• MillionthUsername

    I never said monopolies are illegal. Why would I say that? States are monopolies and they are "legal" because they have goons with guns to enforce their claims by violence. Legality is irrelevant to the topic. Liberty is illegal under state regimes. Does that mean human beings don't have the right to be free?

    Of course a state-created monopoly violates free market principles!!! What the hell do you think "free market" means???

    Stop playing word games. Free market does not equal rigged market.

  • MillionthUsername

    You acquire property justly through appropriating an unowned resource or through trading (your goods or your labor) with people who agree to transfer their justly acquired property to you, or through gift of the same. IP prevents a person from using their own property or their own ideas by creating an arbitrary monopoly on certain ideas, patterns, processes, etc. It claims that something that remains with the creator is "stolen" even though the creator still has whatever he claims was stolen.

  • MillionthUsername

    The fact that there remains some element of competition in things other than the claimed IP is irrelevant.

    "A noninfringing good can certainly compete against patented good"

    And a slave can certainly compete against a free man. So what? That justifies slavery??? You are arguing for a monopoly by pointing out that the claimed monopoly is not universal. I'm glad it's not universal and that it doesn't outlaw every conceivable alternative, but that tells us nothing about its legitimacy.

  • MillionthUsername

    "IP is just one of those definitions."

    So was slavery.

    My definition of property is the possession of a superior claim in justice to control a particular good and/or any derivative of that good established through voluntary contract. And I didn't even have to google it! : )

    "the enforcer must settle on a definition"

    What about the enforcee?

  • MillionthUsername

    Taking an iPod from someone who justly acquired it without their permission is universally recognized as theft, whereas the singing of a song is universally recognized as art and expression. Turning a pattern of notes and words into a property right is a very recent phenomenon accomplished solely through state power. A song is a non-rivalrous good, and so the term property simply doesn't apply. A million people can sing the same song using their own property. Nothing is stolen.

  • MillionthUsername

    No one can steal a song from you. How can they justly prevent you from singing, playing, performing, changing it? No one can steal an idea, or a pattern, or a process from you either because those things remain with you even if the whole world decides to use them.

    What the IPer claims is the power to prevent others from using their own property in a way similar to the way the IPer uses his property.

  • MillionthUsername

    Things like copyrights and patents were never recognized as property by society. They originated and have been perpetuated as top-down decrees of the state and as a result of the lobbying of those who would use the state to seek special privileges to protect their market. It's nothing but market rigging and rent seeking. A guarantee against competition is sought purely for private gain at the expense of other market participants. And the cost of enforcement is then socialized.

  • Michael Eldredge

    Yes they were recognized.

    Article I section 8 of the US constitution specifically recognizes the US congress as the body that decides IP law.

    When the constitution was ratified by "We The People" in a method that used a democratic process society gave its official seal of approval to IP.

    You can make the case that they should not have done this, but that is a very different argument.

  • Michael Eldredge

    Here is the difference between slavery and IP.

    People have a choice with IP. They do not have a choice with slavery.

    If I decide I do not want to give an artist money, I can go my whole life without doing so. I may have to go without access to that artist's work, but the choice is mine to make. Under this arrangement there is no coercion.

    Under slavery if I decide I do not want to participate in the slavery system anymore I would get laughed at and whipped until I gave up those notions.

  • Michael Eldredge

    I do not think you need to loose property in order for your property rights to be violated.

    Consider: I go to somebody's field without permission and fertilize, water and weed the crops, and then when the harvest comes I take an amount of grain equal to the extra yield due to my efforts.

    Most would agree that I violated that farmer's property rights, even though he is no worse off than before.

  • Michael Eldredge

    When you get right down to it all forms of property are arbitrary.

    I could claim that property rights only extend to material. Under that philosophy trespassing is not a crime. You could own a building (the bricks and planks that make it up) but not the empty space inside.

    In the interest of making civilization work more smoothly, we invented ownership in space.

    I think the invention of IP also makes civilization work more efficiently. In my view IP is just as legitimate as other property.

  • Michael Eldredge

    If artists get paid well for their work they can spend more time at their craft and stop working their day job.

