 Is there enough room for the chair? Tomorrow at 7.30 in the writer's trouble room, the list will be to discuss what makes the idea out of the office. All right. And with that, the chair of the list is big. Is there enough room for the chair of the party of the left? We're announcing it. The announcement. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Lots of fuel has been made to dissolve for the second amendment if you will not. This week, at 7.30, we have all the separate party debates. If you want to make it dissolve, the stand-up is down the line. And with that, the chair of the party of the left is thick. And with that, the chair of the party of the left is thick. You've been asked to come to the chair of the left. You've been asked to come to the party. You've been asked to come to the party. You've been asked to come to the party. Last week, the independent party has to debate, results pay national reparations. The resolution failed. This week, the I.C.O meets the debate. Resolve has been done by people. As a way to all the writers I have been asked to And the Chairman of the Federalist Party. We're going to resolve a shutdown of social media, which passed. And to the current state of a certain major political party in America, we will convey the resolve, put down the element. We're going to start with the conservative party. We don't want to. Last week the conservative party managed to debate resolve that we, the whole trip is not. Tomorrow, we have half-time seven people serving in the MFA, will you, friend, fuck with your class of 1960, and why are you taking the fall? I'm very full of complaints. The Chairman of the Federalist Party will state resolve that the fall was fortunate. What's that determine? I'm a conservative party in state. What's the matter with the term of the party? You know? I'm a conservative party in state. The conservative party is setting off on new tax. At this evening's debate, our two distinguished guests are attorneys who command a man's respect and renown in their respective fields of work. Senator Cancelo is the Director for the Center of the Study for Innovative Freedom. Apart from being both an intellectual property lawyer and an entity, Mr. Cancelo is also an anarcho-capitalist thinker and a well-known contrast theory. Along with his juror's doctor, from the Paul M. Abair Law Center of Louisiana State University, Mr. Cancelo holds a Master of Law at the University of London, and a Bachelor's and Master's Degree in Electoral Engineering from Louisiana State University. Candace Cook is the Managing Member of the Cook Law Group. She began her career as a highly successful litigator and is now a recognized innovator and leader in a variety of legal fields. Ms. Cook has expansive expertise in the realm of intellectual property, corporate tech, and entertainment. This has earned her juror's doctorate a Bandit of Law School and her Bachelor's Degree from the University of Virginia, and pursued further studies at colleges and Stanford University's graduate school. Last night when I was searching for eminent experts in intellectual property law posts at this evening's debate forum, I was not able to decide on which of these two outstanding professionals would be best suited for the occasion, and thus we have them both here with us this evening. For our reasoning, as we welcome Stephanie Sella, the Candace Cook to our assembly. Manage Seeker, I move the topic. Resolve abolished intellectual property laws. Thank you. Test, test. Can you hear me? Test. Do I need to mic up? I'll just speak. Alright, I'll just speak. Is this it? Test, test, test. It's on? Alright, glad to be here. Two of my friends were here earlier this year, Tom Woods and Jeff Tucker, so I feel like I'm not the minority political position for once. I'll start with a quote. A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom, but the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. Thomas Payne. I come to you as a libertarian and as a practicing patent attorney. By libertarian, I mean someone who has an opposition to injustice and aggression in a principled way, who favors just laws and rights. And this means self-ownership above all and ownership of private property resources. When I was a little longer than most of you are now, I came across writing by libertarians or other thinkers in favor of intellectual property. Ein Rand, for example, a noted libertarian thinker, wrote, and I feel that way about her work on IP now, she wrote, patents are the heart and core of property rights. Now, I was persuaded at the time of private property, free markets, capitalism, but I was curious about the idea of patent and copyright being part of this free market edifice. Why should patents last for 17 years only, and copyrights 80 or 100 or whatever they've gone to now? So I studied and puzzled and thought about this issue for years for the next decade. In the time past, I went to grad school, went to law school, passed the patent bar to become a patent lawyer, which is an intellectual property lawyer, and about the time I passed the patent bar in 1994, I also came to the conclusion that patent law and copyright law should be abolished as they're totally contrary to the free market and capitalism. And so I wrote about it over the years, a little bit timidly at first, not to anger my professionals and my colleagues, but I found out soon they didn't read in the journals I was publishing in, so it didn't matter. I could say what I wanted to. Okay. So this is the proposition I'd like to put to you today and to argue for. So the question is, are patent and copyright law good or bad? Should they be abolished or retained? Should they have been passed in the first place? We don't know about whether a law should be in place or not, whether it's just or not. We need to know something about the law, and these are two kind of arcane laws, but we also need to know a little bit about what law in general should be. And to know that, we need to know a little bit about human action, reflect a little bit about the nature of human interaction. Okay. Now there are three books I would exhort you to read, sometime in your time here at this university, if you have time. One is Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, the second is The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard, and the third is A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. You should read many others, but if you could read these three books, and if I could take a big vice and squeeze them really hard and come up with the first cold press essence of these, it might look a little something like what I'm about to say. We humans act. This sounds trivial, but... Yes? Oh, sorry. Humans act. What does this mean? That means we look at our situation in the world, we see the way things are, and we envision a future about to come. The near future, the next moment, a minute from now, an hour from now, a decade from now, and we have some idea about what's going to come. And that idea usually makes us uncomfortable. As Ludwig von Mises says, we have felt uneasiness. We don't like what's going to happen, so we use our knowledge, and we gather this knowledge together and we look around us and we see what's in our environment that we can use to causally change things in the world. How can we act to interfere with the course of events to make something different happen that otherwise would happen? So we employ resources in the world in addition to our bodies, and we make things happen. We act. So to act, you need to have knowledge in fact, and you need to have access to scarce resources, or as Mises call them, scarce means, the means of action. Okay? And if we're successful in our action and we achieve the result we wanted to bring about and we prevent the event from coming about that otherwise was going to come about, we call that a profit, or as Mises calls it, a psychic profit. In dollar terms, this is a monetary profit, but profit is a general psychological thing. When you achieve your result, you have a profit. When you fail, you have a loss. Okay? Now this is true even of a man alone in the world, Robinson Crusoe, alone on his island. He still needs to possess things, to use his body, to use his intelligence, to use scarce resources to act. But in society, when there are other people around, there's the possibility of rivalry and conflict. Because of the nature of scarce resources, the things we have, the tools, the food, the bodies, there's the possibility of violent conflict over these bodies. And so that we're not always eternally fighting with each other and so that we can have cooperation and the division of labor and some security in our resources, we develop rules that determine in the case of this resource who is the owner of the resource. This is the origin of law. This is the origin of property rights. This is the purpose and function of property rights. Without a world of scarcity and the world of land of cocaine, we would not have a need for laws. In the Garden of Eden, there would be no such thing as property or conflict or violence or property rights. But in this real world, we do have the possibility of violent conflict over our bodies and over other things. And therefore, law emerges as a way to assign ownership of these resources so that conflict can be avoided and so that prosperity can be achieved so that we can live in true society with each other. And the basic rules that we arrive at in overtime and in society through the common law, through the Roman law, through reason, through empathy with each other, through society are the basic rules that imbue the spirit of all of society, which is number one, self-ownership. Every person owns their own body. As opposed to the opposite, which is slavery. Number two, for anything else that is a scarce means of action in the world, any scarce resource, the property rules basically have to be non-arbitrary so that they can be accepted as a fair means of settling disputes and they have to permit resources to first be used in the first place, which means there has to be a role for first use. Which is why the property rules always say the first user of a resource has a better claim than anyone else. This is original appropriation setting. And also, as the owner of such a thing, you have the right to do what you want with it. You can give it to someone else, donation, you can make a gift, you can sell it, you can leave it to your children, you can transfer it by contract, you can sell it basically. These two rules are the essence of all law. When you see a resource that two or more people have a dispute over, a car, a farm, a house, you can answer who owns it by asking who had it first who bought it. This is the foundation of all law. Now, when you understand the nature of intellectual property rights, you will see why