Top anti-intellectual property arguments

[Optatron]

1. It doesn't hurt anybody
Logic : something has to physically hurt somebody to be wrong or illegal
Response : Stealing doesn't always hurt people either

2. It's a nonscarce resource!
Logic : unlike oil and water, there is no limit to how much you can have
Response : but the uniqueness of such information is scarce, or else you'd have come up with it yourself, rather than ask for it.

3. I never agreed to follow copyright or IP laws, why should I be subject to it?
Logic : Only if you agree, should you follow a rule or law.
Response : How many people agreed that they won't murder or rape? Are they subject to it?

4. It violates private property if you enforce IP laws!
Logic : it's inconsistent, or that actual physical property is more important
Response : Not if we never agreed to private property limits to begin with.
As laws have it, you don't unconditionally own copyrighted work the same way you own a pen or wallet. Your ownership is CONDITIONAL, as above, by purchasing the book/CD you agreed you will not make copies (or are forewarned of its consequences)

5. But it's MINE, I CAN DO ANYTHING WITH IT
Logic : once I own it, don't tell me what to do!
Response : Can you do anything with a gun or car just because you own it?
NO, only insofar as it doesn't violate other people, IP violation may not sound like a violation to you, but nor does killing people sound like a violation to some people, does the fact you disagree with the rule mean you get to ignore it?

6. Labor Theory of Value doesn't account for the value of ideas or IP
Logic : only if you have a value can you own or sell something
Response : Not all labor are equal, not all objects are equal, not all ideas are equal. The fact doesn't change that YOU DIDN'T COME UP WITH IT YOURSELF, if you can, DO IT.

7. Value is subjective, I can pay whatever I want for it
Logic : If I don't want to pay for it, I don't need to
Response : again, that's like saying , if I don't want to pay a buck for a loaf of bread, I get to steal it. Not all value is subjective either, or else, can a person devalue another's life and violate it out of simply NOT VALUING IT SUBJECTIVELY?

Value is VOLUNTARY AND CONVENTIONAL, only when 2 people agree can we make a transaction. If you disagree with the terms of agreement with buying a book or CD, DON'T BUY IT.

8. What if somebody comes up with the same idea or work some other way?
Logic : what if I accidentally walked to your house without knowing?
Response : if it can be proven, you are understood and probably forgiven, that's very different than a person directly copying a work. (has it happened yet?)

9. It's not like it's a trade secret, which I agree should be protected!
Logic : unless it's an explicit agreement, don't hold me to it
Response : unless I explicitly agreed I won't kill you, don't expect me to respect your life? Respecting IP may not be AS SERIOUS AS trade secrets, but the logic of protecting it is the same, FOR PROFIT, AGAINST COMPETITION.

10. Copyright laws are being abused so frivolously now!
Logic : if it's improperly used, the whole thing should go
Response : So any abuse renders something useless and worthy of abolishment? Police? Government? Parents? Property rights? Law? Abuse of laws should be responded with GOOD use, not complete disobedience.

11. I believe in property, but not privacy
Logic : one you have right to, one you dont.
Response : this is semantics, you use property to enforce your privacy, even if you're not entitled to it.

12. It's not physical, so why can you own it
Logic : only physical property are worthy of protection
Response : How about you post up your full name, address, phone number, bank account, SSN...etc. You don't own it do you? The fact you are UNWILLING to do so means you know how sharing information can harm yourself.
This might not mean you OWN your ID information, but you certainly value the privacy and excluisiveness of it.

13. IP is just a statist fraud, without the state it wouldn't exist
Logic : as said
Response : Not everything is only dependent on State or force, some are supported by norms and culture. Slavery would not return immediately just because it's suddenly made legal.

But what's common from private property, personal property, physical property and intellectual property, is not just the use of the word, but the fact THEY ALL DEPEND ON OTHERS TO RESPECT, RECOGNIZE AND ENFORCE IT.

If there was no state, people would get their private homes violated too (UNTIL SOMEBODY STOPS IT). The same would go for IP, all you need is a supporter, it doesn't need to be the State.

This argument wants you to think that IP is completely dependent on the State, centuries of religious tradition proves that wrong. People voluntarily submit to things no matter how irrational, harmful some thoughts can be.

14. It's not as if I'm actually paying the author, most of the money is sucked up by the middle man!
Logic : If you want to pay the author, buying wont help
Response : doesn't change the fact there are rules and you are not the author or owner of the works.

15. It was released! It can't expect to be protected anymore!
Logic : if it's in the public, it's free for all
Response : is the fact you walk out your door a permission to others for you to be robbed, raped or killed?
Is the fact you made something easier the same as allowing or encouraging it?

16. What's the difference between making a copy and lending it? Or selling the only copy I had?
Logic : it's just a matter of time!
Response : don't be silly, if you wasn't different, you wouldn't do it. YOU KNOW making copies is much easier and cheaper, or else you'd do what was allowed.

[Matt Collins]

1. It doesn't hurt anybody
Logic : something has to physically hurt somebody to be wrong or illegal
Response : Stealing doesn't always hurt people either

Look up the definition of theft sometime. In order for theft to take place the original owner must be deprived of something. When a copy is made, the original owner is deprived of nothing therefore there is no theft. Theft |= copyright infringement.
And copying |=theft.

2. It's a nonscarce resource!
Logic : unlike oil and water, there is no limit to how much you can have
Response : but the uniqueness of such information is scarce, or else you'd have come up with it yourself, rather than ask for it.

No, basic economics. As supply approaches infinity, price approaches zero.

Your ownership is CONDITIONAL, as above, by purchasing the book/CD you agreed you will not make copies (or are forewarned of its consequences)

Actually it's not. If you are within the US then you are subject to US copyright laws whether you agree to it or not. Being subject to the law is not contingent upon your compliance.

5. But it's MINE, I CAN DO ANYTHING WITH IT
Logic : once I own it, don't tell me what to do!
Response : Can you do anything with a gun or car just because you own it?
NO, only insofar as it doesn't violate other people, IP violation may not sound like a violation to you, but nor does killing people sound like a violation to some people, does the fact you disagree with the rule mean you get to ignore it?

This comparison is silly and asinine. We are allowed to do with our property what we wish so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same, it's called natural law.

However there is no such thing as intellectual "property". When one creates a work of art, recording, writing, etc the government grants them a limited monopoly of having the exclusive privilege to be able to copy, sell, perform, display, transmit, etc that particular work.

7. Value is subjective, I can pay whatever I want for it
Logic : If I don't want to pay for it, I don't need to
Response : again, that's like saying , if I don't want to pay a buck for a loaf of bread, I get to steal it. Not all value is subjective either, or else, can a person devalue another's life and violate it out of simply NOT VALUING IT SUBJECTIVELY?

Again the theft / copyright comparison has already been shown to be a fallacy. Downloading music is not unlawful however uploading music is.

12. It's not physical, so why can you own it
Logic : only physical property are worthy of protection
Response : How about you post up your full name, address, phone number, bank account, SSN...etc. You don't own it do you? The fact you are UNWILLING to do so means you know how sharing information can harm yourself.
This might not mean you OWN your ID information, but you certainly value the privacy and excluisiveness of it.

Information and ideas cannot be owned. However the government does protect expression of those ideas and the use of that information for a limited amount of time.

15. It was released! It can't expect to be protected anymore!
Logic : if it's in the public, it's free for all
Response : is the fact you walk out your door a permission to others for you to be robbed, raped or killed?
Is the fact you made something easier the same as allowing or encouraging it?

Silly analogies.

16. What's the difference between making a copy and lending it? Or selling the only copy I had?
Logic : it's just a matter of time!
Response : don't be silly, if you wasn't different, you wouldn't do it. YOU KNOW making copies is much easier and cheaper, or else you'd do what was allowed.

What kind of ignorant emotional conjecture is this?!


Whoever authored the above is either an idiot with no education about "copyright" laws, or they are a media hack.

[Blueskies]

I do support IP rights, but they need to be much less than today.

You shouldn't be allowed to buy IP, then sit on the idea and prevent other people from using it (the oil companies and certain battery technology).

Also, there's no reason that Walt Disney's grandkids should be rich from revenue coming in today from ideas he had decades ago. If the owner dies, the IP ought to die with him.

However, the idea behind IP is noble: to create incentive for people to make it, they need to profit from it. I get that. So, I would advocate for IP, but it would only last for five years.