    This leads to more works by that artist and better quality from that artist.

    The reason record labels compensate their artists is because of IP. They know that if they underpay their artists they will sign on with another label and they will loose the ability to publish some profitable songs.

  • MillionthUsername

    "When you get right down to it all forms of property are arbitrary."

    Are you in Congress?

  • MillionthUsername

    " do not think you need to loose property in order for your property rights to be violated."

    What property rights? You just said, "all forms of property are arbitrary."

  • MillionthUsername

    Ridiculous response.

  • Crypto Chanakya

    This learn liberty seems like a corporate puppy. Propagandist bullshit, i see through you.

  • Michael Eldredge

    If my response really is ridiculous could you please actually ridicule it so that I know what about it makes others want to point at it and laugh?

    I engage in arguments in comments so that I learn from the intelligent responses of the people that I am arguing with, possibly revising my opinions if the person I am arguing with makes a good point. That benefit is lost if all I read is a two word dismissal (alliterative though it may be.)

  • Michael Eldredge

    What I meant was arbitrarily defined.

    One of the legitimate purposes of government is to define the rules regarding property ownership. The government has decided to make art own-able.

    To me, this satisfies the question of whether or not IP is legitimate.

    I understand you think IP should not be property, and that is a debatable point. However saying ideas cannot be property is a silly argument since they clearly can be and are.

  • MillionthUsername

    I said that IP was never recognized by society, and that it originated in top-down decrees by the state. Your response was to give a perfect example of a top-down decree by the state and then claim that the state is society! You can't see that this is a ridiculous response?

  • You can give your stuff away, still keep at your craft, own your own record label, be in demand and make your money. Here.. look up the artist "Pretty Lights".
    Not only is he amazing, but also one of my influences. I'd imagine he ain't making MASS amounts of money like Skrillex or Kanye, but since when did bank equal success. I believe in sampling.. but in a appropriate and ethical way by just asking if you can use a synth or whatever (if you plan on getting bank out of your edit).

  • Michael Eldredge

    You are missing my point.

    Yes, people were property. That was a horrible crime and a blight on our history because it was an affront to freedom. Yes, governments have decided genocide was legal. That was terrible and unjust because it was an affront to the sanctity of life.

    The question therefore is not whether IP is legal or illegal, but whether or not it is unjust.

    I don't think it is unjust. I am talking to you because I want to see if you have an argument that will change my mind.

  • Michael Eldredge

    By that standard no laws are recognized by society in the US.

    Every law on the books was first written in some sort of "top down" manner. Even laws that go to the population for a vote are written by a few people. All voting does is pick which of two predetermined forms the law will take.

    Unless you are an anarchist at some point you have to make a concession to practicality and say that a law is legitimate because it has gone through a vetting process.

  • Michael Eldredge

    The success of Pretty Lights is an example of one artist, in one genre of one medium making a living giving his art away for free.
    This model would not work for film, where the cost of production is so high.
    This model would not work for authors, where there is no money in performance.
    This model would not work for most of pop, where the writers of a song are different people than the performers.
    One instance of success without IP does not mean any artist can succeed without it.

  • MillionthUsername

    You have presented no argument for IP as property except to appeal to the state and implying that whatever the state says is legitimate. This is obviously false and ridiculous since states are demonstrably wrong on many many things and have committed great acts of evil such as slavery and genocide.

    I've already explained to you what property is and why IP isn't property. You have only responded by appealing to state power, so I don't know what else you want from me.

  • MillionthUsername

    "By that standard no laws are recognized by society in the US."

    Look, that's ridiculous again. You don't know how to argue a point. Saying that the state is not society and that everything the state does is not a reflection of what society holds DOES NOT MEAN "no laws are recognized by society." That's absolute mindless idiocy. Learn how to make a simple distinction and then maybe you can have a fruitful conversation with someone. Not me, I hope. I'm done.

  • Michael Eldredge

    Here is my argument for IP:

    The existence of IP gives people the incentive to create new art and inventions. This means that we get more of these things than we would without IP. This in turn increases the overall quality of life.

