20 votes

Dismantling Intellectual Property Myths

Adam Kokesh: Dismantling Intellectual Property Myths

http://youtu.be/vgMkAVhMG4s

http://davidkretzmann.com...

Interesting and insightful perspective on intellectual property, an issue libertarians have a hard time discussing and agreeing on. Check out these resources and let me know what you think.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

intellectual property rights have screwed all Americans,

and most aren't even aware of it. If you don't know what I am talking about you need to see the documentary "Nicotine Bees". The corn and soybean industry under Monsanto is slowly destroying all other farming. People don't understand we must have the Honeybee to get all the fruits and vegetables at the grocery store. The Honeybee is going to become extinct in America if we don't change our ways.

Monsanto uses intellectual property rights to sue the organic farmer. when the pollen from Monsanto's corn planted next door blows on organic corn the organic corn will pickup the genetic markers. When Monsanto checks the organic farmers corn he gets sued for patent infringements.

The genetic Marker is nothing but an Antibiotic strain the plant reproduces. When you eat the corn chips or other corn products your getting a small dose of Antibiotics. Why do you think the medical industry is more hesitant on prescribing antibiotic for common ear infections.

In our Cattle concentration camps the animal is close to death after 30 months of feeding. This is from eating all the GMO feed. They cannot keep the cattle in feedlots more than 30 months because they have become so sick.

GMO's have never been tested in a laboratory by Monsanto and IP gives them protection from any scientist doing so.

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

One more comment on this

Monsanto doesn't really want to win their case in court, they love dragging it out 3 to 4 years as long as possible. Monsanto has bankrupted many a organic farmers this way, the chemical farmer next door is happy to take over the organic lands and plant poisonous GMO's on it.

All people down voting my comments need to check out what happens in the Gulf of Mexico every spring. I am not happy and the fishermen aren't happy either. The Gulf of Mexico develops a dead zone hundreds of miles out every spring.

Here is a video the World According to Monsanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6fYRE9uoQ0

See how evil this company is and how they will destroy agriculture for a few bucks. If you can't stand the truth then don't watch, but here is proof that Intellectual property right screw us all.

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

questions

1) Why/how is Monsanto testing a neighbors corn without his/her permission?
2) Why don't the organic farmers counter-sue Monsanto for damaging their property by "infecting" their corn with non-organic material?
3) I thought even GMO plants required bee pollination to produce fruit/veggies. Do they not? I know even the big farms around here rely on bees to pollinate pumpkins and other stuff because they have hives and/or things like sunflowers planted to attract the bees. I don't think they are all organic farmers either.

It seems the organic farmers' private property rights are being violated and they would be able to prevent any samples from being taken of their corn plus also have recourse via the courts for damage to their property.

For example, if a neighboring farm was dumping something toxic that was contaminating your water source for instance, you would be able to take the neighboring farm to court to prevent further dumping and get compensation for damages incurred. How is this any different?

Holding a patent on GMO corn doesn't (shouldn't) absolve or protect them from responsibility for damages caused by their product to other people's property. If Monsanto is doing this (which I don't doubt), it isn't necessarily caused by merely having IP though. It involves the judicial system not defending physical private property rights and instead catering to one special interest - i.e. corruption.

Our family's journey from the Rocket City to the Redoubt: www.suburbiatosimplicity.com

Answers for your questions

1. Monsanto has hired private detectives to spy on organic farmers, Some farmers have locked all their grain bins to stop them. But these detective follow the grain trucks to the elevator to get samples.

2. the organic farmer have tried counter suits against Monsanto but lost all the way to the Supreme Court. After cases were settled some of the Judges were spotted going on extravagant fishing trips with executives from Monsanto. A judge had ruled it doesn't matter how the GMO's gets into organic grains whether birds wind or god you are responsible to keep it out.

3. It's not the GMO's that are deadly to the honeybee it's the seed coating they use on it. I have seen my bees fall out of the sky after crossing a field of corn. All GMO's are registered with the EPA as a pesticide. Just yesterday I had a new beekeeper call me asking what happened to his bee hive that died out. He described what was a very healthy hive that just collapsed for no reason. The hive has broad still in the combs but no bees. This is colony collapse disorder caused by bees crossing corn fields. There is no reason for a hive to die this time of year except poisoning. My only question of him is there a corn field close by? His answer was yes!

Farmers have no rights when they come up against IP rights. I dare any one to go out and talk to the local farmer, get the real truth!

Go a head and down vote all you want and hold your head in the sand, but your all eating poison if your buying meat and groceries at the grocery store.

