The Curious Case Against Intellectual Property
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- Copyright is legal fiction. Intellectual property is not property. This sounds shocking and radical, but I hope to show you how absurd the logic required to justify the existence of these things is, quite frankly, insane. And I don't mean that lightly.
-
Support my content
SubscribeStar (Better Patreon):
www.subscribes...
Become a channel member:
www.youtube.co...
PayPal:
www.paypal.me/...
Bitcoin:
3LeTCjAUWo9yPCz6X1D5PBLZJJYgffWdh7
Bitcoin Cash:
qrz3e3fty0a9gqfer9n0y6dpwq0r0z34cu7srt7rt9
Links
Twitch:
/ anglolibertarian
Instagram:
/ anglo.libertarian
Twitter:
/ anglololbert
Business: anglo.libertarian@yahoo.com
Further reading (52 pages): Against Intellectual Property by Stephen Kinsella cdn.mises.org/Against%20Intellectual%20Property_2.pdf
Kinsella's communist fallacies have been debunked here: strangerousthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-economic-principles-of-intellectual-property-and-the-fallacies-of-intellectual-communism/.
@@explosives101 I think its incredibly disingenuous to call someone a communist by being against monopolization of speech/ideas.
@@coolbeans6148 Everyone is against the monopolization of ideas. Information is *NOT* an idea. Communists are against proprietarization of information, which is physical media. Read the article.
@@explosives101 "everyone is against the monopolization of ideas"
Clearly, that isn't true, especially this guy that typed this article.
"Information isn't ideas"
How do you figure?
"Read it"
I did.
Coming out character assassinating someone you disagree with, isn't a good sigh for your author.
The entire article is filled false information.
Intellectual property, isn't property at all.
It infringes on others property rights.
@@coolbeans6148 Information is physical, according to the science of Information Physics. Ideas are subjective and exist only internally to the mind.
Natural-law copyright does not infringe on anyone's property, only communist infiltrators of the freedom movement say so, and repeating it many times doesn't make it true.
Media is property. If the owner of a disk forbids PHYSICALLY USING the disk for duplication, it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to duplicate the disk without PHYSICALLY TRESPASSING. You being forbidden to PHYSICALLY USE someone else's media in a duplication process, does not infringe on your property rights.
I'm glad you brought up Unions, the near universal hate for them in Anarcho-Capitalism always astounds me, there nothing inherently wrong with a union, just the illegitimate power given to them by governments.
Unions are an important part of large companies in a free market.
Unions are a voluntarily associated group of people like any other. I fuckin love em!
@@australiananarchist480 Except when they aren't. Some industries require you to be part of the union, and all costs associated with it. These also often tend to help their leaders instead of their members.
@@blakehoughton5244 *voluntary unions
There, happy? That's obviously what I meant anyway
Unions have a bad reputation because in our state-controlled fake capitalism, Unions are a major vehicle for corruption via state interventionism.
Hey, can you hear it? I think that's the reeeeing of many a triggered objectivists.
This is why Objectivists are some of my least favorite people within our broader movement
Why would they be triggered? This is a sincere question, because I consider my self an objectivist and don’t see a problem.
@@daltonmarr9844 Ayn Rand and by extension a large number of objectivist (Including Greg Perkins who wrote a defence of IP called "Don’t Steal This Article!: On the Libertarian Critique of Intellectual Property") was very pro IP. she herself viewed patents and copyright as "implementation of the base of all property rights: a man's right to the product of his mind".
She also seemed to hate libertarians because they "pLaGeRiZeD hEr IdEas" and because "they'd let anyone in, including anarchists and religionists".
I'm sure many objectivist are ok, I'm mainly talking about those who wish to follow the philosophy to the letter when it comes to IP and libertarians.
@@heeman1203 I got ya, I’m going to read more in on that, thanks
@@daltonmarr9844 np.
I've said it once and I'll say it again. Fanfiction is Agorist Praxis.
You can say that about literally any ideology.
Fanfiction is communist praxis. - Fandom is often a community-focused thing.
Fanfiction is liberal praxis. - Free speech and all that.
Shit, should I go on?
It's crazy how hard it is to get people to understand why IP is bad. I'm not even an ancap, just a moderate libertarian, and it blows my mind that people think you can own ideas, arrangements of words on page, etc.
Great vids btw, keep it up
I'm moderate-ish but I still think ancaps have some good points
it blows my mind that the "IP" has more rights than you in many cases... I mean the ability to destroy physical property for the sake of infringing on a meta-physical one... is mind-boggling. though I must state that "E=MC^2" cannot be copyrighted... but an illustration of a machine utilizing that idea or a font could exist using that arrangement of characters can be copyrighted.
Hope you have a great day & Safe Travels!
Using the pharma example here, the fact that someone could just walk away from a company with all their top secret recipes to making medicine, that could be a huge intensive for pharma companies to give their workers a good working environment, because their secret recipes are on the line if they don't.
Because violating an NDA contract isn't a thing in Anarchy?
@@explosives101 they are still held accountable for that though, as he expressed in the latter half of the video
@@explosives101cause company b will pay his legal expenses and a heafty bribe for company a secrets
@@explosives101 PSA: NDA & NCA has to be paid for service of keeping mum/not competing, else it is blackmail/extortion.
Hope you have a great day & Safe Travels!
Those anarchy ball memes have been always been stupid!
Dumb yeah, but isn't that the point?
@@fabianblom2458 yes thanks for the compliment!
They're hilarious though. I've even made some myself because I love how absurd they are.
@@Kodeb8 cool
You're wrong about paintings, there is a much better solution. Ppl will just want to pay a lot more for originals, change my mind!
The original of the mona lisa is worth a metric fuck ton.
B I N G O
I tink that putting the originals on the blockchain is a pretty good middle of the road solution, but all of these things would likely happen in an ancap society. Currently however, artists are already putting their art on the blockchain.
if you destroy the original physical copy of the painting, it will no longer have any value. 🤡
The best way to put it is that intellectual property requires the interference in another private actor’s property, so it’s not capitalism.
One of the things that draws me to libertarianism is how so many of its ideas are things that I almost came to a conclusion about on my own. After losing faith in Christianity I had a philosophical phase where I would try to come up with a logical set of ethics with as little assumptions as possible. I came up with an idea that everyone should have a right to do almost anything, with the exceptions being actions that hinder the agency of others. This seemed to condemn a lot of obviously bad things, for example, theft hinders one's agency over their own belongings, injuring someone hinders their agency over their own body, and murder destroys the individual completely as far as we know, but at the very least it permanently hinders their right to engage in the physical world without their own consent. Consent naturally seemed very important, since it's the major deciding factor in whether most things restrict freedom or not. Asking for a donation vs theft, torture vs bdsm, manslaughter vs assisted suicide, etc. There was also some surprises, for example taxes aren't a consensual transaction, so they're functionally the same as theft even though society can potentially benefit from them. It's almost comparable to a poor man becoming a pickpocket to feed his starving family, *except* that unlike a pickpocket, the government clearly has the means to raise money with more ethical methods, they just don't. Copyrights also seemed indefensible, since their main function was to restrict one's freedom to use the ideas of others. Later on in my life I saw some funny ancap memes and researched "Non-Agression Policy" out of curiosity and I realized that it was the exact same concept that I had stumbled upon in solitude years ago.
Intellectual property doesn't exist and doesn't need to exist, because when someone "violates" it the "rightful" owner of the IP doesn't lose the ability to use it. If you download a movie from the internet, the studio can still make money from that movie. If you copy a painting, the painter can still sell the original. When actual property rights are infringed, the rightful owner of said property loses the ability of using it. If someone steals your car, you can't use it any more.
The only difference is that you lose the monopoly of said property
"""when someone "violates" it the "rightful" owner of the IP doesn't lose the ability to use it""" - When someone trespasses on property the owner doesn't lose the ability to use it. Dumb argument.
@@explosives101 trespassing and theft are not the same thing. I'm not talking about someone hacking into your computer to steal technical data for example. I'm talking about people copying a product.
@@rodrifoley6729 Copying trespasses on the media. If you rent a disk with a "no copying" policy and you copy it anyway, you have trespassed on the media owner's property.
@@explosives101 they ipso facto do, since there is now a solid object on land they were previously able to place whatever on.
This is a good video, and it further strengthens my views against IP laws as you mentioned Artist unions, which I think is a great idea. At first, I was definitely for Intellectual property because I was afraid of the idea that obscure artists will have their work stolen as I am an art Enthusiast myself. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized how IP laws hurt the consumers and the artists more than supporting them.
Faulty copyright claims on youtube for a 5-second clip hurting the content creator and their subs, a foreign game that cannot be released on America due to Sherlock Holmes being part of the story hurting the fans and game devs, etc etc.
If you think about it, the average artist is likely to scrutinize you if you were to steal/trace art. Look up the Sony Playstation Trace Commerical incident where a director from a huge corporation named Kevin Bao was found to have traced dozens of minor artists who had no support from the law. However, he was still fired not because of copyright laws, but because he was a talentless scumbag.
It's all about reputation basically, if your career is based on stolen soulless ideas, you're likely going to have short-term achievements and long-term failures.
I just wanted to let you know that there’s a man named Carson Alworth promoting this video on his discord.
I love this video! I've been saying this for ages now - glad to see you do a video discussing this topic!
ive been patiently waiting for this one. thank you so much for covering it.
Lovely video as usual Anglo
Been looking for this video
Anyone down to make an ancap colony in Antarctica?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
5:40
Also, blockchain can now store digital copyright for artworks, music, all kinds of stuff.
There's even services in place where if that 's the only place the art is uploaded by the creator, it can only be accessed via a blockchain transaction on a smart contract.
Better solutions once aging from the private sector lol
3 years late on this, but couldn't I just copy and paste?
Isn't copy and pasting a technology equivalent to replicating a traditional artwork? Do you have ownership over the art when someone replicated it. Copy and paste of digital art is basically the best means of replication of said art. This can also apply to screen capture as well.
Yea, you're not an artist. But posting art digitally is like allowing your art to be under a massive scanning machine 24/7. Then claim it was stolen, despite allowing that machine to be used at any time.
i have come to the conclusion tht there is no easy answer or fix for any of the worlds problems - so fuck it - wipe out all of humanity and let evolution start over again.
Question, where would there be any incentive to invent or innovate in a system like this? If you put in the cost, capital and risk of undertaking the R&D of a technology or in this case a drug, just for other entities to be able to create the technology once you create it, thereby eliminating the profit incentive of development because it would not effect your market share in the market you operate in, so how do you overcome this issue to allow technological evolution in your system, as from a personal point of view I very much like progression of technology and would not like to live in a static system.
P.S: I'm not necessarily in opposition to this idea but this flaw makes me oppose it as I like technological acceleration and think the free market is the best system for this to occur. so if the flaw is remedied I could get behind the idea.
One sollution is that the companies of this market has some internal agreement if they want. The open source movement has shown that open code accelerate the innovation.
This is a good point and a tough question. And I'm not sure if there's really a good solution other than compromise (i.e. more reasonable IP laws)…haven't seen one yet.
I don't agree with socialists often, I do partially agree on their views on incentives. Free Markets are far superior imo, but it's not money that drives people to invent cool stuff. They just simply want to do it. Albert Einstein didn't become a scientist for money for example. The same logic can be applied to Government however, there's one key difference.
Money is an indicator if you're succeeding or not. If you're succeeding and becoming rich, you're doing a great job. If you're failing and lose money, there must be something wrong with your skills or your reputation.
Government is different because they just keep getting money, they don't know if they're doing a good job or not.
Now to go on topic, you mentioned that people will steal your technology and drug once you created the idea, yes that does happen, but to do that first, ideally, you need to sell your product with the support of a company because your product and labor alone cannot make you rich, you'll need support first.
Let me tell you that recreating technology and drugs is not easy. hell, it's even hella risky as you need to put the time and resources to recreate it.
Even apple and Samsung phones are not exactly alike yet they still compete. Even if you have the best technology in the world, you'll still have competition. If people go for better technology alone, Apple should have kicked Microsoft in the shins a long time ago.
Basically, I imagined people do stuff because they want to do it not for the money, and at the same time, just stealing it is not an easy task because there are risks at both sides.
I think you are massively over-estimating how much patents are an incentive for innovation and especially for technology. In this regard, there's next-to-none. The greatest incentive to innovate is the advantage of being the first to market with a product, it's the seeking of short-term profit that drives innovation. Patents can provide long-term profit in fields where change is slow, but in tech where a patented good becomes obsolete in a matter of years it probably costs more to patent an innovation that what it'll be worth in half a decade. Nothing in the realm of IP laws would ever turn that static
Thank you for making this! There are far too many people out there who don't seem to understand this.
Great video as always Anglo.
I'd like to make a request for a future video: could you make a video challenging Anarcho-communist or just regular communist rhetoric? I know you've done this a bit in other videos but I think a dedicated video to it would be cool to see.
