Intellectual Property (Patents/Copyrights)

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Do IP laws and patents help innovation? Against Intellectual Monopoly is free to read online and answers that question (It seems like I can't post links... if you go to google just search "Against Intellectual Monopoly" and make sure you read the final version.) It's not based on theory, logic, and reason (Read Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property for that). Instead, it's a review of the actual historical and empirical record of IP. The arguments are so numerous, so varied, and so profoundly convincing that I cannot believe that anyone could read them with an open mind and not be convinced that "IP" acts as a literally disastrous choke hold on human innovation and prosperity.

You want to know where the flying cars are? IP prevented them. Just in the one example of James Watt, Watt (with the aid of the state's IP protection apparatus) virtually single-handedly delayed the industrial revolution 18 years. Multiply and compound that down through the intervening centuries and you will begin to comprehend (but never know exactly) what IP has cost humanity.

Lastly, I believe that the market is destroying IP. Those in the market are rendering judgment, and IP will be swept away into the dustbin of history as inflexible government is unable to keep up with the forces of the market. So cling to the notion of IP if you like, but in the real world, companies will either learn to ride the new tidal wave of creativity and innovation to stay ahead of the competition instead of desperately clinging to their state grants of monopoly privileges, or they will be washed away and drowned by it, as well they should be.

[oldhat]

Yay, it's Alex Libman!

[rwguinn]

You're new here, huh.
I generally don't do this to newbies, but:
:dl: :dl:
IP law3s killed the flying car! :dl:
Uh, huh...

[AnarchoCapitalist]

I thought this was a forum to critically think and have a discussion.

[quixotecoyote]

If you fail badly enough at the former, you sometimes miss the latter.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

I'm always critically thinking. My mind is open 100% of the time. If you would like to explain why (either in theory or with historical evidence) IP laws are a good thing, I'm all ears.

If you would like to post pictures and throw insults, find another thread please.

[geni]

I thought this was a forum to critically think and have a discussion.

The flying car was killed by:

1)Not being viable within our current technological level
2)The market demand for an expensive VTOL vehicle being filled by the helicopter

Both of these are fairly obvious to the point where someone blameing IP law for the lack of a flying car instantly destroys much of their credibilty. That they have a username that appears to favor an extreamist political position kinda wipes out the rest.

[geni]

I'm always critically thinking. My mind is open 100% of the time. If you would like to explain why (either in theory or with historical evidence) IP laws are a good thing, I'm all ears.

Broadly speaking it allows development to contuinue in market areas where the first mover advantage would not be enough to make recouping development costs a likely outcome.

The classic example is pharmaceuticals. Drugs cost a lot more to develop than they do to make and once you know a drug exists and people will buy it it becomes fairly easy to start makeing generic in a short time period.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

The flying car was killed by:

1)Not being viable within our current technological level
2)The market demand for an expensive VTOL vehicle being filled by the helicopter

Both of these are fairly obvious to the point where someone blameing IP law for the lack of a flying car instantly destroys much of their credibilty. That they have a username that appears to favor an extreamist political position kinda wipes out the rest.

Did you take a look at the book or read my original post? One single IP law halted development for 18 years.... Multiply that by the millions of IP laws and how long we've had IP laws, and it's quite clear we would be living "in the future." The flying cars part is meant as a joke, but who knows what we would have today if it weren't for IP laws.

Take a look at the early computer industry, where a lot of it went unregulated and without IP laws. Imagine if the first computer became a standard model for 18 years. How far would that set us back? These issues become compounded over time.

[leftysergeant]

I'm always critically thinking. My mind is open 100% of the time. If you would like to explain why (either in theory or with historical evidence) IP laws are a good thing, I'm all ears.

They keep lazy, sociopathic, dimwitted anarchocaptalist swine from stealing labor.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Broadly speaking it allows development to contuinue in market areas where the first mover advantage would not be enough to make recouping development costs a likely outcome.

The classic example is pharmaceuticals. Drugs cost a lot more to develop than they do to make and once you know a drug exists and people will buy it it becomes fairly easy to start makeing generic in a short time period.

It halts development once the developer comes up with an idea. Instead of constantly being motivated to improve their product, they can now sit on their ass and collect rents. It also forces them to spend ridiculous amounts of money on lawsuits.

The book actually has a section on pharmaceuticals if you would like to take a look. It's quite short and would be well worth anyone's time. Before I read the book, that was the major section where I believed abolishing IP laws would harm us.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

They keep lazy, sociopathic, dimwitted anarchocaptalist swine from stealing labor.

How can one "steal" labor? The only way I can think of is by slavery. IP laws don't prevent slavery.

[oldhat]

This is JREF.

Freshman dorm room bull sessions are that way ----------->

[AnarchoCapitalist]

This is JREF.

Freshman dorm room bull sessions are that way ----------->

Says quite clearly at the top-left what JREF is. Am I the only one that can read?

[leftysergeant]

How can one "steal" labor? The only way I can think of is by slavery. IP laws don't prevent slavery.

When you use someone else's labor to make a profit for yourself without paying him for it, you have stolen it. It really shouldn't take an IQ bigger than 50 to wrap around that concept.

[leftysergeant]

Says quite clearly at the top-left what JREF is. Am I the only one that can read?

We have all read so many of the anarchocapitalist arguements already that we are disinclined to waste another hour or two reading more of them and, being civilized human beings, cast them aside as being of no value to civilization.

There are volumns upon volumns available explaining why laws against pedophilia are absurd, too. I give both equal intellectual validity. Anarcocapitalism has only a slight MORAL advantage.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

When you use someone else's labor to make a profit for yourself without paying him for it, you have stolen it. It really shouldn't take an IQ bigger than 50 to wrap around that concept?

Labor is a type of action, and action is not ownable. How can you steal an action?

[AnarchoCapitalist]

We have all read so many of the anarchocapitalist arguements already that we are disinclined to waste another hour or two reading more of them and, being civilized human beings, cast them aside as being of no value to civilization.

There are volumns upon volumns available explaining why laws against pedophilia are absurd, too. I give both equal intellectual validity. Anarcocapitalism has only a slight MORAL advantage.

I'm sorry you've wasted time before. I'm not forcing you to read this thread, if you aren't interested in critically thinking and having a discussion in a friendly way, ignore this thread. That is all I ask.

[Shalamar]

How can one "steal" labor? The only way I can think of is by slavery. IP laws don't prevent slavery.

Actually, this is a serious issue in one of the hobbies I'm involved in, which is replica props. There is a backdoor industry where hobbiests will recreate movie props with their own skills. These are completely unlicensed, and technically illegal in a few cases. Popular items often include replica helmets and armor, either cast directly from a hard won actual screen used prop, or hand sculpted from screen captures.

So these people make the items, and sell them to others within the hobby. There is a lot of work that goes into these, they could be considered works of art, are usually very limited runs, and tend to be expensive.

What happens next is what you seem to think would be ok: someone will purchase one of these hand made props, name a mould from it, and sell the recasts for cheaper. They essenially 'stole' someone else's work, for little effort, but high profit. Without protections in place in the marketplace, this would happen all the time. No reason to sink money and effort to innovate, I'd someone will just copy what you have done, for cheaper because they didn't have to do the R&D.

That is why IP and related laws exist. You should support such laws, if you don't w t someone stealing your work!

[geni]

Did you take a look at the book or read my original post? One single IP law halted development for 18 years

Not really. Oh it shut down official development but people were still working on the problem (and another 18 years of metallurgy advances came in kinda handy) and later patents had a fairly limited effect. For example George Henry Corliss was never able to meaningfuly protect his design.


.... Multiply that by the millions of IP laws

There have not been millions I IP laws.


and how long we've had IP laws, and it's quite clear we would be living "in the future." The flying cars part is meant as a joke, but who knows what we would have today if it weren't for IP laws.[quote]

[quote]
Take a look at the early computer industry, where a lot of it went unregulated and without IP laws. Imagine if the first computer became a standard model for 18 years. How far would that set us back?

Depending on how you define first computer about -50 years. Early computers had such wide differences in design you couldn't put together a meaningful patent that would impact other developments. The Z3 for example wouldn't have impacted ENIAC.



These issues become compounded over time.

Not really. The steam engine thing was unuusal due to how broad the patent was more conventional patents are narrrow enough that it is pretty much imposible for them to slow overall progress.

[Mr.D]

One single IP law halted development for 18 years.... Multiply that by the millions of IP laws and how long we've had IP laws, and it's quite clear we would be living "in the future."

Working from the premise ("One single IP law halted development") forward, no it is not entirely clear to me that (some/most/all) IP laws also halt development and that the cumulative effect is additive.

In other words, logically;
a) My cat sheds fur.
b) There are millions of cats in the world.
Therefore it's quite clear that
c) The entire planet is covered in cat fur.

Isn't going to wash here. Flesh out your argument and you'll more likely get the discussion you're after.

[geni]

It halts development once the developer comes up with an idea. Instead of constantly being motivated to improve their product, they can now sit on their ass and collect rents. It also forces them to spend ridiculous amounts of money on lawsuits.

The problem with that argument is that if they are licenseing out the patent everyone they are licenseing it to has a reasonable insentive to improve on the technology thus no issue with slowed progress.


The book actually has a section on pharmaceuticals if you would like to take a look. It's quite short and would be well worth anyone's time. Before I read the book, that was the major section where I believed abolishing IP laws would harm us.

The section is flawed since it ignores changes in techology that invalidate it's earlier examples (trade secret doesn't really work any more), certian styles of patents used by german companies (if you didn't work for the company the odds of working out how the process described in the patent should be done was minimal) and the importance of existing centers of reasearch squewing areas of invention from the legal optimium.

[Captain.Sassy]

I hope I don't get scorned off this website for this but...


... there's something to what Anarkokap is saying.

There's actually legitimate a debate on how to balance the incentives provided by IP protection with the tempering effect IP protection is thought to have on the rate of innovation. Basically being able to 'rip off' ideas is a great way to improve on them, and lots (most? all?) of innovation is incremental.

Personally, I'm more on the 'lax IP' law side of the spectrum (as much from personal ideological conviction as from empiricism). Which may be self defeating in the long run, because I like using patents to proxy innovation.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Actually, this is a serious issue in one of the hobbies I'm involved in, which is replica props. There is a backdoor industry where hobbiests will recreate movie props with their own skills. These are completely unlicensed, and technically illegal in a few cases. Popular items often include replica helmets and armor, either cast directly from a hard won actual screen used prop, or hand sculpted from screen captures.

