I am strongly convinced that the possession of ideas and creations of the intellect is not possible. In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the concept of possession. This does not mean, however, that one must expose everything openly. It is ultimately the difference between proprietary solutions, where the “construction manual” is kept to oneself, and the open source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone.
As the title says, I would oppose this thesis to your arguments and hope that together we can rethink and improve our positions. Please keep in mind that this can be an enrichment for all, so we discuss with each other and not against each other ;)
We already tried the system you proposed. Before patent law existed, people who invented something new would jealously guard their knowledge to ward off competition from copycats. When they died, their knowledge died with them.
As a result, even today we cannot reproduce the work of some old masters. For example, nobody knows how to make a new Stradivarius violin.
Such a waste of human genius. Patents exist for good reason.
I would argue that the problem wasn’t with the fact that IP didn’t exist. Patents were made to counteract a bigger problem without actually solving the reason for the problem (and in so creating bigger problems).
The problem was that they personally gained more from that knowledge being hidden than being in the open. However if you have a system where it is more beneficial for that information being open and based on cooperation that wouldn’t be a problem. Think of the open source community, if you make a tool that people use it is far better for you to let the community help with fixing bugs and improving it than just working on it on your own.
There will always be people who do not expect to be compensated financially for the work for they put into their inventions. And there will always be people who do expect to be compensated financially.
The latter often includes people who make tools that they don’t actually use. Unlike the open source community, they only make tools in order to sell them to others.
With a patent system, society will benefit from the efforts of both types of people. Without one, they will benefit only from the former.
Thus, patents maximize the rate of technological progress.
The only point is whether you can make a claim to it at all. Is it even possible to claim that every labour has a right to be paid? Or should the wage be related to the product of the work, which can then be rewarded accordingly? Or to put it in an example: Should we reward office workers according to their work or according to their performance? The answer of the social state is that we should reward the work, i.e. the effort, so that no one is disadvantaged on the basis of his or her ability or possibilities. As a libertarian, I tend towards the second: Equal end product - equal pay.
Some people, like open source developers, are willing to work for free. Most people are not.
Apple is coming out with a new iPhone this year. The vast majority of people who worked to produce the new iPhone would not have done so for free. Same is true of every other Apple product, all big studio movies, and nearly all AAA console games, CPUs, and GPUs. All of those things require significant capital investment (unlike most open source software), but none of those things would be profitable without IP protection. So none of them would exist without IP protection.
That doesn’t mean a world without IP would completely lack new products. But it would lack easily copied products that require significant capital investment. So you would play only fan-made indie games and you would watch only self-funded low budget experimental films. You certainly would not get new versions of various consumer electronics to choose from every single year.
For the vast majority of consumers, the benefits of IP protection are worth it.
If I want to pay Joe $X for their labor and Joe is willing to accept $X for their labor, then I don’t see why a libertarian bystander would object.
If you interrupted us and said, “Sorry, you guys can’t do that. Joe must be paid according to a performance model I developed, or you’re not allowed to hire him”, then you are not a libertarian.
This is something I haven’t considered. I’ll think about it ;)
You should also consider that trademarks (another type of IP) exist to protect consumers.
Imagine trademark law were abolished. You go to the store to buy an Apple iPhone 14. When you get home, you realize that the Apple iPhone 14 box contains a flip phone with a sticker that says “Apple iPhone 14”.
You bring it back to the store but they refuse to give your money back. You wanted a phone labeled “Apple iPhone 14”, and that’s what you got. Anyone can legally call their product “Apple iPhone 14” when trademarks are abolished.
Maybe you’re thinking, “I’ll just shop at Best Buy, because I know I can trust them.” But without trademark law, nothing stops some rando from opening a store and naming it “Best Buy”. Now who do you trust?
Ultimately, this means every purchase is going to take much longer, as you will need to fully inspect every product to avoid being ripped off. Every purchase will basically be like a Craigslist transaction. If that’s what a libertarian IP paradise is like, I prefer the current system.
Trademarks make it possible for buyers to trust someone they haven’t met before.
You, I like.