  • Michael Eldredge

    Perhaps it would help if you were to make the distinction.

    What would have to happen in order for society to recognize IP? What is it that makes some laws legitimate and other laws illegitimate?

    And please try to do this without calling me an idiot or mindless or saying that I cannot argue a point.

  • MillionthUsername

    This is not an argument for the legitimacy of IP as property. You're simply giving me a subjective justification – a reason why you think it's a good idea.

    This is why you're driving me nuts and I can't communicate with you.

  • MillionthUsername

    "What is it that makes some laws legitimate and other laws illegitimate?"

    There's no point in attempting to have such a broad philosophical discussion with you when you can't even discuss the legitimacy of IP in any meaningful way in the first place. You really are impossible to talk to, and now you want to go into the philosophy of law with me???

    Forget it. Move on.

  • Michael Eldredge

    Ok here is my justification:

    There are two ways to obtain property. One is by receiving it by agreement from someone else, the other is to appropriate something that nobody owns (ie. homesteading).

    By creating something new, people have a claim on the wealth that they have created because it belonged to nobody before. As time goes on that becomes increasingly part of culture and therefore the original creator has less claim on it, and it therefore it belongs increasingly to the public.

  • Michael Eldredge

    "Anyone who says that they're great at communicating but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works." – Randal Monroe (xkcd #1028)

    There are two arguments here:
    Is IP legitimate?
    Is IP prudent?

    The reason my comment did not answer the first question is because I was trying to answer the second.

  • How do you make money if you product is free?

  • The first argument against intellectual property doesn't convince me – you're not allowed to use your property to violate someone other's, you might as well be arguing that it's immoral to forbid murder since it stops people from using their weapons freely.

  • I'm not against IP. Yes, we need it, but I just think it goes to far. If you want to sample and clear it's ridiculous.Through the current law I would have to pay labels, publishers, and fees.. with would round to $265,000 per sample which could consist of lets say a synth or vocal, beat or riff or a snippet of the 4. Not just that, from the song entering to public domain it's well over 100 years. If anything, it hinders creativity.. I sure don't have $300.000.

  • One example: Pretty Lights. Look him up sometime. Granted it wouldn't if you work if you we're an author.. but i'm not against IP, I just think the current system is broken.. well for me and you. Not for the big music industry who prosecute kids scare and the middle class into paying $4000 to settle rather than taking them to court.

  • Michael Eldredge

    I agree that the law is sometimes excessive, but this example of how much a sample costs is a result of market forces, not law. It is the copyright holders that determine how much a sample costs, and if they think they can maximize revenue by charging $265000 they they have that right.

    I am in favor of reducing the amount of time it takes for a work to become public domain though.

  • Yes they have that right, but they can't say they have the ethics.. which proves my point about them being all about the money. Yes, I get it, it's a business.. but it's to an extreme, even going as far as resorting to crony capitalism. It's ran by the callus, greedy and disingenuous that seem to love to split hairs rather than help artist. Artist who aid creativity, love of craft and genuine self expression. It wouldn't surprise me If they could file copyright on creativity it self.

  • Michael Eldredge

    It seems that the solution to this problem is more capitalism.

    I don't know why the music industry is the way it is, but if most of the major labels are that unhelpful to artists as you are depicting then there is a definite opening in the industry for a business that is more sensitive to the needs and desires of the musicians.

    Such a label could snatch up a lot of popular artists and make a mint.

  • I was kinda thinking a more aggressive approach.. like, threaten music execs with being turned into chickens with a morpharay..

  • (1)Exclusion: open air movies for example offer speakers for the ones that pay. Apple controls its products through Appstore

    (2)Crowdfunding: Kickstarter is bringing a renaissance in small studio computer games.

  • (1)Exclusion: this doesn't make any sense. can you explain what you mean?

    (2)Kickstarter is meant to get the funds required to make the product. It is not a means of selling the product. So even if the artist now has the necessary funds to create the product there is no profit yet.