So these people make the items, and sell them to others within the hobby. There is a lot of work that goes into these, they could be considered works of art, are usually very limited runs, and tend to be expensive.

What happens next is what you seem to think would be ok: someone will purchase one of these hand made props, name a mould from it, and sell the recasts for cheaper. They essenially 'stole' someone else's work, for little effort, but high profit. Without protections in place in the marketplace, this would happen all the time. No reason to sink money and effort to innovate, I'd someone will just copy what you have done, for cheaper because they didn't have to do the R&D.

That is why IP and related laws exist. You should support such laws, if you don't w t someone stealing your work!

They are providing a good for society, a good society obviously wants or they wouldn't be purchasing them. You aren't entitled to being a monopoly just because you made something.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Working from the premise ("One single IP law halted development") forward, no it is not entirely clear to me that (some/most/all) IP laws also halt development and that the cumulative effect is additive.

In other words, logically;
a) My cat sheds fur.
b) There are millions of cats in the world.
Therefore it's quite clear that
c) The entire planet is covered in cat fur.

Isn't going to wash here. Flesh out your argument and you'll more likely get the discussion you're after.

That isn't even close to being logical or related.

[dudalb]

It is amazing to me that so many AnCaps want to get rid of intellectual property/copyright. One would think they would be in favor of the right of a artist or writer or composer or inventor to benefit from his work. with their emphasis on property rights.But then no one accused Ancaps of being logical or rational.
To be fair, most Libertarians find this AnCap stand to be totally illogical and wrong.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

It is amazing to me that so many AnCaps want to get rid of intellectual property/copyright. One would think they would be in favor of the right of a artist or writer or composer or inventor to benefit from his work. with their emphasis on property rights.But then no one accused Ancaps of being logical or rational.
To be fair, most Libertarians find this AnCap stand to be totally illogical and wrong.

You don't have the right to benefit from your work. You have the right to create your work.

[oldhat]

You don't have the right to benefit from your work. You have the right to create your work.

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

[rwguinn]

You don't have the right to benefit from your work. You have the right to create your work.
Then why would I do it in the first place?

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Then why would I do it in the first place?

You would do it if you profit off of it.

I'm not entitled to benefit from sitting in my home breaking glass.

[Mr.D]

That isn't even close to being logical or related.


Just in the one example of James Watt, Watt (with the aid of the state's IP protection apparatus) virtually single-handedly delayed the industrial revolution 18 years. Multiply and compound that down through the intervening centuries and you will begin to comprehend (but never know exactly) what IP has cost humanity.

You really can't see the parallel to your argument?

Too bad. I'm always up for a spirited debate on the merits, morals and ideal limits on IP and IP law.

[leftysergeant]

They are providing a good for society, a good society obviously wants or they wouldn't be purchasing them. You aren't entitled to being a monopoly just because you made something.

I am, actually.

[dudalb]

You don't have the right to benefit from your work. You have the right to create your work.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_188404a92e50f7158b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17399)

[NobbyNobbs]

They are providing a good for society, a good society obviously wants or they wouldn't be purchasing them. You aren't entitled to being a monopoly just because you made something.

He put in the time, effort, and talent to develop a product, only to have someone else profit. Where's the justice in that?

If that were the widely accepted way of doing things, innovation would halt. Why go to such great expense so that someone else reaps the reward? What's the incentive for creativity?

As it stands now, a patent is a contract. The assignee is given a limited monopoly on their invention, generally 20 years. In return, they agree to allow the details of their invention to be released to the public, stimulating creativity and encouraging others to improve upon it.

[SezMe]

I'm always critically thinking. My mind is open 100% of the time.
No you're not. Every one of us has blind spots, illogical beliefs, and other impediments to critical thinking. None of us are 100% openminded. NONE.

Thus, your assertion is self-contradictory. And possibly self-mocking. That could be why you're having trouble generating a decent discussion.

With that cheery note, welcome to the fora. :)

[AnarchoCapitalist]

He put in the time, effort, and talent to develop a product, only to have someone else profit. Where's the justice in that?

If that were the widely accepted way of doing things, innovation would halt. Why go to such great expense so that someone else reaps the reward? What's the incentive for creativity?

As it stands now, a patent is a contract. The assignee is given a limited monopoly on their invention, generally 20 years. In return, they agree to allow the details of their invention to be released to the public, stimulating creativity and encouraging others to improve upon it.

Why wouldn't he profit from it? If you took a look at the book, you would find out that British authors actually made MORE money from selling their books in the United States. At that point in time, Britain had IP laws and the US did not. Both countries had about an equal population. Anyone was free to pirate the books, yet British authors made more from the US. The pirates produced sold the books for a cheap price, benefiting society greatly.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

I believe I can post links now... so I present to you: Against Intellectual Monopoly (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm)

[leftysergeant]

Why wouldn't he profit from it? If you took a look at the book, you would find out that British authors actually made MORE money from selling their books in the United States. At that point in time, Britain had IP laws and the US did not. Both countries had about an equal population. Anyone was free to pirate the books, yet British authors made more from the US. The pirates produced sold the books for a cheap price, benefiting society greatly.

So the British publishers who paid British authors for their work got screwed.

Somebody is always going to get ripped off without IP laws.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

So the British publishers who paid British authors for their work got screwed.

Somebody is always going to get ripped off without IP laws.

No, the British publishers weren't screwed.

[leftysergeant]

No, the British publishers weren't screwed.

How can that be if they were not getting paid for the books that were copied in America?

[AnarchoCapitalist]

How can that be if they were not getting paid for the books that were copied in America?

The British publishers made deals with British authors to print books for Britain.

[leftysergeant]

The British publishers made deals with British authors to print books for Britain.

But who paid the British authors for the books printed in America?

[AnarchoCapitalist]

But who paid the British authors for the books printed in America?

American publishers.

[rwguinn]

You would do it if you profit off of it.

I'm not entitled to benefit from sitting in my home breaking glass.

You done went and lost me there...
You don't have the right to benefit from your work. You have the right to create your workbut
I am allowed to profit off of it.

do de do do/ do de do do NzlG28B-R8Y

[leftysergeant]

American publishers.

Okay. We now have the authors getting paid by those who use their labor.

Now what the hell has that to do with anarchocapitalism?

Only if the American publishers started seling their wares in Britain would it be at all relevant to the BS you are selling here. Then the British publiushers would be getting screwed.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Yes, you are allowed to profit off of it.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Okay. We now have the authors getting paid by those who use their labor.

Now what the hell has that to do with anarchocapitalism?

Only if the American publishers started seling their wares in Britain would it be at all relevant to the BS you are selling here. Then the British publiushers would be getting screwed.

I'm not talking about Anarcho-Capitalism, I'm talking about IP laws.

My point is very relevant, because many in this thread are claiming without IP laws that authors wouldn't be paid. I showed that not only did authors get paid, they often times got paid more. Not only that, but society also benefited greatly from pirated copies as well.

[Shalamar]

They are providing a good for society, a good society obviously wants or they wouldn't be purchasing them. You aren't entitled to being a monopoly just because you made something.

Does that mean that you think that people should be allowed to make money off of the work of others, without giving due compensation?

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Does that mean that you think that people should be allowed to make money off of the work of others, without giving due compensation?

You would have to explain what you mean by the work of others and without due compensation.

If you are talking about an employee that is hired, does the work asked, and the firm doesn't pay them as promised.... that is wrong.

If you are talking about someone creating lyrics, another person hearing those lyrics and using them in a song, there is no compensation required. You can't own words. That's allowing "thought-crimes" to exist.

[Axiom_Blade]

The flying car was killed by:

1)Not being viable within our current technological level
2)The market demand for an expensive VTOL vehicle being filled by the helicopter


The debate in this thread is essentially philosophical, so I'm expecting to see it go into the gajillions of pages. So, before wading into that mess, I'd like to see someone expand on the solid technical reasons why a flying car is infeasible. My engineering knowledge is jack and crap, so I'd be grateful to anyone who could shed some light on this.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

The debate in this thread is essentially philosophical, so I'm expecting to see it go into the gajillions of pages. So, before wading into that mess, I'd like to see someone expand on the solid technical reasons why a flying car is infeasible. My engineering knowledge is jack and crap, so I'd be grateful to anyone who could shed some light on this.

It's not entirely philosophical. Take a look at the book if you want to look into the history of IP.

[D'rok]

You can't own words. That's allowing "thought-crimes" to exist.

Unless those words are trademarked, eh? Then it's A-OK. Or do you disagree with the authors of the work you are promoting?

[rwguinn]

The debate in this thread is essentially philosophical, so I'm expecting to see it go into the gajillions of pages. So, before wading into that mess, I'd like to see someone expand on the solid technical reasons why a flying car is infeasible. My engineering knowledge is jack and crap, so I'd be grateful to anyone who could shed some light on this.
Any compromise machine is going to be less efficient at any of its multiple functions than a purpose-built machine for that function will be.
Amphi-cars, aero-cars--they make mediocre (at best) cars, and certainly a Cessna 172 will outperform any aerocar, and a 15 foot deep-V aluminum boat with a 25 HP outboard will run circles around any amphi-car I have ever seen

[Shalamar]

You would have to explain what you mean by the work of others and without due compensation.

If you are talking about an employee that is hired, does the work asked, and the firm doesn't pay them as promised.... that is wrong.

If you are talking about someone creating lyrics, another person hearing those lyrics and using them in a song, there is no compensation required. You can't own words. That's allowing "thought-crimes" to exist.

Do. I'm talking products. YOU make something, and sell it. One of your buyers copies it, and sells it for less, essentially using your research and skills, to make a copy, and profiting handsomely for it.

[leftysergeant]

If you are talking about someone creating lyrics, another person hearing those lyrics and using them in a song, there is no compensation required. You can't own words. That's allowing "thought-crimes" to exist.

So, if you havea better voice than I, you need not pay me for the work of creating the song from which you make money?

That is just totally out of the wrong end of yourt torso.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Unless those words are trademarked, eh? Then it's A-OK. Or do you disagree with the authors of the work you are promoting?