Thats going the wrong way. Of course anybody can call itself Apple but can they verify it? If not why would I buy from them? Give me like a proof on a blockchain that you product was built in an original Apple factory and shipped here and that this shop actually holds the license from the “original” apple to sell stuff officially in their name. Also before I would buy anything I’d ask to see the product myself otherwise they can kiss my ass. The blockchain is just one example. There are plenty of ways technology enables us to mark the original as such. Also these technologies will evolve with time so in the end it’s just a matter of the consoomer caring or not.
Stradivarius violins were made over a course of 200 years by the Stradivari family. Antonio Stradivari in particular produced violins for over 75 years! I don’t think a 15 year patent would have been enough to give away their trade secrets. These were hand crafted art pieces, not mass produced items. The reality is that patent law extends all the way back to the Roman period and was mostly a legal system for emperors and kings to distribute monopolies to his favored subjects.
So I did some research and it reinforces my suspicions. Of course, having no IP protection had many clear disadvantages. But this has not prevented the development of advanced civilizations and fundamental innovations. On the contrary. Through the open exchange of knowledge, things could be created that are far greater than a human or a company can handle. IP is a child of the Enlightenment, when ideas or something intangible began to be regarded as a structure of our intellect and thus as property, just like tangible things.
I never said that lack of IP will prevent innovation. It will, however, slow it down.
The rate of technological progress accelerated considerably at the same time that IP protections were enacted.
Gutenberg developed his printing press around 1440. The first copyright law was enacted in 1710.
How many works of literature can you name that were published in the 270 years between 1440 and 1710? How many between 1710 and 1980?
But is this still true in the days of AI and automation? What if not we humans but some neural networks will be the main researchers of tomorrow? I’m just thinking
Copyright law has already foreseen that possibility. Only things created by humans are eligible for copyright, and there are already cases where copyright was denied for work generated by an AI.
By what right do you claim the fruits of somebody else’s labor?
The rights of capitalism?
Fundamental to capitalism is the right to profit from others’ labor when it uses something you own
If you own farmland it’s your right to profit from what’s grown on the land.
If you own a factory, it’s your right to right to profit to what’s produced by labor in that factory.
And yes, if you own an idea, it’s your right to profit indefinitely from labor that uses that idea
Either you own the computers of authors and instruments of composers and brushes of painters, or that’s irrelevant at best.
You’re not wrong;
Authors and composers are some of the few places where labor largely correlates with ownership in our current system, and I’d definitely argue that this is a genuinely positive thing.
However, even in these fields, this is not true most of the time.
Most writing is not done under a self-ownership model. Ignoring LLMs, most writings: news articles, critic writing, advertising, etc. is done under contract (or employment) with a larger company that owns the IP of the writing, and the actual authors are directly paid only for the labor.
Music is more complicated, but my understanding is that while composers do often hold some ownership for commercial works, the more general “Music industry” publishing doesn’t happen without giving up much of the ownership of the artist’s works.
My point, frankly, is that framing capitalism as a system where there is no “right [to] claim the fruits of somebody else’s labor” is fundamentally, objectively, incorrect.
I said nothing at all about capitalism. I merely asked OP by what right they claim the fruits of somebody else’s labor.
To that end, I’d note that the right by which those cited in your examples do so is by entering into contracts with the creators under which the creators explicitly and (more or less) voluntarily grant them that right.
And therefore, I’d say that this:
My point, frankly, is that framing capitalism as a system where there is no “right [to] claim the fruits of somebody else’s labor” is fundamentally, objectively, incorrect.
is mostly wrong.
Any right that one might invoke in order to claim the fruits of someone else’s labor is a right that has been explicitly granted by the person providing the labor, and that does not exist unless and until granted.
It sounds like I need to apologize then. I jumped to the conclusion based on the name of the community and (to some extent) the sidebar, that the assumed framing was that of a capitalist system (i.e. an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.). If that’s not a valid assumption, then I fully withdraw my complaints.
I’m with you 100% on the ideas that peoples’ labor and the fruits thereof is theirs and theirs alone to sell.
I’d still argue that coerced consent is no consent, and that under the current system, most permissions granted by people providing labor has effectively been coerced.