  • (1)I take it by "free", you mean a scenario where intellectual property is not enforceable. To make money In such circumstances, you would need to exercise traditional property right, for example in a museum or concert, where you can legally deny access to people who do not pay.

    (2)It's called a patronage model, which is how most of the art was created in the Italian renaissance.

  • I support Ayn Rand's view on the issue:

    "The fact that a man might have been first, does not alter the fact that he wasn’t. Since the issue is one of commercial rights, the loser in a case of that kind has to accept the fact that in seeking to trade with others he must face the possibility of a competitor winning the race, which is true of all types of competition."

  • "By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence."

    Remove IP and you remove the incentive to produce cultural material. There's no two ways about it.

  • Step 1 would be to stop considering someone else's product as yours. The bits and the CD that a pirate uses aren't purchased by the creator of the work. Instead, they are purchased by the pirate.

    Once you have that under your belt, the answer will become obvious.

  • "Remove IP and you remove the incentive to produce cultural material. There's no two ways about it."

    So nothing intellectual existed before the 1700s? Could have fooled Socrates, Plato, Euclid, Kepler, Copernicus…
    …shall I continue?

    Why not… The Bible, The Quaran, The Torah, Shakespeare…

    …Are we getting the picture?

    Leonardo DaVinci, Donatello, Michaelangelo, Raphael

    Peace out!

  • Nice strawman.

    Copying has only become easier now with the dawn of technology. Before the invention of the printing press (Bible, Quran, Torah, etc.), copying was an extremely drawn-out process. You couldn't just "copy" a painting without actually painstakingly re-drawing it yourself, and so most people didn't. Now, with computer software, the issue is another one entirely.

    Think before you speak and you won't seem a fool.

  • But well, I'll continue. You're fond of examples, aren't you? Take this: would J. K. Rowling, a poor single-mother, have spent seven years writing and publishing the first HP book if she knew people like you would hijack her book and scam her the moment she finished typing? Of course not.

    E. R. Burroughs enforced copyright and died wealthy. HP Lovecraft didn't and died of malnutrition.

    Spot the difference yet?

  • Your comment isn't coherent.

  • put advertisements in it…haha

  • Or use a tipjar – if you think the average consumer of art is mindful, then they will realise that, yes, of course artists need to eat to make art, and so they should – so once obtaining and appreciating the art, the consumer ensures that it continues by paying the artist. Now there are some things that need attention in this model, like making it easy for the consumer to pay, making sure they know how much/little money is needed to sustain the artist, and so on. But we have seen many successes.

  • But J.K. Rowling didn't know that her book would become a worldwide hit – so that suggests that she wrote not for the riches, but because she got an idea in her head that she wanted to work out on paper. She has said that she was thinking of her son and what he liked to read when she wrote it, so she was thinking of the readers, not of herself. Obviously dying of malnutrition sucks, and some pirates are despicable (more so I think the ones who leaked the book, but that is another topic), [cont]

  • But what exactly do you think you mean when you say 'hijack her book and scam her'? What do you think piracy does in a literal sense? I don't mean that question in a leading way, I am always interested in what people think.

  • Whether or not one believes that laissez faire works, setting up the issue as 'first to the market wins' is a misportrayal – in typical Randian/libertarian philosophy, it is the market that directs who has the edge in a competition. In the context of creative/information-based endeavors, where the market is a consumer of art or other goods currently considered intellectual property, don't you think said consumer would prefer the *better quality* of two choices rather than the *first* one?

  • I would be interested to know where you got that information. Such a source could prove useful in the future.

  • Capitalism does not fix everything. What it's proponents do not seem to realise is that even as they try to make the markets 'freer', more laissez faire by removing government intervention, the system still tends to settle at a suboptimal arrangement because the players themselves interfere with the freeness of the market. In this case, there are a few big labels that can outcompete small labels if they think they are a threat. And we don't even have that pseudo-free market because of IP.

  • It cements monopolies from being shifted by market or other forces. By the way, if the small/large record label is not obvious, try imagining another market: cell phones. Verizon, AT&T, and TMobile all have things for a consumer not to like – hidden fees and overblown rates. Seems obvious that a smaller, kinder provider would be well-loved by consumers, right? But there is little chance that they can install nation-wide infrastructure, and get phone companies to support their platform.

