The Eric Simmons Blog - All Comments

re: The Fruits of Intellectual Property Law

Aaron Kinney — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:12:06 GMT

"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.

re: The Fruits of Intellectual Property Law

Paul — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 01:24:32 GMT

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.

re: The Fruits of Intellectual Property Law

Eric — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 00:20:24 GMT

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.

re: The Fruits of Intellectual Property Law

GarGi-Dixit — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:38:01 GMT

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>.

Running the Gauntlett » Blog Archive » » Your Vote?

Running the Gauntlett » Blog Archive » » Your Vote? — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 05:19:29 GMT

Pingback from Running the Gauntlett » Blog Archive » » Your Vote?

re: Never A Wasted Vote

Jessica Sager — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 07:57:24 GMT

Awesome points. This is something I've been trying to emphasize with others - if we each cast our votes, independently and individually, based on principles rather than parties, we convey an authentic message to the masses. I've come to the conclusion that politicians and their parties, in the end, are more likely to align themselves to us rather than force us to them. This is how it is meant be, how we should want it to be, how the inception of this Nation intended it to be; not to hand over ourselves to one Governing body but to assert our independence when our "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" have been usurped. The Declaration of Independence seems especially relevant these days and we need to reclaim its message: "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Thanks for promoting this truth!