Freedomain Radio

Hi everyone,

First of all, what do you think about the issuing of copyrights and patents to inventors of products by the state? do you think its a good thing in that people and companies have an incentive to come up with new ideas and technology because they know they can make lots of money from it, or do you think that its a bad thing in that it creates a monopoly for the person or company who invents it and makes it illegal for others to produce the same thing (creating competition and reducing the cost) or to make improvements on the same technology. if you agree that people should have exclusive rights to replicate and sell their creations then how would this be taken care of in a free market society with no government to enforce breach of copyright or patent laws? keep in mind that there is very little that anyone can do to keep the knowledge of how a product works a secret once it is available on the market.

Lets for the sake of this thread use the following example... 

An inventor creates a new type of engine that runs 1000 kilometres on a tank of air. He names this product "air engine 2000" and begins selling this product on the free market. it wouldnt be long before other inventors figure out how the engine works, replicate it and create their own models to sell. if no patent or copyright exists on the original then the inventor might lose all the money he had put into research and development due to other companies being able to have them made cheaper and outsell him. this would discourage him from inventing any new technologies since he cant be guarunteed a return on investment or a profit for his hard work and intellectual talent. However if there is a patent which grants him the exclusive right to make and sell this technology he could essentially charge whatever the highest bidders are prepared to pay whilst holding back supply. This would not be good for consumers but the worst part of all is that other inventors would not be allowed to make improved models using the same technology. if someone else figured out how the air engine worked and came up with an air engine that uses the same technology yet runs a thousand times further on the same tank of air and with less complications, this improvement would not be allowed to be utilised by society for the betterment of all who wish to purchase one because this guy still has money to collect. its a bit of a catch 22 and im interested to know your thoughts on it and how you think it would work in an anarcho capitalist society. 

thanks.

I think the chances of a guy creating more than one invention as cool as the "air engine 2000" (why isn't it called the "air engine 3000" or the "air engine 1000"?) is slim to none, so if he decides to never invent again because he got outperformed in the business market, it's not likely a great loss to society.  I mean, if he can't even lower the costs of the production of the invention HE built in order to stay competitive, then he's clearly just lucky.  At least his name will be well known.

nexalacer:

I think the chances of a guy creating more than one invention as cool as the "air engine 2000" (why isn't it called the "air engine 3000" or the "air engine 1000"?) is slim to none,

not true. look at nicola tesla. he invented a shitload of stuff way cooler. :)

nexalacer:

so if he decides to never invent again because he got outperformed in the business market, it's not likely a great loss to society. 

sure it is. the next thing he might have invented could be antigravity but he decides he cant be fucked investing so much time and money into it if its not going to pay off and only lose him money.

nexalacer:

I mean, if he can't even lower the costs of the production of the invention HE built in order to stay competitive, then he's clearly just lucky.  At least his name will be well known.

well once his competitors get a hold of the technology it makes no difference who inveted it and is simply a matter of who can have it made and distributed cheaper.

 In defining intellectual property one neccesarily creates monopolies. The monopoly is an economic minus.  There are other ways an inventor might get and keep a job, say on a contract basis with a company, for forming a research company that does research on contract for any engine company, or research as a shared cost of these engine companies.

WorBlux:

 In defining intellectual property one neccesarily creates monopolies. The monopoly is an economic minus.  There are other ways an inventor might get and keep a job, say on a contract basis with a company, for forming a research company that does research on contract for any engine company, or research as a shared cost of these engine companies.

thanks for actually putting some thought into your response. i appreciate it.

the last point you made about how they could sell their research and development services to one or multiple companies is a good one. they could even specify in the contract that a certain percentage of sales are paid to them once the product is released on the market. of course this still doesnt solve the problem of other people who didnt contribute to the costs of the R&D getting a hold of the technology once it comes out and then outcompeting the companies who invested in its creation. the companies who copy the technology automatically have an advantage as well since they do not have to factor into their costs the payment to the inventor in the form of royalties or paying off the initial R&D investment.