  • Additionally, the positions of the big three are entrenched because of corporate dealings and specialised laws. If we had open phone architecture or a standardized, subsidized cell network, it would not be such a quandary. This is analogous to the creative industries because extensive infrastructure was historically needed to get the art to the consumers. The piracy model puts the cost of dissemination on the consumers (bandwidth, cost of CDs), setting the value of the works equal to the [cont]

  • income needed to support the artist (or more literally speaking, all the people involved in creating the art/creative product, it is usually not an individual labour…although sometimes it is and then it makes not sense to *have* to include middlemen). Of course, this has it's own problems, like ensuring the final product is of a good quality, and some of the issues raised in other comments here about how the artist gets paid for a free (speech or beer) work. But as I said before, it can work.

  • No, it is more like arguing that using your gun for anything other than a certain purpose (shooting gun-company-approved clay pigeons?) violates the company's property specifying use. Although guns are not good for analogies because they come with their own separate controversies. I think the point the argument is trying to make is that IP is called a property but does something no other property does, control the use of someone else's property. Which is why IP proponents started [cont]

  • calling it a right. So which is it? It is not a right either, because sometimes it limits another's rights even when the so-called IP rights are not being threatened, like sampling. Which shows it for what it is: an attempt at extending control over more creative commons than is warranted by the effort it took to create the IP in question. Yes, it can have noble uses – but the challenge is to create a better system, one that enables a creator to sustain hir art & self, while allowing innovation.

  • *remunerated. Totally different 😛
    Otherwise I think this is a good argument, although it applies better to some goods than to others and of course there are counterarguments.

  • Of course she had no absolute knowledge that she'd make a profit. Neither do entrepreneurs who spend years researching new technology. But they HOPE that they will make a profit, and they stake those hopes on the presence of IP laws.

    That Rowling thought of what her son would like means only that she thought of what would appeal to children, and this in turn means that she consider what the market desired, again with a potential profit in mind.

  • The preference of the consumer is less relevant than the motivation of the producer. If I spend ten years developing a new metal alloy, I want to be sure that I make a profit on it when I release it to the market to cover both the explicit costs and the opportunity cost of spending time on it. Twenty years of patent protection would make me more willing to devote time to R&D rather than the knowledge that anyone could copy my work the moment I finish it.

  • I agree, just thought that the example made in the video wasn't accurate in explaining what's the nature of the problem. And that for me goes for the whole issue, it's too complicated to do it justice in a few minute video, although I agree with many points made in it.

  • Good there are users out there that are willing to explain the issue politely, rather than just insult other people like you.

  • Michael Preston

    I disagree with the idea that copyrights discourage innovation. Without copyrights, the incentive to invest in research and development of a good or service is undercut by the ability of any sort of competitor to reverse engineer their product and produce that same revolutionary item without paying for the R&D.

    If someone has a legitimate improvement on a design, it's possible to sell it to that company under current copyright law in a way that everyone benefits.

  • Well that's where you're wrong, I believe. People may purchase my alloy and determine its composition. They may also, as far as I know, use my alloy as a component in R&D of their own to seek to improve it. However, they have no right to outright produce the same alloy and sell the same alloy under a different name. In a copyright system, you may have higher prices for a product. But in a system of no copyrights, you may not even have the product to begin with, all due to incentive.

  • There is no such thing as a ridiculously high price. If the public will not purchase alloy at a certain price level, then I would have to lower the price to create demand. Additionally, if the demand is sufficiently elastic, or if I experience economies of scale – and I will with patents – then a monopoly may actually have lower prices and greater output than a free market system. Also bear in mind: without IP, that alloy most likely would not exist to begin with.

  • Michael Preston

    How do you figure? I'm sure it's possible (if not quite likely) that the execution of copyright laws has held up no small amount of progress, but what specifically is it doing to hinder it?

  • Patent and copyright laws were ALWAYS counterproductive to personal productivity.