Modern state-run trademark law is almost as bad as copyright and patent laws. Trademark law gives trademark holders--not customers--the right to sue infringers, regardless of whether there is really fraud to the consumer. For example, neither the customer (nor Rolex) should be able to sue Rolex knock-off companies, because people who buy fake Rolexes for $10 are not being defrauded. They know they are buying a cheap knock-off.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Do. I'm talking products. YOU make something, and sell it. One of your buyers copies it, and sells it for less, essentially using your research and skills, to make a copy, and profiting handsomely for it.

He didn't take away your research and skills though. You still possess those.

Anyways, I don't see how he can profit handsomely for it unless you are sitting on your ass and not providing it to society. History has shown that the pirates don't make a lot of money, but they do provide goods and services to society. Take a look at those who re-distribute Red Hat Linux. Despite the fact that ANYONE can purchase (or download from other sites for free, legally) Red Hat Linux and re-sell it for any price, Red Hat still makes money hand over fist while the pirates make very little.

[leftysergeant]

The AnCap argument still comes down to "But I'm only stealing a little bit of your market."

It's still theft.

[D'rok]

Modern state-run trademark law is almost as bad as copyright and patent laws. Trademark law gives trademark holders--not customers--the right to sue infringers, regardless of whether there is really fraud to the consumer. For example, neither the customer (nor Rolex) should be able to sue Rolex knock-off companies, because people who buy fake Rolexes for $10 are not being defrauded. They know they are buying a cheap knock-off.

Well, at least you're consistent. So trademark is out too. But this is inconsistent with the book you are promoting. The authors are in favour of trademark law status quo. They are perfectly comfortable with the monopoly on signifiers that trademark law grants the owners of a mark.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

The AnCap argument still comes down to "But I'm only stealing a little bit of your market."

It's still theft.

It's not an AnCap argument. Forms of government can abolish IP laws and still run their government.

So I guess when I have a broom-making company and someone else introduces Sweeper 3000, they stole from me?

[D'rok]

Take a look at those who re-distribute Red Hat Linux. Despite the fact that ANYONE can purchase (or download from other sites for free, legally) Red Hat Linux and re-sell it for any price, Red Hat still makes money hand over fist while the pirates make very little.

This is factually incorrect. You need to give the GPL a read. What you suggest would be a direct violation of the license. For example, s 1(b) of the GPL v 2.0:

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."

You also couldn't call it "Red Hat" because Red Hat owns that mark.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

This is factually incorrect. You need to give the GPL a read. What you suggest would be a direct violation of the license. For example, s 1(b) of the GPL v 2.0:

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."

You also couldn't call it "Red Hat" because Red Hat owns that mark.

Sorry, but you are greatly mistaken. Take a look at: Red Hat's GPL (https://www.redhat.com/licenses/gpl.html)

Specifically:
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish)

Also, it's not just "crazy AnCaps" that believe patents are harming innovation. Take a look at Red Hat's Position on Patents (http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html)

[D'rok]

Sorry, but you are greatly mistaken. Take a look at: Red Hat's GPL (https://www.redhat.com/licenses/gpl.html):

That's the GPL v 2.0, as I quoted above. Look a little farther down at s 2(b) (I made a typo in my post above - it's 2(b) not 1(b))

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."

You cannot sell Red Hat Linux or any other GPL'ed software. The most you can do is charge a nominal fee for the physical act of transferring a copy.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

That's the GPL v 2.0, as I quoted above. Look a little farther down at s 2(b) (I made a typo in my post above - it's 2(b) not 1(b))

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."

You cannot sell Red Hat Linux.

You are taking that quote out of context. Read the entire GPL instead of snipping a part out and assuming you are correct.

Not only does my previous quote specifically say you can sell it, so does this: "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

[D'rok]

You are taking that quote out of context. Read the entire GPL instead of snipping a part out and assuming you are correct.

I'm not assuming I am correct. I know I am correct. I have worked with the GPL. You read the preamble and stopped without reading or understanding the whole license.

[D'rok]

Not only does my previous quote specifically say you can sell it, so does this: "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

Fail. But do keep trying.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

I'm not assuming I am correct. I know I am correct. I have worked with the GPL. You read the preamble and stopped without reading or understanding the whole license.

You are incorrect. You can "know" you're correct all you want, but you are indeed incorrect. If you don't believe me or the GPL, I might be able to get you in contact with a legal worker at Red Hat.

You have mistakenly (or intentionally, I'm not sure now) snipped that quote out of context. Why don't you take a look at the entire GPL? It is written in easy to understand terms.

[D'rok]

For the less challenged folks who are curious, the GPL v 2.0 allows these two transactions:

1. A nominal fee for the service of making a copy
2. A fee for warranty

The transaction not allowed by the GPL:

1. A fee for the software covered by the license

[AnarchoCapitalist]

BTW, you still haven't argued against the meat of my statement.

[D'rok]

BTW, you still haven't argued against the meat of my statement.

Which is?

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Which is?

Red Hat makes money hand over fist while the "pirates" do not.

[Axiom_Blade]

Also, it's not just "crazy AnCaps" that believe patents are harming innovation. Take a look at Red Hat's Position on Patents (http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html)

To be fair, doing away with patents in computing is very different from doing away with patents for ALL markets.

I do agree with this position. What would've happened if, back in 1984, Apple had been able to patent the concepts of using "windows" and "folders" to represent hierarchies in an operating system? No Windows, no GNOME, no KDE, or any similar shell GUIs would've been possible. But, because it was not patented, it spurred innovation in Microsoft and other companies.

I could use numerous other examples:
What if Netscape had patented "bookmarks", an "address bar" that you type URIs into, or, heck, tabbed browsing?

Basically, what if you had to re-invent the wheel anytime you made any competing product?

[D'rok]

Red Hat makes money hand over fist while the "pirates" do not.

You won't catch me arguing against the open source model as a platform for innovation and potential profit. But there are two problems with what you seem to be implying.

1. I don't know what you mean by "pirates". Is Mandriva a pirate? I'm pretty sure they are profitable, as are other distros based on Red Hat or Fedora. Red Hat is profitable largely because of their brand. They were the first to capture significant mindshare in the market.

2. Closed source makes way, way, way, way more money. The open source model can never hope to compete with the Microsofts of the world in the "hand over fist" department. There's no guarantee that breaking up Microsoft's monoploy would lead to a panacea of open source replacements.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

To be fair, doing away with patents in computing is very different from doing away with patents for ALL markets.

I do agree with this position. What would've happened if, back in 1984, Apple had been able to patent the concepts of using "windows" and "folders" to represent hierarchies in an operating system? No Windows, no GNOME, no KDE, or any similar shell GUIs would've been possible. But, because it was not patented, it spurred innovation in Microsoft and other companies.

I could use numerous other examples:
What if Netscape had patented "bookmarks", an "address bar" that you type URIs into, or, heck, tabbed browsing?

Basically, what if you had to re-invent the wheel anytime you made any competing product?

The same is true for ALL markets. Read the book if you want more examples from other markets.

[Axiom_Blade]

Any compromise machine is going to be less efficient at any of its multiple functions than a purpose-built machine for that function will be.


A flying car wouldn't have to be a "compromise machine", though.
I'm thinking of something like a small hovercraft. Why is this impractical?

[AnarchoCapitalist]

You won't catch me arguing against the open source model as a platform for innovation and potential profit. But there are two problems with what you seem to be implying.

1. I don't know what you mean by "pirates". Is Mandriva a pirate? I'm pretty sure they are profitable, as are other distros based on Red Hat or Fedora. Red Hat is profitable largely because of their brand. They were the first to capture significant mindshare in the market.

2. Closed source makes way, way, way, way more money. The open source model can never hope to compete with the Microsofts of the world in the "hand over fist" department. There's no guarantee that breaking up Microsoft's monoploy would lead to a panacea of open source replacements.

1. An absence of IP laws doesn't prevent the first from capturing significant market share. That's actually how most companies earn their money. The case with British authors demonstrated that.

2. It makes more money because of government granted monopolies, force, and unjust laws and it hasn't led to innovation.

[Axiom_Blade]

2. Closed source makes way, way, way, way more money. The open source model can never hope to compete with the Microsofts of the world in the "hand over fist" department. There's no guarantee that breaking up Microsoft's monoploy would lead to a panacea of open source replacements.

Why does closed source make more money?

[fuelair]

Says quite clearly at the top-left what JREF is. Am I the only one that can read?

Just passing by, but insults don't help. Nobody has a problem understanding what you wrote, the problem is that you are not explaining/presenting actual arguments - you are trying to convince us to buy and read an item out of the range of trustworthiness ofr interest for most of us. Make the arguments yourself, see how they stand up to discussion.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Just passing by, but insults don't help. Nobody has a problem understanding what you wrote, the problem is that you are not explaining/presenting actual arguments - you are trying to convince us to buy and read an item out of the range of trustworthiness ofr interest for most of us. Make the arguments yourself, see how they stand up to discussion.

I haven't insulted anyone, you might want to take a look again at this thread and see who is throwing insults around.

I have presented arguments. I'm not going to write everything out of the book, since it would be easier for you to read. By the way, if you read my post, you would notice it's free.

[D'rok]

1. An absence of IP laws doesn't prevent the first from capturing significant market share. That's actually how most companies earn their money. The case with British authors demonstrated that.

I said significant mind share. Would Red Hat have succeeded if everyone and anyone could call their Linux distro Red Hat? In other words, would Red Hat have succeeded without trademark law? It is significant that it succeeded essentially without copyright law and despite patent law, but that doesn't tell the whole story.


2. It makes more money because of government granted monopolies, force, and unjust laws and it hasn't led to innovation.

Overstated, IMO. You are assuming that something better would have existed had Microsoft not achieved dominance. This is essentially impossible to prove other than by assertion.

[D'rok]

Why does closed source make more money?
Depends who you ask. It treats software like manufactured widgets, whereas the open source model treats software like shared knowledge. It's easier to make money by selling widgets than by sharing your manufacturing secrets.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

I said significant mind share. Would Red Hat have succeeded if everyone and anyone could call their Linux distro Red Hat? In other words, would Red Hat have succeeded without trademark law? It is significant that it succeeded essentially without copyright law and despite patent law, but that doesn't tell the whole story.

Trademark law isn't the same as patents and copyrights. You can abolish patents/copyrights and keep trademark laws.

Overstated, IMO. You are assuming that something better would have existed had Microsoft not achieved dominance. This is essentially impossible to prove other than by assertion.