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Thanks for the answers and info

helpful info there

Our family's journey from the Rocket City to the Redoubt: www.suburbiatosimplicity.com

I am involved in patenting

I am involved in patenting products. Our competitors steal our ideas all the time. Patents are necessary. Patents aren't just for the big corporations. Patents protect the little guy from big corporations and the government. I have been in a situation where the government itself was trying to steal one of my clients ideas and we sued them and won. Patents are essential. I don't recommend anyone who is not involved in patents to comment on it becuase they have nothing to lose and they don't understand it.

Adam Kokesh really isn't in a position to talk from experience. No one wants to copy his Youtube channel. He thinks to highly of himself.

oops, misplaced

...

All Property Rights are anti-small-gov't

by definition.

Property "Rights" (declaring them) has no value if you cannot force retribution on others through "non-violent" means (without forming a militia every time you are wronged).

This means that there must be a force-agency (gov't) who has the right to kidnap, imprison, decree judgement, fine, or steal assets.

Gov't can never remain small -- according to all human history.
---If the Gov't is formed in the following way

1) Hereditary Title
2) Voting + Lobbying (by the few or by all)
3) Ability to serve more than one term
4) Can abdicate authority to "private" monopolist organizations
5) Has the ability to adjust taxes
6) Can regulate markets (circumvent consumer-will)
7) Has war powers
8) Create laws that effect consumption

Since you've never heard of a Gov't that did not have some or all of those authorities -AND- since you've never heard of a gov't with those authorities ever shrinking in size.

Therefore Property Right-Seeking will always Grow Gov't and owing to the "trickiness" (loopholes) will need to be able to continue to grow to eliminate all "un-fairness"

Rothbard's for of Anarchy requires a "small force-agency" to function -- even if they call it "private" there must be (at the very least) a public records department -- otherwise how do you sue if people can freely assume aliases.

If you want all markets to be free of gov't then include the Self-Defense Market -- Gov't has a monopoly over defense of "property" in fact it can certify whether you "own" your property or not via public record.

Bastiat's corpse just shed a

Bastiat's corpse just shed a tear.

This argument should be VERY simple for small-gov't folk

If you are for small-gov't and for an ever-diminishing gov't presence in all markets (including self-defense) then you CANNOT be in favor of IP-Rights (enforced by law or force-agency).

IP-Rights GROW gov't size-scope-reach

For Gov't to protect IP-Property internationally it must collude with foreign gov't -- it must increase "politicking" -- it must create new laws and rules for our courts -- this increases educational costs as more rules-laws for study -- on and on.

For Gov't to protect IP-Property at-home it must have a greater internet presence, power to shut down sites, power to access usernames, and more men-women to make the physical arrests.

Grows Courts -- Grows Law Education Costs -- Grows Police Force

Thus Grows Gov't

If you are for SMALL-GOV'T you cannot therefore be in favor of IP-Rights.

Very good points

Most people here would agree that government does nothing well - except of course assaulting our liberty, creating wars, abusing power, destroying wealth for the many etc.

Personally I see the purpose of government to be helping the rich and powerful maintaining and increasing their wealth and power at the expense of the people. This is the real reason we have governments. Naturally this is not the official reason as we would never support it if we new the true objective, hence the propaganda in all areas to sell us "benefits" at the expense of more government.

IP laws are no different to tax laws to "help" the poor and the weak, wars to "help" people in foreign countries, medical laws to "help" people be well, minimum wage laws to "help" people make a living, Obamacare to "help" people get insurance, bank bailouts to "help" people maintain their savings, stimulus to "help" the economy etc. etc.

In all areas the official objective is the opposite of the real objective which always is for the elite to maintain/increase power and enslave the people.

And IP laws do exactly that, just like the rest of what governments try to sell us.

You said

"Personally I see the purpose of government to be helping the rich and powerful maintaining and increasing their wealth and power at the expense of the people."

I don't see it that way, however, the inertia of human behavior tends to favor the intertwined interests of the wealthy and powerful, which should naturally lead to a "reset" of the system, something Ron essentially hints at, though non-violently.

On the other hand, wealthy, powerful people exist for more reasons than you seem to suggest. Most millionaires are self-made. That has been my experience. I've never met a billionaire, but I've read enough to know that many of them are also self-made.

I don't care to demonize people because of their wealth. It's up to all of us to be responsible enough to maintain our Republic and it's up to us to see our system of government does not favor one person over another, even if it means we benefit less than we might currently.

Many wealthy people are

Many wealthy people are self-made. However most powerful people are powerful because of the families they belong to. The last presidents are all family connected and most are connected to earlier presidents as cousins, second cousins etc. The kings and queens of Europe is another example or the powerful dictators around the world.

These families control governments all over the world. They also control companies all over the world. Their agenda is to centralize power and they use both governments and companies to do that (as well as NGOs, EU, Nato, UN, IMF etc).

