-1 vote

Intellectual Property and Copyrights / Patents are Sacred? Bah! Humburg!

Copyrights patents are a government sanction monopoly on intellectual property. Since the majority of copyrights / patents are purchased by corporations, the creator of intellectual property don’t benefit as much or as often as you might think. Artists receive a paltry fraction of the profits from music and videos and inventors sometime receive nothing at all, frequently being unable to develop their inventions, defend their inventions against patent infringement or because they developed the invention while employed by a corporation or government agency.
For example:
Writer Ib Melchior created “Space Family Robinson” as a comic book before producer Irwin Allen created “Lost in Space,” featuring a family named “Robinson”. Melchior knew a suit against Allen was career suicide. Not until the feature film, “Lost in Space” was released over thirty years later was Melchior given credit, if not financial compensation.
The two creators of “Superman” received only their usual salaries, as they worked
for Detective Comics.
Pioneer electrical inventor Armstrong, father of FM, committed suicide after fighting AM radio producers for years.
The inventor of interval windshield wipers went bankrupt suing the auto makers for patent infringement, even though he WON.
Frequently, composers and film producers lose control of their intellectual property, particularly when they “accidentally” go bankrupt.

Patents and copyrights in the hands of large corporations are more often a disincentive to innovation, rather than an incentive. Individuals fear to expand on many ideas and innovations, knowing corporations have “deep pockets” and can ruin them.

Since a patent / copyright is a state-sanction monopoly, the state has every right to set terms on that monopoly. I propose that undeveloped or un-marketed patents expire and can not be renewed. This will prevent the idiocy which suddenly made “Happy Birthday to You” and “It’s a Wonderful Life” the exclusive property of someone who had no part in their creation. This would also prevent corporations from purchasing up patents to new technology in order to suppress it.

WHO knows where ideas come from? Do you really believe your “5 pound meat computer” is the source? While I am a strong believer in property rights, I do NOT believe that allows me to deny the benefits of my property WHEN IT CAN BE SHARED.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It's no the governments job to guarantee you profits

I agree with this article, and would like to know Ron Paul's perspective. I have spent a lot of time wasted on thinking about patents that I should have been in the lab making new stuff.

Current patent and copyright law does not keep up with technology, and therefore will in the same way the music industry changed when Napster appeared. It's not the government's job to guarantee you the ability to generate profit on a "new" idea. Generating profit on a new or old idea is your job.

Greg

The only people who don't believe in Intellectual Property

are one's who've never had a good (marketable) idea (and probably never will).

Most of the comments below; spoken like true (envious) collectivists. From the OP: "I do NOT believe that allows me to deny the benefits of my property WHEN IT CAN BE SHARED".

WTF Comrade Bob?

I agree

Without IP protection, you could have a detailed idea of how to make a miraculous machine to do some wonderful thing and you would not raise one red cent toward getting it built. Why would someone, if another bigger company can come along, copy it, make it cheaper and put you out of business?

My first privately owned patent went this way. No interest from anyone. Then after 7 grand and years to patent it, investors thought it was too generic of a patent and companies wanted me to sign over the rights in full for a pittance. (came to less and 1/10th % of net). I let it expire. My current one will not be patented until I have some sales on an NDA agreement so I can afford to do it better.

OK, TheGuy,...

let’s test your theories of “intellectual property” in a real life environment. Over a year ago I approached John Dennis about donating a video ad. I sent John a few examples, then stop hearing from him, even when he said, “I’ll get right back to you.” One of the things I sent to him, to break the ice, was a video of the riddle, “What’s the difference between a modern witch and medieval witch? A medieval witch flies on a broom and curses with spells; a modern witch flies on a plane and curses with laws.” So, what does John eventually use to attack Pelosi? A video with a “Wizard of Oz” theme.

Now, have my “intellectual rights” been violated? What about the copyright holders of “The Wizard of Oz”? Other than losing much respect for John Dennis (for breaking his word about contacting me), I don’t feel my “intellectual property rights” have been trampled.

Look at all the Fox News and MSNBC clips on YouTube. Yet, when I used snippets of those clips, I get “nastygrams” from YouTube regarding those two copyright holders. Apparently they object to WHO is using them (a Ron Paul supporter) rather than their use. Don’t you think that is taking “intellectual property rights” a bit too far?

Wait a minute...

Sound more like you're sore about not getting credit for coming up with an idea.

"Over a year ago I approached John Dennis about donating a video ad."

If the situation was as you say it was, then you DID donate an ad. They used your idea, right?

An idea is not protectable, only the tangible form in which it is expressed. Just talking about something does not necessarily afford you legal rights.