Something better would exist. All the money spent on IP litigation would be spent on better projects. All the time spent on IP litigation would be spent on better projects. Other people could implement their ideas without other companies claiming they own a series of numbers and letters. There without a doubt would be something better without IP laws.

[D'rok]

Trademark law isn't the same as patents and copyrights. You can abolish patents/copyrights and keep trademark laws.

Yes, I know. But you argued against trademarks up-thread. What, exactly is your position?

Also, if you agree that trademark law is just, you can hardly call copyright law "thought crime" for granting rights to words. Both trademark and copyright law treat words as a type of property.

Something better would exist. All the money spent on IP litigation would be spent on better projects. All the time spent on IP litigation would be spent on better projects. Other people could implement their ideas without other companies claiming they own a series of numbers and letters. There without a doubt would be something better without IP laws.

Well, this is just proof by assertion, as I said. So we're at a stalemate.

[Piggy]

You don't have the right to benefit from your work. You have the right to create your work.

Hokay.... then what's your incentive to create your work if you don't benefit from it?

[Piggy]

AC, I gotta ask, why can't you understand that there needs to be some protection against theft of creative property if we're going to get the maximum amount of creative innovation in the market?

If you drop protections against theft, then production stops.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Yes, I know. But you argued against trademarks up-thread. What, exactly is your position?

Also, if you agree that trademark law is just, you can hardly call copyright law "thought crime" for granting rights to words. Both trademark and copyright law treat words as a type of property.

I said modern trademark law.

I haven't studied trademark as much as copyrights/patents, but right now I believe it would just be fraud dealt with on an individual basis. I don't even think you need to have "trademarks." Consumers are not stupid. They can spot knock offs.

There are tons of Denny's restaurants that aren't the popular chain restaurant. A lot of restaurants share the same name. Either consumers are going to sue or figure out really quickly which is the Denny's they want.



Well, this is just proof by assertion, as I said. So we're at a stalemate.

Logic, reason, and history is not proof by assertion.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

AC, I gotta ask, why can't you understand that there needs to be some protection against theft of creative property if we're going to get the maximum amount of creative innovation in the market?

If you drop protections against theft, then production stops.

Because history has shown that your statement is false. In fact, IP laws have reduced creative innovation. I'm not allowed to do much with your "creative property." That prevents others from doing much with my "creative property" and so on.

Look at the artist GirlTalk. There have been plenty of artists before him that haven't sold anything because of IP laws. That has prevented their art from being reached by society, which has prevented people from being inspired and modifying their work, so on and so on.

If you would like historical examples of innovation being halted, take a look at the book I linked to. If you don't want to read the whole thing, look at the Disney section or creative arts section.... they shouldn't take that long to read. I would be interested in your thoughts on those chapters.

Not to mention your definition of theft is flawed. If I reproduce your "creative property" you still have your "creative property."

[Piggy]

Consumers are not stupid. They can spot knock offs.

No, they/we can't. Get real. There's absolutely no reason to believe that a casual buyer has some radar that detects knock-offs.

In fact, it's much more efficient to centralize the deterrence for intellectual/creative theft than to foist the burden onto every individual consumer.

The market works much more efficiently if there's an authority that performs that function so that individuals can act within the market with a certain level of confidence that what they're getting is bona fide. If we devolve that responsibility onto every individual, a tremendous drag is introduced into market performance.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

No, they/we can't. Get real. There's absolutely no reason to believe that a casual buyer has some radar that detects knock-offs.

In fact, it's much more efficient to centralize the deterrence for intellectual/creative theft than to foist the burden onto every individual consumer.

The market works much more efficiently if there's an authority that performs that function so that individuals can act within the market with a certain level of confidence that what they're getting is bona fide. If we devolve that responsibility onto every individual, a tremendous drag is introduced into market performance.

Yeah, all those people buying Rolex's for $10 are sure they are getting a real one. All those people at the flea-market buying Nike sunglasses for $5 believe they are getting the real Nike sunglasses. All those people buying Louis Vutton purses for $30 believe they are getting real LV purses.

I'm the one that needs to get real?

[Piggy]

Because history has shown that your statement is false. In fact, IP laws have reduced creative innovation. I'm not allowed to do much with your "creative property." That prevents others from doing much with my "creative property" and so on.

Look at the artist GirlTalk. There have been plenty of artists before him that haven't sold anything because of IP laws. That has prevented their art from being reached by society, which has prevented people from being inspired and modifying their work, so on and so on.

If you would like historical examples of innovation being halted, take a look at the book I linked to. If you don't want to read the whole thing, look at the Disney section or creative arts section.... they shouldn't take that long to read. I would be interested in your thoughts on those chapters.

Not to mention your definition of theft is flawed. If I reproduce your "creative property" you still have your "creative property."

Sorry. You lose. I used to work for Disney. And let me tell you, there's no greater argument for protection of intellectual/creative work than Disney.

And no, if you reproduce my creative property, you're stealing, because I do not, in fact, still have that property, because it's fungible. My ability to make a living by innovating in the creative field is scuttled if you can come along and take what I've done and claim it as your own and start vending it.

If I can't claim rights to what I've created, then I can't stay in business, and my contribution ceases, and the market loses.

And you're wrong about history showing that IP laws reduce creative innovation. If you were right, then Hollywood would not dominate the world, which it does.

Mind you, I'm against the trend toward extending copyright protection to insane lengths. At some point, you have to allow an enormously successful work to enter the public domain. It's hard to see how protecting the descendants of JRR Tolkien, for instance, is somehow encouraging innovation.

But a Wild West mentality does not produce fertile ground. If you think it does, then you're going to have to come up with some sort of justification for how 20th Century America was the #1 hotbed of creative innovation in science, business, and the arts, given its patent, copyright, and trademark laws.

You're just 180 degrees wrong on this.

[Piggy]

Yeah, all those people buying Rolex's for $10 are sure they are getting a real one. All those people at the flea-market buying Nike sunglasses for $5 believe they are getting the real Nike sunglasses. All those people buying Louis Vutton purses for $30 believe they are getting real LV purses.

I'm the one that needs to get real?

Yes, you're the one that needs to get real.

Just because you can point to a certain number (how many?) of idiots who buy obvious rip-offs, this does not mean that centralized measures for consumer protection are not efficient.

In fact, even if you can point to a certain number of gullible consumers who buy obvious rip-offs, this is actually an argument in favor of policing intellectual property.

The market works best if we all have a certain level of confidence that rip-offs are penalized. That reduces the amount of due diligence that each consumer (who is not an idiot) has to do.

If we each have to be our own police, that's an enormous drag on commerce.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Sorry. You lose. I used to work for Disney.

Nice argument.

And no, if you reproduce my creative property, you're stealing, because I do not, in fact, still have that property, because it's fungible. My ability to make a living by innovating in the creative field is scuttled if you can come along and take what I've done and claim it as your own and start vending it.

You aren't entitled to anything resulting from your property. As I said earlier, if I sit in my house all day and break glass to create art, I'm not entitled to make $1,000,000 from it. I'm not even entitled to $1. If I can find a way to market it and sell it, then I earn what I earn. Just because you create something doesn't mean you are entitled to $X.

If I can't claim rights to what I've created, then I can't stay in business, and my contribution ceases, and the market loses.

False. IP laws didn't exist way back in the day and that didn't stop artists from making a living. There were artists that would duplicate work as well, so "pirates" did exist.

Being first to enter the market is enough for most businesses to strive. Abolishing IP laws just forces companies to continually improve upon their product instead of being lazy and collecting rents/suing people.

And you're wrong about history showing that IP laws reduce creative innovation. If you were right, then Hollywood would not dominate the world, which it does.

Hollywood dominates the world for reasons other than IP laws, that should be quite obvious.

Mind you, I'm against the trend toward extending copyright protection to insane lengths. At some point, you have to allow an enormously successful work to enter the public domain. It's hard to see how protecting the descendants of JRR Tolkien, for instance, is somehow encouraging innovation.

How do you propose to find the perfect balance? Shouldn't the children be entitled to the fruits of their parent's labor? Obviously some artists are only becoming artists in the hopes of becoming wealthy and handing off the rights to their work to their children. If you take away that right, nobody will become artists!

But a Wild West mentality does not produce fertile ground. If you think it does, then you're going to have to come up with some sort of justification for how 20th Century America was the #1 hotbed of creative innovation in science, business, and the arts, given its patent, copyright, and trademark laws.

Easy. Look at our economy. Look at others' economies and their patent/copyright laws.

[Piggy]

You aren't entitled to anything resulting from your property.

You are a child. You think in terms of abstract bubbles. When you care to join the real world of cause and effect, of real people's lives, then come back and talk to me.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Yes, you're the one that needs to get real.

Just because you can point to a certain number (how many?) of idiots who buy obvious rip-offs, this does not mean that centralized measures for consumer protection are not efficient.

In fact, even if you can point to a certain number of gullible consumers who buy obvious rip-offs, this is actually an argument in favor of policing intellectual property.

The market works best if we all have a certain level of confidence that rip-offs are penalized. That reduces the amount of due diligence that each consumer (who is not an idiot) has to do.

If we each have to be our own police, that's an enormous drag on commerce.

Why are they idiots? They know the products aren't real, so I'm not sure why you say guillible either.

The market works best when demand is met. It also works best when there are no monopolies.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

You are a child. You think in terms of abstract bubbles. When you care to join the real world of cause and effect, of real people's lives, then come back and talk to me.

In other words: "I don't like how your argument is making me question my unfounded beliefs. I'll ignore your arguments and insult you! That will prove my point! Yeaaaah!"

[Piggy]

As I said earlier, if I sit in my house all day and break glass to create art, I'm not entitled to make $1,000,000 from it. I'm not even entitled to $1. If I can find a way to market it and sell it, then I earn what I earn. Just because you create something doesn't mean you are entitled to $X.

Exactly.

But here's the difference -- my work makes one helluva lot of money.

I'm not entitled to make a single red cent from what I do. I compete. And in that competitive market, I get market share.

If my work were not protected, then I could not compete. My innovations and creativity would be lost. I'd do something else to pay the bills.

Copyright, trademark, and patent protection are essential to America's competitive edge, and to our innovation.

You're talking nonsense.

[Piggy]

In other words: "I don't like how your argument is making me question my unfounded beliefs. I'll ignore your arguments and insult you! That will prove my point! Yeaaaah!"