[Optatron]

Look up the definition of theft sometime. In order for theft to take place the original owner must be deprived of something. When a copy is made, the original owner is deprived of nothing therefore there is no theft. Theft |= copyright infringement.
And copying |=theft.

Given that value is subjective, the "owner" of the "property" gets to decide what's worthy or deprived.

Copying does not equal theft in the literal sense, but the argument is the same, that somebody took or used something without consent and permission.

No, basic economics. As supply approaches infinity, price approaches zero.

True, except UNTIL supply approaches any number, it's still scarce.

Actually it's not. If you are within the US then you are subject to US copyright laws whether you agree to it or not. Being subject to the law is not contingent upon your compliance.

Basically what I said, but you can choose not to buy the book and never have a chance of violating it. (you are forewarned of its consequences)

This comparison is silly and asinine. We are allowed to do with our property what we wish so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same, it's called natural law.

Never disagreed, the only disagreement is what we consider violation and rights.

However there is no such thing as intellectual "property". When one creates a work of art, recording, writing, etc the government grants them a limited monopoly of having the exclusive privilege to be able to copy, sell, perform, display, transmit, etc that particular work.

There's no such thing as property either, the so called owner has limited protection so long as he can do it.

Again the theft / copyright comparison has already been shown to be a fallacy. Downloading music is not unlawful however uploading music is.

Based on the same premises, deprivation.

Information and ideas cannot be owned. However the government does protect expression of those ideas and the use of that information for a limited amount of time.

Owned, maybe not, HOW ABOUT PROTECTED?

Silly analogies.

What kind of ignorant emotional conjecture is this?!

what would be a better analogy?

and what's wrong with pointing out, the fact copying and selling one copy spreads information much differently, that it's therefore not equal in terms of copyright compliance?

Whoever authored the above is either an idiot with no education about "copyright" laws, or they are a media hack.

[Optatron]

I do support IP rights, but they need to be much less than today.

You shouldn't be allowed to buy IP, then sit on the idea and prevent other people from using it (the oil companies and certain battery technology).

why not? or what if somebody else discovers the same method later independently?

research discovery is much different than artwork.

Also, there's no reason that Walt Disney's grandkids should be rich from revenue coming in today from ideas he had decades ago. If the owner dies, the IP ought to die with him.

You don't believe in inheritence?

However, the idea behind IP is noble: to create incentive for people to make it, they need to profit from it. I get that. So, I would advocate for IP, but it would only last for five years.

why 5 years? is there some economic value 5 years rather than 5 days?

[Blueskies]

why not?

You don't think that its wrong for companies to buy the rights to new technology strictly to keep their outdated business models profitable?

What if Apple had the money to buy up the rights to all new cellphone technology just to keep the iPhone the top dog?

Remember, IP is an unnatural, government created monopoly. It is a necessary evil to promote innovation. However, when it is actually working to stifle innovation (as in this case) it is failing to do what it was originally intended to do.

You don't believe in inheritence?

Again, remember--IP is unnatural in a free market. It is there to promote innovation. Does allowing someone's grandkid to be rich off their IP promote innovation?

why 5 years? is there some economic value 5 years rather than 5 days?

Ideally, you would want the IP rights to last long enough for someone to double or triple the money they invested creating the IP. So, for example, a drug company develops a drug for $80M then their IP claims ought to last long enough for them to make, say $160M off their investment. This way they are compensated for their investment and they receive profit to develop new drugs.

However, I say five years and not 2x/3x their money because of the impossibility of such a system. It'd be impossible to figure out how much the company really spent, and how profit they really receive. In today's day and age, I think five years is reasonable for most things, but perhaps the time duration should be different for different types of technology.

[Optatron]

You don't think that its wrong for companies to buy the rights to new technology strictly to keep their outdated business models profitable?

What if Apple had the money to buy up the rights to all new cellphone technology just to keep the iPhone the top dog?

Who'd be so stupid to sell them that? At what price?

And can't contracts always be challenged?

Remember, IP is an unnatural, government created monopoly. It is a necessary evil to promote innovation.

No its not, government might be the only and best at enforcing it, but its not unnatural any more than creativity itself.

However, when it is actually working to stifle innovation (as in this case) it is failing to do what it was originally intended to do.

is innovation an absolute right?

Again, remember--IP is unnatural in a free market.

Same is argued that property is unnatural in the free world where people don't like to respect property if it hurts them.

It is there to promote innovation. Does allowing someone's grandkid to be rich off their IP promote innovation?

maybe not, does allowing inheritence promote work?

Ideally, you would want the IP rights to last long enough for someone to double or triple the money they invested creating the IP.

Why not 4x, 10x or 10%?

So, for example, a drug company develops a drug for $80M then their IP claims ought to last long enough for them to make, say $160M off their investment. This way they are compensated for their investment and they receive profit to develop new drugs.

If their IP wasn't protected, they'd not waste that development money to begin with. And who's loss is that?

However, I say five years and not 2x/3x their money because of the impossibility of such a system. It'd be impossible to figure out how much the company really spent, and how profit they really receive. In today's day and age, I think five years is reasonable for most things, but perhaps the time duration should be different for different types of technology.

you think it's reasonable, fair enough!

[Bman]

Look up the definition of theft sometime.

Theft defined is to steal from someone.

To steal is to take without right.

Your argument is only valid if mob rule/law accepts it. So by todays standards and definitions your argument is completely 100% false.

[Matt Collins]

Given that value is subjective, the "owner" of the "property" gets to decide what's worthy or deprived.

But there is no property in this situation. It's an exclusive privilege doled out by the government to the original author of that work.

Copying does not equal theft in the literal sense, but the argument is the same, that somebody took or used something without consent and permission.

Yes but that doesn't equate to theft because the original owner was deprived of nothing.

True, except UNTIL supply approaches any number, it's still scarce.

Except in the age of digital technology and world wide networks 1=infinity essentially.

Never disagreed, the only disagreement is what we consider violation and rights.

Rights are inherent and cannot be granted by the government. Government can only grant privileges.

There's no such thing as property either, the so called owner has limited protection so long as he can do it.

Incorrect there is indeed property, real, personal, and other. But one does not own one's ideas, or even the expression thereof. They are however granted a privlige of the government to have an exlusive monopoly on the distribution of these ideas for a limited amount of time. That's not the same as owning property.

Based on the same premises, deprivation.

When you download music no one is deprived of anything. And in most situations when you upload music no one is deprived of anything however one has infringed on the original author's exclusive privliege.

Owned, maybe not, HOW ABOUT PROTECTED?

They are however granted a privlige of the government to have an exlusive monopoly on the distribution of these ideas for a limited amount of time. That's not the same as owning property.

[Matt Collins]

Theft defined is to steal from someone.

To steal is to take without right.

Alright, you need an education because you don't know what you are talking about!

Let's start with the dictionary...MerrianWebsters to be exact

THEFT: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

[Bman]

Alright, you need an education because you don't know what you are talking about!

Let's start with the dictionary...MerrianWebsters to be exact

THEFT: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

I also have a MerrianWebsters dictionary and it defines Theft as: (n) stealing.

Beyond that go ahead do a search online. See just how much support exists for your definition. Then move onto law and see how much support their is for your definition. Like I said by todays standards your definition is false.

[Matt Collins]

Beyond that go ahead do a search online. See just how much support exists for your definition. Then move onto law and see how much support their is for your definition. Like I said by todays standards your definition is false.

You're telling me Merriam Websters is wrong?

And a law dictionary online says: theft=.the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission

Except that there is no property being taken during copyright infringement, unless you shoplift the CD.

[Bman]

You're telling me Merriam Websters is wrong?

Right back at ya.

And a law dictionary online says: theft=.the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission

This?

Except that there is no property being taken during copyright infringement, unless you shoplift the CD.

Ah so you expect me to accept your definition of what can and cannot be considered property. That's why we have courts. Good luck with your definitions if it ever comes to that. Kind of would probably go something like the court scene in the movie blow.

[ItsTime]

Look up the definition of theft sometime. In order for theft to take place the original owner must be deprived of something. When a copy is made, the original owner is deprived of nothing therefore there is no theft. Theft |= copyright infringement.
And copying |=theft.

For one you were deprived of the ability to distribute your property as you see fit causing you to lose money through over saturation of your property.

You should be careful with these arguments because they can be used to do things like: A hair fell of your head. The government picked it up, the government took your dna and started cloning you. You have been deprived of nothing.

[Matt Collins]

Ah so you expect me to accept your definition of what can and cannot be considered property.