“rights” exists in sets of rules which humanity created for a better society. Expropriation is used often to build common infrastructure - - the same (expropriation) should be used for intellectual property : when it makes societies better - - adequate monetary compensation should be given to creators.
That would be a potentially sound argument in favor of situationally (and with compensation) overriding a creator’s claim to the fruits of their labors.
But that’s not the issue at hand on this thread. The OP has asserted that “intellectual property should be abolished.” That necessarily means that there is no presupposed right a creator might have to the fruits of their own labor, and that by extension, any and all who might be so inclined do have an unfettered right to them, with no need or even basis at any point for a determination of societal value or any form of compensation.
You’re right that OP said that : “intellectual property should be abolished” and that my comment doesn’t take this statement head on. Yet he also writes: “change my mind” and if you want to do this, you have to acknowledge their energy (their convictions) and try to see where that energy can go.
No - I really don’t have to do that. I might have chosen to, but I didn’t.
If that’s what you wish to do, you’re certainly free to do so.
I didn’t say : “you have to change people’s mind”.
What I said is : “if you want to change people’s mind then…”I know - I was just being prickly.
I simply have zero patience for the NoIP position. I think it’s asinine on its face - the philosophical equivalent of flat earth. And I just have no interest in taking someone who espouses it by the hand and walking them through to an idea that actually makes sense (and more to the point and as opposed to NoIP, an idea that actually lines up with the rest of the things that they already believe). I just want to tear their gibbering nincompoopery down to the ludicrous shreds in which it deserves to die and be buried and forgotten. Whether or not they can blunder their way to a better position (they couldn’t hardly find a worse one) is their problem - not mine.
Ungenerous I know, but I think it’s particularly important at the libertarian/minarchist/anarchist end of the spectrum that people learn to actually think instead of just mindlessly regurgitating whatever impressed them when someone else said it.
if all bad things in the universe where destroyed, other would arise. I wish you peace.
Clearly no one is forcing you to do this. But I have politely asked for it. I just want to better understand your points of view and present mine to you. I have never claimed to be right. But I think that your hardened attitude of defiance looks like an inner blockade to me. Something that perhaps builds on the fear that all work would be pointless if you can’t expect a reward for it. What is the whole point of doing all thisthen? Would we as a society simply give in and stop developing? Or would we discover a different meaning behind innovation than just money?
The idea that “intellectual property should be abolished” isn’t even coherent.
“Intellectual property” exists. It can’t be “abolished” any more than gravity or oxygen can.
When, for instance, an author writes a novel, they have created a thing. And before you even go there - no, I’m not talking about the physical books that might later be printed. I’m talking about the composition - the specific ordering of specific words that serve to tell a specific story. That composition is a discernible thing, and it exists. It can’t be “abolished.”
So what you’re presumably really talking about is abolishing the concept that the person who labored to bring that thing into existence had the right to claim ownership of it. And that, not to put too fine a point on it, is asinine
That thing did not come into existence spontaneously. Words didn’t just magically combine themselves in such a way as to tell a coherent story. They were arranged in that particular order by someone. Someone labored to bring that thing into being.
And thus what you’re explicitly arguing is that the person who labored to bring the thing into being should not be seen to have the right to claim ownership of it. By doing so, you are in fact arguing that your presumed right to determine the proper ownership of the thing is superior even to the right of the person who created it in the first place - that they don’t get to decide who owns it and you do.
And so I ask, yet again, because this has been the key all along, by what right do you claim the fruits of somebody else’s labor?
The term “intellectual property” is something completely man made and does not exists independent of our perception unlike mathematics or gravity. The “ideas” themselves are. But IP suggests that they are a kind of property, which I cannot agree with at all.
Do you mean the right of the pen and paper manufacturer or the writer of the book? Because the writer does not let the manufacturer write whatever he wants on his paper.
Though NoIP advocates generally conflate them, the nominal ownership of an original composition and the nominal ownership of a printed copy of that composition are two entirely different topics.
I think there is more than just that. In my opinion it’s not theft if something is openly accessible and is not in itself affected by copying or modifying the copy. Either you protect you property well or it may get shared.