That is why I claim that the purpose of government is to help the rich and powerful. I don't mean the millionaires or even the billionaires but these families who control everything. They control the central banks all over the world and as they control the money money is no issue for them. For them it is all about power and they use their power to enslave the people.

"Power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely". Governments are monopolies with closer to absolute power. That's why I fight for smaller governments. The more we can reduce centralized power the better the chance of being allowed to live as free individuals.

Just food for thought here,

Just food for thought here, Lars.

I agree with you that many elite and successful people are catapulted there because of their connections. Family is and has always been the strongest connection and people have always used that to keep and gain power within their own circles.

It seems clear that you hate everything government-related, but what do you think would happen if government disappeared? The powerful families would still have control. Maybe more.

You claim that "the purpose of government is to help the rich and powerful". Just because government can be and sometimes is used to help the rich and powerful, does not mean is it designed that way or has t o be that way.

I suppose there is no convincing an anarchist. If there was no government, does anybody think there would be no powerful elite people out there colluding to enrich themselves and their families? Government is there to protect the individual and we must fight the trend toward over-reach.

↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
Show your support for Ron Paul and inspire others at new grassroots site:
http://www.ronpaulpatriotnation.com
( Consider uploading a picture or video of your sign or event, etc .)

I think you are missing my point

I am arguing that governments help the rich and powerful because they always seem to control it.

Without governments - monopolies based on force - at least the greedy people would have to fight other greedy people and everyone else in a more fair way as they would not have a monopoly force to help them. As an example did the bailouts make it easier for banksters to rob the people? Did the FED?

Socialists believe that all we need to do is to create a better government which to me seems very naive since it has never happened in the past.

But more importantly I believe in freedom and free choice and by definition government is just the opposite. The idea of government is a monopoly on force. How can such a monopoly create freedom? It is like arguing for peaceful wars - another oxymoron.

Why do you call me an anarchist? An anarchist in my understanding advocates for chaos. I advocate for the exact opposite. Government is chaos, it is take from the poor and give to the rich, create as much chaos as possible, then introduce fake "solutions" and then benefit from these solutions (patriot act, bailouts, wars, tax etc. etc).

I advocate for freedom, local decisions among equals, voluntarism, peace and love.

If you actually think that

If you actually think that anarchists are advocates of chaos, then it appears as though you don't have a in-depth understanding of this subject.

Sure governments can make very bad decisions, but that is not an excuse to get rid of it entirely. Government should exist to defend citizens' individual rights. Yes - with force it necessary. I have no problem with the government arresting and incarcerating murderers.

I think we need to fix and limit the scope of government, and it seems as though you distrust it all together. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
Show your support for Ron Paul and inspire others at new grassroots site:
http://www.ronpaulpatriotnation.com
( Consider uploading a picture or video of your sign or event, etc .)

Maybe we can agree

to reduce government. That would be fine with me for starters. If we succeed in reducing it so much that we end up wanting different things then that would be a great success.

This is essentially true.

This is essentially true. Look up "feudalism". At least with the tatters of our Constitution, we have some marginal protections for individuals.

Anyone consider that we

Anyone consider that we should protect IP, but that unlike regular property, government ought not be the one to do it? Consider the free market solutions.

I could imagine a bunch of big ole law firms getting together for the sole purpose of mass producing things like non disclosure licensing agreements. To violate a contract is certainly illegal. If you dont agree to the contract, they dont have to sell it to you. We all click the I agree button on our computer all the time. Bunch of stuff in there, but I generally trust the companies putting it out not to do anything underhanded.

What say yee

23

Exactly. I have zero doubt

Exactly. I have zero doubt the market would punish anyone who would copy say a song or a film and claim it's their work and likewise the market would handsomely reward the real authors of various works.

I mean did you see what happened with Luis C. K.? Guy put up a website and sold digital copies of his show for something like 5 bucks. In a matter of a week I think he got more than $1 million dollars of copies sold all the while he did nothing to stop anyone from putting up a torrent. In fact some people did and the torrents got supper flamed and attacked. (read about it here: https://buy.louisck.net/news)

But noooo we have to use the state monopoly on violence to enforce someone's crazy idea about what someone else can do with some intangible thing that that first someone thought of or we wont have any innovation or arty anymore, right? /rolleyes

Patents and copyrights should

Patents and copyrights should apply whether actual inventions and devices are involved or software only, IMO.

Wonderful article "dismantling" anti-IP arguments.

Just posted today at The Verge.

http://www.theverge.com/2011/08/11/broken-patent-system/

The author does an excellent job of breaking down the value of patents and describing it in language a 4 year old should be able to understand.

I love to see how many are so willing to use force...

...to keep potential competitors at bay.

If you want to maintain exclusive control over your ideas there is only one option; keep them a secret. You can achieve this through either not revealing them to anyone or by entering into a binding contract to do so with the parties you disclose the ideas to. Otherwise, once you release your thoughts into the public domain you effectively loose control of them. unless of course you can get the world's biggest most violent & effective bully on your side, which unfortunately seems to be what most of you posting below are in favor of. Yet you're all still here on the DP because you believe government is too big and too over reaching. But the things YOU want government to do are just fine, right? Wow... don't think too hard about it, I'd hate to see any of you pull a brain cell or something.

Well some of them are more

Well some of them are more constitutionalist than libertarian, so I'll give them a little credit for that even though I disagree with them

23

"If you want to maintain

"If you want to maintain exclusive control over your ideas there is only one option; keep them a secret."

How is a pharmaceutical company supposed to keep its drug composition a secret?

"You can achieve this through either not revealing them to anyone or by entering into a binding contract to do so with the parties you disclose the ideas to"

OK, so you write a book a sell it. You then write that if you buy this book, you agree not to give it away or put it on the internet. They do so anyway. How do you prove that they did it? How would you even know that they did it? It could be one of millions of people who bought your book...

"of. Yet you're all still here on the DP because you believe government is too big and too over reaching. But the things YOU want government to do are just fine, right?"

This makes no sense to me. Of course that is the way it works...why would you be absolutist and say "either massive government is OK, or no government is OK. Nothing in-between". Some things we want government to do, somethings we don't.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

responses

You ask "How is a pharmaceutical company supposed to keep its drug composition a secret?"

I have no idea how they'd do that. The people in charge of one company might choose to have their own medical facilities that they'd administer that drug out of in order to maintain exclusive physical control over their product. Others might choose to use a binding non-disclosure contract with the people that administer the drug for them. And others still may come up with other methods. I'm not a central planner, I have no delusions that I have all the answers nor that anyone can.

You say "OK, so you write a book a sell it. You then write that if you buy this book, you agree not to give it away or put it on the internet. They do so anyway. How do you prove that they did it? How would you even know that they did it? It could be one of millions of people who bought your book..."

I would never put such a provision into a book that I'd write or any music which I released into the public domain. It's worth pointing out here that there are an increasing number of writers self publishing and artists releasing music copyright free who actually enjoy greater profits than they would if they followed the more commonly employed practices in their markets.

You finish with "This makes no sense to me. Of course that is the way it works...why would you be absolutist and say "either massive government is OK, or no government is OK. Nothing in-between". Some things we want government to do, somethings we don't."

I know this makes no sense to you, and while my post wasn't intended for you in particular, this is exactly why I post here still. You still believe that YOU have a right to initiate force against other people to make them behave as you want them to. No matter how small a government is, the people who constitute that government will always be initiating force against people to modify their behavior. The employees of the smallest, least intrusive government on the planet still initiate force upon those that they claim dominion over. If you believe in liberty and that everyone should have theirs, a belief that this can be achieved via government is contrary and illogical. When you argue for a smaller government, you're not arguing for freedom or liberty, you're arguing for more permission. What do you really want? Permission to do the things you want and keep your property yours, or the freedom to do the things you want and to protect what is yours?

Patents and copyrights have

Patents and copyrights have existed far longer than our crushingly large, overfed-by-taxes, too-big-to-succeed government. Those protections are possible with less government because a lot of recent growth has more to do with "security" and military expansion.

Both rely on government

Arguing in favor of copyrights and patents is arguing in favor of the enforcement body that grants those copyrights and patents, the state.

I don't agree there should be

I don't agree there should be absolutely no government. I used to feel this way, but long thought over the matter led me to the conclusion that human beings are not built for chaos. People will form order and structure (systems of governance) because we generally demand these things. The essential part of freedom, liberty and constitutional government is the recognition and protection of the individual, but everyone is an individual with self-interest at heart... So, a government that is strong enough to protect the individual, yet weak enough to avoid becoming a fascist state is the eternal struggle.

We already have a strong state. We are trying to curb it's powers while retaining those that enable property ownership and freedom for the individual. There's no such thing as a perfect system for the individual, short of a solitary person living alone on an island. THAT is real self-rule.

If you don't agree there should be no government...

...they you are stating you'd endorse the use of force against peaceful people to compel them to obey the dictates of the government you'd approve of. You have fun on that slippery slope, I'll stand firm on the position that using force against peaceful people is always wrong.

Once you agree in principle that it is acceptable to use force against peaceful people for some reason or another all that differentiates you from the politicians in power today is who you'd be forcing to do what, and who would benefit the most from your use of force. And the result would be exactly what you see today in the USA after a couple of hundred years of the most sociopathic players moving into and expanding the power of the positions of so called 'authority' over other people.