I just thought about this for a short while so i hope it makes sense. The inventor would have a head start compared to everyone ells, and even if he gets competition fast, the product can still earn money and pay back the investment, or at least i think that it could. Who cares if someone makes more money than you (the inventor)?
The harder the competition the bigger the market will be and the easier it is to put royalties aside without harming the product. Maybe it wouldn't even be a permanent thing. It could just be a certain sum, that when you have earned that money back, then you would release all moral rights to profit from the invention.
Another thing, if you have the inventor behind your product, then people would pay more just to know that they are supporting the inventor (or creator). Or maybe you could put up a website and ask people for donation if they buy a product that is not made by you (the inventor) or a approved company. kind of like what stef is doing. Then you would actually want other people to sell your invention because you would make more money and get more offers for business.
This was just a quick brainstorm, so please let me know if im way of on anything.

I heard a podcast from the von Mises institute on this very thing.  A guy who was heavy into Austrian economics, who is also a patent lawyer, mainly trying to defend those accused of infringement, deflates the idea that granting letters patent spurs innovation.  He talks about several stupid patents: such as for comb-overs, centrifugal force birthing machines, a patent for a process to streamline applying for a patent (which when used without permission violates the patent), Bible-shaped bumper hitches, PBJ sandwiches w/out crust on the bread, etc. and how much patents and the lawsuits that erupt over them costs the economy.  His explanation of copyrights is hilarious as well.  The podcast is hilarious and informative with some hard numbers in it.

It is called " Rethinking IP Completely" and given by N. Stephan Kinsella.  You can either follow the link I gave or get it audio only via iTunes or directly here.  I found it both informative and hilarious.

 that was an excellent podcast. thanks for sharing it.

so im trying to get my head around what he is saying exactly and whether he is right or wrong. according to him...

1. you do not own your labour 

2. just because you create something you dont necessarily own it unless you own the things you created it from too.

if you dont own your labour how can you own the fruits of your labour? to try and answer this i would probably say that you own your body and therefore can do with your body such actions which result in you acquiring actually property. you then own the property you have acquired by contract but the labour itself belongs to somone else if you are employed or to no-one if you were self employed. would that be correct or did i screw something up along the way?

as far question 2 goes im very confused...

if i create something using my mind does it not mean i own it since i own my mind?

he also says the only way we can come to own something is via appropriation or contract.  but if i create something brand new am i not automatically appropriating it since i was the first to discover and make use of it and therefore i have a stronger claim to it since everyone else with respect to me is a latecomer?

also, was he dismissing copyrights as well or just patents? i remember him saying at the end we should abolish patents and something about reducing copyright down to 5 to 10 years instead of 70 years. but does that mean that if i wrote a bestselling novel that after the 5-10 copyright period other people are allowed to make copies of the book and sell them without my permission and also modify my words, my story, change my characters names or even my name as the author? that would suck. then again if there was no state like entity to enforce it people could do that straight away and i wouldnt even get to sell my book for the first 5-10 years. they wouldnt even need to give credit to the author. what do you's think of that?

i just listened to stefs podcast on this...

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/intellectual_property_part_3.mp3

also an excellent podcast. offers some solutions for how copyright could be taken care of without a state which i really appreciate hearing since as well as being anti-state im also a musician and would hate the idea of people being able to copy my cd and sell it themselves to make profit off my work. It also confirmed my belief that what you create IS yours to own (somewhat contradictiory to what kinsella said). But whilst it went into lots of detail on how copyrighted material such as books and music could be protected via DRO contracts, it went into very little detail about patents and how people can own the rights to new technologies or drugs they create without others ripping them off once they bring it to market. we could try to apply a similar solution as what stef suggested for the copyright material but after sparing two seconds to think about how it would work i can tell its going to be a lot more complicated than just putting a user agreement on the box that says you can use this but cannot copy it. what type of DRO based contract is going to be able to stop your competitors from taking your technology, changing your design slightly, renaming it and then making millions off your property? i thought about what logic fan said above in that.. "The inventor would have a head start compared to everyone ells, and even if he gets competition fast, the product can still earn money and pay back the investment,". This might or might not be the case but either way its still a violation of property rights if you consider a technological idea or a recipe for a new drug to be property. The question is, if its considered property then how can one protect this type of property with the DRO system. Id love to hear some ideas.

thanks

sven:

 that was an excellent podcast. thanks for sharing it.

so im trying to get my head around what he is saying exactly and whether he is right or wrong. according to him...