Hey,Wait a minute!

I have been calling her the Wicked Witch of the West right here on the DP for a long time.Maybe he reads this site?Can I jump in on the credit?

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

intellectual property (so-called)

A significant number of libertarians view state-enforced intellectual property as an important tool rentiers, mostly corporations, use to create an artificial scarcity through the state. Writers from Benjamin Tucker to Roderick Long oppose-ed intellectual property for moral and economic reasons, citing the fact that we're talking about a state-granted privilege. After all, Intellectual Property (IP) didn't exist through most of human history except as what we think of as trade secrets; if you and you're people can keep a secret, that's okay by me. The Big Dog, Lysander Spooner, argued for a state-granted monopoly for the lifetime of the writer/inventor.

IP is increasingly *not* in the hands of the individual tinkerers in the garage or local shop, but controlled huge corporations who use laws like the DMCA to make examples of a few unfortunate fish in a huge pond, or gain rent from a drug through patents, or extending the copyright life of Fantasia. My own affinity is with the anti-IP crowd; the only hang-up is Trademark patents seem sensible and necessary in a freed market.

In light of the fact that constitutions don't effectively restrain the state, how is a limited state achievable?

Is there a difference between the intent

Is there a difference between the intent, implementation and enforcement of a law?

Many thing you've listed like moneyed Corporations being able to squash an individual is a failing of the court system.

Murray Rothbard said this about copyrights:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/145064#comment-1542052

I think this is a good topic for discussion as the current system is clearly out of control and is not producing the desired results of protecting private property of individuals.

One should not be able to sell intellectual property rights protected by copyrights and patents. Inheritance is different.

A Corporation is a fiction, not and individual.

A Corporation that produces a movie or a song should be extremely limited say a decade,

If one takes advantage of a copyright or patent it should be done with the understanding that after a reasonable period of time the copyright becomes public domain as payback to the citizen's of the Republic for granting the monopoly.

Free includes debt-free!

Agreed, Paul S.! That's what this discussion is all about.

I want to REFORM copyright laws, as changing conditions surely warrant. I have posted complete articles on DAILY PAUL out of ignorance of the rules. Plus, my posts were complete articles posted on OTHER sites, such as Sign of the Times. I NEVER posted an article, in full or in part, that stated the material was copyrighted or provided any restrictions, ONLY the title and link. I have forgotten to delete the "small c" when it applied to photos, which I DID NOT post.

ALL YOUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY issues are protected by

STATE LAWS because they have to do with COMMERCE.

Interestingly enough one of the bad (depending on how you look at it) states to incorporate or deal with any of this IP stuff is VIRGINIA because their State laws require that all infringement cases be tried in front of a jury. This is a nightmare seeing as the case goes on forever because the jury doesn't know the laws, the lawyers have to educate the jury with their expensive exhibits,and YOU the regular guy, would be bankrupt before you even got through with your case.

Virgina (and one other state) was trying out the Uniform Commercial Code for Intellectual Property - Which was when they were trying to homogenize the states interpretations of how folks conduct business.

Friendly states to incorporate (for IP - not necessarily taxes) are Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts

OK, but who has a copyright on "news"

News outlets like AP want to charge people for reading their stories and then sue them if someone posts it somewhere else. The question is, how can an event be copyrighted? Just because I saw something happen first, then I report on it, that does not give me exclusive rights or even make me an expert on the subject.

We already have a problem with the press in this country being sold out to political interests. Now we have news outlets wanting to "sue" because someone is spreading their story? WTF???

The EVENT can't be copyrighted

BUT the creative product of that event can be.

You could write a song about it.
Or you could write a story about it.

You could be employed by a company that wants you around because you write great songs or great stories.

You could get paid by this company - meagerly or massively (you decided to work for them at that price) and when you did decide to work for them you probably signed away your ownership rights.

That company or corporation sells these creative products. It protects its property that it has cultivated in that song or story writer.

Of course if you are totally financially independent and wrote the song or story you could COPYLEFT it and let the world copy it and do with it what ever they pleased.

Let me try to explain, If you

Let me try to explain, If you write the story about the event it then becomes your copyright, if you copy and paste the story about the event that was written by someone else on your site you have infringed, ie; stolen their work. The event is not what is being infringed upon it is the writers work that has been infringed.

You are free to write about the event but you can not just use the work of someone else without permission.

Hope this helps.

There should only be a problem if you pass off...

someone else's work as your own.

That should only be a problem, Part 2

The present media copyright laws go back to the days when wire services and networks such as Armed Forces Radio and Television Network were sources of news. Local papers would pay for news stories, compensating the source and wire service. Further, sports broadcasts were carefully protected to prevent rebroadcast for profit. All that has changed, and so should the laws.

