How Should Libertarians Think About Intellectual Property?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- Libertarians have long been divided on the subject of intellectual property such as patents and copyright. Does natural law extend to intellectual property rights, just like "real property" rights? Or is IP just another government-granted monopoly that limits freedom?
The Progress Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress authority to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." During the Constitutional Convention, this provision was adopted by an overwhelming vote and with little debate. But IP was much more limited at the nation's founding than it is today.
In fact, copyright terms are now 580 percent longer than at the start of the 19th century and patents are now granted for software, designs, and business methods that don't look anything like the traditional definition of "inventions."
How should libertarians regard the current legal and regulatory framework and does it help or hinder progress in the digital age? And when considering reform, how can policymakers balance the interests of creators while limiting the potential for regulatory capture and industry-driven cronyism?
On October 8, 2015, R Street and Reason co-hosted a discussion on the pitfalls and merits of intellectual property at Reason's DC offices. Joining the panel was Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute, Wayne Brough of FreedomWorks, Eli Dourado of the Mercatus Center, and Sasha Moss of R Street Institute. The discussion was moderated by Reason's Nick Gillespie.
Related: Check out Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch's take on IP during "What's Your Take on IP & Net Neutrality?" during Ask a Libertarian day: • What's Your Take on IP...
Edited by Joshua Swain. Cameras by Swain and Todd Krainin.
Approximately 26 minutes.
For downloadable versions go here: reason.com/rea...
And subscribe to Reason TV's RUclips channel for daily content like this.
Patents let companies buy an idea and shelve it preventing Creative Destruction that would advance humanity.
Intellectual
Protectionism
As coming from someone that has never invented anything
@@leonardodavid2842 it was the strongest argument ever constructed. Absolutely incredible.
@Erik Manbodh 🤣🤣
you cant own ideas
If I have a unique method to make a car run on dirt, you can't have that idea unless I tell you. You may come up with the idea yourself, but otherwise, I have 100% control of that idea. How is that not ownership, and why should I not be able to negotiate terms under which I share that idea?
@@EGarrett01 Because I can independently come up with the same/similar idea. You having a right to that is wrong.
Notice how I said "unique?" Please explain how that works in the case of a unique idea?
@@EGarrett01 no unique ideas are safe from other creative minds constructing them.
How does that effect me being able to negotiate terms under which I tell you something?
I can't take a libertarian panel discussing IP seriously if Kinsella isn't participating.
Agreed
mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0
If my neighbor builds the first house, and I am like "hey that was a good idea" and copy him. Is he justified is taking/destroying my property?
No, but he's justified in going after you if you sell houses and he does too
@@JosVanWeesel Because you're harming him by taking away his business from an original thing that he invented. He did all the R&D work and you come along and reap the benefits. That's not abstract, that's a very real harm you've committed against him. It's theft
@@williamavitt8264 socialism consists on avoiding that the owner of a private property allocate it as he wants following his needs since he doesn´t violate someone else´s right of life and property physically, intellectual property is the same thing. You can not be libertarian and defend intellectual property at the same time.
@@williamavitt8264 Taking market share from someone is not "theft". You do not exercise rights over other people's capacity to buy from you.
@@newvultraz it isn't the taking of the market share that's theft, it's the taking of the intellectual property. Someone poured the time, labor and money into developing an original product. You can't just come along and take that product and start selling it as your own
Where are all the Intellectual Property Taxes?
Didn't know Zooey Deschanel was a libertarian.
Ethical and pragmatic arguments aside, I do not see how monopolies on ideas can be enforceable without a government to subsidize the cost of enforcement.
very good point
The enforcement of intellectual property rights requires a violation of the non aggression principle. There for "intellectual property rights" are morally wrong.
Well no you do not need government for IP to exist they can simply exist through contract law where if you buy something the agreement of the purchase is that you do not copy it and sell it. Not to mention you can contract with private companies for them to sell your product and not allow exact copies to be sold.
@@voluntarism335 I agree, contract law can be used to create a kind of intellectual property, but it would be much more limited than what exists today. To illustrate the limitation just imagine one person violating the contract and releasing IP publicly. Now the people who receive it freely are not bound by the original contract. And it would requires the initiation of force to prosecute those people. Plus the original violator of the contract may be difficult to find when there are millions possible suspects, and therefor that contract may be nearly impossible to enforce.
@@voluntarism335 Who is liable in that case? If an individual contracts with a corporation through their purchase and agrees to not reproduce the content, and the purchaser's friend just happens to rip a copy of the music album, who is going to be held liable? How could it be traced back to the original purchaser? It's advantageous for the gov to assign blame to the reproducer so that it's obvious who to blame. They can also infiltrate online sharing networks since they are criminal for their very _reproduction_ of intellectual property.
@Krugeuring I agree that with out the initiation of force there will still be some people who choose to respect an authors claim of copy right. But you must also agree that with out the initiation of force there will be others who choose not to respect an author's claim of copy right.
I believe any creator of information has given up all rights to control that information, upon its release to the public.
However when such information is valued by the public you will find many people will want to support the creator voluntarily either through paying the requested fee, or through donations.
@@Curious112233 You are naive.
If intellectual property rights derive from natural law, then why are they of limited duration? How should that duration be determined based on fundamental, universal conditions? How should the scope of patents be identified? How do you clearly define the extension of copyright over derivative works?
If intellectual property rights are defined by statutory law, under various situations what is the optimal law? Is the large increase in patents in effect a reflection of a beneficial growth in inventing, or is a sign that standards of novelty have deteriorated? Or that the standards should be raised?
If IP is justified based on pragmatic effect, wouldn't a prize system be preferable under the current circumstances? That it be required to demonstrate that the innovation is really a true breakthrough, rather than actually easily achieved with the current art and understanding?
The mental gymnastics some people do to justify the ownership of ideas amazes me.
How would the artists be supported and individual creators/ quality control against fraud and fake goods
@@drasticallyfantastic7164 how the artist can or can not support ones self is irrelevant. That’s like asking how the person who chooses to not work will support ones self. Answer to both is either through charities or choosing a different/modified line of work. It’s not the governments role to tell peaceful citizens what to do just because you as the individual might benefit from certain controls placed upon others.
@Teo Larrosa Granolleras what if there's not? And even in that case what if the person who stole said art has their own fandom or organisation protecting them from the original artist?
Doesn't seem logical to me, then again logic and libertarian don't go hand in hand.
@@aalleexx. if I as an inventer or artist create something, and it took all my hard work to do so. I'm entitled to exclusively profit off or be credited for said invention.
What in "libertarianville" will protect my work from being copied without my consent or even stolen???
@@nataliekhanyola5669 If someone physically steals an object from you, that is a violation of your right to be left in peace and without fear of threat. However, if someone copies an idea that you came up with, there is no physical threat to you or your belongings. It just bothers you that someone else might also choose to benefit from that idea, and you do not like that because you want all the benefits to yourself. That emotion is called jealousy... an emotion you are allowed to have, but not one a society should support under law. (At one time, some societies even considered it a deadly sin.)
If you really can’t stand being copied, do something so extraordinarily well that it is impossible for anyone else to replicate. If you can’t, you just gotta accept your capabilities and move on.
Interesting discussion. Simply using the terms "intellectual property" and "piracy" is very misleading by parroting doublespeak meant to re-frame and confuse the listener. Equating coping to pirates raping and pillaging is not proportionate and there are serious concerns with calling ideas "property" that can be owned by individuals or fictions.
sanisidrocr careful with the term "doublespeak" you may get sued 😅
We should frame it as "Should we share knowledge and technical insights with humanity or hold them for ransom so companies can profit as much as possible?"
>Anyone can edit Wikipedia
Not the case guys.
I prefer the Gabe Newell solution to piracy. Provide a better service than the pirates. Before steam came along it was basically impossible to get video games other than buying a physical disc. Now everyone is doing direct download.
Gabe Newell made me start pirating by getting rid of physical copies, now the only legal way to play 99+% of new games on PC is to go through his or someone else's console wannabe platform and give them a donation for a license to download.
"It was basically impossible to get video games other than buying a physical disc" Online piracy existed.
"Provide a better service than the pirates" Charging for a download is not a service. Piracy is always more convenient than being charged for a download in a fair match, the only time it isn't is when the game is sabotaged by things like MP requiring you to go through a console wannabe platform like Steam and releasing the game unfinished, both of which Gabe Newell pushed for. Piracy gives you the download in a superior manner while also not requiring you to pay for a download and all the negatives that come with it.
Piracy doesn't need a solution, it is part of a free market. If you don't want a physical copy then you should be pirating.
@@randomtask3539 Nice text but services like Spotify and Netflix have almost killed movie and entirely eradicated music piracy
@@randomtask3539 at the end of the day you cannot "steal" a file because it's not a physical good or scarce resource, like the idea those files contain they are infinitely abundant resources that can only be copied. Prohibiting me from using my computer to copy and download files is not a protection of property, it's a violation of MY property rights.
I see a bunch of people rambling and citing dubiously relevant anecdotes, none of whom apparently understand this issue enough to speak clearly and make compelling points. Pretty normal for this discussion. There's a reason people like Feynman, Ron Paul, and Milton Friedman were so valuable.
Most innovation takes place in iterative steps with each progressive step improving upon the last. I might have a great idea to improve an already existing product, but I'd be barred from marketing without paying royalties. This is a massive hindrance to innovation.
Of course Sasha is against IP. She wouldn't want Zooey Deschanel suing her, lol.
I finally understand what Stefan Molyneux is talking about when he criticizes the libertarian party.
No principles at all.
Just be in favor of whatever feels good in the moment.
What makes you think this will impress anyone?
..what?
Statist drivel.
im a little troubled by the title emphasizing how libertarians should think, if this is a movement triumphing the individual over the state and the collective, is it right to bind such individuals to certain perspectives?
Those legs tho!
+zdrux It kept me watching a debate about Intellectual property for 4 minutes.
Surely it is up to the individual to protect his property rights. Leaving your property to the protection of a “government” is no different than disarming yourself and leaving the protection of your life to the government.
Corporations can’t do anything without the FORCE of government aka laws.
Corporations cannot operate outside of the strong arm of the law, but individuals CAN!
@Matt Guitar Good thing copyright is not about owning ideas, and thus is NOT ridiculous.
What? The whole purpose of the government is to protect and ensure rights. By your logic, the guy with the best private army wins, and it's just a free for all. If you can't defend your rights, then according to you, you can lose them. Government is meant to prevent rights from getting infringed on. Sure you should be able to defend your own rights, but we still have a government to prevent physical robberies because it's just not logical for the individual to be the sole protectorate of his property.
@@nextsc4663 Please continue to enjoy your lock downs. Your government is there to protect you with an experimental, genetic modifier they call a vaccine.
@Matthew Apsey I agree
@@RebelRadius I don’t agree with lockdowns. But clearly you’re paranoid about the vaccines. Do you also believe the government is a bunch of reptilians? Government overreach is bad, but you hurt your own point my resorting to outlandish conspiracies. There is a fundemental difference between anarchism and libertarianism. That difference is the idea that this world isn’t a deathmatch where the strongest win. In libertarianism, society recognizes people’s rights, and creates a government to protect them. In more totalitarian/authoritarian states, rights a goodies gphanded out by government. And in your anarchy, there is no such thing as rights if you can’t physically protect them from others. Did I just murder 5 people? Whoops, they should have protected their right to life better.
I find it amazing that nobody simply stated that media is simply information. A song can be translated to zeroes and ones, the same goes for games and programs. Should we really make a certain string or combination of 1s and 0s illegal?
Ideas can't be private. Ideas are embedded in language, culture and other stuff which is inherently in common ownership. The monment you establish "intellectual property right" on something, you are stealing part of that common property (language, common sense, common knowledge, etc.) from everyone - because they are now prevented from certain ways of using the language, tools, common know-how and so on. You can't jsut a priori assume that others don't "discover" what you did discover.
"LIMITED" IS THE OPERATIVE PRINCIPLE...frickin intellectuals! ...LIMITED
btw...I'm a "conservatarian" NOT a stinking libertarian
The problem I have with these guys arguments is that it is the same logic that is used in favour of land-decommodification. It can also be argued that this is a type of property which restricts peoples freedoms and natural rights and therefore is not justified. It doesn't change the fact that private land ownership has and does under several instances produced value and its mere existence is a net positive to society. Why is it that intellectual property would not have the potential to be any different? I mean we already have GMO technology that would probably not exist would the researchers not been given or offered their patent.
But heck, it doesn't just stop at land ownership. Any ownership that is essential to capitalism creates similar meritocratic association restrictions but work as economic incentives. If we truly believe in the freedom to associate in the same manner that these people argue, why should anyone own anything that creates restrictions in association between people? Well, because it is a net positive for society and we believe that the associations are voluntary in the sense that there can be alternatives and you can choose to associate or face the natural consequences of not associating.
are you sure you're an ancap? you kind of sound like a based minarchist.
This flies over the head of most Libertarians it is pretty hopeless for the public to get why we need IP reform or abandonment.
+AKlover You can't abandon IP without killing the artists' ability to make a living. Don't get lost in ideology. Consider pragmatic concerns.
BennyOcean In principle I agree to an extent. Patents often go too far and are too vague and lets face it it is a convenient cause for government to abuse it's power....i.e......cronyism.
AKlover Of course it can be abused but I've had a conversation with a libertarian who told me flat out that IP is bullshit and shouldn't exist. I said what about an author who dedicates their life to a project for a whole year and the book sells a million copies? Without IP, anyone could copy the text and print their own copies, denying the author his or her commission. They do nothing other than print pages and rake in the profits from someone else's work. Somehow libertarians can justify this kind of theft for the singular reason that they object to IP on ideological grounds. I firmly disagree.
BennyOcean A new model would rise to fill the need, probably something like DRM or some encryption method. Should the author get paid when someone loans out or gifts a book? How about resale? To use another example from a few years back a drug company tried to patent vitamin B because they derived a drug from it should that be honored? Look up Stephan Kinsella to get aq better idea of the arguments against.
Um when did Libertarianism switch from what is morally right and promotes liberty to what works in the real world?
This 'well we've seen X, Y, and Z reasons why not having IP protections is a good thing'... Huh? That's not the right question to be answering...
What do you mean
Why are you telling us how libertarians SHOULD think about something, instead of just stating your own opinions.
+1643louis Most libertarians seem to agree with Reason's approach to theft -- they're _for_ it!
tfw no quirky libertarian patent attorney gf
Neither intellectual monopolies nor land titles are genuine property. Both are state granted privileges.
Lockean property must abide by the Lockean Provisos. It is technically only scarce improvements made by human labor that are valid property. A right in secure possession to land may be justified when necessary to protect the valid property, but not when the natural resource is so scarce that it causes non-negligible harm to others who are denied an equal right to homestead. In those cases the privilege of a land title ought to be balanced by a duty to share the economic rent of the land. That could be done through private charity, but a land value tax plus citizens' dividend is probably more practical.
The fun thing is if you want to be a proper libertarian (for example in software) you should use license your project in order to prevent someone else from using it as part of their closed source project.
There shouldn't be any division over this issue anymore. Abolish IP. Read stephan kinsella's book "against intellectual property"
how far can it go? Why cant plumbers develop techniques to fix a leak and then copyright it. Im not saying creating a device, stuff like sticking bread in a pipe to keep the water from running on your joint when you solder. If there is intellectual property it seems to me that you can copyright anything and it gives the government the power to decide the outcome. Like lyft and uber vs the taxis. How would a person in that position to decide those outcomes not take bribes?
how exactly do you expect the indie developers to make money if companies like ea and activision steal their games and they can't sue them for that because they don't own their creations?
I KNOW
You create a series of novels. The first volume.
It is possible that it will be stolen, but as an author you ask the public for funds to continue the work, more volumes. So you defend your ideas, always improving
By the way angry birds is bankrupt, and had the patent
CHARLES DICKES SUPPORT PIRATY. !!!!!
RIGHT OF AUTORY, ONLY.
@@juanrodrigo1 a series of novels?
why force a sequel if the story only needs one book to be complete?
that's anti-consumer and in some cases it is impossible,like the books for children that are less than 20 pages long.
if the book gets stolen the publisher can simply write an imaginary person's name and people will have hard time telling who is the original creator.
also if the first gets stolen the sequels will be stolen as well.
supporting piracy for your content is okay,forcing piracy on other people's content is not okay.
Libertarians don't have an answer for that, they never seem to.
I liked the cost/benefit discussion but id be interested in the moral argument as well
@comment about Metallica, #1 I sold all my copies of their CDs, and #2 have refused to listen to them on the radio. then finally when they came for concert #3 I had zero interest in seeing them. so they lost me as a fan and a customer
ZankDigiTrash you really showed them... I am certain they wish they had you back as a fan
ZankDigiTrash might as well stop listening to music altogether because musicians aren't always going to have the same political view as you
You how the concept of 'there is no stupid question' takes part of most discussions. THIS IS A STUPID QUESTION.
the big problem I see with abolishing intellectual property is for things like medical R&D. they have to invest millions and millions of dollars to hopefully produce a product that can be sold for a profit. without IP protections these pharma companies couldn't justify risking all the money it takes to make the first pill when someone else will immediately copy that formula and be able to sell it at 1% of the price the original developer can charge because they dont have to recoup R&D costs. I'm saying this from the perspective of someone who believes most copyright law is used as a club against smaller creative workers by massive corporations with armies of lawyers.
These greedy pharma companies, and the government's protection of them are the reason why pharmaceuticals are so expensive. Countries that have WEAKER ip laws on pharmaceuticals, have more competition, which in turn products lower prices. That's because of a FREE MARKET!
Most of the cost is not the research it's the marketing & lawyer's
I think IP in the way of owning a brand is reasonable, but nothing more than that.
Oh, trademarks. Yeah trademarks are great.
That's another reason we shouldn't be talking about "intellectual property"; it conflates copyrights, patents and trademarks with each other, when those are really very different things.
Simple: should be opposed to IP laws. There is no such things as owning of ideas.
Is that Zooey Deschanel ?
You forgot to mention that "It's a wonderful life" got copyrighted again!!! Why was that allowed?
At least the internet levels the playing field.
No Kinsella???
I said the same
I personally believe that God knows everything, unlike me.
But, as best as I presently understand things, we each have five basic equal innate God-given rights from which all others derive. These may be categorized as rights (1) over our bodies, (2) over the fruits of our labors, (3) over our children within reason as they mature to adulthood, (4) to interact contractually via mutual voluntary informed consent, and (5) to defend ourselves against others' aggression.
These rights imply that I have a right to an invention or CD or whatnot that I produce (or even mass-produce), as well as to insist upon certain contractual terms upon that item's sale (or even resale). I believe that this is the proper basis of copyright law. So, if I sold a product to another person under the condition that he/she wouldn't make copies of that product without my permission or wouldn't reverse-engineer it or whatnot, then that would be perfectly within my rights to do. And, if my potential customer refused to buy it under such terms, then that would be perfectly within his/her rights to do.
But, if my public officers were to impose some sort of arbitrary blanket terms, not only on some creative work that I produced but on everyone else's inventions and songs and so forth, or upon anything else, then that would be wrong. It should be MY choice what sort of conditions (if any) I impose upon the sale of my products, and the state should not arbitrarily rewrite my contractual terms as it pleases.
So, in summary, I think that there's some basis for copyright laws, but not in the precise form that they presently exist. I think that it's somewhat out-of-harmony with correct political principles and, as such, I would favor a Constitutional amendment to alter it in order to bring statutory law into harmony with "natural" law.
Epic fail in the first sentence, yes it's JUST like land, private property rights in land is the classic example of a government granted monopoly to exclude others. Any such monopoly rights to exclude should be paid in full as compensation or they distort markets. In land that is easy as market rentals data provide very accurate comparables to reclaim the externally generated land value. If Nick Gillespie knew anything about the articles of the confederation, the founders of capitalism or even the founders of the Libertarian party he wouldn't make such a stupid error, but what can we expect from someone who said he thought the TPP/TTIP were basically fine free trade deals! FFS!
Copyrights/patents are trickier, but a limited duration self assessed system would work. Set the value low and you pay little tax but allow others to buy the copyright cheap , set it high to protect it but pay more tax as compensation. Kind of academic though when Reason prefer Treason of corporate anti free trade agreements anyway. Libertarians my arse!
+schumanhuman Shut up.
+Bushrod Rust Johnson Hahahaha well argued as usual. No, I'm still correct but you still love your government subsidies and privatized taxes.
Land cycles are going right on schedule so far.
Asian cycle 1997-2015, China Stock market crash predicted by Mason Gaffney, watch Australia and others housing bubbles go pop in 2016, gonna be messy.
Western Cycle 2019 mid cycle financial crisis
2026 Full cycle bust.
Tick tick tick
schumanhuman
Why are you so obsessed with that bullshit that you exploit every excuse to bring it up? Your theory is gay and bullshit.
Bushrod Rust Johnson
As long as dumbass faux libertarians ignore the obvious economics of real laissez faire libertarianism i'll point it out, and as long as governments undercharge for monopoly rights I'll make money from riding the cycles.
Land is probably about 1/3 of GDP, copyrights/patents maybe 1% or so. So until they wake up and address the big stuff I'll keep on laughing and making my 'gay bullshit' predictions.
schumanhuman
You're like that idiot who only turns up to comment his shitty opinions against Uber.
Okay, but what should libertarians think about being told how to think about intellectual property?
I can see sale of duplicater copyright goods as being kept illegal, but that is different than P2P, CD ripping, music downloading piracy for yourself or to give away to others. I
How did they get up on that platform?
What's Zooey Deschanel doing there?... EDIT: OK... from afar.
i bristle when i hear anybody suggest that they know 'How Libertarians Should Think' of that there should be some sort of codified dogmatic response.
If you happen to pause it at a moment when the chick is turning her head, her pony tail sticks straight out and it looks kind of cool.
How should Libertarians think about Intellectual Property? THINK FOR YOURSELF. IF YOU NEED A VIDEO TO TELL YOU HOW TO THINK YOU ARE SCREWED.
+Jason Brown It is good to hear all sides of the argument before you can make an informed decision. Until I heard kinsella I was for IP.
The first time I heard the counter argument it made 100% sense, so I switched.
If you haven't heard about something then you don't know it can exist.
Amazing “we don’t mistake it (intellectual property) for a Lockean property.” Locke was clear that copyrights were property. Locke based property rights on creation. Taxi cab medallions were not based on creation, they were based on government limitation of property rights. Driving around people existed before the medallions and added nothing new to the world. Then the video compare intellectual property to slavery. What an absolute joke. I cannot watch more. Edison was the same as a slave owner, Tesla was the same as a taxi cab company, Land of Polaroid was the same as slave holder.
These people do not understand property rights. They think property rights are granted by government. Property rights are the recognition of the metaphysical fact of creation. They recognize that but for the creator these things would not exist. This shows the incredible intellectual bankruptcy of libertarians and Austrians.
+Dale Halling IP Communism is nothing more than a series of logical fallacies:
strangerousthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-economic-principles-of-intellectual-property-and-the-fallacies-of-intellectual-communism/
***** That is fallacy #2. Please read the list of fallacies I linked above.
***** Please read the entire article. He specifically explains how information is bound to the media, and the media is essentially part-owned by the publisher. You need to use the media for copying, which is prohibited by the media owner. The media is indeed scarce.
not realizing that all innovation is standing on the back of previous innovation is the problem you have...
Having benefited from this wealth of human knowledge you see your own contribution as now your own....
List one modern innovator who literally gives some money to every single idea creator (or their children/ heirs to the innovator), who's ideas were used to achieve their own novel idea.
This would be absurd and is clearly anti-innovative...
@@tarkfarhen3870 Apple's copyright on IOS does not stop anyone from building their own smartphone.
It should be taxed on annual market value in exchange for its monopolistic protection, just like land should.
So if you don’t use it, you lose money and if you stop paying for the state IP protection services they become of public domain. Fin.
interesting, how would you assess
the tax percentage?
if you don't have Stephan Kinsella here, this discussion is not valid.
no Zooey?? then it's nonsense. xD
Property rights are defined by the government. If the government designates you the owner of something then you are the owner. Thus intellectual property is no different from property of physical things. The concept of homesteading as forming the basis of property rights is completely wrong and indefensible. There are two problems with it: First, there is no historical record of homesteading having taken place. It is completely fictional as far as being a real event having happened. Secondly, homesteading does not contain in it any explanation as to how such rights are enforced, and rights are meaningless unless they are enforced. For your claim to property based on homesteading to have any validity, other people have to recognise that claim, and there is no reason why they should.
The government needs to stop recognizing "intellectual property."
The need for property rights only exist because of the natural scarcity of tangible, physical resources, and cannot apply to things which are infinitely reproducible like ideas or electronic files. Only tangible possessions can be the object of conflict between people and so it is only for them that property rules apply. Thus, patents and copyrights are unjustifiable monopolies granted by government legislation and it is this monopoly privilege that creates an artificial scarcity at the expense of us, the consumer.
IP law is there to prevent people from obtaining the infinite for what it is worth, $0.
There would be a tremendous benefit in abolishing IP ,with the possible exception of trademarks.
+aramagoo I like to look at trademarks not as IP issue but as consumer rights issue. Making rip-off goods and selling them as original goods is misadvertising, a scam and a lie. It harms consumers first and original producer second.
+Failing Yes that would be fraud.
Trademarks are a different category than other IP and serve the public interest.
+aramagoo nope, trademark monopolies are bullshit too. If consumers are worried about buying "authentic" items then consult an official list of approved stores/sellers specified by the maker
+aramagoo Double standards much?
Let companies protect their own trademarks.
Apple would be apple.com and they have a list of official dealers on the site and on their apps.
Product manufactures list official stockist that can be checked online.
Malls can prevent copycats setting up within the same mall (if they want)
So many simple ways to do it without the state.
Italian Renaissance Would it have happened if IP existed? I don't think so. The world would have another Renaissance greater than anything before it in history if we get rid of IP.
It's one thing to copy right a style of work than a creation, design or character. You can use renaissance art styles but you can't steal the work of Michael Angelo, at least you can't replicate it without giving him credit or without his permission.
You don't get steal Some one else's work and profit off of it.
@@nataliekhanyola5669 Sure plagiarism and the like slapping your name on others accomplishments is wrong but the Idea of a thing? If I see a Pully made by someone else and the make a pully did their pully vaporize? no, so I have stolen nothing. If I am selling pulleys and the original maker is not I still have not stolen anything not even possible sales as they are doing nothing with it AKA the hundreds of thousands if not millions of patients still in archives not ever being produced.
@@Barskor1 could you please use another analogy, I'm not sure what a " pully " is.
Thanks.
@@nataliekhanyola5669 Sorry Pulley for moving weights and sails.
Turn down Nick's mic!
Already off on the wrong foot when you put patent and copyright in the same boat.
+Billy Wardlaw Why?
The moderator has to stop interrupting. It's so obnoxious.
Interesting argument
If a person writes a book or a movie or a records a song, without IP they would have no way to make a living. Destroying IP would destroy the ability of creatives to make a living.
Not to mention the ability to pass the fruits of one's labor to one's heirs.
Maybe IP and better reproduction enhances how many people can make a living on purely creative endeavors. But given that writing and music existed prior to IP, it wouldn't disappear. It might just be a hobby. Or folks would rely on patronage. Consider the folks that make a living off of RUclips and Patreon.
Yes they would. If their product is good people will buy or support it
For the sake of entertaining books, songs, movies we will keep technological advancement at a snail pace and waste hundreds of billions of dollars chasing nickel and dime criminals. Brilliant!
Ummm publishing and record companies make the majority of their profit off of the top few percentages of works... Not the majority.
IDIOT REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT.
JEW
@@juanrodrigo1 nope 😂
Sasha Moss better hope Zooey Deschanel doesn't sue her for stealing her look.
Good writers are not necessarily good speakers, especially where they're expected to be spontaneous and are not necessarily prepared. I think I would have much preferred to read a transcript of this than to watch it. Or else do more preparation before filming and give the speakers a chance to be better prepared to speak.
+macsnafu I guess I should comment on the content. Yes, pragmatic or consequentialist arguments are fine, and clearly show that long term copyrights and other IP protections are detrimental to society, but was no one available to make a moral or principled argument (on any side) about IP? In a video titled "How Should Libertarians Think About Intellectual Property", we were given very little to actually think about.
8:24 Just, gimmie that...
"How Should Libertarians Think About..."
Very voluntarily. Dislike.
"What Libertarians Think About..."
Ok, lemme see. Like/dislike.
This panel is weak.
Randian libertarians are relegated to accept IP because the think PP rights come from creative power of mind... Hoppean Ancaps get it right because the know that pp rights actually come as the only universalize principle that solves conflict over scarce resources (it is a fair / just / agreeable rule that all parties can accept and agree to and hence will stop fighting and abide by this universal rule set).
This. Pretty much.
That vocal fry.
We wouldn't have progress if no one came along; and saw the T-Ford and said to themselves "I can do that; but better".
exactly
THE IDEAS ARE ENDLESS.
SOME PEOPLE MAYBE MISSING A SPARK, SHARING KNOWLEDGE IS FUNDAMENTAL FOR NEW PEOPLE TO IMPROVE THOSE IDEAS
You should still ask for the investors permission. Or ask to work for the company who produced said product. You don't get to steal the product and claim it's your because you changed it's size, colour or logo.
If I make a piece of art I should have the exclusive rights to profit off It, I made It, it's mine!
I'm gonna be real honest. This is boring af.
Milk toast.
legss..... :love of zoeey deschanel libertarian!!! ufffff
pd: intellectual property is trash
Imo the concept of ownership is a slippery slope. In REALITY no one owns anything. "U can't take it with u when u go"
>Anyone can edit Wikipedia
Not the case guys.
+SuperFinGuy how so?
+Hairy Pixels It's being protected. Wikipedia is supposedly open to edits from whomever but in practice that's not how it works.
BennyOcean how? give an example.
+Hairy Pixels During the Ahmed Mohamed media fiasco, Wikipedia had many people openly discussing the problems with the case. There was a corporate conspiracy being talked about with likely government involvement. The wiki page was tagged for removal (Why? Unknown) and days later it was scrubbed of anything incriminating about the kid and users were disallowed from making edits to the page. The same day (or maybe one day after) the page was sanitized, The Young Turks released a story about 'Rogue Wikipedia Editors' bribing... uh, someone... (suspiciously seemed like a cover story and excuse for locking down wiki pages) so Wikipedia deleted hundreds of accounts. The truth is that there was a media conspiracy being discussed openly on Wikipedia and the powers that be weren't willing to allow it to happen. This screenshot is from Sep23. By the 26th the page had totally changed and was locked to avoid revision. There is a page on the 'clock incident' with all the important information removed to preserve the kid's innocence.
Before (sorry I didn't get screens of the whole page):
tinyurl.com/ngnqbx6
After:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident
The TYT video on the 27th:
ruclips.net/video/nAaHKTIcPlM/видео.html
I know what I'm telling you sounds surreal but I watched it happen in real time. I have a video on my channel on Sep21 that outlines part of the controversy. Oh and the kid just left the country for Qatar. That news broke yesterday. Massive media coverup followed by the family fleeing the country.
+Hairy Pixels Certain pages are locked and only certain people are allowed to edit them. They even have bots to restore pages in case someone edits a page. There have been several scandals. Look up Wikiscanner for example.