intellectual property rights, namely patent and copyright, I won't focus on the other manifold types of IP, which include trade secret, boat hold designs, database rights, moral rights, semiconductor mask work protections, two of streus. But patent and copyright are the two big ones, the two bad ones, the most evil ones. I have trouble deciding in my own mind which I would abolish first. Patent law does more harm on a monetary level because it retards civilization and impoverishes the world and reduces innovation, but on the other hand, it's like a big tax and it only lasts about 17 years per patent. Copyright, on the other hand, doesn't do as much monetary damage, but it does shackle free speech, restrict internet freedom, distort the culture, and they last over 100 years leading to the orphan works book problem where there are hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands, millions of books whose authors can't be found and no publisher will reprint them because they're afraid of being sued because of this archaic copyright system. To understand the system, it's useful to know a little bit about the history of patent and copyright law. Hundreds of years ago, in Europe, there was a practice of the monarch, the crown of granting protectionist, patent, or monopoly privilege grants to certain court cronies in exchange for favors. If you collect taxes from me, the king says, I'll let you be the only guy who can sell playing cards in this town, or the only guy who can export sheepskin. This is called a letter patent and open instruction to the community that this guy is the only one who can do it. So it was just a monopoly grant. It was anti-competitive, a nation of free trade. This is the origin of patents. It led to such abuses that parliament in England in 1623 passed a law called the statute of monopolies. You see, back in the old days, they were a little bit more honest about the terms of their laws. Nowadays, we call this intellectual property instead of a monopoly grant by the government. Just like the Department of War has now been renamed the Department of Defense. Okay. Copyright emerged when the church and the crown got a little bit nervous at the advent of the printing press because, oh no, now the scribes can't control what the people get to read. So they set up a monopoly called the Stationers Company when that expired the Statute of Ann in 1709 was enacted, which was the basis of modern copyright law. 1789, the United States Constitution was ratified, actually ratified 1789, and 1789 had a clause which mimicked these two ancient monopoly privilege grants by the British crown in terms of copyright and patent and authorized Congress to enact copyright and patent law. So the copyright and patent law enacted in 1790-91 right after the Constitution was ratified basically based upon these ancient practices of European monarchs protecting their cronies from competition and restricting free trade. This is the main and principal reason to oppose patent and copyright law, because remember, whenever there's a resource over which there's a dispute, the way you find out who the owner is is to ask the question, well, whose body is it if it's a body, but if it's something else, who had it first? Was there a contract? The way patent and copyright worked is if you look up the term in the Roman law, it's called a negative servitude. The right to use a negative servitude is the right to stop someone from using. You're all familiar with this in the form of restrictive covenants and neighborhood associations, right? You live in a nice neighborhood. There's an agreement everyone agreed to where you can't paint your house orange or have a pig farm next door, right? So every neighbor in effect has a little bit of ownership of their neighbor's property in terms of a veto. It's a negative servitude. All your neighbors can prevent you from painting your house orange. The contract, so who owns this house? I own it for most purposes, my neighbors can prevent me from painting it orange because of a contract. So you go back to the basic rules of contract. So there's nothing wrong with the negative servitude as long as there was a consent, voluntary consent, a contract. Patent and copyright effectively grant negative servitudes even though there was no consent. How does this work? If I were to publish a sequel to Iran's Atlas Shrug tomorrow, I would be sued by the Leonard Picoff in the estate of Iran for infringing the copyright of Iran's estate because it's a derivative work. In fact, the catcher in the ride, actually a sequel of that was banned by a court by the estate of JD Salinger and it never saw the light of day decades ago. So this is actually censorship of freedom of the press, literally book banning in the name of copyright. Patents work similarly. If I try to make a new iPhone that looks too much like the iPhone, then Apple can use its lawyers to go to court to get an injunction against me to keep me from using my factory as I see fit to compete with Apple. So you see, these are the same as negative servitudes, but they're not voluntarily consented to by the person who's being burdened or harmed by them. This is why patent and copyright law are totally incompatible with a free society and with natural private property rights. And maybe in other in my other time I can go into another field but the argument I've just given is not the argument you'll hear, usually. Usually what you'll hear is the other argument which is the utilitarian argument. Most people today don't think about law or property rights in terms of principle like I just laid out. They don't think about the purpose of law. They talk about how to adjust the law to maximize some policy goal. So the debate now is always in terms of utilitarianism. And that's actually what was written in the Constitution to promote innovation and to promote creative works. The Congress shall have the power to grant limited monopolies to inventors and artists so as to promote them engaging in these fields. That's a utilitarian argument. So the argument is that we have a legal system that's working fine. We're all free beings. But the government needs to step in because we think that there's an underproduction of novels and paintings. We think there's an underproduction of music and we think there's an underproduction of innovation. So the government is going to selectively grant monopolies to people to give them an extra incentive to do just a little bit more. Now, in the 200 plus years since the advent of the Constitution in this country there's been no empirical studies that conclusively show that this is the case. The burden of proof by the utilitarians has simply not been met. In fact, every student study that's not inconclusive indicates to the contrary. Patents slow down innovation. They prevent people from competing. Copyrights restrict free speech and they're threatening the internet, freedom of the internet, which is one of the most important tools we free citizens have to fight the intrusions of the state. So anything that threatens the freedom of the internet, namely copyright, should be fought tooth and nail, which is why it's a good thing Trump took us out of the TPP for the wrong reasons he took us out of the TPP for free trade and for copyright but luckily he took us out of the TPP because the TPP was going to impose American style enhanced copyright sanctions on the rest of the world for the advantage of the recording industry, the music industry, Hollywood and the pharmaceutical companies. So, I'll rest my case here and we'll be happy to take any other questions. Yes, so first of all I would say that the purpose of law is to do justice not to make sure we have enough innovation. Second of all I would say that there can be no serious argument that without patents we would have no innovation. We would have some level of innovation. So the burden of proof should be on someone advocating a very costly policy which costs the U.S. economy at least 70 billion dollars a year according to many studies because of patent trolls and other problems like this. The burden of proof has to be on the person advocating a positive policy to show that the benefit, the net benefit of that policy is greater than the cost. It's never been shown and reason leads us to think the opposite. It's counterintuitive it's counter the reason to believe that by protecting an innovator from competition and making it illegal for other people to innovate in that area and to compete with them that we would have more innovation. I'll be shared by multiple people at the same time that the person who should have the legal right to it is the one who got to it first created it first maybe used it first. If I write a novel I create it first I use it first. Why should the government not also step in to protect that? As a kind of property that I have in it to prevent somebody else from publishing my novel under their name and getting money from it the same way that I might steal a local bread for the bakery and sell it on the street. There's been a confusion in property theory since John Locke. John Locke essentially argued that we own ourselves which a phrase I use as well to save time but the technical terms we own our bodies. When you say you own yourself it's more of a metaphysical concept and then you are naturally allowed to say we own our labor because we produce our labor and if you own your labor you own things that you mix with it. This is the mistake in Locke's theory the idea that creation is a source of rights. Creation is not a source of property rights. Property rights are always rights in scarce resources over which there can be conflict and the rules have to answer the question about who owns the thing. These rules are more exhaustively handled by the first use and the contract rules. You have to understand as I mentioned about Mises the structure of human action successful human action requires two things requires knowledge and it requires the availability to control scarce resources. The scarce resources are things that people can conflict over. If I come up with a recipe of a new way to bake a cake anyone else who learns that recipe can use it at the same time as me over that and to give me ownership an idea is always a feature of an object. Idea can never be stored up in the ether it's always an impatterning of a product of an object that's already owned by someone. It would be like me owning a balloon that's red and therefore owning red. So if I owned red because I owned a red balloon it means I own everyone else's red car or red balloon. You can't own features of things only the physical characteristics of those things. Okay so the concept of fraud is just simply a consequence of property rights and contract. Fraud simply means in essence theft by trick. If you deceive someone about what you're giving them