Most concise argument against either Intellectual Property or Monopoly

[socialize_me]

I'm against both of course and are creations of government; however, some of the arguments against copyrights are not entirely convincing as I have noticed. So, I raise the simple question for defenders of copyrights:

If monopolies are bad, why do you support something like a copyright or a patent which gives the owner an absolute monopoly on that product/service/idea?

I think it's actually quite effective. Most people oppose monopolies, yet most people don't realize monopolies can only be government mandated and simply don't exist in a free market. To spare a long argument on having to explain the price mechanism in free markets and the reasoning why IP is bad, this point above seems to be a win-win. Either the other person has to admit they support monopolies, or they will be forced by logic to admit intellectual property is an illegitimate concept. Since most people don't accept the idea that monopolies are good, they will logically have to accept why copyrights are nothing more than monopoly protectors. Thus the government is hypocritical as they are both "fighting" against monopolies with antitrust laws, yet securing others to exist as monopolies through copyrights.

[Kraig]

Just get rid of the state and then the problem is solved on both ends. :D

[Elwar]

Case against copyright laws...do you own your own mind? If you listen to a song that song is now in your head. If you then take what is in your mind and use your own effort you could reproduce that song using your own instruments. What part of the process from having something in your mind to using your own actions to reproduce it is owned by someone else?

[ChaosControl]

One thing on copyrights, something I'm still unsure of, why would anyone make anything anymore?

Why write a novel, write a song, make a movie, make a video game, etc, if people can just copy it and reproduce it as much as possible?

[socialize_me]

One thing on copyrights, something I'm still unsure of, why would anyone make anything anymore?

Why write a novel, write a song, make a movie, make a video game, etc, if people can just copy it and reproduce it as much as possible?

Government documents are not copyrighted. The Iraq Study Group book when published was open source and the person who obtained the document to publish the book from the government made a fortune even though the information was freely available because it was government information. The same happened to the 9/11 commission report. How did these publishers make money when the government released the information on the exact same day the books were published?? Defies logic doesn't it? In fact both books were Amazon.com best sellers even though you could just google it and obtain the full text for free without having to pirate the material.

For something to actually be property, it must be tangible and economically scarce. Ideas are not economically scarce nor are they tangible. If I use your idea and make it better, why should I be sued? I didn't "steal" your idea because it's not tangible and it's literally infinite!

Not only that, but copyrights protecting Intellectual Property infringe on actual Property Rights. For instance, telling me that I cannot photocopy my own Harry Potter book that I paid for onto paper that I paid for using ink that I paid for means that my right to using my property is significantly restrained, especially given the fact that photocopying my Harry Potter book would not be an aggressive act like using my gun to threaten someone. So it's an unreasonable restriction of my property.

Also, if copyrights and patents were used as strictly as they are for software today back in the early 1990's, the Internet would be completely stagnant. In fact, we would have only one web browser because the idea of a web browser consisting of hyperlinks would be an infringing act. In fact, I believe Amazon sued Barnes and Noble over the concept of "One-click buying" because it violated copyright. Could you imagine how the Internet would look like if it didn't start out as it always was--open sourced?

In fact, the Web today would not exist if we enforced copyrights like we do today on the web. Google would not exist since they use Linux servers which are open source technology. PHP is an open source language which has now surpassed PERL as the #1 programming language in the entire World Wide Web. ASP is the only major closed source programming language that is sold under licenses.

Imagine that. The great innovations of computer programming came out of individuals seeking to make the world a better place--not for the goal of profit and monopoly. Somehow they voluntarily used their skills to make better products even though they weren't paid. Was music always copyrighted? No. In fact, copyrights are rather new when looked at it world history (arising from England and the nobles to guarantee wealthy inventors the monopoly of their products to guarantee no competition...copyrights exist in mercantilistic systems, not capitalistic ones), yet Music, books, etc. have been around for thousands of years. Why would you think these would all disappear if people could simply photocopy these things or put them online for other people to see??

[Nate K]

Government documents are not copyrighted. The Iraq Study Group book when published was open source and the person who obtained the document to publish the book from the government made a fortune even though the information was freely available because it was government information. The same happened to the 9/11 commission report. How did these publishers make money when the government released the information on the exact same day the books were published?? Defies logic doesn't it? In fact both books were Amazon.com best sellers even though you could just google it and obtain the full text for free without having to pirate the material.

For something to actually be property, it must be tangible and economically scarce. Ideas are not economically scarce nor are they tangible. If I use your idea and make it better, why should I be sued? I didn't "steal" your idea because it's not tangible and it's literally infinite!

Not only that, but copyrights protecting Intellectual Property infringe on actual Property Rights. For instance, telling me that I cannot photocopy my own Harry Potter book that I paid for onto paper that I paid for using ink that I paid for means that my right to using my property is significantly restrained, especially given the fact that photocopying my Harry Potter book would not be an aggressive act like using my gun to threaten someone. So it's an unreasonable restriction of my property.

Also, if copyrights and patents were used as strictly as they are for software today back in the early 1990's, the Internet would be completely stagnant. In fact, we would have only one web browser because the idea of a web browser consisting of hyperlinks would be an infringing act. In fact, I believe Amazon sued Barnes and Noble over the concept of "One-click buying" because it violated copyright. Could you imagine how the Internet would look like if it didn't start out as it always was--open sourced?

In fact, the Web today would not exist if we enforced copyrights like we do today on the web. Google would not exist since they use Linux servers which are open source technology. PHP is an open source language which has now surpassed PERL as the #1 programming language in the entire World Wide Web. ASP is the only major closed source programming language that is sold under licenses.