  • When I was working with the BioEnergy Science Center, the researchers in different laboratories and even different departments of the same laboratory would refuse to share genetic analyses of bacteria, even though we were striving for the same goal (lowering the cost of ethanol). They each wanted the grant money that would be awarded from publishing their own research papers, even though none of them had enough data to publish much. I could only access the E. Coli genome, which is public domain.

  • To me, the big issue with intellectual property is that it stands in the way of one person improving on another's discovery. If you invent an alloy and I see a way to improve on it I cannot create or sell my design without you approval. If you refuse, I can't produce my alloy. This can, ultimately slow down progress.
    At the same time, if there are no patent protections, inventors can have their designs stolen, especially small inventors without manufacturing resources.

  • That's right, just like you don't trade Liberty for security, you don't trade Liberty for progress. If I invent such alloy, I have the right to keep it to myself if I want to.
    There are some poor arguments in this video, for example the way intellectual property actually works is that I have the right to use my computer for profit, but I don't have the right to use the technology involved in making the processor for example to create my own brand.
    Some copyright laws are beneficial for people.

  • I invent a wheel, you then invent a wheelbarrow. Mike invents a cart, Julia invents a water wheel, and Ian invents a clock. Wait! All of you are in breach of my intellectual property rights! You'll all have to wait 28 years before you are allowed to innovate.

    In the meantime, I'll sell my wheel at a protected price. Not to worry – the others can invent things that do the same thing as a wheel, enhancing consumer choice. Woo hoo.

  • "without IP, that alloy most likely would not exist to begin with"

    Only if you have no imagination.

    A, ideas just happen – they don't require financial stimulus. B, if I have a good idea, it's natural to want to tell people about it. C, if there is no financial incentive in keeping it a secret, (i.e. a patent), then I might as well go ahead and tell it to the world. Maybe I'll might get a job as an ideas person. D, by giving the world my alloy, the world gives me back better tools.

  • 1st paragraph: well said.

    2nd paragraph: without patents, there is nothing to steal – a design without protection in law is free to use anyway. You could try and keep it secret, but you do better by sharing it and getting known as someone who makes good designs.

    If someone tries to claim that the idea is theirs, then that is fraud and is a different matter to patent protection. In that case, by freely sharing your design in the first place, you demonstrate that you thought of it first.

  • And the idealist has spoken…

    I'll give you my favorite example rather than trying to counter your barrage of hot air: two authors. E R Burroughs enforced copyright and died wealthy in Tarzana. H P Lovecraft did not enforce copyright and died young of early-onset malnutrition.

    Now feel free to keep blathering about what incentive I have to give away my IP for free… go on.

  • Ok, answer me what incentive does the public have to pay for public institutions to enforce IP law? Why should they pay to protect someone else's ideas – someone very rich perhaps, Bill Gates for example?

    Where have I suggested taking unilateral action? I'm talking about changing the law. What's wrong with that?

  • That's pretty sad actually – ideas that never get shared.

    What you have demonstrated in a nutshell is that copyright boosts profits at the expense of progress. You'd have to agree with that – it's practically what you have written, right?

    I guess it's up to people in a democracy to decide whether profits or progress are more important.

  • You talk as though IP was some physical entity. It's as real as unicorns. If it's not enforced, then it doesn't exist. IP is an authoritarian way of policing knowledge.

    And regardless of the fact of who died young and hungry, IP is killing music. The best music ever made was made without copyrights – that is a fact. Fuck you and your profits, what concerns me is music. Your argument doesn't mean shit.

  • Neil Gaiman encourages people who have bought his books to lend them to people so that they might end up becoming fans of his.

    This is him speaking about it. Look up Neil Gaiman and copyright on here and you will see what I mean.

  • Michael Preston

    Intellectual property doesn't need to mean that ideas or research are absolutely locked in with no possibility of exchange. In a free market, if I had an idea for a wheelbarrow that used your wheel, I could negotiate an agreement with you to use your wheel in the design of my wheelbarrow. This is already done in the present day with movies and songs.

  • True, but it is still an encumbrance to creativity. You sacrifice progress for profit. Ideas are most powerful when they are set free.

