I am a musician and a composer. I develop, over the course of eight years, a new musical composition. Under IP, I would be protected for what I would surely consider theft. But, without IP, once shown in public, the score could easily be copied and sold at a much lower rate than I could afford (since I would have to factor in the cost of eight years of time while anyone with a copy would not).
I chose this because its specific nature (and because I am in somewhat of the same position). Given this scenario, should it be legaly wrong for someone to copy, pass off as their own, or "pirate" - what I created? Or, should it be perfectly legal? Of course, the consumer benefits in the short run - they get a cheaper product (in this case it could be free) - but are there long term consequences to not having some protection for very specific ideas?
Another scenario could be, right when Rothbard unveils "Man, Economy, and State" - Joe down the lane copies it (maybe even puts his name on it) and sells it way below Rothbard would have. Doesn't this discourage the development of ideas that can't be hidden once they are released?
Oh wow. Have you read anything on this subject at Mises.org yet?
It's all been covered many times, and while it's probably good to refresh the topic now and again, this has been debated a LOT lately.
What is legal, and what is right, are two different things. It's illegal to smoke pot, it is not wrong to smoke pot.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5881.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5541.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/4050.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/4971.aspx
http://mises.org/story/3298
And check the Mises blog recently, there have been loads of entries on IP
http://blog.mises.org/blog/
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Oh yes, I've read it. But that doesn't mean I fully agree. I understand completely the economic consequences of IP, and so as a value free statement the consumer is in a position of less material wealth with IP than without. But in a vaue system, I can not find some cause for not having legal interference in very specific cases of IP.
I am much more concerned with the long term effects on not having any IP. In the realm of the arts much, much work is gone into developing a creation... and without IP there will be no benefit in spending time on developing anything, since it will then be sold as if it were a non-scarce good in a competitve market (compared to it not exitisting prior to the concept). Thus, without ownership in music or in literature, as a process of development there will be a dying off of the art. None of this is an economic argument, but rather a value and cultural inquiry.
The renaissance did not occur due to IP.
I think it is mythology that without IP, creation will stop. There are literally millions of people who blog their photos, their poems, their thoughts, their plans and opinions daily without any regard for IP, or controlling distribution.
The people most concerned (IMHO) about IP, are the producers who seem to be short on ideas of how to capitalize on a world without IP fascism.
JackSkylark:But, without IP, once shown in public, the score could easily be copied and sold at a much lower rate than I could afford (since I would have to factor in the cost of eight years of time while anyone with a copy would not).
Don't show it in public then, it's that simple.
JackSkylark:Another scenario could be, right when Rothbard unveils "Man, Economy, and State" - Joe down the lane copies it (maybe even puts his name on it) and sells it way below Rothbard would have. Doesn't this discourage the development of ideas that can't be hidden once they are released?
If Joe were to sell it in his name he'd be defrauding his customers. Otherwise he'd have to put it in Rothbard's name. I'm sure if Rothbard endorsed one version most people would be likely to buy that one instead of Joe's copy. Once again, Rothbard should have been more careful.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
JackSkylark:I am much more concerned with the long term effects on not having any IP. In the realm of the arts much, much work is gone into developing a creation... and without IP there will be no benefit in spending time on developing anything, since it will then be sold as if it were a non-scarce good in a competitve market (compared to it not exitisting prior to the concept). Thus, without ownership in music or in literature, as a process of development there will be a dying off of the art. None of this is an economic argument, but rather a value and cultural inquiry.
You mean everything from Bach, Bethoven, Haendel ... you name them all, not to forget Mozart wouldn't have been created if they where not tightly protected by the rigid IP laws in former times?
Thank god they had the protection of their IP or they would have had no incentive to create.
I would propose you read this book Against Intellectual Monopol
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
JackSkylark: Oh yes, I've read it. But that doesn't mean I fully agree. I understand completely the economic consequences of IP, and so as a value free statement the consumer is in a position of less material wealth with IP than without. But in a vaue system, I can not find some cause for not having legal interference in very specific cases of IP. I am much more concerned with the long term effects on not having any IP. In the realm of the arts much, much work is gone into developing a creation... and without IP there will be no benefit in spending time on developing anything, since it will then be sold as if it were a non-scarce good in a competitve market (compared to it not exitisting prior to the concept). Thus, without ownership in music or in literature, as a process of development there will be a dying off of the art. None of this is an economic argument, but rather a value and cultural inquiry.