Have you ever studied copyright law professionally? I have. And I can tell you it isn't property, it's ideas. The government doesn't grant rights, it grants privileges. And while the ideas are yours, you don't own those ideas. But the government does grant you the privilege of a monopoly on the expression, distribution, display, and performance of those ideas for a limited time.

That's why we have courts. Good luck with your definitions if it ever comes to that. Kind of would probably go something like the court scene in the movie blow.

The same courts that say that Constitutionality is up for interpretation?

[Bman]

Have you ever studied copyright law professionally?

Maybe you could list those cases.

I have. And I can tell you it isn't property, it's ideas.

And property itself isn't an idea?

The government doesn't grant rights, it grants privileges. And while the ideas are yours, you don't own those ideas. But the government does grant you the privilege of a monopoly on the expression, distribution, display, and performance of those ideas for a limited time.

I agree. rights are only what we on a personal level say they are.

The same courts that say that Constitutionality is up for interpretation?

Why what do we have here.

Strawman.

[Unspun]

1. It doesn't hurt anybody
Logic : something has to physically hurt somebody to be wrong or illegal
Response : Stealing doesn't always hurt people either.

Okay, I'm not going to spend much time on this thread because it's a subject that is hashed over and again.

I think the argument that equates the copying of one's work with theft is an invalid farcical argument because that implies there is a physical act of taking something that belongs to someone when there isn't. Let's say a company, Company A for example, owns the patent for a product. Let's say this product is a bicycle. Let's say Company A is Huffy. If someone, like me, produces a bike that does not compare or compete with Huffy's bike there is no value taken from Huffy, but it has created value to me or I would not bothered making the bike with my time. Would this be considered stealing? Under the theory of intellectual property it certainly would be interpreted that way, even if no value was "taken" from Huffy. Now let's say I make a bike on a mass scale that is highly competitive with Huffy, thus forces Huffy to lower their prices. In this instance would I be taking value from Huffy and be liable for these damages I have caused poor Huffy? Again, now I have thus forced Huffy to lower it's prices to stay competitive until it could get the government to shut me down or force me to pay royalties and other compensatory damages. However, in a truly free market, free from the concept of the intellectual propert this would be called competition.

[Matt Collins]

For one you were deprived of the ability to distribute your property as you see fit causing you to lose money through over saturation of your property.

Except that one cannot equate every violation of copyright as a loss of revenue. If I download every single Brittney Spears album (which I would never pay for), has Brittney actually lost money? No, of course not.

You should be careful with these arguments because they can be used to do things like: A hair fell of your head. The government picked it up, the government took your dna and started cloning you. You have been deprived of nothing.

Well that would be true that you are deprived of nothing. However that would be an entirely different argument: where does government get it's authority to create life?

[Bman]

I think the argument that equates the copying of one's work with theft is an invalid farcical argument because that implies there is a physical act of taking something that belongs to someone when there isn't.

This only works if you believe that property can only be physical. I don't accept the terms of your argument because I disagree from the start on what we can declare as property.

You can throw out as many definitions and articles as you want that property can only be physical, and likewise I can thorw out articles and definitions that property can be anything we declare it to be.

Here's my take on property. It's my property because I say so. Now what makes property true? The only thing that makes property true is a willingness to protect something as your own.

For instance if you have a car and I come and take that car and there is no law or body of force to stop me was it really your property. So in this scenario we'd find out who wants it more. The victor can then say it's his/her property before someone does the same thing to them. At which time it will be proven it wasn't their property either.

Property is 100% a myth, idea, whatever you make of it. It's just that with force it also becomes what ever the more powerful hand says it is.

[Unspun]

Here's my take on property. It's my property because I say so. Now what makes property true? The only thing that makes property true is a willingness to protect something as your own.

The problem I would have with this is someone who, let's say me, kills someone because they were humming tune which I had arranged. By your logic it is, after all, the only way that person would stop humming MY tune so I had a very strong willingness to protect MY property therefore it MUST be property. I acknowledge I am taking it to an extreme, but I'm doing so to make a point.

[specsaregood]

However, when it is actually working to stifle innovation (as in this case) it is failing to do what it was originally intended to do.

That's pretty much how I see it. It is a good idea that has been abused. We need to clean up the laws; unfortunately I don't trust the people in power to do so correctly.