1. you do not own your labour 

2. just because you create something you dont necessarily own it unless you own the things you created it from too.

if i create something using my mind does it not mean i own it since i own my mind?

he also says the only way we can come to own something is via appropriation or contract.  but if i create something brand new am i not automatically appropriating it since i was the first to discover and make use of it and therefore i have a stronger claim to it since everyone else with respect to me is a latecomer?

 

Well, to be short...he says that no one owns labor since it is an act not a noun.  While you own your body and can choose to do this or not do that it is the products of labor which erupt into dispute, not the labor itself.  Like he gives the example of if you carve a beautiful marble statue out of a hunk of marble, you do not own that statue unless you owned the marble to begin with.  He says that simply mixing labor with raw materials does not constitute ownership unless the raw materials are unclaimed/unowned by anyone.

i just thought id share this link with you all. read the blog after the article. i has some excellent discussion and debate with great points made by both people for and against IP.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/007516.asp 

my 2c:

IP is absurd. property is scarce, ideas are not. simple as that. if you spit in the ocean you lose your spit, you do NOT gain an ocean.

advocaters of freedom should definately know better.

to sven:

"im also a musician and would hate the idea of people being able to copy my cd and sell it themselves to make profit off my work" <---if you tried to enforce this you would be just using the government as a weapon against free and consenting agents. in the free-market, if you have a product and you for whatever reason decide not to sell it, and someone else does without infringing on your property (not IP) then to try and use state violence against them is immoral.

As kinsella kind of suggests, it is impossible to enforce IP without a state i.e. without the use of violence against an unconsenting party. IP has to be invented so that the monopolistic agression of the state can, AS ALWAYS, be passed off as definsive. i men really, who actually believes that the RIAA is a defensive organisation? (other than greedy high profile entertainment celebs with no interest in liberty and no grasp of the state as violence)...

ps: i wish there was a word that was like violence & violation together, like a non-context-specific 'rape'. i'd take that word and use it abuot the government. i would say the government is rape, but it comes across too metaphorical (unless you take stef's 'Greatest Argument...')

captainwoo:

my 2c:

IP is absurd. property is scarce, ideas are not. simple as that. if you spit in the ocean you lose your spit, you do NOT gain an ocean.

advocaters of freedom should definately know better.

 

to sven:

"im also a musician and would hate the idea of people being able to copy my cd and sell it themselves to make profit off my work" <---if you tried to enforce this you would be just using the government as a weapon against free and consenting agents. in the free-market, if you have a product and you for whatever reason decide not to sell it, and someone else does without infringing on your property (not IP) then to try and use state violence against them is immoral.

As kinsella kind of suggests, it is impossible to enforce IP without a state i.e. without the use of violence against an unconsenting party. IP has to be invented so that the monopolistic agression of the state can, AS ALWAYS, be passed off as definsive. i men really, who actually believes that the RIAA is a defensive organisation? (other than greedy high profile entertainment celebs with no interest in liberty and no grasp of the state as violence)...

 

ps: i wish there was a word that was like violence & violation together, like a non-context-specific 'rape'. i'd take that word and use it abuot the government. i would say the government is rape, but it comes across too metaphorical (unless you take stef's 'Greatest Argument...')

what about stefs idea in this podcast that each sale of an artists cd they can include a contract (maybe on the cover somewhere) that the buyer, through buying it, has agreed to enter a contract which limits the ways in which they can use the product. do you think it would be just to take action through a DRO for violation of contract if they were to break that or do you think its immoral in that youd be trying to dictate how people can and cannot use their own property?

i havent listened to the podcast (but iv got the day off today so i promise i will) but it seems to me like that would be a good suggestion. it seems a little irrelevant though cause this all occurs before/instead of buying the item. so like you produce a cd with a contract in it that you agree to in order to buy it, but what im saying is you dont need to buy it, you just copy it dont you. therefore you dont have to agree to the contract and the other cannot exert any force over you (unconsentually). if the ONLY way i could get it was to buy, and thus agree to the contract then that would work, but the point it i could just get it some other way without directly (personally) violating any contract made with the person whose IP it is supposed to be....

infact i might listen to that podcast over breakfast, i always find IP an intriguing case...