It just mean that you are a terrible entrepreneur. You overestimated the risk and ignoring how filesharing will expand your market and opportunity.
Plus classical musicans already figured it out.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
On that point you are wrong. I would argue that the emergance of copyright and short term patents in effect led to the rising status of the artists in the late gothic period and early Renaissance. There was huge application for copyright in the early 1500's. Italy held many 12 year privilegio for literature and most of the large scale art works. Michelangelo's Florence Pieta' held copyright too, so in fact the renaissance did flourish (either in spite of or with) under copyright.
nhaag: You mean everything from Bach, Bethoven, Haendel ... you name them all, not to forget Mozart wouldn't have been created if they where not tightly protected by the rigid IP laws in former times?
Without IP, I would argue that alot of Beethoven would not have been writen, or at least silenced till his death. Since once he would spend 2 years on a symphony, some upstart would copy it and then be able to sell it off without any of the development cost to Beethoven.
To make myself clear, I do not support the current IP rule, but I don't call for IP's complete abolishment. I am in favor of very short term copyright privileges.
JackSkylark: To make myself clear, I do not support the current IP rule, but I don't call for IP's complete abolishment. I am in favor of very short term copyright privileges.
Than you support proping up artists who suck at entrepreneurship. Beside, copyright is completely unneccesary when you keep hearing about examples of artists incorporating and accounting for infinte goods into their business models.
For starter, I just got 50 bucks job from a fan to make a graphical engine for a game. If the author put such restrictive license on the source code, I wouldn't even have this job in the first place. Thinks about the job that were not created, resource not allocated, etc when you proposed copyright privilleges.
NOTES: Everybody have to start somewhere. 50 bucks might seem a small amount of money to you but it is an invaluable step to advancing my career.
JackSkylark:Since once he would spend 2 years on a symphony, some upstart would copy it and then be able to sell it off without any of the development cost to Beethoven. To make myself clear, I do not support the current IP rule, but I don't call for IP's complete abolishment. I am in favor of very short term copyright privileges.
I called BS on this. For the original innovator, the development cost is alway high yet firms like RedHat continues to thrive.
However it also make me questions your statement that you did indeed read all of this. Did you lie?
If you are looking for a libertarian solution to intellectual "property" in a non-libertarian world, you will never find it. There is nothing inherently wrong with forcibly forbidding people from copying your work. The only thing that would be wrong would be to socialize the costs as is currently done with statist copyright laws.
In a consistently libertarian society, to prevent people from copying your work, you are going to have to pay for that protection just like you are going to have to pay for any other protection. So, you will have to become a customer of a defense agency that fights copyright violations. People who copy your work will likely be customers of defense agencies that do not respect copyright. Both of your premiums will reflect your preferences. Both of those firms will have likely pre-arranged contracts which stipulate how disputes will be handled.
So, if somebody copies your work, you will call up your agency and let them know. Your agent will call up the other person's agent and the two will settle the dispute -- as they would settle any other dispute.
nhaag:You mean everything from Bach, Bethoven, Haendel ... you name them all, not to forget Mozart wouldn't have been created if they where not tightly protected by the rigid IP laws in former times? Thank god they had the protection of their IP or they would have had no incentive to create.
Charles Anthony: In a consistently libertarian society, to prevent people from copying your work, you are going to have to pay for that protection just like you are going to have to pay for any other protection. So, you will have to become a customer of a defense agency that fights copyright violations. People who copy your work will likely be customers of defense agencies that do not respect copyright. Both of your premiums will reflect your preferences. Both of those firms will have likely pre-arranged contracts which stipulate how disputes will be handled.
This is what I'm trying to solve here and exactly that kind of answer I am trying to obtain.
There needs to be no benefit to develop anything. Truly creative people will create art because they recognise it as their calling, not to get rich off it anyways. If anything it will ridd us of alot of charlatans. Tolstoy would stil write without IP, as would Dostoyevski. And the less Terry Goodkinds the better.
kiba: However it also make me questions your statement that you did indeed read all of this. Did you lie?
I am trying to figure out what you mean here? My scenario on someone stealing Beethoven's composition is a fabrication in order to simulate a point, I thought that was obviously clear.