If you develop a new medication for example you still have the advantage that only you know how to produce it. It’s your right to keep this a secret and binding all your workers to keep this secret. But if somebody leaks this info why shouldn’t anybody be able to copy it freely? Of course the comapny could still sue the leaker for breaking their agreement but not the people using or redistributing it.
It was a very simple question.
By what right do you claim the fruits of somebody else’s labor?
Let me clarify a bit:
When you say that intellectual property should be abolished, you’re saying that the creator of a product of intellect should be afforded no claim to control over that product - that you should be free to use it as you please. Since it’s demonstrably the case that the creators of products of intellect generally believe themselves entitled to the fruits of their labors, when you assert that they should have no such right, you’re effectively asserting that your claim to the fruits of their labors trumps even their own.
So again, by what right do you make that claim?
That’s exactly the point: I believe that you cannot exclusively own the ideas or the fruits of your intellect. You can’t own them because you have no ultimate control over them. And if you have no ultimate control over them you can’t restrict them getting used by somebody else. More precisely: You still have control over your idea as the fruit of your labor and it is under your control exactly what you do with it. But you cannot control someone else’s idea, even if it is exaclty the same. Any information that is open in any way can and probably will also be used openly.
Some examples that illustrate this:
- Suppose a physicist goes for a walk every evening and observes the sky attentively. As he ponders the fundamental processes of our universe, he experiences an epiphany and begins to better understand one of these processes. He goes home and fiddles around with a mathematical formula that could support this insight. Finally, he finds it and happily publishes it in a scientific magazine. Even if you can now say that you would have to buy this magazine, it will eventually leak out and the whole world can benefit from his findings. Can the discoverer then say that he owns this knowledge because he has put a lot of work into it?
- Assume that two people are studying at the same university with the same professor. They don’t really know each other, but both are doing research on the same topic based on the same assumptions. They come up with two fundamentally identical results to solve the problem. Who owns this idea now? The one who runs to the patent office first?
I think the core aspect is to realize that work does not necessarily have to be followed by a reward. Just as a tinkerer can spend days working on a device only to discover later that someone else has already solved the same problem, one cannot say that an idea, no matter how innovative or fundamental it may ultimately be, can necessarily be rewarded monetarily. Or in short: work does not necessarily create wages. Is it not rather the decision of the customers whether they entrust their money to whom? Whether they prefer to give it to the original inventor or to a soulless copycat?
I think that in a world that is becoming more and more automated and where machines are slowly taking over the discovery of new formulas and processes, the story behind the products is becoming more and more important.
Yes - it is certainly the case that once a thing that exists only conceptually - an idea or composition - is loosed into the world, control of it is difficult at best.
So let’s narrow the scope.
TO THE DEGREE THAT the thing might be controlled after being loosed into the world, who has the more reasonable claim to exercise that control? The person who created it or someone else?
nobody/everybody has the right to claim it. Why should anybody be able to restrict the freedom of somebody else if its own freedom isn’t diminished by any degree?
While I agree, the usual argument is that intellectual property provides an important incentive to creative types and the patrons who would fund their work. A total abolition of intellectual property could only be coupled with a massive shift in how modern societies function, including a universal basic income and automated labor, completely divorced from scarcity and competition. Less extreme changes, such as scaling down the number of years that IP can be claimed, are probably feasible but I can’t imagine any of these being popular with the centers of wealth that already own their share. Are you after a white room discussion on the ethical merits of IP abolition or are you more of an activist looking to brainstorm how to nudge society in that direction?
You are very right about the change. I also think that a sustainable and long-term change is only feasible in stages and together with a shift in consciousness among the population. So after each small step, you can always weigh up whether it is still the right way to go.
Nevertheless, it is important to have certain ideals that make it easier to position oneself in the decisions of everyday life. It is precisely these ideals that I am concerned with in this discussion. I want to put my views to the test and challenge the views of others in a joint exchange. So it is indeed very philosophical and I am aware of that. But I think that this is the best way to test the core of a theory.
Nice, I like doing it in stages and I like the idealism. Saw you provoked some discussion over on a piracy community I sub to. Good stuff, keep at it!