You lose again.

I actually work in the field you're assuming you can talk about so glibly.

What I'm saying isn't in any way "unfounded". It's 100% real.

I'm not trying to insult you -- I'm just pointing out the truth. You are a child when it comes to this. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Piggy]

Why are they idiots? They know the products aren't real, so I'm not sure why you say guillible either.

The market works best when demand is met. It also works best when there are no monopolies.

Monopolies aren't created when innovators retain the rights to their innovations.

You clearly have no understanding of what monopolies are.

You also clearly have no experience with consumer behavior.

Are you getting this stuff from books? Web sites? Where?

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Exactly.

But here's the difference -- my work makes one helluva lot of money.

I'm not entitled to make a single red cent from what I do. I compete. And in that competitive market, I get market share.

If my work were not protected, then I could not compete. My innovations and creativity would be lost. I'd do something else to pay the bills.

Copyright, trademark, and patent protection are essential to America's competitive edge, and to our innovation.

You're talking nonsense.

Why don't you take a look at the book? It would probably be super interesting since it involves your work.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

You lose again.

I actually work in the field you're assuming you can talk about so glibly.

What I'm saying isn't in any way "unfounded". It's 100% real.

I'm not trying to insult you -- I'm just pointing out the truth. You are a child when it comes to this. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I know of soldiers that believe they need to be in Iraq/Afghanistan. What they say isn't unfounded, it's 100% real.

Saying things like "you lose" and "you are a child when it comes to this" isn't doing anything to prove your point. You have NO IDEA where I work and what I do.

[Piggy]

False. IP laws didn't exist way back in the day and that didn't stop artists from making a living. There were artists that would duplicate work as well, so "pirates" did exist.

Being first to enter the market is enough for most businesses to strive. Abolishing IP laws just forces companies to continually improve upon their product instead of being lazy and collecting rents/suing people.

"Back in the day"? By that, do you mean back before the era of digital reproduction? If so, then you need a course in critical thinking.

Your notion of the current state of IP laws is atrocious. If you think being first in market is sufficient competitive advantage, then obviously you haven't even taken an introductory level MBA course, or bothered to educate yourself about the brutal world of business.

Compare Amazon and eBay, for instance, to dozens of other (failed) Net start-ups. Yes, they were first in market, but that fact alone does not account for why these 2 enterprises are still with us while so many others are not.

Our current legal structure is sufficiently porous to keep everyone on their toes. To get an edge, you have to come up with an innovation that provides a solid barrier to entry, and if you think that's easy, I invite you to try it!

From where I stand, you sound like someone who has no experience in any of this.

[Piggy]

You have NO IDEA where I work and what I do.

Then pony up.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Nice assumptions once again, you are cracking me up.

[Piggy]

Why don't you take a look at the book? It would probably be super interesting since it involves your work.

Why don't I?

Simple. Because I've heard all this junk before.

And I know it's a crock.

Same reason I don't check out flat-earth books, and 9/11 Truth books, and moon landing hoax books, etc etc etc.

[Piggy]

Nice assumptions once again, you are cracking me up.

Pony up.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

I'm the CEO of DreamWorks with an MBA in Entrepreneurship.

Did you get into an MBA program without taking a logic course?

[Piggy]

I'm the CEO of DreamWorks

********.

[Piggy]

Did you get into an MBA program without taking a logic course?

Yes, "Jeff", I did, in fact. Imagine that.

But hey, I reckon you've got much more pressing obligations than posting on this forum. Best be getting back to it. Shareholder value to consider and all that.

[quixotecoyote]

I'm the CEO of DreamWorks

:dl:


that is all.

[Piggy]

I'm the CEO of DreamWorks with an MBA in Entrepreneurship.

So, you and I were at Disney at the same time in different divisions (and radically different payscales)?

Interesting.

Funny how I didn't catch any of your AnCap philosophy coming down the pike, or any kind of talk like this anywhere in the Disney system.

So, you're saying that New York University offered an MBA in "Entrepreneurship" in the early '70s?

Well well well.

That's quite the tale you have to tell, "Jeff".

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Only a child would believe I'm the CEO of DreamWorks and not see the connection between the two lines.

So what's your job title at Disney?

[Piggy]

Only a child would believe I'm the CEO of DreamWorks and not see the connection between the two lines.

So what's your job title at Disney?

I'm not with Disney now, and my job title was quite low on the totem pole while I was there.

So please, let's get back to reality, "Jeff".

[AnarchoCapitalist]

So, not only did you use an appeal to authority (without knowing a thing about me)... you weren't even authoritative! Niiiiiiiiice victory, you winner you.

You did succeed in derailing this thread though, so congratulations on that. If you can't argue, distract 'em!

[Piggy]

I do believe that I have an authoritative edge over you, since I actually work in a creative field, and other people's livelihoods depend on my performance.

So far, all you've put on the table is a bogus claim to be Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Now, let's get back to the issue at hand, which I've never shied away from.

Do you know a ******* thing about what you claim to be talking about, or not?

Do you have a single shred of evidence to support your claims, or not?

If so, pony up.

If not, **** off.

[Arus808]

You don't have the right to benefit from your work. You have the right to create your work.

I deserve to be paid for my time to create the work. Why shouldn't I?

I'd also be extremely pissed if something I created was duplicated by someone else without my permission and they sold it as if it were their own.

That means every product that is in the store should be free by your standards. After all, all of them are "created" by someone or something (machines). it costs money and time to make it, why should a company or person not be able to make money from it.

your logic fails

[AnarchoCapitalist]

According to your own admission, I would think I have the authoritative edge over you. However, that doesn't make anything I say right. I'm not into using logical fallacies to prove a point, if I was into that I would post on a different type of forum. If I wanted a bunch of people posturing and throwing insults around to prove who has the bigger dick, I would be posting on a different type of forum. I finally registered here after lurking because I wanted to have an intelligent discussion with some critical thinkers.

I've provided evidence, both historical and theoretical. However, I can't force you read it or believe it. That is up to you.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

I deserve to be paid for my time to create the work. Why shouldn't I?

I just spent 3 hours in my basement breaking glass, do I deserve to be paid for my artwork?

I'd also be extremely pissed if something I created was duplicated by someone else without my permission and they sold it as if it were their own.

Perhaps you should do something with your creation instead of showing people for free. Why are you pissed when you are offering it for free anyways?

That means every product that is in the store should be free by your standards. After all, all of them are "created" by someone or something (machines). it costs money and time to make it, why should a company or person not be able to make money from it.

your logic fails

You are free to sell your products at any price, I have never said you aren't allowed to set a price on your creations. Seems like your logic is the one full of fail.

[leftysergeant]

I just spent 3 hours in my basement breaking glass, do I deserve to be paid for my artwork?

No. Of course not. You probably can't produce anything but crap. you are obviously not a creative person.

I am.

I have not yet sold any of my works, but if I do get published, and people find that they like and wish to own a copy, I do deserve to be paid for it. If you see my work, start printing up copies of it and sell more than my publisher sells of the authorized edition, I get screwed and you get rich STEALING my market. YOU have absolutely no right to my work. If you start selling my work more cheaply than my publisher and I do, you make more money than I do, even if you are worth nothing to the creative community.

I might even starve because I cannot pay my bills. Or I might have to spend so much time at some job that pays enough to pay my bills that I do not have time to create any more poetry.

Now how in the hell do you think that allowing an untalented schmuck to make thousands of dollars off of my work is going to create any new works of poetry?

(Why do I even expect an answer on an adult level?)



Perhaps you should do something with your creation instead of showing people for free. Why are you pissed when you are offering it for free anyways?



You are free to sell your products at any price, I have never said you aren't allowed to set a price on your creations. Seems like your logic is the one full of fail.

And you still have not offered one reason why an untalented parasite has a right to make money selling what a creative person has created.

Here's the way this works, in case you have never had an adult sit down and explain this to you.

I post my poetry on a site where the public can see it in the hopes that some of the viewers would like to have a nice hard copy of what I have written, I have not posted all of my copyrighted material to the web yet, If you want that, you will have to pay me for the rights to view,copy and, if you so choose, to sell the printed copies.

But you will have to pay me a set amount for the copies you sell.

The works I post to the net still belong to me. I grant others the pleasure of reading them. I specify for what purposes they may be had for free. You may view them for your personal enjoyment, or tell someone who is in the publishing business that my works are for sale to a publisher who will pay me for them.

I do not give you the right to print them and sell them without paying me for that additional right. I would make no money that way. I have a right to make money if people want to buy printed copies of my work. you have a right to make money if people want to buy the crap you call art.

You have no right to make money just because I have created something worthwhile. It would reward your failure to learn a useful skill if you were allowed to use my work to get rich.

Society has no interest in your becoming wealthy until you have something to offer that is of some value.

Society has an interest in allowing me to become rich from the sale of my work, if people like my work, because it is an incentive for me to produce more, and frees me from the distraction from my artistic works like digging ditches just to eat.

[D'rok]

I just spent 3 hours in my basement breaking glass, do I deserve to be paid for my artwork?

The market for glass shard artworks will determine that. The fact that you continuously make statements like this shows that you have a fundamental misconception about what copyright law is. Copyright law gives you the exclusive right, barring certain enumerated exceptions, to reproduce your glass shard masterpiece. In some jurisdictions (but not the USA), it also gives you moral rights to the integrity of the work. Whether or not you deserve to get paid for reproducing your masterpiece is up to you and the market, with or without copyrights.

Logic, reason, and history is not proof by assertion.

You show your true colours here. You are so committed to your view of how things ought to be, that you confuse your own assertions with Truth. I suppose any disagreement can only be because your interlocutor is illogical, cannot reason, and is ignorant of history, yes?

Protip: This is not a good strategy for advocating your viewpoint.

[Fishstick]

I just spent 3 hours in my basement breaking glass, do I deserve to be paid for my artwork?



l.
You invest a lot of money into inventing, prototyping, building and marketing a machine that breaks glass 10 times faster than anything on the market. A competitor copies your design exactly, and is able to produce and sell it for a fraction of the price with no loss, since there are no R&D costs to recoup. This is fair to you?

[Captain.Sassy]

I don't think anybody's really addressed AnarchoCapitalist's point about society supporting an artistic class before the invention of IP. It's obvious that there were great works of creation long before intellectual property rights existed, and the argument about IP being necessary to incent creation predates digital technologies.