in payment or in exchange for an object they own and they transfer that object to you when you misled them about something then the title to the object that's being given to you is not being given knowingly or without the seat and therefore the title is false and I'm now basically in possession of stolen property. That's the basis of any proper law against fraud. It doesn't just mean lying but you'll see defenders of intellectual property patent and copyright they will accuse people that are against these laws of being in favor of fraud. But fraud actually has nothing to do with trademark law rather than patent and copyright. Fraud has nothing to do with copyright or patent infringement. Copyright means if I copy what you did even if I tell the truth about who the owner was I copy a Harry Potter novel and I don't put my name on the cover I put your name on the cover it's not fraud but it's still copyright infringement. If I copy an iPhone I'm not pretending to be Steve Jobs but I'm still guilty of patent infringement. So fraud has nothing to do with patent or copyright. I do believe fraud should be illegal under libertarian law but only because it's implicit theft not because you're competing with someone or copying of their work. Individuals who are signed contractually support promote and encourage your shoe company. And your shoe company also comes with a symbol and that symbol allows anyone to serve as a product identifier because I don't like every shoe company I like that one. That one is faster and that one is better but why is it faster why is it better? There's probably some proprietary innovation there. So then we go and look and there was R&D and that because who made it faster one company made it faster. And I tell you when you come to me you don't get to purchase the contracts that come with the person who supports it you don't get to purchase the proprietary innovation that made it faster or better you don't get to purchase the swoosh that goes with it or the symbol that you identify. So people in other countries who like that shoe don't know it's you but that's okay because you know you're great and you also don't get to actually have the name but I'll give you the shoe do you want to purchase that particular asset? Does that asset have the same amount of value? And even if it does are we going to venture to say that the valuation of that company is the same as it would be if I told you I'm going to sell you Nike. I'm going to give you the proprietary rights to Nike. In addition to being able to purchase Nike I'm going to also give you the endorsement or sell to you the endorsements that make this an asset. Do you want to sell or purchase what he was selling on the back of the truck? Which is how the company started. So there's no name there's no endorsements, there's no proprietary innovation but it's a nice shoe. Some of you may be awesome enough to see the future and say I want to buy that asset but some of you may say I'll take it for a dollar and we'll see what happens. The value of intellectual property is not just rewarding someone or hoarding the innovation. It's saying if you put your time and energy and money in capital and work on it you'll be happy to pay for it. The value of that is not just something that we hold here. While some people pretend that the United States lives on its own we still play in a global market. And intellectual property is not ours and ours alone. Or the constitution needs no debate. IP rights were around during the Italian Renaissance. The 1400 or the Renaissance period which was found in Italy. So then we have the 1400s, 1500s IP rights. And you go to Barber along and you start looking and saying well no we have people who are composing and they were uncompensated. We have amazing artists who went around so they also have a patronage period. If you are being paid to do your work yeah you do it. But what if I ask you to do it for free? To let the ideas go and flow. Some may say stop. I have a point where you want me to do it for free I don't want to do it anymore and then that's when the argument comes down to innovation. Patent, copyright, trademark, IP is the system perfect? No. Is it broken in some places? Absolutely. I told you you had gang green. Am I going to say you're dead or am I going to amputate the part that's broken and fix it so we can heal? Within Patent do I find problems? Absolutely. As a practitioner I would say I do have a problem with patent trolls. I most certainly have a problem with a talk that comes in individual particularly a smaller company creates something that's vastly innovative and then they have to go through the great expense and admittedly I am part of those great expenses that some may have to take to protect their innovation. But with that once it's protected, once they've made that capital investment I believe they have a right and I certainly do have a right to protect it, to defend it and to have a framework by which we all accept it. It does not stop you from having a great idea. I can't just mystify. It's not about keeping someone from being able to have an idea. The problem is we don't get rewarded for keeping our ideas on the shelf. If I were going to bring it out of the dark and bring it into the light then you guys think there's something in it for you. In it could be health. It could be bringing a vast pool of innovation so that we can change our healthcare system for the better. And it could be a great writing so that where it would go in and say where it should not be just for a few they should have access to the whole. And the best way to provide that access absolutely is from the internet of being able to have mass dissemination. But it's also being able to say when that one smart person puts a page, points on their website and they start getting compensated for my work I get a cut of that too. Tesla is known for sharing their ideas. But they also receive money from 13 patents when someone else got credit for creating the radio. This is not about saying I want to hold and afford what I create. It's about saying I want to be rewarded for my innovation in a means in which I choose and even if I don't choose to do it I have the right to do it. We all have a social construct in which we're living. We all give a little to be part of the greater society. We may not like all of the giving that we have to do and some of us may feel that this giving is a bit excessive. And again intellectual property can be worked in some areas. But it's certainly not a framework that we want to talk about. So going back to how we're looking and even using the John Locke example and having it to be about property and where intellectual property rights falls in the midst of property. It gets a little bit circular. So we've got some people who would argue IP is not a property to begin with. We have others that say it's not that we don't think that it's property but we think that it limits our right to property. So that's another argument. Then you have some who say even if it is property it's not the type of property that can be protected. And to that I would start and I would say yes, typically I am not the one who wants to go around quoting John Locke or Blackstone. But even our Supreme Court is having to do it right now. They're looking at it in a case that is going over whether or not true and is in a sense whether or not. But more so it's how we adjudicate property rights if in fact they do exist. So let's take this particular case which is sitting before the Supreme Court now instead of what they're evaluating and the danger in essentially saying that extensions of ourselves whether they're creative works whether they are health proprietary works whether particularly they are trademarks because they are selfishly. If we want nothing else not as inventors but as consumers what we want is to be able to get what we essentially need for. Trademarks aren't there to protect just the person who's made this name or logo. Trademarks are there so that when you are going out and you think you're getting it you get what you thought you were going to get. And in a world where so frequently we don't get what we thought we were going to get the least we could do is get it when we're expending monetary capital to buy and support a company. So then what we end up having here with the Supreme Court case is a switch in terms of how they're going and this is where it gets a little bit complicated and I apologize but that's one of the problems with patent trademark IP. It's not IP itself it's the human factor of how you decide to legislate and go over it. And to the point about legislation with our issue more so more often than not it's not that intellectual property is not clear it's that the legislative drafting to terminate how we run our intellectual property organizations have been drafted. If we want to command more it's that the less from IP is that we command more from the statutes that are being drafted to protect our rights and intellectual property. But going back so essentially this particular case hinges on how someone can review a patent claim. Right now they I hate to say but it's incredibly expensive for one to be dedicated a patent case and so because of that to stop and quell the litigation they have what's called an inter partes procedure which allowed an administrative body to come in and instead of having to go to federal court they could go. That administrative body would determine your rights in the patent and that would alleviate a lot of the cost prohibitive factors that play with intellectual property. In this particular instance someone filed a patent we'll call them coming in A coming in B to keep it a little bit a little less convoluted. You have party A filed a patent that patent was granted. Party B came in they essentially infringed or so party A suggested they went before the inter partes procedure through that inter partes procedure the court or that administrative body found as a patent. Not only did they have a right to use it but it was invalid to begin with they removed the patent from party A retroactively and now went before the Supreme Court essentially the argument being an administrative body does not have the right to take away my property my property should be determined in a federal court as the Constitution will suggest or whether there's a federal court we'll know in 2018 but what I can say is that the weakness of IT does exist in it being cost prohibitive. But the idea that property is not an extension or IT is not an extension of ourselves is a fallacy that I cannot promote. Ideas are one of the key components and one of the best things about our American system of education. What did we try and hold on to? We try and hold on to innovation. What was the one thing or continues to be though I don't know how often it will be or how