And to pre-empt the "then your contract would preclude you from giving the engine to third parties" argument, anyone else in the world can choose to reverse engineer your engine because they are not under contract with you. There would not likely be a stipulation to prevent your customers from showing their engines to friends, and their friends may see it and try to reverse engineer it. Or third party mechanics might. Or thieves.
I'm going to start by seeing where we are:In regards to art IP (music, literature etc.):Musicians could make money without IP protection. They would likely continue to make art without IP protection. They currently make some, but not all of their money from CD sales--let's assume they make most of their money from merchandise, etc.. Should we be willing to take away that stream of income? Most of my money is what I bring home after tax; some of my money was taken away from me through taxes--that that money was the minority of my income makes the tax no more just.The big loser in the music industry would be the record companies. I think that's a simple matter of an old product becoming obsolete; no point propping up a dying industry.With literature there is a certain competitive advantage to be had by publishers who don't pay authors buy simply steal public domain material, which, if there are no IP rights, includes all books. In this case authors lose.In regards to products and processes:A reverse engineering clause (REC, attached to the property in question so that selling or lending property will help protect IP) would have difficulties and likely would only work if patent is maintained. This could potentially impair supply of innovations. With patent, I make a new 100MPG engine and make most of the profits. Without patent I can use a REC, but if that engine is ever stolen I have no means of protecting myself from a thief. So I make my profits until my competitor pays someone to steal my design, then I make what profits I can... the market goes from monopoly to competition at an undisclosed point in the future. If a law was in place preventing someone from stealing a design protected by REC, then I have a monopoly for life (or my corporation has a monopoly for its life, which is to say, forever).As for the market value of having been there first, I think it exists, but I think it's too small to overcome the costs of major innovations. With things like pharmaceuticals consumer preference has little impact on value; the consumer wants the cure and they don't care what color the pill is.I don't think a lack of IP would stop innovation, but I think that such removal of property rights would significantly reduce the motivation for innovation. Ultimately saying that there is no such thing as Intellectual Property is like saying that there is no such thing as property, period. I'm not saying you're all a bunch of Marxists, I just think that practical implications need to be considered. I think opening up the property rights on innovation allows for greater innovation and the reduced dead-weight loss of competition. I think that no allowing property rights greatly reduces the incentive to initiate innovation. The question is how to solve these contradicting problems.
Cheers,
Rick
What's with all the use of "steal", "thief", etc.? Trying to prove your position by assuming your position?
RickWeber: Ultimately saying that there is no such thing as Intellectual Property is like saying that there is no such thing as property, period.
Ultimately saying that there is no such thing as Intellectual Property is like saying that there is no such thing as property, period.
Actually, no; just the opposite. Saying that "intellectual property" exists is saying that property as ordinarily understood doesn't exist, the two things being mutually exclusive, as Kinsella has shown...
RickWeber: I don't think a lack of IP would stop innovation, but I think that such removal of property rights would significantly reduce the motivation for innovation. Ultimately saying that there is no such thing as Intellectual Property is like saying that there is no such thing as property, period. I'm not saying you're all a bunch of Marxists, I just think that practical implications need to be considered. I think opening up the property rights on innovation allows for greater innovation and the reduced dead-weight loss of competition. I think that no allowing property rights greatly reduces the incentive to initiate innovation. The question is how to solve these contradicting problems.
That is not the question. The question is, do you think intellectual property actually exists? If so, then there should be no time limits imposed on them (copyrights and patents).
If not, then they are obviously just what they really are, government granted monopolies. And all your arguments are simply protectionist arguments. And looking at your arguments, this is all you are arguing. The same arguments used to defend mercantilism.
Unlike real property, one cannot steal another's "intellectual" property. You can only copy another's "intellectual" property. Which means they just lose revenue. Which means the only thing you can argue is a need to protect certain industries (any industry that can use copyrights or patents). The two property types have nothing in common.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
I think the problems with IP are that it isn't natural (i.e. can only exist if we choose to recognize it within our legal system) and that it curtails freedom. I think what it has going for it is that its impedence on freedom is done in a systematic way (congruent with Rule of Law) and that it could offer greater total utility.