Now I'm not saying that the modes of production that were used in the past (rich patrons, for example) to reward the 'creative class' for their work would be as applicable today as they were back then, but history does show that IP protection is not the only way to support innovation or artistry.
Other business models or modes of production may be more relevant today.

The point is to basically find some way of getting the producers paid for producing what is essentially a public good. Using IP is one way of doing this, but not necessarily the best. Especially for creative goods that are completely codifiable, the use of IP in a digital economy may have considerable opportunity costs associated with it. University researchers might overlook some papers that are produced and published in journals to which their library doesn’t have a subscription, for example. Millions of people in Asia who could not afford to pay the market price for the software run pirated operating systems on their computers (though I admit this statement was something I read about before the open source movement really started to take off for the plebs, so its implications in terms of opportunity cost might have to be revised in light of fedora etc.) If you assume that music is a normal good, then being able to get free music from illegal downloads is a huge benefit to music consumers. In many cases, an ideal situation would be one in which producers of creative goods are rewarded, but these creative goods are all accessible free of charge.*

Some models currently exist which could form the basis of a new mode of knowledge good production. In the latest edition of Research Policy, for example, is an article that advocates reforming Bayh-Dole. The authors suggest that vesting the university with the IP resulting from Federally-funded research is not the best way to get the IP commercialized. Their first best alternative (admittedly) is that the IP be vested with the inventor. Alternatively, however, they propose that any invention resulting from the federally funded research be made openly available to anybody wishing to use the invention.

Other models might be developed to reward artists, though I think that worries about the impact of piracy on art are greatly overstated.

*I say in many cases, but not all. One aspect of patents that I like is that the knowledge is published, even if its use is restricted for a period of time.

[rwguinn]

A flying car wouldn't have to be a "compromise machine", though.
I'm thinking of something like a small hovercraft. Why is this impractical?
Why waste energy holding it 6" off the ground when you can uset tires.
Braking is also a problem, as is styeering atlow speeds, as well as wind...
Helicopters/airplanes/boats are much better--and cheaper...
If we want to continue this, may I suggest the mods split it off? It's a bit OT for this thread...

[NobbyNobbs]

You can't own words.

Yes, you can.

"Coke"
"Exxon"
"Microsoft"


I believe I can post links now... so I present to you: Against Intellectual Monopoly (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm)

I checked out this book on Amazon. Took a peek inside. Here's what I found just inside the front cover:

Copyrighted Material

© Michelle Boldrin and David K. Levine 2008

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.


:rolleyes:

[leonAzul]

The conclusions reached by the author of "Against Intellectual Monopoly" remain moot for a number of reasons.

The broadest area of contention is in the failure to account for biases in the author's use of data. A less charitable view would be that he is "cherry picking" the facts.

The first and most blatant example is the assertion that the existence of IP law is the sole or even most relevant explanation for the slow adoption and impeded innovation with regard to the steam engine, as exploited by James Watt through the patent system.

The first observation is that although James Watt himself was highly innovative, as attested to by his numerous patent applications, he was not expert in materials research, in particular metallurgy, the sort of expertise required to actually implement such an engine. Thus, in addition to the alleged 'rental' strategy of property exploitation, there was also a very practical reason for Watt to prefer to exploit his ideas through licensing his IP rather than directly investing in the actual production of engines. The benefit of such a licensing scheme is that the burden and risk of implementation can be shared by those in the market who participate. As an aside, those vaunted 'Open Source' agreements do not do away with the notion of licensing nor claim of ownership of intellectual property; what they do is redefine the acceptable terms thereof.

Parallel to the above, the author's own observations lead to the conclusion that any negative impact brought about by the way the Watt patent was exploited represents evidence of abuse of IP law rather than a condemnation of it. The author explains with great detail the methods which Watt used through the agency of a powerful ally to stifle competition and maintain monopoly status. The use of such methods to bend the law to one's advantage has no relevancy to the validity of the law nor the concepts which the law embodies, but rather speaks to the unjust application of the law, a very separate matter.

Considering the same case of James Watt and his steam engine patent, there is an entire body of evidence which the author conveniently ignores concerning the attitudes of those who had formed opinions about the impact of mechanization on the economy and society in general. Although they don't emerge as a recognizable movement until 1811, The original Luddites claimed to be led by one "King Ludd" (also known as "General Ludd" or "Captain Ludd") whose signature appears on a "workers' manifesto" of the time. King Ludd was based on the earlier Ned Ludd, who some believed to have destroyed two large stocking frames in the village of Anstey, Leicestershire in 1779. Verifiable or not, the fact that there were people willing to believe in the alleged actions of someone called 'Ned Ludd' attests to the existence of the opinion that mechanization, as exemplified by Watt's invention, was something that needed to be resisted. Societal disapproval is a powerful force against innovation that cannot be ignored.

These are just several of the unaccounted for biases in an otherwise well-argued point of view. I could continue with more examples, but IMHO this well establishes the tenor of the piece.

[dudalb]

You are a child. You think in terms of abstract bubbles. When you care to join the real world of cause and effect, of real people's lives, then come back and talk to me.

Hey, you are talking to a Anarcho Captalist.What do you expect?

[Beerina]

You're new here, huh.
I generally don't do this to newbies, but:
:dl: :dl:
IP law3s killed the flying car! :dl:
Uh, huh...

I'm more likely to believe resistance by car companies donating to Congress (who'd have to scrap and re-do airline regulation completely) or fear of lawsuits are more likely contributors.

Oh, and that the tech, like AI, is a lot harder to do than envisioned. Plane, easy. Cheap, mass-produced VTOLs that are highly reliable, neglecting stupid human pilots, are hard. And the "stupid human pilot" bit is far harder, still. That's why half the sci-fi stories involving this have computer controlled vehicles where you set the destination then sit back.

[dudalb]

Yay, it's Alex Libman!


I know you were joking, but after reading 4 pages of Anarcho Capitalists rants, I admit I have strongly suspect that we are dealing with a:




http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_188404ac643b2eecff.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17730)

[leonAzul]

You can't own words. That's allowing "thought-crimes" to exist.

Yet it is well recognized that one ought to be able to control the application of concepts as published in the particular edition or arrangement of words in order to profit from the diligence and creativity that went into the development of such an edition or arrangement.

The notion of "thought-crimes" is totally specious to this discussion. Whether or not copyright protection emerges at the inception of an idea versus at its publication in concrete form is very pertinent.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

You invest a lot of money into inventing, prototyping, building and marketing a machine that breaks glass 10 times faster than anything on the market. A competitor copies your design exactly, and is able to produce and sell it for a fraction of the price with no loss, since there are no R&D costs to recoup. This is fair to you?

How did they get the plans to my machine, build their machine before mine, and start selling their machines before me?

Yes, it's fair.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

No. Of course not. You probably can't produce anything but crap. you are obviously not a creative person.

I am.

I have not yet sold any of my works

It's hilarious that people keep saying things like this. I work in Hollywood... maybe you are more creative than me, maybe not. That is besides the point. Stop the retarded arguments and insults (that usually just end up insulting yourself).

and people find that they like and wish to own a copy, I do deserve to be paid for it. If you see my work, start printing up copies of it and sell more than my publisher sells of the authorized edition, I get screwed and you get rich STEALING my market.

Maybe you shouldn't sell your work to a retarded publishing company. How are these other publishers printing your work before your own company does?

Let's pretend I'm a romance book writer. You just wrote a NY Times best selling romance book. You just STOLE some of MY market share. Should I sue you? The whole argument that you are entitled to some amount of money for your work is ridiculous. Your work is exactly worth whatever the market will pay for it at any point in time, nothing more.

YOU have absolutely no right to my work. If you start selling my work more cheaply than my publisher and I do, you make more money than I do, even if you are worth nothing to the creative community.

If you read the book, you would see that producing it more cheaply does not equal making more money than you. There are countless examples, from software to books. You can make this claim all you want, but history has shown that you are wrong.

Not only are you wrong about the history, but you can't own a series of words. If I read your books, the words are now in my head. Do you OWN what's in my head?

I might even starve because I cannot pay my bills. Or I might have to spend so much time at some job that pays enough to pay my bills that I do not have time to create any more poetry.

I'm starving right now because no one will buy my broken glass! Don't you care about me? Now I have to get a real job scrubbing toilets or something... care about ME, I'm a REAL artist!

Now how in the hell do you think that allowing an untalented schmuck to make thousands of dollars off of my work is going to create any new works of poetry?

He's obviously not untalented if he is magically providing more goods and services to society than you are. Perhaps you should become a wiser businessman instead of trying to write extremely valuable poetry out of mom's basement.

And you still have not offered one reason why an untalented parasite has a right to make money selling what a creative person has created.

Because it's unethical to stop people from producing. Not only is it unethical, it harms society. But since you rather think you are making more money with a copyright (when really it's just the billionaires making more) then go right ahead. Ignorance is bliss.

Here's the way this works, in case you have never had an adult sit down and explain this to you.

I post my poetry on a site where the public can see it in the hopes that some of the viewers would like to have a nice hard copy of what I have written, I have not posted all of my copyrighted material to the web yet, If you want that, you will have to pay me for the rights to view,copy and, if you so choose, to sell the printed copies.

But you will have to pay me a set amount for the copies you sell.

The works I post to the net still belong to me. I grant others the pleasure of reading them. I specify for what purposes they may be had for free. You may view them for your personal enjoyment, or tell someone who is in the publishing business that my works are for sale to a publisher who will pay me for them.

I do not give you the right to print them and sell them without paying me for that additional right. I would make no money that way. I have a right to make money if people want to buy printed copies of my work. you have a right to make money if people want to buy the crap you call art.

You have no right to make money just because I have created something worthwhile. It would reward your failure to learn a useful skill if you were allowed to use my work to get rich.

Society has no interest in your becoming wealthy until you have something to offer that is of some value.

Society has an interest in allowing me to become rich from the sale of my work, if people like my work, because it is an incentive for me to produce more, and frees me from the distraction from my artistic works like digging ditches just to eat.

You are just trying to claim what's in others' heads. You keep asserting that you OWN what's in their head. That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. You also stop them from producing.

Society wants to do wonderful thing with your poetry and instead, you want to be lazy and collect rents while sitting on your ass. Society doesn't benefit and it doesn't seem like you are benefiting either. Congratulations.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Yes, you can.