Imagine that. The great innovations of computer programming came out of individuals seeking to make the world a better place--not for the goal of profit and monopoly. Somehow they voluntarily used their skills to make better products even though they weren't paid. Was music always copyrighted? No. In fact, copyrights are rather new when looked at it world history (arising from England and the nobles to guarantee wealthy inventors the monopoly of their products to guarantee no competition...copyrights exist in mercantilistic systems, not capitalistic ones), yet Music, books, etc. have been around for thousands of years. Why would you think these would all disappear if people could simply photocopy these things or put them online for other people to see??

Good points. Does anyone have a retort?

[BKV]

I'm against both of course and are creations of government; however, some of the arguments against copyrights are not entirely convincing as I have noticed. So, I raise the simple question for defenders of copyrights:

If monopolies are bad, why do you support something like a copyright or a patent which gives the owner an absolute monopoly on that product/service/idea?


Monopolies are not bad. We don't need competition of moral theories or legal standards if we know which one is best.

I'm not against monopoly, and I'm for patents and copyright the same reason I am for property.



I think it's actually quite effective. Most people oppose monopolies, yet most people don't realize monopolies can only be government mandated and simply don't exist in a free market.


Wrong, monopolies exist as long as there is force, property, and agreement. Some things don't need competition (doesn't mean competition would be bad).



To spare a long argument on having to explain the price mechanism in free markets and the reasoning why IP is bad, this point above seems to be a win-win. Either the other person has to admit they support monopolies, or they will be forced by logic to admit intellectual property is an illegitimate concept.


So if I am ok with monopoly, then I'm OK with IP?



Since most people don't accept the idea that monopolies are good, they will logically have to accept why copyrights are nothing more than monopoly protectors.


I think anybody who thinks monopolies are always bad is no different than those who believe violence is always bad or laws are always good, religious people who don't think. Most likely hypocrites who don't know consistency.



Thus the government is hypocritical as they are both "fighting" against monopolies with antitrust laws, yet securing others to exist as monopolies through copyrights.

No, the government is just as human as YOU ARE. The government, like you, will do whatever works, whatever they like, as long as they can get away with it. THAT is not hypocritical, what would be hypocritical would be promising one protection but selectively enforcing it.

[BKV]

One thing on copyrights, something I'm still unsure of, why would anyone make anything anymore?


Exactly, why should I work for money if my money is going to be taken and nobody will defend me.

But sad reality does not justify ignorance and denial, it just gives you a good reason to rethink how to live.



Why write a novel, write a song, make a movie, make a video game, etc, if people can just copy it and reproduce it as much as possible?

Agreed. But you should know what you're getting upfront, if you know you're going to be beaten up upon walking out your door, you'd know not to do it. Whether or not it's right to beat you up is IRRELEVANT. Deal with reality, being unhappy about it won't do anything.

[ChaosControl]

Two months later and I still don't know, I can see the merits to either position on this issue.
Still though I like to know that if I write a novel someone can't just copy it and sell that copy. So even though I definitely see the points addressed by those opposed to copyrights, I still support them for now. I'd just say within reason.

Granted I break them all the time by downloading TV shows, so maybe I shouldn't support them. :P But hey most of the TV shows are foreign and if I bought the DVDs those don't have subtitles, so not like I have a choice... >:D

I think I am just biased because I like writing and could definitely see myself one day having a novel published.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Two months later and I still don't know, I can see the merits to either position on this issue.
Still though I like to know that if I write a novel someone can't just copy it and sell that copy. So even though I definitely see the points addressed by those opposed to copyrights, I still support them for now. I'd just say within reason.

Granted I break them all the time by downloading TV shows, so maybe I shouldn't support them. :P But hey most of the TV shows are foreign and if I bought the DVDs those don't have subtitles, so not like I have a choice... >:D

I think I am just biased because I like writing and could definitely see myself one day having a novel published.


At least in music, people who download huge amounts of file-shared MP3s also tend to be big-time buyers of their favorite artists' products. Wouldn't the same be true for authors and their fans?

[BKV]

I think I am just biased because I like writing and could definitely see myself one day having a novel published.

never said that's wrong.

[Old Ducker]

I'm against both of course and are creations of government; however, some of the arguments against copyrights are not entirely convincing as I have noticed. So, I raise the simple question for defenders of copyrights:

If monopolies are bad, why do you support something like a copyright or a patent which gives the owner an absolute monopoly on that product/service/idea?

I think it's actually quite effective. Most people oppose monopolies, yet most people don't realize monopolies can only be government mandated and simply don't exist in a free market. To spare a long argument on having to explain the price mechanism in free markets and the reasoning why IP is bad, this point above seems to be a win-win. Either the other person has to admit they support monopolies, or they will be forced by logic to admit intellectual property is an illegitimate concept. Since most people don't accept the idea that monopolies are good, they will logically have to accept why copyrights are nothing more than monopoly protectors. Thus the government is hypocritical as they are both "fighting" against monopolies with antitrust laws, yet securing others to exist as monopolies through copyrights.

I can't think of a better way to create a society of thieves ruled by accountants than to abolish intellectual property. If you build a house, you have a RIGHT to own it, since it's YOUR creation. The same is true with your ideas.

[BKV]

I can't think of a better way to create a society of thieves ruled by accountants than to abolish intellectual property. If you build a house, you have a RIGHT to own it, since it's YOUR creation. The same is true with your ideas.

in addition, because you can enforce and get people to respect it, it's your property.