The Fruits of Intellectual Property Law

I recently had a debate with a friend of mine regarding intellectual property.

I took the position that intellectual property is not actually property, and that it should not be protected by law. He took the opposite position, at least with regard to the utility of intellectual property laws themselves. My friend argued that without intellectual property law, intellectual producers--Eminem, for example--would have no substantial monetary incentive to invest themselves into producing really "great" works of intellectual property.

This led me to ponder some of the things that would hypothetically disappear if intellectual property laws were to be repealed tomorrow. Among these products that would conceivably no longer have a market are big record label-produced albums, expensive Hollywood movie productions, and mass market video games. Then I pointed out that all of these "products" I brought up tended to have little productive value to society relative to the money that changes hands over them, and that in fact they are considered by many to be corrupting cultural influences. "So," I thought, "is this the fruit of intellectual property law?"

I know there are better examples of some "more valuable" things that are protected by intellectual property law. Take a cure for cancer, for example. Research costs money, and presumably no drug company or other entity is going to invest big in altruistically researching something that offers no big payoff. But also realize that once an entity secures that intellectual product of a cure for cancer, they own it. They could then charge whatever they want for this highly sought-after hypothetical cancer drug, since their new intellectual property would be protected by law. The fruit of intellectual property law in this scenario is not simply a cure for cancer, but a cure for cancer that can't ever again be duplicated and used freely, and that will only be available to the wealthiest of humanity, according to the whims of whoever designs it first!

Published Sun, Oct 12 2008 9:35 PM by Eric
Filed under:

Comments

# GarGi-Dixit said on 15 October, 2008 05:38 AM

Now, so you will decide what is fruitfull for me and what is not?

What is a society?

Society is nothing but a human illusive construct, it is not real as it doesnot exists.

Than what exists? The Individual exists.

Why should I allow you to discuss or decide if the songs of Eminem, or Pink Floyd or Metallica, or a simple electronic gadget or a software programme is important for me or not?

While discussing what is necessary for the non-existing society (collectivism) you are denying me the right to actually decide for my ownself whether something is beneficial/fruitfull/entertaining for me or not.

In reality, every single person who opposes Intellectual property rights is a communist and collectivist. he has no importance for the Individual Liberty and importance of freedom, freedom to act to think and to decide what to do and what not.

Now let us consider the issue of cancer cure, let's say I discover it, I spent and invested my whole life, my all time to research and inovate and practice through the diseasde for the cure of it, so who should decide that I give up my discovery or invention about the cure of cancer or AIDS freely for the social (imaginary) welfare? You or your society or myself?

I should have that right. And that right is Intellectual Property.

Why the violation of intellectual property is immoral?

Well I am sure Murray Rothbard could give you the appropriate answer for this, but anyways, a suggestive reading is this for you.

<a href="www.reasonforliberty.com/.../violation-of-copyright-is-illegal.html"> <b>Murray Rothbard regarding Intellectual property</b></a>.

# Eric said on 17 October, 2008 07:20 PM

GarGi-Dixit, thanks for the comment.

I assure you, I am anything but a collectivist. I was simply offering some superficial, "utilitarian"-style observations regarding the consequences of IP law or the lack thereof.

I purposefully avoided getting into theory in this post, because I'm not yet sufficiently prepared to articulate my views on the illegitimacy of IP.

Briefly, I am not arguing from the collectivist standpoint that intellectual property should be the property of everyone or of society. I am actually saying that intellectual property is not really property at all.

According to my understanding, Rothbard argued that IP could be legitimately enforced through copyright contracts between the seller and buyer of a product. The problem is that there would be no way to enforce that contractual agreement on third parties once third parties acquired the "intellectual property" purchased by the initial buyer. In other words, once the buyer broke the copyright agreement, the only way to continue to enforce the concept of IP would be extra-contractual IP laws.

Speaking of Rothbard, he was a bright guy, but he is far from the end-all of libertarian thought.

# MnoruS said on 18 October, 2008 08:24 PM

I'd previously thought intellectual property laws were needed as an incentive for people to create things, say, good music and cures for diseases.

But then, how much is actually lost as a result of IPR violations? It seems to me a false premise that musicians would no longer be able to earn anything as a result of internet piracy and the like, but you have to consider a lot of things, namely:

1. Without copyright restrictions, musicians' works would be more disseminated, meaning greater promotion for them.

2. The quality of music, I foresee, will go up, as gimmicks lose their effectiveness and give way to more meaningful music that makes people who hear such music for free make an effort to pay the musicians by patronizing their products, (the actual music products and merchandise).

3. Live shows take more prominence, and this will open up avenues for those promoting concerts, etc.

As for medicines, is the government-sponsored hoarding (which IPR protection can be seen as) of profits made possible by IP protection justified? And how much exactly is lost? Aren't there other ways for discoverers of cures to gain by their efforts?

IPR protection may also be a reason for complacency among patent-holders to not continue developing their products for the time that they are protected by law. But then, complacency may also result as other firms simply wait for other firms to come up with great ideas.

As of now, I am more inclined to support non-third-party IP regulations. Individuals and whole societies may actively seek out IP protection and restrictions on themselves, if they feel this would be conducive to a productive environment.

I thank Steve Kinsella for helping expand my ideas of IP protection. My mind's not totally  made up, but I like being stretched.

# Aaron Kinney said on 28 January, 2009 09:12 PM

"Now let us consider the issue of cancer cure, let's say I discover it, I spent and invested my whole life, my all time to research and inovate and practice through the diseasde for the cure of it, so who should decide that I give up my discovery or invention about the cure of cancer or AIDS freely for the social (imaginary) welfare? You or your society or myself?"

That is an argument against, not for intellectual property rights.

Because once you sell the item, you no longer have control over it. You made a copy and traded it away. So now you are not the only one in possession of this thing. So you no longer have a sole right to dictate the terms of its proliferation once you sold it.

If you want the right to something, then keep it to yourself! You cant have your cake and eat it too. You cannot sell something and still expect to dictate what is happens to it.