    Imagine a music teacher and her pupil: –

    "Ok, what would you like to learn today? We have the minor pentatonic scale for $25, chromatic scales at $35, or a special deal on diminished and augmented arpeggios buy one get the other half price, you save $15. The choice is yours."

    Horrible. Pay the teacher per hour, not per idea.

  • Funny how you accuse me of being an idealist. Ideas is what we are talking about.

    Your argument is that you need to be materialist about ideas. Hilarious.

  • Michael Preston

    That's a pretty ridiculous strawman of an example, but I get the idea behind your point.

    Consider the opposing side however. Profits can, and frequently do, provide incentive for research that otherwise would not have happened. It's like Milton Friedman's argument against the FDA in reverse – you focus on how much could be done without the law, but give no weight to everything gained from the law.

  • It is as ridiculous as all attempts to turn ideas into material objects that can be bought and sold.

    My field is music and reverse engineering the Beatles is both impossible and pointless, so at least for copyrights I think my points are valid. Patents may be different. I would say that plenty of perfectly good ideas are left on the cutting room floor simply because they don't turn a profit. Can you give an example of what has been achieved by profit that would not have been otherwise?

  • I think the best way to reward the sources of solutions is to pay them after you enjoy the benefit of their products. They could give all of their stuff for free, but educate people to share their revenues to the sources of their solutions or power.

  • Is it progress not giving back to sources of solutions? Don't just see progress in terms of technology, our support system is not just based on technology but also humanity.
    If the human authors were not supported, the advancement of technology would only short term, but in the long run true creators would be marginalized.
    In the past warlords tells the scientists, and creators, what to do and how much money they would get.
    People need to keep the dignity (the power to reject) of the creators

  • Daniel Not Staniel

    Sorry if I'm not understanding your argument (I'm probably not), but why would IP rights be a positive thing in that instance? It costs money to file a patent in the first place, more money which could have been used on R&D. Plus, it would cost the same without IP rights anyway. What is the problem?

  • Ah, this never gets old…

  • Stephen Merrill Smith

    who is the mentally challenged bat guy with the terrible spelling problem? Must be 6 years old.

  • I don't have a problem with IP rights, but having them last for 30 years is excessive. It stops progression, and causes products to be more expensive than they should be. A notable example of this was when James Watt patented everything imaginable about his steam engine. Which crushed innovation in the market until his IP rights expired.

  • Intellectual Property is a far reaching argument that has no simple solution, Copyrights, trademarks, and patents give the creator legal rights to their creations. But  why create something you don't want to share.

  • Good video. It's very true that IP is monopolistic as it stifles competition, and this is the main criticism from neoliberals and socialists alike. Even further, it is parasitic. If I've the money to buy IP rights to a popular movie or song, I may help out the creator of the cultural work by paying them, but at the same time I make profit off someone else's work without creating anything. Simply by having the money to monopolize a cultural commodity, I could get more money. The corporations enforcing this intellectually tenuous concept of IP produce nothing and make themselves very wealthy off the work of others. No free or ethical market can operate like this.

  • The first pirate was Jesus Christ!

  • Mr. JustAGuyWithALightsaber

    I don't think IP law is all bad necessarily; however, I do believe that the length of time for which patents and copyrights remain valid should be significantly decreased, and that if somebody pirates a copy (no physical assets or money were lost to the company) that should not be stealing. Because then what you're doing is setting up a monopoly on the sale of your own work. If somebody else can provide it in a better way, they will. That's the free market at work. We should let it occur.

  • Lots of people like to take the "moderate" position. I did for a long time. Recognizing the absurdity of treating intellectual property like physical property, they will favor granting "rights" to IP for a limited term. But the reality is that IP protections like copyright isn't granting rights in the property, but granting a monopoly in the property. Rights are to be protected for their own value, or in their own right. You don't grant "rights" in order to provide some kind of incentive to produce or create, especially not a limited right. The market itself provides the incentives for production or creation. If anything, IP rights tend to discourage or restrict production and creation, instead of encouraging it.

  • Love the video and music 👍

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *