Intellectual property

[slothman]

What is the libertarian issue on IP(intellectual property), patents and copyrights?
Does IP actually count as property.
I personally don't think it is.
If it is on my computer et al. I should be able to view it at will, regardless of whether the "owner" only wants me to see it once.
If it is on someone else's computer that should be able to do what they want, and send it to me just like their own email.

According to the the definition or right it is not something the gov't can create, only remove.
The US Const. says "exclusive rights" in the applicible clause.
That is one place the Const. is wrong by definition.
IP is granted by the gov't.
It can remove all "rights" by removing all laws only allowable using the clause.

[Alawn]

I think copyrights serve a purpose and should exist but there should be stronger fair use rights.

Patents also seem valuable but 20 years is too long of a patent term.

[mavtek]

In a truly free market how can "copyrights" or "patents" exist? I haven't figured that one out, maybe someone can shed some light on that one.

[idiom]

The best book I know on this stuff is Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig.

This stuff is way more involved and complicated than I imagined. This book is a pretty masterful introduction.

I may have torrented the audiobook or I may not have.

[Flirple]

Great topic. This is one of the few issues (thinking here of abortion and immigration) that thoughtful libertarians find themselves often in disagreement with each other over.

I agree with the Austrian economists' position on copywrite and patent laws. I don't believe in them at all. I'll do my best to summarize the Austrian Economist's argument:

The only type of "rights" are property rights. So if you can demonstrate that an idea, recipe, song lyrics, etc. are in fact "property". Then of course they should qualify for legal protection. The problem is that the don't qualify as property.

For something to be property it must first be "ownable". For something to be "ownable" it must be a "finite" resource. By "finite" I mean if someone else uses it does it interrupt the original owner/creator's use of it? For example, If I steal your car you no longer can use your car (I've stolen your property). Even if I drive your car without your permission and return it I've violated your property rights because you were unable to use it while I had it. Or if I graffiti your storefront I have altered the appearance and use of your store and therefore I violated your property. If I take a DVD from you without your permission you can no longer watch that same DVD. A car, store, and DVD are all "finite" because the act of someone else using it alters or eliminates the original owners use of it. And aside from all the property theft and destruction in the just mentioned examples they also likely required "trespassing" as well, which would be a separate crime.

But if we now use the example of one person who bought a DVD from Walmart who then allows his friend to burn a copy of it then he has done no harm to any other copies of the movie already in existence. Copywrite laws that aim to prevent this sort of practice (unjustly) use coercion to grant a sort of duel ownership between the creator/distributor/and consumer. If Warner Bros. wants to insist that they still own part of a consumer's legitimately purchased DVD and therefore place restrictions on what the owner can do with his/her DVD then Warner Bros. would need that consumer to sign an explicit written contract agreeing to those voluntarily and mutually agreed upon restrictions (but not in reference to any copywrite law but rather voluntary association).

Symbols, recipe's, ideas, etc. themselves can be reproduced an infinite number of times and therefor are not "ownable".

And anyone is welcome to protect their product or creation from being duplicated. The most obvious is never introduce it to the public of course but photographers are welcome to put watermarks on their photos when posting them online, restaurant can keep their recipes under lock an key, etc.

I am not saying anything about whether I think practices such as file sharing, generic medications, etc. are moral or immoral. I am only concerned about whether they violate property rights or not. Just like a coherent opposition to the drug war has nothing to say about how you personally feel about drug use. The argument must rest on defense of property rights. And copyright laws violate property rights NOT defend them.

But advocates of copywrite/ patent laws would respond by saying that such laws help spur innovation. To that point economist Stephan Kinsella points out that 1) people are pulling that out of their asses as there is no good research to support that. 2) The opposite is probably true because innovators and entrepreneurs will probably be motivated to stay ahead of the copycats not to mention the freeing effect removing the red tape of copywright laws would have on the economy and how much prices would plummet for consumers. and 3) the utilitarian arguments are moot regardless of weather they are on your side or not. The law must only be concerned with justice. That is, protection of the property rights of individuals. This should be obvious to all libertarians.

[idiom]

Creative people are a finite resource. Without protection of their ideas their resource is not exploitable or is less likely to be properly exploited. With over protection their ideas will not be properly exploited.

[Conza88]

The best book I know on this stuff is Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig.

This stuff is way more involved and complicated than I imagined. This book is a pretty masterful introduction.

I may have torrented the audiobook or I may not have.

Which one is it? :o

[Kludge]

Thoughts are privately owned so long as you own yourself. Thinking is considered labor...


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=135871
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=130084

[revolutionman]

I've only truly thought about this as it effects music and the recording industry.

When I buy some thing, I bought it, and I'm gonna do what I want with it. Including reproduce it. I can't think of a logical reason not to, other than the fact that private interests have lobbied in Washington in such a way that makes perfectly legitimate noncriminal actions illegal, in order to make themselves wealthier.

I feel for the musicians, but seriously, you can't have it both ways, either your selling your music or your not.

[Sally08]

I've only truly thought about this as it effects music and the recording industry.

When I buy some thing, I bought it, and I'm gonna do what I want with it. Including reproduce it. I can't think of a logical reason not to, other than the fact that private interests have lobbied in Washington in such a way that makes perfectly legitimate noncriminal actions illegal, in order to make themselves wealthier.

I feel for the musicians, but seriously, you can't have it both ways, either your selling your music or your not.

They're selling their music. *YOU* are giving it away for free. Their music sales die.

YouTube now has the entire audio of the Manifesto available.

So, why will anyone buy the audio, now?

Will book sales decrease, as a result, as well?

If you had put in all that effort to write a book, only to have others give it away for free, would you waste a part of your life *again* writing another book?

Should people benefit from the fruits of their labor, or not? If not, skip the labor.

If it's just about "getting known" or "spreading the message", just publish the ebook/audio/music online yourself and make it downloadable for free as Joan Iserbyt has done:
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

Who needs publishers/publishing companies (another business being eliminated by the Internet)? Same for recording companies- Same for news media-

Somehow, "Atlas Shrugged" comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

The novel's title is an allusion to the Greek Titan Atlas who was described as literally holding the celestial globe on his shoulders (as per Atlas), discussing what might happen if those holding up civilization suddenly decided to stop doing so.

[libertea]

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine;
as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening
me.”

--Thomas Jefferson

[Alawn]

But advocates of copywrite/ patent laws would respond by saying that such laws help spur innovation. To that point economist Stephan Kinsella points out that 1) people are pulling that out of their asses as there is no good research to support that. 2) The opposite is probably true because innovators and entrepreneurs will probably be motivated to stay ahead of the copycats not to mention the freeing effect removing the red tape of copywright laws would have on the economy and how much prices would plummet for consumers. and 3) the utilitarian arguments are moot regardless of weather they are on your side or not. The law must only be concerned with justice. That is, protection of the property rights of individuals. This should be obvious to all libertarians.

One of the main justifications for granting a patent to people instead of making them use trade secret laws to protect them from copying is that patents require full disclosure of the invention. In order to get a patent you must first disclose how to make and use your invention. The argument is that without the patent people would still invent stuff but they would keep the technology secret because they don't want someone else to compete with them. If nobody shares with others there inventions then there would be less advancements in technology. Who knows if that ends up being true but it is the main justification for patenting.

[idiom]

Okay how about this, Authors have to deposit a copy of a book at the Library of Congress. Thus the material is availbe to anyone and it is preserved as a record of culture.

A Patent forces people to explain the secrets of their technology in exchange for short term reward. After two decades everyone gets free access to the technology. Otherwise it would be kept a secret and die with the inventor, like a stradivarius.

Films actually have to be deposited at the Library of congress when first released. however the Film companies got the law changed so that they can borrow the film indefinitely without fees. Thus a lot of our culture is locked away in Studio vaults.

Copyright durations have been extend repeatedly by corporations. Also the limits of imitation have been extended. Basically the media rules have been changed so that no one can Disney Disney. (Disneys early history is preety much all rampant IP 'borrowing' to make new culture. Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse's first outing, was a direct rip off of SteamBoat Bill, a contemporary film.)

Television, outrageously, has not requirement to publicly archive its material. Youtube sort of helps here, but under traditional copyright law, everything that is played on Televsion should be publicly archived after its first showing. A huge amount of our culture (Dr Who being a glaring example) is disposed of or inaccessible later.


Without copyright laws Linux would not exist. Linux and other free software depends on copyright law for its very freedom and survival.