If we choose to recognize IP and enforce patent law then an incentive is created to for innovators to enter a market (for a cure for AIDS) because the short-term equilibrium of Marginal Cost and Marginal Revenue creates the opportunity for economic profit. Simply allowing such a monopoly is of course short sighted because it creates a dead weight-loss and a limitation for innovation over the long run. This is why a time-limit makes sense. After x years the monopoly is gone (in a systematic fashion congruent with Rule of Law) and competition reigns.
I will change my question: Does recognizing IP increase utility over the long-run? I would like to know your thoughts.
RickWeber: will change my question: Does recognizing IP increase utility over the long-run? I would like to know your thoughts.
If IP is a government granted monopoly (which it is), just like any government granted monopoly, it would decrease utility over the long-run.
But how does it decrease utility over the long run?
Protectionism delays the inevitable in the industrial sphere, but IP laws are not the same; they are not supported by politics, they are discrete laws with predictable patterns. If patent monopoly could be held up by continually passing laws, I would agree, but because the monopoly is for a fixed period of time (unlike protectionism) I couldn't expect the same effects.
I wish to address the differing ways in which the word "property" is used. Much of the debate is clouded by the fact that statists use the term differently and as such, we are just talking past each other.
Spideynw:That is not the question. The question is, do you think intellectual property actually exists? If so, then there should be no time limits imposed on them (copyrights and patents).
The non-anarchist uses the term "property" to represent "any and every goal sought through coercion that I want" so to speak. [I hope that comes out right. I mean to inject a little bit of humor to illustrate my point.] In simple terms, the non-anarchist calls "property" to represent anything he wants, material or non-material -- that includes behavior.
Spideynw: Unlike real property, one cannot steal another's "intellectual" property. You can only copy another's "intellectual" property.
---------
As anarchists, I believe the key to arguing against current copyright laws reside in two places:
1) Present a free market model for "intellectual" property protection.
2) Genuinely arguing that copying a person's work is NOT morally wrong. In other words, do not avoid the issue of copying but defend it.
RickWeber: If patent monopoly could be held up by continually passing laws, I would agree, but because the monopoly is for a fixed period of time (unlike protectionism) I couldn't expect the same effects.
If patent monopoly could be held up by continually passing laws, I would agree, but because the monopoly is for a fixed period of time (unlike protectionism) I couldn't expect the same effects.
Patent, or copyright? I don't think you'll find anyone here supporting patents. And the expiry of copyright does get "held up by continually passing laws"...Sonny Bono anyone?
Does anyone else find it amusing that the LVMI explicitly asserts its copyright and reserves all rights in certain places?
See, e.g. the footer in the store: http://www.mises.org/store/
I don't own any books published by the Institute, but I'd wager that they reserve their rights to many of them too.
Maybe they're protecting their assets so someone else doesn't claim copyright? As long as they don't enforce then I don't see what's the problem. It'd be counter-intuitive to expect people to pay to learn what this school is about.
No one else can claim copyright. Copyright vests automatically in the author of a work. If they don't want copyright to exist, they can release it to the public domain.
Explicitly reserving their rights is taking advantage of the monopoly that the state provides by force. Even if the institute doesn't enforce it in the courts, it acts as a disincentive to others who might want to copy their works or print and sell them because they'll have no idea whether or not the rights will be enforced in the future.
Callisthenes:Explicitly reserving their rights is taking advantage of the monopoly that the state provides by force.
I may put up a sign on my fence saying "Tresspassers will be punished" but you can assume many things. You can assume that I will use a state method or that I will pull out my shotgun and do the honors myself.
Callisthenes: No one else can claim copyright.
My first LvMI post!