So let me see if I uderstand

So let me see if I understand you, I should be able to copy the coca cola bottle and use their formula to fill the bottle, then sell and use it as coke for my own profit so long as I give them credit for being the original maker?

Well, for one, the Coca Cola formula is secret.

Two, I NEVER said anything about "for profit," except for unexercised patents,and then only if it becomes clear the patent was purchased for reason of suppressing new technology.

Copyrights exists without the state

if you believe in natural rights.

A person has right to own and control the fruits of his labor. If government protects copyright, it's just protecting natural rights.

Read some Lysander Spooner http://www.lysanderspooner.org/intellect/contents.htm or Murray Rothbard http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10e.asp#7._Patents_Copyrights on this.

My favorite people in the world: Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, Peter Schiff, Judge Napolitano, Milton Friedman, Bob Barr, and John Stossel

Ah! Another theocrat!

Yes, I believe in natural rights. However, I also believe, when asking the state to protect those rights, I must accept certain limitations. One of those for me is qualifying when my intellectual rights are protected in the public domain. If I do not want my intellectual property used by anyone else, other than plagarism, I should keep them to myself. It's ridiculous that ANYONE could be sued for quoting someone or improving "insufficiently" on somebody's unexercised patent.

You do not have the right to

You do not have the right to "control the fruits" of your labor if you sell those fruits.

If you are a blacksmith and make a sword (fruit of your labor), you can sell it (control), you then relinquish control of that fruit. You do not get to go into someone's house and control that sword that is no longer yours.

Columbus, Ohio

Not the same thing.

If I sell the sword and there is a copyright notice on the sword, I'm selling the sword, but not the idea of the sword, not the invention. I'm telling you point blank that I'm not selling you my idea. So, you would be violating my private property rights to my ideas if you copied the sword. Someone would have to come up with the idea of a sword independently, in order to make one without violating my rights.

My favorite people in the world: Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, Peter Schiff, Judge Napolitano, Milton Friedman, Bob Barr, and John Stossel

You didn't say that in your

You didn't say that in your OP. But, what it boils down to is you saying your idea is your property.

So ideas, not just tangible items, are now property.

Do you not see any qualms with this statement: "violating my private property rights to my ideas"

Columbus, Ohio

Ideas are free period. Actual

Ideas are free period. Actual work is what is copyrightable.

uhmmm...I'm not so sure about that.

If I have a great idea and I'm walking around with my sketch book / journal and showing my idea to a possible investor or even a mentor set up by my prestigious university, that mentor or investor could take my idea and make millions.

If I had been smart enough to know that this was a really REALLY good and potentially valuable idea, I would have had the investors or mentors sign some sort of Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) or sometimes called a Confidentiality Agreement. My sketches would have been marked CONFIDENTIAL and / or COPYRIGHT and would have been DATED. Then I could take these idea stealers to court and get some compensation for my idea...which you had said was "free".

The physical embodiment of an

The physical embodiment of an idea, such as a machine, book, song, article, patent, etc., is what is protectable, not the idea itself. This is all very elementary stuff.

you are confusing an idea

you are confusing an idea with an actual work of your idea. Just because you haven't made the product you have written doesn't mean it is just an idea, your sketches are an actual work and are copyrightable.

Once you have a written or finished work it is no longer and idea it is an actual work, of course showing it to people without a nondiscloser is a very bad move, you should always register the property with the library of congress to give you the validity of ownership, if someone tries to steal your work your registration is your best protection. Just because you register a work doesn't mean it hasn't been stolen and can be challanged.

It is always best to copyright the work before you start shwoing it to people.

the thing with the mentor actually happened at BROWN U

I agree that you can't be too careful in sharing your ideas. The example with the Mentor actually happened at Brown University! The Mentor sued his student who had finally, successfully started his own business. When the business started to make money the mentor claimed it was his idea and sued him.

No qualms with my statement.

What is the basis of private property? It is the right to own and control the fruits of your labor. It doesn't matter whether it's tangible or not. An idea is the fruit of your intellectual labor. Therefore it is your private property.

My favorite people in the world: Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, Peter Schiff, Judge Napolitano, Milton Friedman, Bob Barr, and John Stossel

Well there we go. We can

Well there we go. We can agree to disagree. I do not believe that ideas are private property.

Columbus, Ohio

Then do you believe anything is private property?

And if so, what justifies it as private property?

My favorite people in the world: Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, Peter Schiff, Judge Napolitano, Milton Friedman, Bob Barr, and John Stossel