Intellectual Property should be abolished - change my mind!
Why would I want to do that? I can however try to poke at your arguments in the effort to improve them.
In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the concept of possession.
Information can be in a physical format. That means information can be physical; but it doesn’t have to be. I would, however, argue that what you do with that physical object; including all the information; encoded or contained, and, in it or upon it; is also an intrinsic part of that physical property.
Therefore, I assert that owning a physical copy of information; like a book, photo, or CD/DVD/BD with some content; is the same as owning all rights to the information conferred by ownership of that object. There can be only one of that specific object; regardless of the possibility of existence of many more objects of an identical nature.
This does not mean, however, that one must expose everything openly. This is ultimately the difference between proprietary solutions, where the “construction manual” is kept to oneself, and the open source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone.
It is also possible, through the same rights conferred upon you through physical ownership, for a previous owner or even the inventor/manufacturer of the object to protect data on a given object with various methods. Intrinsically, objects that do this in a way you find objectionable are worth less to you than one with no such complications in extracting the desired data. This is the nature of DRM, and you should never buy physical items with protected content on it. All Consumers must agree that such things are absolutely worthless objects to them.
Thanks matey! I haven’t thought about these.
So long as people are required to make money in a capitalist society and creative ideas can produce said money for income, this idea is merely a fantasy. Goods cannot be the only means by which a society can produce an income.
Sure this is just a theory or more of a philosophy just like libertarianism itself ;) I am just interested in ideologies because they help me to make decisions in everyday life.
I don’t think it should be abolished, people should have the chance to be the only ones making money of off their original idea/design/whatever. IMO those rights need to be stripped down a lot:
- intellectual property is only for commercial work - individuals can legally reproduce whatever they want as long as they don’t make money off it
- all intellectual property expires after 5-10 years (not sure whether 5 or 10 is better, would have to think about it) - 10 years is more than enough to make money of your original idea before anyone else can
- if the discovery is deemed of public interest (as an example, you create a cure for cancer), one of these two must happen (at the discretion of patent/copyright/IP holder):
- you work with regulators to set the price
- you allow other companies to use your idea freely (basically you get rid of your IP/copyright/patent)
The only thing I wouldn’t change significantly is trademark, it’s IMO reasonable to forbid others using your name (or other trademark) to pretend they’re you.
I agree, it’s the perpetual copyright that is really harmful. I like the idea of it lasting one generation, around 20 years. Another idea is that all IP has to be declared and maintained over time for some nominal fee. This would allow a lot more unused IP to enter the public domain simply because nobody bothers to keep renewing it at a certain point.
Nice take! Could you explain to me where you drew this line? I always try to imagine why a line can be drawn right there or why not. According to my argumentation, this boundary lies with things that can be controlled and that are limited as objects. So if I pass on a gold bar then you have control over it but I no longer do. Thoughts and ideas would be something else. I can keep my idea undiminished whether someone copies it or not. Nor can I control who can own this idea or how someone uses it.
Do you have a similar train of thought for your border concept?
It’s quite simple, if you come up with something popular, there are corporations that would happily copy it to get the money for themselves and you’re left with nothing, And if people feel like their idea can’t make them money because someone richer will steal it, they’ll stop having ideas.
At the same time I don’t think you should be able to hold copyright etc. for a hundred years like it is now, that’s just disgusting.
The rest of my previous comment I think has clear reasoning, if not, feel free to ask.
It’s quite simple, if you come up with something popular, there are corporations that would happily copy it to get the money for themselves and you’re left with nothing,
You could copy the product but you don’t know how is built so you will end up with an identical but more expensive product. The is a youtuber that made a chicken sandwich from scratch and end up costing 1500$ and 6 months. Efficiency it’s important for businesses.
The company that creates the product also has another advantage and that is to be the first to enter the market, so they are not going to be left with nothing.
In that scenario the biggest advances will be in production efficiency, because even if your competitors can copy you they will not be able to sell cheaper than you.
And if people feel like their idea can’t make them money because someone richer will steal it, they’ll stop having ideas.