long it will be how long this will last our innovation and our ability to ideate is special and unique and the reason it's special and unique is because almost everyone can say I could have come up with that that's a great idea I could have come up with that. Dan Brown who's an author who we are familiar with from the Da Vinci Code and so to draft this book you can pull up on modern art and he walked through a modern art museum and there was a white in the two circles that were red and he said which I think most of us probably would I could have made that and to that the curator said but you did it property you are infringing on my right to do what I want with my property so let's address that next. You can do essentially pretty much whatever you want in your house if I were to take this code and I do whatever I want I look there in use of what I do with this code it's when I walk out of my house and I decide to say I want to sell it to you and you and you and you I actually am making this that's the infringement it's not so much that anyone is objecting to the use of material or the creativity that extends from it it's when we start messing with the monetary profit sharing and not saying there are constraints for that and what are the constraints? Licensing it is a myth that people cannot innovate, iterate, and create within a construct of intellectual property the innovation is being able to innovate, create, and iterate within those parameters and doing something that still exists outside of the telephone industry existed before Steve Jobs came up with the iPhone yet we found it to be an innovative different way of looking at the phone. Again, if we all could have done that, arguably the argument is we would have but it took one, the slippery slope which is a positive instance with the slippery slope of stating it's not just that we don't need to have a phone and it's just a clock we don't need to have a phone that also has a voice no we don't need to have a phone that takes great pictures it's that when it's produced and provided to the consumer do they buy it and then when they do who gets the money and the reward for that the people who ideated and spent the money in R&D and then provided to all of us so we can say we can make it better and if we do then what can we do within the construct of IOC that we will that doesn't offend from an property right because we can lighten the technology we want or as great as we think we are we can create where we think we should be we build upon and the checks and balances of IOC which is also important here is that we don't get the long needed period of pure recording it's not that we could have our great ideas and no one can touch it into perpetuity and it blocks and protects it by time there are windows of that ownership and as we go into the job with new technology 3D printing, AI we start looking at okay so where are the lines drawn because AI is going to be able to have discussion recently it's not only take what I put in a program or my algorithm but it's also going to be able to take all the data that's available through an IBM Wednesday we'll give them capital W because it could be a trademark name but from the W products that allows AI to come in and provide additional information at a certain point in time we will have combined embodiment of mutual intellect, literature mathematics, physics ranging from physics to calculus to philosophy all sitting there detecting what we would do as a society and then throwing it out there and who gets to own that for the truth the programmer or the chief of it the person who will set it and we'll have the chief of it and we have to be comfortable with that and if we are comfortable with it then the cure is not in demolishing the construct it's fixing it the foundation is solid even if the walls are a bit flailing so we have a situation where we know John Locke was on to something it was that there's a circular argument here but whether it's property whether it infringes on your rights it is property does it infringe on your rights no the same way that saying you can go as fast as you want to in your car but we will put up speed limits no you don't have free freedom but you do have freedom within the construct should intellectual property be abolished? why don't you think you can throw the baby out with the facts? I also don't think that you can look at it in a silo patents do need work copyrights have an extension of time that allows merit to the argument that as they stand they are imperfect but they are certainly valuable because while a person who was paid previously through a patronage system in the arts world and was a musician that we get performing rights payment what happens to the author are we paying them to read their novel out loud that was not historically what was happening a person who was drafting their work was not able to receive the monetary benefit of the time that they invested in the work that type of authorship should be rewarded it shouldn't be rewarded because it makes us viscerally feel good it should be rewarded because it creates a level of innovation and interactive thought that builds our intellectual community communities that can also be licensed, copyrighted, protected and expanded we as a society grow in our construct when we protect the work, creative and other laws of ingenuity and we recognize that great ideas are a scarce resource because we thought that they were bloody like Niagara Falls maybe we would not need to produce that but the reality is, when we talk about great companies, we talk about the new cycles, there is a Google there is a Walmart, all trademark names and the reason they went through the business of trademarking them is otherwise we'd be saying there was a great algorithm any algorithm are we all using every algorithm no, we're using a few construct identifiers and they have value our constructs have value we need to work to improve them but we don't need to work to eradicate them not everyone who has a good idea reads all the benefits from it and if this is true, I think this is sort of the truth, I love to hear two things differently, why people innovated without monetary rewards as I think we can acknowledge that people have done rather than having a history yes, so how many people innovated even without the constructs of an electoral property well I would argue that they had the constructs of an electoral property because since the drafting of the constitution it has actually been there, are you talking about the United States or on a global scale the clarification yeah, so I think they have a really excellent case for this year of the U.S. but I think for certain properties a lot of capitalism ingenuity this is not stemming necessarily from historical context, this is really looking at it from a sociological standpoint as opposed to just a purely intellectual property standpoint but ingenuity also comes out of necessity so a lot of the creation and the innovation that we experience has stemmed from the need to create those things I mean if you look at early innovation in the United States of America for instance, a lot of the great things that we utilized really came about not because people thought they were going to profit off of them but quite frankly because it was needed we created a refrigerator because food was going bad and so that necessity served as the initial construct what happened over time of course is that we ended up living in a world where innovation, and you also had different systems of how we were doing exchange, right so all I have to say, ingenuity is not directly correlated to monetary reward but I would venture to say in present day, as opposed to historically ingenuity is enhanced and encouraged when you know that your hard work will be rewarded by an array of a lot of things whether it's an acquisition, whether it's changing healthcare for the better I think all of those things are incentivized in different ways but even the person who has the most altruistic method still will be paid handsomely if they sell their drugs to a strong pharmaceutical company so it's hard for me to extrapolate a non-monetary component to it when in present day there is a great monetary component that's tied to even the most altruistic vertical but historically yes, I believe that ingenuity used to evolve from need and necessity further questions Mr. Sharma would you like property rights, international property rights in all cases because for example that's where software patenting is an enormous burden on a lot of things that even happen because innovations that were originally considered groundbreaking 3 years ago are now on the baseline of everything that happens in that particular state of the industry so are there fields that are evolving to rapidly for example property are there fields that we can look at and I don't know if you would define a partial abolition of international property in certain fields that seem to be completely out of the normal paradigms where commercial property rights are most expensive so the difficulty with doing distinctions and sort of trying to delineate between what should be made within the framework and what automatically comes out of technology within international property technology will continue to grow and will continue to innovate whether we isolate those specific things or not do I think that there are flaws in the system and you identify one absolutely I do believe that there is a lot of work that has to be done in terms of and that's why sort of open sourcing and when engineers are utilizing particularly now I mean I can think of a client that's where licensing comes into play and is it cost prohibitive in some instances it can be but when what's being created looks like it's going to serve the greater licenses are carved out the myth is that you aren't able to receive those licenses and that the parameters do not grant those rights they do the cost prohibition of seeking those licenses or worse being acquired and the acquired is so intense you want a shelf that's the danger and I think but to answer your question do we think do I think that we should extract them no but I think we need to stop Wayne Gretzky had a great quote about looking where the hockey puck is going and not where it is I think historically with the construction of intellectual property we have consistently just looked at where the hockey puck is and not where it's going we know that 3D imaging is here we know that we're going to have to determine who owns the rights to a cab to purchase those rights what happens when people 3D print things that are protected via patents whether there's a utilitarian aspect to it all of those things we're going to have to evaluate and we can't wait until the end of the road to do it so do I think that means we take 3D printing out of the mix because we haven't figured it out yet no I think we demand more from those who are legislating and essentially bring in specialists to identify certain things AI being another one and today let's get ahead of the curve and wait until the end that's my concern I would not take something out I would fine tune and state that we know better now this is not 1980 we know that we've got some of the best products currently were created by kids in their dorm or in a garage and I'm using kids not disparagingly but to say that means that individuals who are 40 years seniors who are creating these laws may not have had a predictive characteristic but then we need to bring in some individuals who do so I don't think that we need to remove individuals from protection or under this intellectual property overarching thing but I think we need to get better at identifying what the protection looks like how it's going to be attributed and what it means on a local scale even if we removed it in the U.S. there's still numbers of white people we're still going to have an international organization to answer to and I believe that individuals from the United States deserve accurate protection on them in order to be U.S. for perhaps a final question please walk thank you Madison there seem to be many cases where a patient will have a certain type of as an athlete and elevators will take that as an athlete and have it on their own does the people need a person who where does that open up does the person who has the need to save the matter so I mean that we're not going to be allowed to do that right and people owning their rights and sort of when we start looking at removing laws we always have to look at who's harmed by removing a law so I would always want to say that anything that's considered exotic tends to be appropriated and that people who own that should have a right to monetize it in a way that respects them and respects their culture and the parameters of their life with a patent I feel the same way but in a very different way you're using the example of DNA I can go so far as to say it's anything for food it's very dangerous when we start having organizations who are owning the patents and essentially the genetic marker for food if you spend time creating the perfect apple should you be able to remove the reward of it even nature alone has now usurped that way I think we need to carve out acceptance for that I think it's a good reward for our nation but I don't think it's going to be in a system so that we've been disenfranchised by other people wrongfully now when it comes to DNA itself full disclosure I'm not a type and so I draw the line in terms of really understanding how those genetic markers go and how similar all of us are to what an honest breakdown of how much of what I have is mine and then where we distinguish because if I had a twin then we could share such as the substantial amount that who owns it, you know my twin and what happened to my twin and I don't get along so I can't it's a slope that I think goes down enough to articulate it fairly but I would say that any science test or institution and I think John Hawkins had an issue with this with him and Adelaide the issue there is not so much the ability to utilize those cells it's the honesty and reaping the monetary benefit and again when we have a contract it will potentially be licensed without payment so what they were owed is going to be so we're not saying you can't use it I believe that animation and finance is critical and how else are we going to be able to get the cells but we all, especially the HIPAA buy into that but who else can buy so we have to openly come in so you can sense that you cannot have a payment from us and then not use the monetary benefit that we never need to use that so from a biopharmaceutical standpoint do I think someone else has the right to own it and I'm using it personally in myself absolutely not but due to what they offer to me and we have the right to contract and we contractually agreed and I was told I'll receive a percentage for a scrape and I had the right contractually to yay or nay that and I would leave all of everyone in a free market to have the right to make that so it takes music lessons and support programs, it takes years of schooling and support from companies and universities what Mr. Kintella touched on is the importance of the state and guaranteeing intellectual property's continuing existence so the state and the people of the state both create the conditions under which people innovate and also the rules for the conversion are based into intellectual property with regard to drug companies there's a lot of inconsistencies in who is doing the intellectual labor and who is getting compensated there are two lists here today who worked in a lab that was doing Alzheimer's research funded by a large pharmaceutical company their lab has started doing trials for a drug that could easily make the company a fortune my peers and their underpaid graduate student advisors are the innovators here but they're not the ones that are going to see a panic this is just one burden between innovation and profit-making but there's another missing component here too let's take a case example some garage jinker comes up with the next Facebook and her garage or whatever your social media address is she copyrights her work and patents her award-winning algorithm, this is the whole of Jalana she makes a lot of money and it goes on to be responsible and give some of it away and so on intellectual property take the story to both be normal and natural of course someone who makes something cool but how did our hypothetical innovator have the time or the resources to do this was she supported by her family did her local library and coding classes did she have a stable work schedule that gave her both benefits and the time required to pursue her own interests the well system that allows certain people to be innovators are precisely the people who are protected by the intellectual property the communities that paid for our innovator to go to school and live before they moved into a position to become innovators are just as responsible for the innovation as the individual if you think this is a load of glory do you genuinely think that the reason more innovations have come from wealthy places is because of the greater concentration of genius there or is it because innovation takes money and support and resources a continued existence not of innovation but of intellectual property is not natural or universal but is a choice made by the state this choice right now primarily protects the largest wealthiest companies in the US many people argue that intellectual property as a legal category protects small artists without regards to the fact that small artists can't afford to stay meshed in intellectual property models and that companies are aggressive with attacking the local music makers and your Yale Facebook meme creators that use ideas of this in ongoing innovative process intellectual property is a fiction that is designed to privilege the innovations of a certain type of person operating in a particular place innovations and creations happen every day the hyper-individualization of our society operates for people needing to accumulate awards and kudos and profit and intellectual property serves precisely this function imagine for a hot sec a world in which people continue to be creative and work to solve their own problems as this could point it out people solve problems, they create things to address needs in their lives but a certain subset in this world pardon me, don't use legal fictions to accumulate wealth and prestige if all the innovations that are the cumulative life-works of hundreds of people were free to use them and in restrictions imagine what our kids would come up with since we live in an interconnected world it makes sense to encourage the growth and development of more innovations built on others this requires the abolition of education there is much credit in their work as the creators themselves so where does this stop so let's say that I write a novel how much of a cut do my parents do because my high school student is literally the U.S. deserve to provide a broader economic framework which I exist if this is an actual ethical principle which we should obey how does that work in the real world what implications should that have I didn't have time to talk about this so I always see there's a distinction between types of property as Mr. Gonzalez pointed out intellectual property is a fiction it's not material I think there's another category of property that exists one is the personal it's my paper, it's my glasses it's the things that I use to interact with the world and the other is private property which is the way capital is produced and it's the way money is made it's having machinery, it's having things like that so the question how does this like where does the life of property stop if I say intellectual property is sort of an accumulation of all these results like what are the implications so basically I think that private property is really bad and immoral because I'm a socialist I don't believe there are many people but basically like any property that exists only for the accumulation of the wealth is like that it should be redistributed so yeah take out further questions Miss Miss Dye she thought it was bad the company that provided the material support and funding for researchers to go about doing their research to get a cut of the money that came from that was bad but also that our communities and schools who have contributed things to our being able to create things would be good I'm curious why there's a meaningful difference in her mind between company gives me money to do research and teacher gives me skills to do research that also make one of those totally ethnically bad and the other totally ethnically good yeah so this relates to my answer to Miss Talier the profit seeking motive for companies that relies on exploiting the labor of workers the reason it funds research at all is because of things that can make dramatically more money like this is like research is funded because companies see a profit motive in it which means that the money that goes into the research is like necessarily going to be less than the money that they're going to get out of it that's like why they invest in that research and is also why I care less about their return on investment rather than communities and things that see no profit seeking motive in supporting people to innovate and be creative what about Miss Murphy there's a second question today we'll just want to recapitulate what has been said by Miss very well earlier on in her speech so intellectual property rights reflect the battle that individual ingenuity brings to society humans