Just curious how software might be treated in this discussion. Setting aside whether one can make a profit without license enforcement (it can be done through service offerings), is a software application property? Or is only the media on which it resides considered property?
I've not studied law to any extent, so please bear with me if I'm being too simplistic.
Thanks.
Charles Anthony:so, what? The state puts its finger in practically every industry. There is no avoiding that misunderstanding. The institute may [I am assuming for the moment] not be claiming to reserve or enforce their rights through the state. They may have private security. Maybe they have their own strategy do deal with fraudsters. For example, they may have a media relations team who will publicly out anybody who copies their work.
Um, yeah, there are ways to avoid that "misunderstanding". Easiest way: in place of "Copyright LVMI. All rights reserved", put, "The LVMI releases this work to the public domain. The Institute will not enforce any statutory or common law copyright that it has in this work."
That's a very different situation. Trespassing is something that is commonly dealt with by self-help. Violations of copyright are almost exclusively dealt with through the state. Having a media relations team that "outs" people who copy a work isn't enforcing copyright; it's outing people who copy a work, which can be done with or without "copyright", which has a specific legal meaning. Your assumptions about what the Institute "might" mean are ridiculous given the common understading of the term.
Wrong. I can falsely claim to have written anything I want.
Is there an eye-rolling smiley on this board? Because I'd use it if I could find it. Surely you must have understood from the context of my statement that I was pointing out that someone can't just come along and get a copyright on someone else's work if the author doesn't slap "Copyright, me" on it. Anyone can claim -- in the sense you're using the word -- copyright on anything, regardless of what the author did. No one but the author can claim -- in the sense I used it, i.e. make a valid enforceable claim -- copyright on a work.
Edit: Even better than the copyright asserted on the website is the copyright asserted on Kinsella's article decrying copyright:
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
jaf1348:Just curious how software might be treated in this discussion.
Software would be no different than a book. You can claim the physical media (CD/DVD, manual, etc) as property, but the 1s and 0s making up the code contained on that media are not property.
However, you would be well within your rights to setup any secure Digital Rights Management (DRM) system that you wanted, in an effort to protect that code. Such things as a one-time online key authentication, or limited install count, or concurrent key scan, would be fine...as long as the terms of the DRM are spelled out very clearly on the outside of the box (or before the buyer downloads). You are creating a contract with the seller, and they need to be fully informed of the contract before they agree.
For some ideas on very restrictive DRM systems, look at BioShock or the just-released PC port of Mass Effect. For some ideas on why the complete lack of DRM is the best way to go look at StarDock and their policy on DRM.
But software, books, websites, papers, ideas....none of that should be considered property in the same way that land, gold, cars, or people should be.
Thanks for the reply.
Jonas:You can claim the physical media (CD/DVD, manual, etc) as property, but the 1s and 0s making up the code contained on that media are not property.
Would that imply that theft can only apply to physical objects? Or can theft include things beyond property?
The belief is that you can only steal something that exists in limited quantities. I only have one car. If you take it, I cannot use it. Therefore taking my car is theft. If you make an exact copy of my book you do not impede my ability to read my book, so you are not aggressing against my property.
The case some people make is that by copying a book you are stealing "potential" profits from the author/publisher/distributer.
Read some of Kinsela's works to get an idea on why thoughts and ideas cannot be considered "property".
RickWeber: But how does it decrease utility over the long run? Protectionism delays the inevitable in the industrial sphere, but IP laws are not the same; they are not supported by politics, they are discrete laws with predictable patterns. If patent monopoly could be held up by continually passing laws, I would agree, but because the monopoly is for a fixed period of time (unlike protectionism) I couldn't expect the same effects.
Ah good point. However, I do know that drug companies are somehow able to re-patent drugs. I am not sure if this is the only industry this occurs in.
But why would we want to delay progress by 20 year increments!?
As to copyrights, those last 100+ years. So I guess it is possible that utility will increase at some point.
It's possible that making me emperor of the universe could increase utility at some point. There's just no reason to believe that it would.
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