Someone could make your first idea more efficient, but that’s good for your second idea because it proves you’re good and more people will be willing to work with you.
I got you. I phrased my question too vaguely. I understand why you want to do this, but how do you justify setting the limit right here? There must be a logical separation, as in my example, between limited and controllable items and those that are not. How exactly do you arrive at this number of years? Are these requirements that you set out in your first post conclusive? Is there anything else missing?
Coming from the viewpoint that the greatest threat to free markets is the artificial beings created by government called “corporations”, I fully believe that some form of IP, appropriately time-limited and only licensable, not transferable, is a perfectly valid way to protect individual human creators, but that it cannot be granted to anything other than natural human citizens.
It’s not about prevention of use by others, it’s about prevention of monetization by others…
Sure, I’m also more of a civil/technolibertarian. I fear the power of the government and the power of big corporations equally. There are different ways to mitigate this problem but the main ones are:
- Try to restrict everything and close every loophole
- Make no distinctions and allow everybody to do with the assets they control to to whatever they want as long as it does not directly harm the other person
And as you see I’m leaning towards the second one. Bear in mind that the corpos arent the only ones who can copy everything and redistribute it. Everything they make is also freely accessible. I think many people tend to forget that abolishing IP is a bigger threat to corporations than small individuals. Just think about it: Could monopolists as big as Microsoft, Google, Apple still exist if every invention could be copied by other big companies? Wouldn’t they be more likely to keep each other in check, so that no one could achieve such an oversize?
This is a ridiculous argument. In your world, how would anyone who makes an intangible product ever be fairly compensated if you could just steal it? Things like books, songs, video games, films do take real effort, time, care, talent, and loads of hard work to create, and if someone consumes that, they need to pay the creators for that consumption. Your view is rather myopic because a society doesn’t just produce tangible, physical products, but many other intangible products and services. For example, Tolkien wrote and created the entire LotR world, why should his property not be protected so that he can earn some money from all that hard work if some customer wants to consume it? Because it certainly takes an immense amount of work and talent to create something. As someone else mentioned, you have no right to claim the fruits of anyone’s labour.
I find a lot of people make the argument you’re making to try and justify their own theft of IP. But those same people sing an entirely different song the moment someone else begins to steal from them. I certainly hope that happens to you someday, that your hard work is not fairly compensated or stolen from you, so you can understand it from the opposite perspective too.
In your world, how would anyone who makes an intangible product ever be fairly compensated if you could just steal it? Things like books, songs, video games, films do take real effort, time, care, talent, and loads of hard work to create, and if someone consumes that, they need to pay the creators for that consumption.
There are ton of creators on twitch that get money thrown at them when you can watch their content for free. They have ads, but they still get money thrown at them. People know that if you like something you need to support it if you want more.
We have platforms like patreon or Kickstart to fund creators and proyects.
I find a lot of people make the argument you’re making to try and justify their own theft of IP. But those same people sing an entirely different song the moment someone else begins to steal from them. I certainly hope that happens to you someday, that your hard work is not fairly compensated or stolen from you, so you can understand it from the opposite perspective too.
I’m a programmer and you can copy all my code, I don’t mind, if we all collaborate we can create better things. You can copy my application or my code, but you can’t copy my way of thinking, I will always be ahead.
I’m also a programmer, and you cannot copy any of my code, unless you want to pay me for it.
So two programmers can fundamentally disagree on whether or not their hard work should be accessed for free.
So it isn’t a ridiculous argument after all, seeing as some programmers don’t mind their work being “stolen”
You sound very bitter. I have nowhere claimed that this is the only truth but rather asked for arguments to question this thesis. In your answer I see unfortunately none of these arguments but at most assumptions and groundless accusations.
In order to give a constructive answer to your fears, I would like to clarify something first. I do not want to deprive anyone of his honest work, because how could I? Everyone who has an idea has this in his control and can decide freely what he does with it. But he can’t take away anyone’s freedom to take over these ideas and use them himself or develop them further. How could he, since he has no control over them? He could only do it through an autocratic authority that is only there to restrict others in their freedom.