are not the strongest fastest or the biggest animals but we accept all the features in life and life and I think that in a broad sense of the word human creativity and knowledge have given us major achievements of both technical and cultural and culture and intellectual property rights represent a way to recognize the value of the time and effort that an individual or group of individuals places into these endeavors the key however is to balance the benefits of the public good for the benefit of the owner of the IP I would argue that the very nature of IPS that intellectual property rights are actually a democratizing force because the originator of intellectual property can literally be anyone of course this premise is more easily said and applied to certain forms of IP compared to others but I would say that especially in the arts IP offers a way to each and every one of us to contribute to the work of artists and to support these artists in their endeavors to give the example of comic books I mean it is very easy to go online and try to find an un-copyrighted version of a comic book that doesn't give any compensation to comic book artists and this is something that the artists themselves are aware of the danger in a system that doesn't provide any way for compensating the artists at all is that you can put people especially young artists that are simply starting out in a very tough position it's very hard to have a series that you're working for in your life and hard into when there's really nothing to support you as a person that's simply a reality of life and it's also disrespectful in another way because it seems to say that there's no way of recognizing who made this work monetary compensation is a way of recognizing that this work has value and to go to another area where intellectual property rights are particularly important I would argue that in medicine intellectual property rights are especially important because the cost of developing new treatments and diagnoses are incredibly high even for pharmaceutical companies that operate in a multi-billion dollar business and the world despite all of this will be much worse off without the medical progress that we are making developing a new prescription drug that gains market approval costs about 2.6 billion dollars and this is not the only cost that goes into drug development it takes almost a decade for some drugs even more time than a decade to develop a drug that starts to finish and that is developing say a molecule to having clinical trials to finally getting the FDA to bring it to market so it's a time intensive it's a money intensive process and intellectual property rights therefore provide compensation for undertaking such risky endeavors and rightfully so moreover there is already a built-in limit to such compensation to do intellectual property rights as drug patents, at least in the case of medicine remain in force for only 20 years after the drug has been released to market and this is the case even if it took 5 or 15 years to develop the drug now despite these realities I do believe that scientific research should remain a shared endeavor of a global scope in that researchers should exchange information freely within the bounds of their own work but even within the sciences there is a push that even the sciences do and should recognize individuals who bring about great discoveries I would say that the rush to publish a work once you have an amazing discovery doesn't only mean that you're excited to share your work with humanity there is a sense that you're proud that your group that put in 20 years 30 years into this discovery made it you showed that it was all worth it and I would say that's a very positive thing to have in a society so IP rights to conclude are a healthy aspect of a society and an economy that believes that intellectual creations are worth rewarding and with that I answer questions question I would say that it means that the situation isn't as bad as some who very actively seek to shut down sites that put on copyrighted material we make it seem I would say that the problems on copyrighted material on the internet does have an impact on the world I would say that the problems on copyrighted material on the internet does hurt even with places like GoFundMeSites does hurt artists because for once you have a GoFundMe site you have to have someone be willing to start it for you and especially if you're an obscure artist who's simply starting out you might not have the funds you might not actually have the means of getting that started especially if your own friend network doesn't have enough money to begin with moreover I would say that it isn't just an issue of say the starting artist who's creating these things it's if the artist wants to take their work further so give an example of Japanese comics you can have a Japanese comic also called Manga so it starts out with a really excellent series I think to a certain level having the material online actually brings the popularity of that series to more people that's a good thing but if the actual series doesn't sell enough in both format the Manga artist might not have enough money to say let the series become animated even if it's something that the fans really want or the animated series might be cut short before it's high so these are just you might limit an artist career in that sense and I would say most people don't like to be funded by GoFundMe GoFundMeSites are usually a resort of emergency the speaker mentioned the necessity of patents because of the crushing cost imposed on pharmaceutical companies by the FDA so the speaker would be in favor of eliminating the FDA and also all corporate income taxes to reduce the cost of these corporations so that patents are not necessary to subsidize the cost already imposed on them by the state it's actually a very good sign of where we are in medical science today some of the most expensive things to create treatments for are things that at our level of science we've done things like eliminate small costs we've done things like create vaccines or polio people tend to not die of pneumonia and these are all really excellent investments the stakes and the standards are much, much higher and I'd say that to a certain extent it's a good sign that I as someone who might buy a small lab kit from Amazon probably can't make the cure for AIDS in my lab I wish I could, I really wish I could but it's such a difficult problem that it really demands all those resources and the FDA is there to make sure that because with drugs, you're playing with life and death we can vet these that these medicines that do come to the market aren't causing harm even more harm than the actual diseases themselves another speech in the affirmative Mr. Diaz we're teaching you how to internet works so intellectual property laws place more power in the hands of corporations to control the ways that consumers use art to actually give artists more control or more revenue for their work in fact empowering corporations like Spotify, Apple, Amazon Netflix and Google through something called digital digital restrictions management it's typically called digital rights management it forces artists especially small artists to give control over their products to these treatment services so intellectual property laws grant to certain corporations to regulate the ways that users can access products like songs so when a consumer streams music they don't buy a record or a cassette tape or something physical or even an MP3 all of which the consumer can use as they see fit instead the streaming companies start to tell songs that they use so for example I use Apple Music to stream most of my music so for streaming I would download an MP3 sometimes legally, sometimes not I can put it under my computer or my iPod and I can use it as I want like a chair with friends like another product I can use but now that I stream Apple it restricts how I can consume music that I can only do it on certain devices and certain software and neither me nor the artist has control over where the product is distributed so the music industry has pushed more toward streaming because it enables consumers to pay for the streaming service for its legal streaming rather than the artist for the product so because it provides more music to less money it's become a dominant deal but these corporations this actually has made corporations like streaming services necessary for artists to even survive in a lot of cases especially small artists have to be streaming and there's Mr. Kinsella mentioned the consensual contracts I don't think there's a whole lot of consent that goes on if you want to be an artist who produces music and streaming is just like one case of a longer extension of the control industry and determining how artists can share their music so for example like in the early 20th century singers would be paid like maybe 50 bucks to do a song and they get no royalties and the recording industry would make all the money off of it and I think the recording is an interesting case because what it does is it does sort of dissociate the labor from the product so especially in recording you can sing a song one time it can be shared in all these cases and I think the problem in the record industry in the recording industry specifically is that the streaming services make it so you basically have to be streaming you can't actually sell records like you used to be able to and the true problem is that artists have no control over the industry and I think so even in the capitalist system you know I'm going to give Mr. Diaz an additional 30 seconds so I've got to talk a little bit more about what the alternative to a capitalist system is like so I think part of the problem is that only in a system where you have to be working constantly to survive is the problem of starving artists even if there was a universal way of income which is not necessarily uncapitalistic it can actually have you know artists being able to control their work while also having you know their life in this perspective Questions for Mr. Diaz Mr. Malik In terms of the fact that Mr. Diaz has sympathy for starving artists the very example that he used specifically Spotify, Apple, Apple using all these different streaming sites and whatever so they existed in what was essentially prior to their existence what was essentially like a somewhat anarchist or like the intervals essentially like in anarchy with regards to music right like anyone could basically know what it is essentially not really but sort of like if you have a need to use it basically but despite that essential lack of private property or like intellectual property these streaming services are still a take away to make this market control the extent that you're talking about so assuming we're still in this Catholic system we take away this intellectual property wouldn't that just further increase in lobbyists or the effect of controlling these standardized services happen? I didn't clarify this well enough and I think that the point of what I'm saying is that not that intellectual property is what protects artists but what we should be shifting artists the way we can see other artists and other innovators like scientists and whatever as laborers and not as as owners of their intellectual property and I think in the modern I'm going to geek out a little bit about music history so I think there are a lot of ways that musicians have made money and even today there was only a really brief period of history where musicians made most of their money through recording so often times it would either be through touring like the Ballardville circuit was the biggest industry not the biggest but one of the biggest it was the biggest entertainment industry they also were for example regular clubs even the most famous musicians were hired this way and they were laborers of that club so there was a brief period when recording really shot off that became the primary way musicians made their money but that's now not becoming the case again in most cases going back to this situation where the most money you make is touring or through selling merchandise so I think what I'm saying here is that the intellectual property the reason I think it should be abolished in this case is because it actually does not free the musicians or the artists or the innovators from the freedom to control their art in the ways that I think some of the previous speeches wanted and it controls how we can consume our the things that we pay for and I think that's justifiable reason to abolish and with that Mr. Beers there's an interesting argument that I want to say here is that intellectual property laws could be copyrighted it's only intellectual property patterns there is a flawed system but it does overall have some benefit of it it benefits the individual but it benefits all businesses and it benefits corporations all at the same time some people have there's problems with this largely because for example the companies making very silly patterns like Amazon patting pictures on a white background or all these other crazy patterns a lot of big tech companies were trying to patent Taylor Swift tried to trademark the number 1989 these are the things that people try to do um um the the main aspect of these kind of laws is that you protect people from having their own written creations their own writings being stolen by these nefarious companies that want to exploit their work for little to no costs so for example a lot of artists on the internet because they were really so they claimed that companies like American Parallel for over 21 steal their designs and make a profit of them they don't receive a single penny I don't think that that means that intellectual property failed it just means that there's I think that they didn't have those kind of protections they didn't know the law and they didn't have the ability to protect themselves from getting exploited I do think that those companies should pay that um legal fees so a lot of the time people have a problem with the intellectual property because there are legal fees associated for example a corporation tries to sue this little guy because they torrented something or they didn't use the right they didn't give the right credits to them etc etc um and then and then you have this little guy who's got this big team of 20 lawyers or if you're trying to sue the company that took your day and you're the person making the complaint but again you're against 20 lawyers and you don't have the millions of dollars the corporation has I think that that's the more or so problem with this the way the system is with our own laws that's fairly a problem with intellectual property as it is I think that intellectual property laws indicate that we think that people own have had sort of ownership over their own ideas and that's the same way that we think that people own their ideas we talk about plagiarism so we have to say plagiarism we say like okay this person this is this person's work they have rights that you can't just claim it as your own and the same way we don't want people being in or for beating corporations saying you know this is your life and that works and so I think that we just need to fix the problems in the system and it does protect those that we think it's being harmed by the system Questions from Miss Smith Would Miss Smith be in favor of the creation of some federal agency or something like that that whose job it is like I know some of the people whose job is to seek out these cases where people that created small artists like competition that are going to ask for help fighting these criminal orders like is this a solution that she would be in favor of or is it like bad for other reasons? I don't like federal agencies but some federal agencies are good some are just emergency problems with their head housing or development system department but I don't think it should be a federal agency I think that we have a good culture of nonprofits here there are nonprofits that bail people out of jail because they were wrongfully imprisoned they have nonprofits that go into all these different areas that can educate people on different problems so I think that like if we just encourage people to if we give people information through that way and then make another bureaucratic arm of the government to do this Is that a third or a promotion? No, I spoke to someone Oh Miss Smith, Miss Smith I've had an anime phase at some point in that there are situations when people create animated music videos things like this corporations can't come in and say no, you're using my music you can't make this video even though it's kind of like it's clearly more work put in than just playing the song and we're taking the song and you can't have that anymore and even though theoretically people could go in and say that my issue with a bunch of property laws is that they benefit corporations more than they benefit small producers a good case study of this is with fan fiction back in like a long time ago and Rice used to hunt people down and wrote stories Lucas did people wrote fan fiction about the Star Wars this one person who didn't do this was JK Rowling actually interesting works good because of the way online communities of fans work right now works that have a lot of transformative works that sometimes actually get more it's like free advertising essentially to get more attention for even the original content and also fans are generally producing things that the original creators wouldn't make in any way for example because I made restart I guess Star Wars fan fiction doesn't mean you're not going to go see the next movie because the next movie is valuable like separate from the motion I also want to talk a little bit about works historically in that like context remixing is like a huge part of poster and all that a good number of ancient Greek plays a major case where a author or a student fan fiction author and one since like at least the late 90's probably didn't exist so we see who set up an equilibrium where intellectual property like this and people who write that fan fiction didn't not get response yeah so like I was talking about a lot of the transformative works a good example of where this is still a huge issue is on youtube this is for those of us in the audience who aren't huge nerds essentially what it is is people will take like BFLR so like things are short today and like add such beats to make it sound very different than it did originally it's a music genre that works by using other people's music essentially but you put a lot of work into it I do believe it is protected under fair use actually at the moment but I think the amount of it is or at least people aren't willing to try and fight to move for this make a way considering that there is a lot of make a way available yeah and with that Ms. Larudy's thing he is going to get to talk about fan fiction I agree that fan fiction and other transformative works are incredibly valuable however I do not think that they are the primary concerns that intellectual property laws are trying to address um things that fan fiction and the concerns that I mentioned are different in that fan fiction does show admiration for a work that is not generally trying to profit out of that work nor is it taking away from the author's ability to profit out of their own ideas what I think that intellectual property right laws are really valuable in doing is one showing society's respect for art and creative works um and two allowing artists to make a living off of doing that without having to treat it as a side hobby I think that probably a lot of us can agree that art has some sort of value um whether it's like writing or writing thinking about ourselves more um thinking about ideas there are a number of ways that we've tried to encourage it I think one of the most important is in allowing artists to be able to treat it as a real career instead of something that parents discourage people from taking college um I think our mindset when it comes to art is really important in how we treat art if we look at art as something that we take for granted as free if we just think that we should be entitled to profit off of somebody else's ideas or to piggyback off of them then I think if you art and there would be nothing there to really encourage young artists to continue pursuing that um doesn't have to say that no one would do art anymore but I think that it would be detrimental for those of encouraging more art um so for those reasons I think that while intellectual property laws may be getting in the way of some like AMB productions or whatever I think those are things that can be changed and changed and not necessarily something that should be completely abolished when it is true that like we've solved those problems when it comes to most of fan fiction I think that we can keep the good part of intellectual property without debate Questions for Ms. Lu Mr. Sylvester Thank you Thank you Ms. Lu There is a point in which I don't think the change in ideas so much is that possible Is there something that I could put into suggesting something or have significantly changed something that could allow the new property Yeah absolutely I'm not saying that we should never be allowed to draw influence from things I think that's huge I think a lot of it is acknowledging that too right like a lot like philosophers filled upon each other's works, those influences are usually clear, fan fiction writers are supposed to always have a disclaimer saying that like just is based off of a work by J. K. Rowling So change it so much that the influence is