Great suggestion, I'm sure I could list talking points and refute them like my taxation video
@@CeaddaOfMercia Yeah man that sounds great, can't wait to see it
Intellectual """property""" is one of worst things that unite all kind of anarchists against it
First lmao
Question: Have you considered making a Discord server? Would be a great place for discussion
Already has one
Already has one
As the chaps have said I do have one, but due to bad experiences access is only through my Subscribestar
@@CeaddaOfMercia Ah, okay then
Have you what's happened to the Super Smash Bros. Melee competitive scene? Nintendo straight up is denying them the right to have tournaments and to steam them. They don't even need a reason to do so under Japanese law as it's their intellectual "property". #freemelee
I couldn't agree with this. Intellectual property is also private property. Blockchain would protect my copyright.
Say I create a painting. It's my painting. So if anyone makes money through that art it must happen with my consent. Same for other things I invented.
That's a statement, not an argument
@@CeaddaOfMercia wasn't arguing. Just stating my viewpoint.
I'm sure most Ancaps have this view as well. I agree with your other videos however I think this one needs to be thought about a second time.
I'm only a minarchist, but how is justice enforced in AnCapistan? Do the McPrivate PoliceTM simply take criminals out of their houses to be tried in the Courts?
That would likely depend on how much of an immediate danger they are, but if they never show up in court, even if they don’t pay the McFine that’s a permanent stain on their dossier that employers, landlords and bankers can look up.
my one problem with this is that new drugs will not be invented(or sensinsized or whatever) at nearly the same rate they are produced now
I have to disagree with you on this one man. What will be the incentive to write books or create music if you can't feed yourself with it? What's the incentive to invent if the idea is taken away and anyone can profit? I do think there has to be massive patent reform, but complete elimination of them would disincentive inventors and companies both. I'll side with the Founding Fathers on this one, I think the state should protect intellectual property.
There would be basic copyright in Anarcho-Capitalism. Just forbid using your media to produce copies. Then it's impossible to rightfully copy.
I like what you're saying here about there being no intellectual property rights, just physical property rights but, I don't think any political ideology is tenable, it always has failed the people, there are no political solutions and as long as there is a government over people there will never be freedom.
Property is an arbitrary human concept. It can mean anything we want it to mean. It's not like a natural occurrence like hydrogen or electrons.
Property is a person's legal action
Well, there goes my ability to make money off of any stories I write. Oh well, it's still a small price to pay for freedom.
You can make money easy. Just forbid using your media to produce copies. Then it's impossible to rightfully copy. IP communists overlooked this one.
Look at Danny Duchamp's video, he covers like ten different ways to make money without IP.
@@janeleonard985 There is no way to make a decent living without copyrights and trademarks.
Thank you for this video.
Is it not true that you could have intellectual property rights under anarcho-capitalism, it would just be very unlikely for such laws to emerge from the market, especially at scale?
Amazing clarification
give me liberty or give me money. lots and lots of money.
Based.
Well contracts would be a thing and a contract forbiding you to reverse engenere things or replicate them would be valid.
I agree with you. Nice video.
But you can own a stream? If you own the land it is on? Or are we talking broad sense "all water finds its way through watersheds to the ocean eventually" way?
You can own a part of it that you've appropriated through property boundary, but if you throw toxic waste into your part of the stream, and that pollutes someone elses part of the stream, you have trespassed on their property and caused damage, and are therefore required to compensate them
@@CeaddaOfMercia alright, that makes sense.
@@CeaddaOfMercia What is the appropriate compensation for irreversible ecological damage? Not everything comes down to human money.
One thing I’m surprised that was not cover was R&D, which is one of the main arguments for patents. I agree with everything in this video, I’m just surprised this wasn’t covered. Do you think there would be enough incentive for R&D in if people could copy the information right away and not have to expense the costs of R&D?
I don't agree with him on this because of this. If I spend money and time to create a new invention, idea, innovation that previously didn't exist then that intellectual property is just as valuable to me as any private or personal property. So IP must be protected no matter what. Otherwise there would be no incentives to create, innovate or invent anything new since others can just copy it and reap the benefits without ever having do done anything.
What about the argument that IP protection provides an incentive for innovation, as people see profit in being able to get a patent and produce that good exclusively?
Yes there is profit in a monopoly, but that's not adequate justification for it
@@CeaddaOfMercia what would act as an incentive to innovate and create new stuff without that profit motive. Or even if an incentive existed would it be as strong?
@@avishkajayaweera7943 how about the abolishment of the outdated concept of money. if you remove money from the equation and have trade, or people working together for the benefit of all humans, then there is no issue, in your sense, but the will be other issue with that basis, ie art, music, where as tech growth would benefit all, music is of no benefit, expect for entertainment value, so still could be slight issues but at least money isn't controlling everything, and you could have free expression of all art, music etc with no money spoiling it.
but i could be wrong there.
@@rianmacdonald9454 Money is needed for trade.
@@avishkajayaweera7943 It would exist, it's just you now can't claim ownership over information.
copywrongs but based, and YES to unions! im an ancap but only if there's guaranteed to be unions
What are your thoughts on hoppeans?
Hoppe > Hoppeans
@@CeaddaOfMercia do you know why backalley philosophy and filthy heretic hate him so much?
@@russiancapitalist Not specifically but I'm sure I could make good guesses regarding his social views
Hey Hampton 😊
Considering the amount of investment and time firms pour into R&D though, surely information does in this sense have value as the path to uncovering said information likely involved a combination of natural resources and labour -- it surely isn't fair for another firm to take on these benefits for free. I understand the social benefits to abolishing IP but surely it also diminishes the incentive for innovation by each firm?
It doesn't though, and I would go so far as to say IP discourages innovation and creativity by preventing others from building upon the inventions and creations of multi-billion dollar conglomerates.
Look at any industry with a heavy use of copyrights and patents and you will find one that is completely stagnant and just lazily rent seeks on intellectual monopolies rather than constantly inventing things to keep the profits up. If everyone could make cartoons and movies of Disney characters they'd start losing market share to competitors and be forced to make something new to recapture their audience.
Can you do a video on Rothbard books like the progressive era where he goes over common historical misconception s
What font does he(you, if you're reading this) use?
BigNoodleTilting
Thank you 👌
What'do y'all think about private prisons?
Based
Only necessary since nobody knows what excessive bail is and the drug war.
Hold up. “You can’t just point at a stream and say ‘I own it because I say so.’” No, but you can own the land which the stream runs through. Also, how are you going to pursue “legal action” against someone for a breach-of-contract in a stateless society?
On your second question there would be private courts and arbitration just as there is now.
@@fatdave124 and what if someone just chooses not to pay the fine?
@@jettgroves6424 they would most likely not be able to get a job, local businesses would not want to do business with them, and they would most likely lose any insurance or outstanding loans they have.
@@fatdave124 so the person who got screwed over is just going to have to take a loss? That hardly seems just. I can already see how a system like that would be easily taken advantage of. Let’s say you sign a contract to do some work in exchange for money at a specified date. That day comes around and they decide to just not pay you. They’ve got the means to, but they decided to just not pay you. You take it to court, that person is found guilty and then you’re left in the negative. You don’t think it’d be more just if you or a “designated asset seizer” were to seize that money? (I should probably mention I’m no bootlicker, I’m more of a minarchist than anything).
@@jettgroves6424 don't worry im not gonna call you a bootlicker lol its a legitimate question and something I struggled with also. To clarify, youre saying a business or individual hired someone and then did not pay that person, the contractor took the business to court and the business was found guilty but still refused to pay (if im incorrect please correct me). In this situation the contractor may have to take a loss, but the business is now forever labeled as a bad business for contractors. In my field this is already a thing and contractors know what owners are bad about paying and therefore may not do business with them. The contractor also may sue the owners insurance company or pull any bonds that may have been issued by the owner.
thoughts on georgism?
Is child labor good necessarily?
You should not be able to patent either the synthesis for a drug (or other molecule) or the drug itself, if I can synthesize a life saving drug and save lives with it, nothing should stand in my way. With respect to copying a logo, who cares? If the knockoff is better, I'll buy it, you shouldn't be relying on a tick to sell a t-shirt, you should be offering more than making your customer a walking billboard to succeed. With music, you don't own the song, if people love hearing you play, they will want to support you, money corrupts everything, you should make art because you enjoy it and because it brings people joy. You should invent things because it makes everyone's life better, you should work because it helps your community, you shouldn't need to be coerced, if you do, something is wrong with the system. The only reason I'd seek profit is because society has set it up in such a way as to force narcissism and sociopathy or poverty, misery, hunger and death.
So what if the government is just a union of the people? I agree that current government is bad precisely because it is not a proper union but effectively under ideal circumstances it works the same way. All the people get together pay some money for the union leaders vote on who represents the union and that union then works towards improving working conditions for the workers. The very same a government is supposed to do.
Honestly I feel like the entire video is trying really hard to make Capitalism work carefuly avoiding coming of as Marxist. Imo unbiased pure capitalism concerned with the maximum long term benefits always loops back around to communism (the ideology not the real world examples).
For example your river analogy clings very hard to the idea of personal property for no reason. You agree that someone can't own the river after all they did not make it, but they do own the water if they bottle it. So what if they bottle it and pour it back into the river shouldn't the water still be theirs? Ultimately it is just the labour that is theirs not the water the labour is just attached to the water. Now there is a whole discussion on how to value labor ie useful vs useless labour etc but as of now I don't know the answer so I can't give it.
Does the labour theory of value not explain very well how the whole process works though? Intellectual property works the same way you produced the property and therefor put a certain amount of labour in, that labour of course is related to all the hours of studying etc that got you there in the first place.
1) You can choose to join a union, you cannot choose to be subjected to government. If choice was available you would have competitors, customers, shareholders, and therefore accountability. A government forcing it's will on people arbitrarily and taking their property without their consent is not representative of a union.
2) There is no personal property, all property is private and extends from self-ownership of your mind and body. And property can have it's title abandoned (not just left idle, there is a distinction), pouring water back into a river would do this, as does throwing rubbish away in the bin. Labour is not the constant here, it is human behaviour and will. Labour is the behaviour that creates property and endows title upon the original creator, trade and contract is the behaviour that transfers or destroys it's title.
3) Property is created by mixing labour with an unused natural resource. Reading a book and building up knowledge is just labour, no unclaimed resource is being appropriated, so no property is being created. Prescribing objective value to the act of sitting down and reading is completely arbitrary. The only person that can find value in it is you, until you turn that knowledge into a service which others would be willing to pay for.
Right, but you didn't address the whole reason intellectual property rights exist to begin with. You rightly point out as do other Libertarians that it contributes to government granted monopoly, but don't really delve into why they exist in the first place. A drug company spends massive amounts of money to research, do the trials, experiment, pay employees to get the drug to market. Once the drug is shown to be successful (and I don't mean FDA, f*** them), then they can start making money on all of that investment. Without intellectual property rights, I as a competitor can simply take there drug, get the ingredients, slap another label on it, and I reap HUGE rewards on the cheap, because I didn't have to hardly pay anything. No experiments, no research, no nothing. You essentially did all the hard work, and I as a lazy competitor just take your drug and make money off of it. So without intellectual property rights you PUNISH investment and encourage competitors to be lazy and simply steal the product when it is finished. I want a an cap to address that part, not the government granted monopoly aspect.
I'm not saying intellectual property rights are the right thing to do, but it addresses the problem you don't address in your video.
He talked about contracts in the video, so I'm not getting into that. However, I'll get into the topic of reverse engineering.
If you own a medical device or medication, are you not allowed to reverse engineer the product you own?
If I were to make a pencil, a special pencil that does a cool thing. Someone learns through reverse engineering and replicates that cool thing. Then sell a pencil of their own with that cool thing. Are they stealing from you?
Reality is, you should come up with a solution on monetizing being first in the market. Not to mention, if you're the original who made this product, then you seen as the original who may provide a better product than knock-offs. Kinda the whole point of subjective value.
@@doomersnek3878 When it comes to anarcho-Capitalism, the three areas I have the hardest time with is health care, intellectual rights, and defense. This video didn't address the whole reason we have a patent system. I would like to do away with it, I do, I really don't see an alternative that isn't so destructive to innovation. Patents are your reward for innovating.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that the US patent system is awesome, it's not. I don't like for example how our patent system is anti poor person, by that I mean, sometimes it is stupidly expensive to file for a patent.
Hey Anglo I love your videos, keep it up, also could you say taxation is extortion instead of theft?
Same difference his logic wouldn't change if he said taxation is theft via extortion
@@liquidswordsman6827 yes but extortion is more accurate than plain theft
But by that logic, if you have a hard drive with a Bitcoin wallet on it I could simply access that hard drive and remove your bitcoins and it's not theft because you only own the hard drive and not the Bitcoin.
“Can I access your secret hard drive where your Bitcoin wallet is stored?”
“No.”
@@pierrecolin6376 still not stealing
@@Phoenix_Atlas Ever heard of trespassing?
@@pierrecolin6376 virtual trespassing? I thought there's no such thing as intellectual property?
@@Phoenix_Atlas It has nothing to do with IP. Go back to school.