I am convinced that a society without artificial restrictions on goods that are neither limited nor ultimately controllable has many advantages, contrary to the loud voices of those who have benefited from these irregularities for decades. Your example of Tolkien is a wonderful example of this: How much money do you think Tolkien received for his fantastic works during his lifetime? And how much money is still being earned today by large license holders for the shameless exploitation of his works? Do you really think this is any better?
Yes I do think it’s better. If it were up to me, copyrights and patents would last forever, and not just for 100 years (or less). What Tolkien created is his and his alone, and he and his family should continue to profit from it for all time, it’s his creation to do with as he pleases. Why on earth should it not work like that? Why should society take away then product of someone’s hard work and creation? That sounds like a horrible, North Korea society. If an author wants to put their work in the public domain for all to have, they can still do so.
As somebody already told you in another post, in a world without IP protection, people would just jealously guard their secrets and their secrets would die with them. Tremendous human genius would be lost rather than shared with all of humanity, because nobody would ever be inclined to share anything. And if creators couldn’t make a living, you’re talking about a world utterly devoid of creativity. We wouldn’t have things like Tolkien, Harry Potter, Star Wars, if creators didn’t exclusively own the rights to their creation so they could profit from them, because what would be the incentive to create then? In any economic system, people acts as greedy, rational agents, so rewarded and ownership rights must exist or there is zero motivation to create.
Like all human laws, patents and copyrights can be woefully abused if people and laws allow for abusive behaviour, such that they stifle innovation rather than help it. But this isn’t a problem specific to IP itself, humans are just awful creatures who will abuse any form of law if they can (unions for example, can also be horrific, just look at the USA police union). We could improve laws to get rid of things like patent trolls without discarding the concept of IP entirely.
I’m really sorry but I just can’t let these arguments pass. First of all, we have to realise that this is all hypothetical and there are pros and cons to everything. The post you refer to takes the historical context as a basis and gives an example of how knowledge could be lost through this proposed change. But there are just as many positive examples from much earlier times (antiquity, ancient Egypt, the stone age) that also oragnised into advanced civilisations without any IP only through cooperation and trade.
On the subject of authorship: I can understand that people want to be paid for their work and I can also understand why people prefer to rely on IP in order to demand this money for themselves during their lifetime. But how do you justify licensing beyond that? Who benefits from it: the creator who has put in the effort and work for it or some lazy descendants who enrich themselves from the work of their predecessors?
That is the sole right of the creator/author to determine. Many creators do stipulate in their wills that upon their death, all their works go into the public domain. Others leave it to their descendants to profit from. But the point is, it’s the right of the owner to do with it what they will, just as it’s your right as a homeowner to decide what happens to your house/property when you die.
The only place I can see room for looser IP laws is in the medical domain, so that important live saving medicines aren’t locked away behind patents and price gouging. However, I also fully understand why there are strong patents in medicine: because drug research is incredibly expensive and time consuming, and there needs to be an incentive to do it by private companies, and patents create that incentive because they know if they find some wonder drug, they can recoup their research costs and make a profit too. If there was no IP protection in medicine, then there would be no incentive for private companies to do it, so the government would have to do it all (maybe that is a better system overall, not sure).
Like I said before, IP laws could definitely do with some serious revision to bring them up to date for the 21st century, and remove things like patent trolling, but in my opinion, it’s ludicrous to say we should do away with them entirely and live in some kind of IP-less society.
But this isn’t a problem specific to IP itself, humans are just awful creatures who will abuse any form of law if they can
Taking the law at its word and dancing right up to the edge of it is not “abusing” it
Yes it is, it has to do with abusing the spirit of a law. Patent law exists to protect innovation so as to encourage it. Patent trolls do the opposite.
Similar laws which were designed to allow people in a community some measure of voice in that community have been abused for years to enact Nimbyism. That’s also abusing the spirit of the law.
Humans are just awful cunts.
Designing a legal system is hard. It is not immoral to conduct such stress tests on a legal system
Sure it is, because they’re not doing it to stress test but to rent-seek. They’re not coming from an altruistic place of helping build a better system, but from greed, and a desire to earn money without doing much work.