negligible or acknowledge it Ms. Lu is faint I apologize for my outfit I was on my way to the gym and then I came through the gym to my mind and came back to share my scatter with everyone tonight So I find this something very interesting to me because it highlights I think the attention that I could see between two leftist intuitions that I have on the one hand I think some leftists believe that people should own the property to the labor but there's an idea that people own their labor and that's an idea that was made in the first affirmative speech and the second intuition that I have that conflicts with this one is exactly the leftist intuition that there's something wrong with intellectual property laws and it encouraged me to think about what is so special about intellectual property intellectual property is a form of labor just like any other type of labor so why is it that it's leftist I believe that workers should own the fruits of their manufacturing labor pharmaceutical companies don't have as much of a claim over their intellectual property labor and I think a possible answer to a possible way to result attention is has to do with the notion of privilege I think that very often when it comes to intellectual property the act of labor requires a lot of privilege and I think that that reduces the claim to property and there are two things I want to say one way to perhaps see how this intuition plays out is I think that at least for me I think that a small artist, a small innovator has a greater claim over the fruits of their intellectual labor than does a big pharmaceutical company and I think that if one way to make sense of this intuition is to observe that the pharmaceutical company has a lot of privilege that this small artist, this small innovator does not have I think also is interesting with this way to result attention is that I think actually consistent with Locke's theory of property I think that one premise that Locke offers that is often overlooked is his idea that there are limits in how much one should own one should not own more than one needs to own and I think that recognizing the privilege as I'm suggesting maps very well into this intuition so it hasn't worked out and without a little too questions Questions? Mr. Rabindran Yeah, so I haven't really thought through how one could actually implement this I think there are proxies that one could use to measure the amount of privilege that some of them make the intellectual property claims and they I think perhaps I don't know if the financial resources that the actor has can be a good proxy to this amount of privilege but I think the former political company has a much more claim to seeing their intellectual burden as a property as does a small artist or an innovator and such And if that, my sweet mate is Thank you I'll take Miss Collier's speech I watched a little of that in early modern Europe which were that no one made a red set for their writings like the possible set and that was a difficult situation for any number of reasons Which means if you wanted to write or produce an instinctive intellectual output you had to either be independently wealthy or be affiliated with some institution, usually the church or have an aristocratic patron who would support you Those were your options Obviously this was detrimental to the variety and content of intellectual production of political speech available at the time which is not feasible to support yourself or be affiliated with some kind of power structure and when copyright laws started to be invented it still wasn't to benefit writers it was to benefit printers and this actually made a lot of sense because early modern printing was incredibly expensive like casting type was expensive setting type is expensive and labor consuming, the vast majority of printers went bankrupt Gutenberg went bankrupt and so it was initially printers that were seen financially and this I think is illuminating when you want to think about intellectual property as a kind of means of production as I think several of the speakers on the left have done tonight and if you're looking at someone like Gutenberg or Probe or whoever it's pretty clear that the intellectual property the writing is not the means of production the press is why printers could make tons of money off popular works while the writers who produced those works made nothing was because they controlled the physical limited resource that was needed to produce physical copies of the books which were oversold and a lot of people into this like movie studios right anything like a complicated expensive apparatus that is needed to produce content and like this should make it obvious why it is kind of incoherent to say that a socialist to oppose this property right should be intellectual property rights because the limiting factor on reproducing content is not the is not the creative side it's the again like the physical production side and like the second problem here is that the app has a pretty serious bathwater problem which they're saying that writers, artists, musicians are not properly compensated for their work under an existing intellectual property rights framework and so we should have almost a system all together this is craziness like the problem is not simply that US intellectual property laws are grossly misaligned the corporations benefit more than individuals the copyright reduction should not extend past the death of the author that there are huge reasons to be much more strongly protected all of that like that's correct but what that means is that we have to work towards the intellectual property system intellectual property system where individuals can actually be compensated for their work and the idea is that art is labor and that means that artists are properly compensated for their labor but ultimately I don't want to make a property argument I think that art is an issue of property rights whether or not readers are an infinitely exploitable resource and conversely whether everyone has the right to act as a piece of work because it is easy to reproduce and I think this is something that the internet matter the fact that modern print is incredibly cheap obscure a little bit 1600 it's obvious it's like an incredible amount of labor and effort questions what? no but it does not apply to things that are sort of the more general property of cultures it is like maybe loosely analogous if you squint any interpretation of IP law as the purpose of this applies to cultural institutions alright thank you just a few concluding remarks justice is the desire to render to everyone their due this is the ancient roman maxim what they're due is based upon what their rights are all rights are property rights as Murray Rothbard explained so the essence of my position is in defense of property rights and capitalism properly understood is the institutionalized respect for private property rights socialism is the institutionalized aggression against or violation of private property rights so would the socialists out there please stop agreeing with me I have enough problems already second for the people that use the fraud and the plagiarism arguments fraud is already against the law and breach of contract is already a claim so you already have laws against fraud why do we need patent copyright and trademark to stop it so that's not the reason for these laws that's for the idea of students being exploited because of these IP agreements if there were no patent law if there were no patent law these students would be able to compete with their former professors and universities without hindrance by the state ok you cannot have intellectual property and property rights any more than you can have welfare rights and natural property rights because welfare rights have to be paid for by someone and you have to take the other property away to pay for it just like when you inflate the money supply you debase the value of currency when you inflate rights you make other rights worth less ok you cannot say that ideas should be property just because they're created there's a natural distinction between tangible resources and between ideas dogs know that they're bulls they know that they're property but even birds don't try to copyright their songs ask for let's modify the copyright law and patent law but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater well if it's Rosemary's baby you might want to do that finally the famous in some circles 19th century left libertarian anarchist Benjamin Tucker who was opposed to intellectual property he pointed out that if you scatter money on the street and the people pick it up you can't complain that they've done so likewise if you release your ideas into the commons and people build on that and compete with you you have no complaint as he said if you want your ideas to yourself keep them to yourself thank you the most recent example I can give the scenario we have with Pepe the Frog a cartoon that was utilized originally in a cartoon and it was you serps really the settlement has had the infringer admit their infringement and their own doing but essentially it was you serps by the alt-right and the alt-right ended up using Pepe the Frog to promote their beliefs and their positions in terms of in this particular case Arabs, Muslims well there's a law of view by the originator of Pepe the Frog who said Pepe is a cool dude he's not on the side of the alt-right and he's not appreciating the being you served he went in, he litigated he litigated not just with monetary rights because he did not really have the money for the law firm that he retained which speaks to protecting your rights being a bit expensive but that's where public interest attorneys can come in I will freely admit I am not traditionally one of those attorneys but there are many who are came in and fought for the right of him saying it was his work it was his work, it was his fixed and it was not to be you served or infringed upon specifically in the manner in which it was done not only did they disagree with the messaging but they also, he disagreed with it being utilized, he prevailed and he ended up having the assets of the monetary restitution that he received from the infringement used to support Muslim Arab organizations that the alt-right had to pay for the avenue and the use of power by using your strength of mind and intellect to create something that then can be used for good or evil is yours and yours alone it should be protected, it should be fixed we do not have a perfect system we have an imperfect system that is appropriate because it is a system within the construct of America and yet who is an imperfect situation that we don't need to talk we need to perfect and work on I move that we thank Stefan Kinsella and Candace Cook for fine speeches on the floor of our Yale Political Union