Note: I produce intellectual property for a living and if IP laws were eliminated I would retire and become a farmer. As if they were removed, there would be zero incentive for me to produce IP.

Also consider the fact that IP is one of the few things that this country still "produces". You get rid of that and we will be producing nothing.....

[Bman]

The problem I would have with this is someone who, let's say me, kills someone because they were humming tune which I had arranged. By your logic it is, after all, the only way that person would stop humming MY tune so I had a very strong willingness to protect MY property therefore it MUST be property. I acknowledge I am taking it to an extreme, but I'm doing so to make a point.

But that's the fact. Property is only EVER property with force.

[slothman]

Most of these arguments assume thet "IP" is actually property.
I don't think it as property like I do for dolls or land.

The only badness I can think of against "stealing" is that the "owner" loses value.
The problem with that is that value is determined by both seller and buyer.
Since the buyer is downloading it that their value is 0.

[specsaregood]

And copying |=theft.

I know you work in the music industry; but do you actually produce IP?
With very limited exceptions I have found that people that don't actually produce IP for a living are the ones using that argument whereas the reverse is also usually true.

[Unspun]

I know you work in the music industry; but do you actually produce IP?
With very limited exceptions I have found that people that don't actually produce IP are the ones using that argument whereas the reverse is also usually true.

Nonsense. Everyone who has ever spoken a word, had an original thought, written an essay, short story, poem, blog post, or whatever, anyone who has written a song (basically anyone who has a 6th grade education and then some) has "produced" "intellectual property" according to IP theory.

[specsaregood]

Nonsense. Everyone who has ever spoken a word, had an original thought, written an essay, short story, poem, blog post, or whatever, anyone who has written a song (basically anyone who has a 6th grade education and then some) has "produced" "intellectual property" according to IP theory.

Uhm, yeah all those are intellectual property. And you claim they aren't?

[Unspun]

Uhm, yeah all those are intellectual property. And you claim they aren't?

No, I don't believe they are property. You said that people who argue against IP have never, or do not, produce IP. I said your statement was nonsense because I imagine most people who do argue against IP and make that argument have done at least one of those things in their life.

[specsaregood]

No, I don't believe they are property. You said that people who argue against IP have never, or do not, produce IP. I said your statement was nonsense because I imagine most people who do argue against IP and make that argument have done at least one of those things in their life.

Touche'!
I'll be clearer, edited version:

With very limited exceptions I have found that people that don't actually produce IP for a living are the ones using that argument whereas the reverse is also usually true.

[Unspun]

Touche'!
I'll be clearer, edited version:

I wouldn't say that that is always true. I think it would be erroneous to believe so, and even you use the qualifier "with very limited exceptions". Stephen Kinsella owns several patents and is a patent lawyer comes to mind. Although, anyone who sells anything relies on IP, because they are forced to in the current market. I used to work for AT&T who owned hundreds of copyrights and patents. Even if I was a lowly customer service agent I would say I made a living from a company that makes a living from selling patented and copyrighted products. I do not believe, however, AT&T or its subsidiaries and suppliers would go bankrupt if all IP laws were to be gone off the law books on Monday. After all, they still offer a service and products of value. If anything it would be better for consumers as more entrants are allowed to enter into the market and the newfound competition would drive prices lower.

[specsaregood]

I wouldn't say that that is always true. I think it would be erroneous to believe so, and even you use the qualifier "with very limited exceptions". Stephen Kinsella owns several patents and is a patent lawyer comes to mind. Although, anyone who sells anything relies on IP, because they are forced to in the current market. I used to work for AT&T who owned hundreds of copyrights and patents. Even if I was a lowly customer service agent I would say I made a living from a company that makes a living from selling patented and copyrighted products. I do not believe, however, AT&T or its subsidiaries and suppliers would go bankrupt if all IP laws were to be gone off the law books on Monday. After all, they still offer a service and products of value. If anything it would be better for consumers as more entrants are allowed to enter into the market and the newfound competition would drive prices lower.

It's a debate that can't be answered and has been debated thousands of times online. My opinion is that IP laws do encourage innovation through reward, I do believe in intellectual property as a concept; but do think the laws should be changed as they are abused. And I'll be the first to admit that I am biased on the subject.