"Coke"
"Exxon"
"Microsoft"

Arguing from status quo, brilliant.




I checked out this book on Amazon. Took a peek inside. Here's what I found just inside the front cover:



:rolleyes:

Why check it out on Amazon when you can read it for free online? Against Intellectual Monopoly (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm)

They explain why they had to get a copyright, as do others that are against copyrights. But since you think you are so clever, you aren't interested in that... you just want to hear others congratulate you on your amazing discovery! Great job.

[leonAzul]

They explain why they had to get a copyright, as do others that are against copyrights.

You appear to be confused on this point.

Under US law the LOC does not grant copyright, but rather records it. This is yet another example of bias from the book you cite where the temporal and political localization of IP law is not considered relevant to the discussion of its value. IP law varies greatly according to context --when and where it is applied-- and any serious discussion of it needs to take that into account.

ETA, neither the publisher nor the authors "got" copyright. Copyright protection of this particular edition is asserted by this statement. Evil Wicked Big Publishing even goes so far as to assert the authorship of the material contained in this edition to the original authors.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

An interesting and short documentary on the current state of copyright/culture is Good Copy Bad Copy (http://www.goodcopybadcopy.net/)

[dudalb]

Why do I get the impression of a 16 year old kid trying to establish an elaborate intellecual defense to justify his downloading of illegal copies of movies,games,and music?

[leonAzul]

Society wants to do wonderful thing with your poetry and instead, you want to be lazy and collect rents while sitting on your ass.

Please clarify what is wrong about developing and maintaining a property that others find valuable and are willing to "rent", "lease", or "sublet" to their own profit, as well as the profit of the proprietor?

Granted, indolence and neglect of a property is grounds for failure, yet how is that relevant to the orderly and just exchange of value that is the basis for ethical commerce?

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Why do I get the impression of a 16 year old kid trying to establish an elaborate intellecual defense to justify his downloading of illegal copies of movies,games,and music?

I'm in the business that lobbies the most against illegal downloading. Edit: I actually don't know if it's the business that lobbies the most, but it's definitely either #1 or #2.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Please clarify what is wrong about developing and maintaining a property that others find valuable and are willing to "rent", "lease", or "sublet" to their own profit, as well as the profit of the proprietor?

Granted, indolence and neglect of a property is grounds for failure, yet how is that relevant to the orderly and just exchange of value that is the basis for ethical commerce?

It's not property. It's not impossible to make a profit without IP laws.

[rwguinn]

I'm in the business that lobbies the most against illegal downloading.

It's not property. It's not impossible to make a profit without IP laws.
You are either someone who has never, ever, earned a paycheck, or a liar.

[leonAzul]

An interesting and short documentary on the current state of copyright/culture is Good Copy Bad Copy (http://www.goodcopybadcopy.net/)

Argumentum ad videum© is rarely a winning strategy in these fora.

Please clarify what it is about this production that contributes to your argument(s).

Also, please be prepared to identify and defend the biases and assumptions that contribute to the conclusions expressed in this production.

[leonAzul]

It's not property.

If it is not property, then how is it possible to collect "rents" for its use?

[AnarchoCapitalist]

Argumentum ad videum© is rarely a winning strategy in these fora.

Please clarify what it is about this production that contributes to your argument(s).

Also, please be prepared to identify and defend the biases and assumptions that contribute to the conclusions expressed in this production.

The documentary has arguments from ALL sides. I'm not using it to support my argument. I'm sorry you made that assumption. It's an interesting documentary that has more than 2 sides. I'm hoping that by sharing it that it will open a few eyes, even if they don't agree with "my" side.

[oldhat]

Why do I get the impression of a 16 year old kid trying to establish an elaborate intellecual defense to justify his downloading of illegal copies of movies,games,and music?

My thoughts almost exactly, but I'm guessing around 23-24.

[leonAzul]

It's not impossible to make a profit without IP laws.

Of course it is not impossible to make a profit without the existence of IP laws, nor is it impossible to produce a performance without a script. Yet it is pragmatically difficult to be on the same page with each other if there is no script to follow.

[leonAzul]

The documentary has arguments from ALL sides. I'm not using it to support my argument. I'm sorry you made that assumption. It's an interesting documentary that has more than 2 sides. I'm hoping that by sharing it that it will open a few eyes, even if they don't agree with "my" side.

I assume only that what you introduce here is relevant to the discussion. Sorry if was not clear that I requested additional clarification on its relevancy to your point of view.

Thank you for clarifying your intent.

[D'rok]

They explain why they had to get a copyright, as do others that are against copyrights. But since you think you are so clever, you aren't interested in that... you just want to hear others congratulate you on your amazing discovery! Great job.

They didn't have to. They could just as easily have used a copyleft license like Creative Commons. That would have at least given them some "walk the walk" credibility.

[leonAzul]

They didn't have to. They could just as easily have used a copyleft license like Creative Commons. That would have at least given them some "walk the walk" credibility.

Or more to the point, they voluntarily accepted the terms of the publisher that this edition assert standard copyright in order to commodify their efforts and enjoy the means of production and channels of distribution which this publisher has in place.

[D'rok]

Or more to the point, they voluntarily accepted the terms of the publisher that this edition assert standard copyright in order to commodify their efforts and enjoy the means of production and channels of distribution which this publisher has in place.
Yup. Nothing like exploiting IP laws to get your anti-IP message out there. It's kind of like jet-setting around the world in a charter plane to raise awareness for anthropogenic climate change.

[leftysergeant]

Maybe you shouldn't sell your work to a retarded publishing company. How are these other publishers printing your work before your own company does?

You are just pulling stuff out of your underwear now. According to your model, they can see it in hard cover, copy it in paperback and flood the market before I can get it out, or the other way around, or just produce a cheaper book, maybe in Mexico or some other country where labor is cheap and cut me off from the market.

Let's pretend I'm a romance book writer. You just wrote a NY Times best selling romance book. You just STOLE some of MY market share.

The market is still there. People who read romance novels read a lot of them. More than I can produce. Develop some talent and you get in on the market too. If i have one on the best-seller list, and you do not, it is probably because you have no talent, thus no right to complain about my being able to out-sell you. You produce crap, you deserve and get paid crap.

Your work is exactly worth whatever the market will pay for it at any point in time, nothing more.

And you have no right to be paid for what I do if you do not produce anything that is worth selling.

ad your books, the words are now in my head. Do you OWN what's in my head?

And I put them there for you. Pay the greight. according to the value that those words have. That means cut me in for a share (which I will determine) or do not bother me.

I'm starving right now because no one will buy my broken glass! Don't you care about me? Now I have to get a real job scrubbing toilets or something... care about ME, I'm a REAL artist!

Fine. You're an artist. You have to create. It's what artists do, even if they do not have a chance of getting paid for it. Nobody is obligated to buy it or even look at it.

Because it's unethical to stop people from producing. Not only is it unethical, it harms society.

Exactly why AnCaps are a drag on society. They can cut offmy income and let me starve or go do some menial work which leaves me no time to do what I do better than the bean counters can do it. That means I can no longer produce. Go get some ethics.

You are just trying to claim what's in others' heads. You keep asserting that you OWN what's in their head.

No. You are claiming a right to own and sell what is in MY head. You don't deserve to be paid for what is in my head.

That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. You also stop them from producing.

They weren't producing in the first place. Let's reward those that do.

Society wants to do wonderful thing with your poetry and instead, you want to be lazy and collect rents while sitting on your ass.

Uhh...no, I am working on producing more poetry, and you want me to starve in the meantime. I did the hard part.

[AnarchoCapitalist]

You are arguing some of my points for me. What's even funnier is that you are accusing me of starving you when you haven't even published anything.

[Mr.D]

How did they get the plans to my machine, build their machine before mine, and start selling their machines before me?

Wow. You are raising reading-for-incomprehension and missing-the-point to an artform.*






* A form which I intend to copy, and sell by the way. And because it takes less time, energy and resources to copy than create, I will be more efficient than you, and can sell cheaper and with greater profit. But hey ...

Yes, it's fair.

[Mr.D]

Red Hat makes money hand over fist while the "pirates" do not.

RedHat doesn't really make money selling software. To some extent they sell a trademarked name and non-free artwork. They also get some coin out of their training and certification.

On the other hand, the "pirates (http://www.centos.org/)" aren't even TRYING to sell the very same software, so I have no idea why you bring up RedHat at all.



(What RedHat "makes money hand over fist" selling is left as an exercise for AnarchoCapitalist as an object lesson in what the GPL is really about.)

[Piggy]

According to your own admission, I would think I have the authoritative edge over you. However, that doesn't make anything I say right. I'm not into using logical fallacies to prove a point, if I was into that I would post on a different type of forum. If I wanted a bunch of people posturing and throwing insults around to prove who has the bigger dick, I would be posting on a different type of forum. I finally registered here after lurking because I wanted to have an intelligent discussion with some critical thinkers.

I've provided evidence, both historical and theoretical. However, I can't force you read it or believe it. That is up to you.

Well, that was a whole lot of nothing.

[Piggy]

Society wants to do wonderful thing with your poetry and instead, you want to be lazy and collect rents while sitting on your ass.

"Society" can do wonderful things with someone else's property -- as long as they give credit where credit is due.

If I take the time and energy to produce something creative -- that is, if I do that instead of, say, digging ditches -- and other people find it valuable and are able to make money by using it, then by God, I deserve a share.

No one else deserves to make profits from my labor without any sort of compensation. Talk about being lazy and sitting on your ass while collecting rents!

I think the USA has a pretty good balance. If I make an innovation (and I make my living by doing exactly that) then anyone else can examine it and decide to apply the same type of innovation to their own material. I understand that my work is out there for everyone to see and to emulate.

But they can't claim my work for their own and make money off it by doing no original creative work themselves.

This provides me adequate protection so that it's worth my while to innovate and create, but it doesn't shield me to such an extent that I can stop innovating.

I know that when I come up with something that works, I'm going to make money off it, and no one can come in and just steal my intellectual property out from under me. But I also know they will apply my innovations to their own work, so I have to keep innovating -- and so do they. Because, yes, I'm reading their stuff, too, and learning from it, and emulating it.

It's a damn good system. None of us can just lift someone else's work and get profit from it without working for it. But all of us can adapt each other's innovations to our own purposes.

[Arus808]

I just spent 3 hours in my basement breaking glass, do I deserve to be paid for my artwork?

if there is someone crazy enough to buy it from you, then yes you deserve to be paid for that work of art (though I wouldn't because I could do it myself for free)




Perhaps you should do something with your creation instead of showing people for free. Why are you pissed when you are offering it for free anyways?

where did I state that i showed it off for free? Please cite.


You are free to sell your products at any price

Yes I do. And I do have the right to give it away for FREE, as you tried to allude to. HOWEVER, that doesn't give anyone the right to duplicated my work and give it away for FREE or SELL as if they are the ones that created it.

I have never said you aren't allowed to set a price on your creations. Seems like your logic is the one full of fail.

I dont know where you are getting this from, as I never mentioned any of this in my post

Seems that READING COMPREHENSION and LOGIC are something you are failing at.

[leftysergeant]

I don't think anybody's really addressed AnarchoCapitalist's point about society supporting an artistic class before the invention of IP. It's obvious that there were great works of creation long before intellectual property rights existed, and the argument about IP being necessary to incent creation predates digital technologies.

When artists worked for a patron, the patron owned the art and supported the artist. Then there were guilds. Then the individual was given the patent or copyright.

Either way, it belonged to someone.

The only alternative that I can see that would both reward the creators and not reward the parasites is a communist model, in which all artists are on salary as members of a creative cooperative which owns the printing presses or book wholesalers, with bonuses paid to those whose works sell best on the basis of their greater contribution to the wealth of ther cooperative.

[Francesca R]

Do IP laws and patents help innovation? Against Intellectual Monopoly is free to read online and answers that question (It seems like I can't post links... if you go to google just search "Against Intellectual Monopoly" and make sure you read the final version.) It's not based on theory, logic, and reason (Read Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property for that). Instead, it's a review of the actual historical and empirical record of IP. The arguments are so numerous, so varied, and so profoundly convincing that I cannot believe that anyone could read them with an open mind and not be convinced that "IP" acts as a literally disastrous choke hold on human innovation and prosperity.Well there you go. If you read one argument (and I have read part of Boldrin & Levine) and get "convinced" that's a good sign your mind might be rather unopen.

When property can be copied at zero marginal cost, so that its marketable value can be captured with no excludability, then the market for it tends to fail (= stop existing). Maybe not if the suppliers capture idiosyncratic (not marketable) value personally, like with a work of art. But you can hardly count on that happy synergy being present.

So non-market interference is necessary for the market in IP to exist, and grow and maximise gains. That is simple enough.

Yes, non-market IP intervention does stifle add-on innovation, less benevolently callled "mashup" or "ripoff" or "theft-funded". Or rather, it stifles such trade occuring in the absence of voluntary participation of supplier and demander. Same way physical property rights stifle the innovation that would otherwise happen if I appropriated your house and improved its design quality. On balance, most societies that are richest in intellectual capital are the ones with the tightest protection of that capital. They are also societies that prefer to trade-off in the direction of maximising original creative content production at the expense of late-generation content.

Not about IP at all, but this is a good rant against the drivel that results in the domain of crowd-sourcing that anti-IP people usually vaunt :) "The Cult of the Amateur (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cult-Amateur-MySpace-YouTube-user-generated/dp/1857885201/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254674428&sr=1-1)"

[Captain.Sassy]

When artists worked for a patron, the patron owned the art and supported the artist. Then there were guilds. Then the individual was given the patent or copyright.

Either way, it belonged to someone.

The only alternative that I can see that would both reward the creators and not reward the parasites is a communist model, in which all artists are on salary as members of a creative cooperative which owns the printing presses or book wholesalers, with bonuses paid to those whose works sell best on the basis of their greater contribution to the wealth of ther cooperative.


Well, first of all I wouldn't pooh-pooh your suggestion just because it was the 'communist' way... but there are other models. The travelling minstrel comes to mind. In a modern context, musicians could use digital technologies to spread their music, build a fanbase, and make money off of touring. Sure, you might not ever have musicians making as much money as Metallica did... but is this a social loss?

The big film industry in its current form might have a harder time surviving, but imo this isn't really cause for concern. First of all, say movie actors have to take massive pay cuts to make movies profitable again. So instead of dozens of millions of dollars, they're only paid 150K per movie. Is that really the end of the world? Now say even that hollywood movies become completely unprofitable because of 100% piracy. To me, this still isn't the end of the world. You could use government competitive grant programs to fund some movies (and other art). You could also get, for example, ISPs to pass a share of their profits on to the creators of certain works based on how often they were downloaded (I know I know this is still IP after a form...) (There may be technical problems with this too. I know you can track packets but I don't know if you could download something thousands of times while masking your IP.)

You can also count on digital technologies to generate masses of user-generated art and entertainment. People have been expressive and creative since we evolved as homo sapiens. Lots of the stuff you see random people putting up on youtube is crap, but some of it is high quality and very creative. Just because the type of art produced in a digital economy is different, doesn't mean (to me) that there's no art.

Also artists don't just do art for money. They also do it to get their ideas out. And they do it to get laid. So long as people can still get their name associated with their art I bet you people will be making art.

I'm far less concerned about the effects of getting rid of or greatly restricting IP on the production of artistic works than I am about its possible effects on research, development and innovation. But like I pointed out, even here there are alternative modes of production as per the proposed Bayh-Dole reforms I cited. Any costs in reduced levels of R&D investment due to a relaxing of IP rules have to be weighed against the social benefits of having less restricted use of existing knowledge.

Finally (and much to my chagrin), not all business inventions are protected using intellectual property rights. In many cases, trade secrecy or first-to-market advantages make IPR unnecessary. Like I said before I like patents cause they get the ideas out there for public use after a certain amount of time... but for non IP protected innovations, I would imagine lax or stricter IP laws would not make much difference.

[Horatius]

Finally (and much to my chagrin), not all business inventions are protected using intellectual property rights. In many cases, trade secrecy or first-to-market advantages make IPR unnecessary. Like I said before I like patents cause they get the ideas out there for public use after a certain amount of time... but for non IP protected innovations, I would imagine lax or stricter IP laws would not make much difference.




I'd suggest that, in at least the case of patents, this is the key point that Our AnCap Friend is missing. As Nobby Nobs pointed out earlier, there are two sides to the Patent Deal. AnarchoCapitalist is focusing only on the protections offered by patents, and ignoring the information that they provide.

He's mentioned that the patent on the steam engine delayed innovation for "18 years". Even if that is true, the previous system of guilds and trade secrets delayed innovation for hundreds of years. There are a lot of really clever ideas out there, that can't really be reverse-engineered from the end product. Allowing someone to get a patent, in exchange for a complete description of how they do something, is, in that case, a good deal for society.

I'd ask, in the absence of patents, why would AnarchoCapitalist expect inventors to ever publish the nitty-gritty details of how they do things? Without that info, others couldn't build on their innovations, so why would such a system create more innovation?

I'd also ask, was it just a coincidence that the Industrial Revolution also coincided with the introduction of robust patent protections? Was it just coincidence that the US, which had one of the first modern patent systems, was also one of the leaders in technical innovation?

[Captain.Sassy]

Well, I hate to jump on a sinking ship (though in this case I do think I'm wearing a life vest), but I thought the US ripped off a lot of British inventions because their patent laws didn't cover British IP?

I also think it might be oversimplifying things to say the industrial revolution was due to patent law.

[Horatius]

Well, I hate to jump on a sinking ship (though in this case I do think I'm wearing a life vest), but I thought the US ripped off a lot of British inventions because their patent laws didn't cover British IP?



Well, even now, patent laws are national, so unless the Brits file for US Patents (although there are several ways to do that these days), you can still rip off a lot of British IP ;). Patent law has evolved quite a bit since then, but at the time, it was very hard to get a patent if you weren't a citizen of the particular country.


I also think it might be oversimplifying things to say the industrial revolution was due to patent law.


Yes, we can't really prove that the industrial revolution was due to patent law, but it does suggest that patents didn't do much to stifle innovation. The patent-free Utopian IP world that AnCap seems to want existed for the whole of human history up to that point. Why then did innovation proceed so slowly?

[Captain.Sassy]

Point taken re. international patenting, but I don't think the brits were able to file in the US at the time.

Why then did innovation proceed so slowly?

There were other periods of invention and rapid advancement prior to the industrial revolution though.

I believe there’s something to the ‘fertile technology hypothesis’, i.e. after a certain buildup of science and knowledge, a field becomes ‘ripe’ for new inventions. In this theory rates of innovation can be maximised by having very open access to use and modify ideas.

Anyways, I *do* think IPRs have a role to play. I just think that the pendulum is currently too far on the side of restrictive IP.

http://www.researchoninnovation.org/WordPress/?p=95

This is a kind of interesting survey of some literature on patenting, R&D and growth. I’m not sure what they mean by a ‘failure of patents to act as property’, but I’m gonna check it out.

[Axiom_Blade]

Why check it out on Amazon when you can read it for free online? Against Intellectual Monopoly (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm)

They explain why they had to get a copyright, as do others that are against copyrights. But since you think you are so clever, you aren't interested in that... you just want to hear others congratulate you on your amazing discovery! Great job.

Lawrence Lessig's book, Free Culture (http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/), is available at Amazon, and as a free download in several formats, and is covered by the Creative Commons NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/). CC-BY-NC allows for copying and "remixing" (adaptation of the work), under the conditions that the copy or adaptation gives attribution to the original author, and there is no profit made off of it.

Can you explain why Against Intellectual Monopoly had to get a copyright? I don't feel like searching through the whole book to find it.

In a world without Creative Commons or GNU FDL, it would be hypocritical. As it is, though, it's both hypocritical and absurd. (I might even say, patently absurd.)

[Francesca R]

Yes, we can't really prove that the industrial revolution was due to patent law, but it does suggest that patents didn't do much to stifle innovation. The patent-free Utopian IP world that AnCap seems to want existed for the whole of human history up to that point. Why then did innovation proceed so slowly?The honest answer here is that there likely is not a good counterfactual, either to support the non-stifling effects of IP protection or to bolster the anti-IP hypothesis.

The industrial revolution argument is a red herring IMO. It is not so easy to innovate in rural societies compared to urban ones. In the latter you can benefit from collaboration and protection of inventions, and in the former you have to do without one and need the other one less.