Or, do you mean my earlier example of copyright during the Renaissance? Most of that comes from the book "Prints and privilegio in sixteenth century venice" by Christopher Witcombe. Another good reference is "Author's Due" By Lowenstein.
So now that I have made the extent of my copyright history full knowledge, maybe you can tell me why did you ask if I lied?
Marko: There needs to be no benefit to develop anything. Truly creative people will create art because they recognise it as their calling, not to get rich off it anyways. If anything it will ridd us of alot of charlatans. Tolstoy would stil write without IP, as would Dostoyevski. And the less Terry Goodkinds the better.
Wonderful post, and I wrote expecting this response. In fact, do not know how to answer it. I know I would not remove myself from music even if there was no money in it. So, I can consede to the point on the "calling of the artist" could act as a mechanism for weeding out the charlatans.
JackSkylark: kiba: However it also make me questions your statement that you did indeed read all of this. Did you lie? I am trying to figure out what you mean here? My scenario on someone stealing Beethoven's composition is a fabrication in order to simulate a point, I thought that was obviously clear. Or, do you mean my earlier example of copyright during the Renaissance? Most of that comes from the book "Prints and privilegio in sixteenth century venice" by Christopher Witcombe. Another good reference is "Author's Due" By Lowenstein. So now that I have made the extent of my copyright history full knowledge, maybe you can tell me why did you ask if I lied?
Did you read the various IP on mises did you not or even my post? If so, than you lack reading comperhension. I pointed out that it is a business model problem.
Your point was already refuted thousand of times, and thousand more times on other various sites, books, and discussions.
Also, don't forget that certain composers are famous for "copying" music that was off limits. Mainly Mozart, who is considered one of the most talented composers to ever live.
The vatican decreed that the piece Miserere mei Deus was not to be copied or removed from the Vatican on pain of excommunication. In effect, the Church banned its performance anywhere in the world except within the Sistine Chapel.
So this certain piece remained in the chapel until a certian 12 year old boy visited the Sistine chapel one day to hear the performance of this piece. When Mozart returned home he sat down and copied the whole piece from memory. After hearing the peice a second time (this time with his manuscript in hand) he sucessfully fully copied the piece. Of course the Mozart family, being devout catholics would not publish the work for risk of being excommunicated. What the young mozart did do however was give a copy to an english man who then published the work. Of course some of this is speculation but it is a story that is taught in music classes. Now, can anyone say that the release of this work to the public was a bad thing? Is Mozart evil for copying the work? No I would say being able to look at the score and look at the genious of the work is helpful to many more people who are studying music. It also enabled people who would never be able to visit the vatican to hear it performed. Mozart never made much money off of any of his composisitons, he might make a little off of a commission but he made most of his money from his performances of his works. That is still where musicians make the majority of their money. The publishers sell the compositions but it is the name they put on the composition that sells the piece.
kiba: Did you read the various IP on mises did you not or even my post? If so, than you lack reading comperhension. I pointed out that it is a business model problem. Your point was already refuted thousand of times, and thousand more times on other various sites, books, and discussions.
Yes, I have read everything posted here and I am a regular reader of this site. And, no, I do not think that asking a question or soliciting information is a lack of "reading comprehension". In fact, I would hope you don't take everything as truth immediately. This is an issue with me because I am personally in the business.
You may call it a failed business model but I would like to have ownership over what I make. Working eight years to develop a piece of music and then getting a market price of 0$ because it suddenly becomes an infinite good, forces me either to starve or give up music. So if I seem a bit thick, forgive me.
kiba: Beside, copyright is completely unneccesary when you keep hearing about examples of artists incorporating and accounting for infinte goods into their business models.
Beside, copyright is completely unneccesary when you keep hearing about examples of artists incorporating and accounting for infinte goods into their business models.
the main product in a "infinite good business model" is not the infinite good. Instead, the acutal good sold is either advertising or some other good. And in relation to the music industry, music then is only an commercial for "a new brand of cereal" (how degrading). This means that music can not succeed on its own since there is no cost in making or distributing (except of course to the composer) and no barrier to entry.
On a side note: I'm really off today (at home with the flu), so I will probably come around tomorrow and see the error of my ways.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap