a secret as best you could and be the best damn magician you could at performing the magic trick you invented. All of the time that you spent inventing it also would make you an expert at performing it. An other magician would have to work hard to gain the skills it would require to successfully copy your trick.
torq21 1 year ago
I don't believe in intellectual property rights, so I can download whatever I want for free. However, whenever I get the chance, I will buy the things I want. I like to have hard copies of things, but more importantly, I like to support the artists I like. I think that a lot of people feel this way, and in a society with no intellectual property laws, artists will still make plenty of money.
Eldxale42 1 year ago
Most of the disputes are really vague too. I don't see how you can honestly call that productive. On the other hand I don't think someone should give away their idea either. Why does it have to be so black and white? Why couldn't someone make some kind of worthwhile bonus based on importance or something. I think anything is better than some people prospering to amounts that are pretty much damaging in the long run to society.
RunawayRed 2 years ago
This is a really tough one, and I can't say I stand on either side completely. It's good that you can patent something so no one else can run up and take credit for it. But it's completely ridiculous that large companies have swarms of legal teams battling constantly, ranging from normal to almost un-fucking-believable claims against anyone they can think of. It's a massive waste of court time and tax money. Look how often tech companies sue each other every year over cell phone patents alone.
RunawayRed 2 years ago
I think the more liberal we get as a society the less people feel the need to create new things. With the exception of corporations of course since they are encouraged to create because they will be paid for it. But in a liberal utopia where everyone owns everything then there is no drive to create. Russia and China are great examples of this fact.
Chevrobert 2 years ago
levitation is just an illusion? wtf?
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
I think social pressures is the best way because the way we have now obviously doesn't work.
Disney's The Lion King is living proof of that.
lordthawkeye 2 years ago
I'm a music producer. In a free society, how could I stop artist's from stealing my instrumentals and using them to make money without paying me a cent?
JahLoveOnline 2 years ago
A community as a whole can help enforce intellectual property. For example, as a songwriter, when I perform a track live, my community knows it's mine and when i performed it. If you do the song 6 months later, my community will catch you on it and force you by pressure, if i don't take it to court, to give due credit and royalties. That's also, strangely enough, how it is protected these days for the most part - and it's done so without going 1984... so i fail to see your dilemma, old friend
williamcardno 2 years ago
Your incentive is to be known for what you have created. Being known for it is your profit.
If think that this incentive is poor then let me tell you that there are A LOT of people who make youtube videos (with ideas) and at the same time are not partners. This includes you Jacob.
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
If *you* think
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
But would I make a hell of a lot more youtube videos at an even better quality if I were paid to make them? Absolutely! You can't tell me that drug companies would spend billions of dollars to come up with a cure to a common disease just out of the kindness of their hearts, because they want the world to thank them.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
One could argue that some people would make better videos if they didn't get paid for it. For example someone who has to make some video in order to get paid may do a poorer job than someone who simply does it to inform or out of passion.
Going back to talking about some cure. I think that many people would look for the cure just to be known for it. Wouldn't you want to be known as the guy who funded the guy who cured cancer? A drug company may get more customers if they donate to a cause.
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
My point is that there are many incentives. (fame, wanting to cure a sick family member, getting more customers because you donate to a noble cause, ect...)
But I still agree with you, the incentive would be even greater if people had to pay for an idea and the idea could not be given out for free by the buyer.
TheSupremeSkeptic 2 years ago
@TheSupremeSkeptic I completly agree. Money isn't the only incentive. You can actually imagine a utopian world without money, though we, as a race, have to solve some different issues first (so that we have an oversupply of energy, food and health for everyone, so it won't matter if I have more of anything then you).
bArT8472 2 years ago
Intellectual property rights are currently a pretty big problem with computer science at the moment. You get patent trolls, they file patents, don't produce anything, then when someone does make something that fits it, go and claim royalties.
One example I can think of straight away is with Carmack's Reverse, but there's far more.
Sure, copyright software so it's illegal for people to pirate, but ideas, or algorithms? Actually claiming the method on how to do something? No.
MonkeyThatIsLuminous 2 years ago
I think you are talking about the free rider problem and it has been thoroughly researched in increadably diverse fields. It turns out that to copy a new concept/device costs 60-80% of the cost to develop the original. However the original in almost all cases continues to demand a higher price not to mention the monopoly condition that exists while copies are developed.
vincenmt 2 years ago 4
I spend a year developing an illusion and how much does it cost someone to copy the idea and share it with everyone else? Mere seconds.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
If it takes you a year concept to first performance it is almost certainly not trivial. It takes them time to figure it out and time/money to build and to train. They have to know or have people who have all the skills whom they have to pay.
vincenmt 2 years ago
Comment removed
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
im not saying being all totalitarian on peoples asses, but i hated what Napster did, i hated what lime wire allows one to do, you should get sued for stealing. it's stealing plain and simple. people just rationalize it for they're own benefit.
freethinker3161 2 years ago
@freethinker3161 That's coryright.
Patents mean only you 'own' *how* to do something.
MonkeyThatIsLuminous 2 years ago
good point, i seemed to have confused the two. i still agree with what you said. much love and respect.
freethinker3161 2 years ago
For patents: /watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4 ("The Myth of Science as a Public Good (by Terence Kealey)" by Nielsio)
I can't say for copyright, but I'll ask someone.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago 3
Intelectual property rights are bullshit, they just lead to technological stagnation, and sell out pop artist being played instead of real music like KMFDM.
VALsacount2 2 years ago 3
Anarchists don't really have a leg to stand on with utilitarian arguments. Their claim to being right is not being utilitarian. Intellectual property is much like the existence of government. As bad as it may be we need it. It is not moral but far more practical than the alternative.
Scoforever 2 years ago
You can't own an idea. And that's the issue. Someone figures out X and someone figures it out independently, so who owns it?
ladyattis 2 years ago 9
It is a flawed system and I would consider it to be immoral but the alternative would destroy innovation.
Scoforever 2 years ago
I completely concede that ideas are different from tangible things in that you can copy an idea. But imagine that we lived in a world where someone has to plant a seed in the ground and wait a few years carefully nurturing that tree until it starts to produce apples . . . and then someone comes along and types in a matrix code that copies the apple tree. They're able to get the same thing without devoting any of the hard work. What then is my incentive to make the original tree?
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
The problem in this analogy is that the labor of the person who grew the tree is stolen by the fact another can plant or clone another like it. That doesn't follow in terms of labor theory of ownership. I labor to understand a problem, and I solve it independent of you, thus my labor is mixed with my work/solution free of your labor and yours. Any attempt to justify the cartelization of either's works is immoral and illogical.
ladyattis 2 years ago 2
my guess is Stephan Kinsella can answer your questions.
return135 2 years ago
first
TheBurtonProductions 2 years ago