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.

Comment viewing options

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

He's got one thing wrong on copyleft.

He's got one thing wrong on copyleft.

You CAN charge for the stuff you make - even that derived from other people's copyleft-licensed work. You don't HAVE to give it away.

What you CAN'T do is keep the people you give-or-sell it to from giving-or-selling it (or something built on it) to someone else.

"Property" is something you can exclude other people from. Copyleft makes the licensed stuff less proprietary than public domain.

(It was invented to replace releasing-to-public-domain, to keep people from making a minor change - like a bug fix, a feature addition, or bundling it into a diestrbution - and copyrighting THAT, thus keeping the original author and everybody else from fixing their own version in the same way, adding an equivalent feature, or building a similar bundle.)

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Interesting..

Are you sure you can charge for Copyleft licensing?

So I guess Copyleft in general is ok if people can make money off it.. but I disagree with GNU free General Public Licensing which is also a form of Copyleft licensing

Excluding someone from recreating and selling inhibits value creation. The main reason terrible products like Microsoft operating systems dominate is because its best competition Linux has free GNU licensing, meaning people can't make money out of it. Linux would dominate in a heart beat if people could make money out of it. All these linux companies can only make money for 'servicing' the software rather than selling their software distribution.

Capitalism works.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

i hope somehow apple and

i hope somehow apple and microsoft run out of new ideas so some forms of linux can crop up and start getting mainstream software for it

23

With the copyright law, think

With the copyright law, think of it like the FED breaking it. If you draw a painting, like the Mona Lisa, worth millions. Someone comes along and make reproductions of it with out your permission, they have just devalued your painting stealing wealth from you. It doesn't matter if it was a painting, music, invention, books.

Adam used the example that a writer didn't invent the words, language, pages, paper.... That might be true, but that writer did invent the story, or labored to cover a story for everyone else to read.

Protecting all property is what made America great, and not protecting it will destroy this great Republic.

The Mona Lisa is valuable as

The Mona Lisa is valuable as an historical artifact and, quite frankly, because of it's fame. There is really nothing at all extraordinary about it. It is a very small painting and there have been many more examples of more skillfully painted portraits. There is no copyright that applies to this particular painting. The value is in the object itself.

I should be allowed to paint

I should be allowed to paint a painting exactly like the mona lisa and sell it, as long as i tell everyone its not the mona lisa whats the problem? If i lie and tell them it is then isnt that fraud? why would we need a copyright law?

Don't mind me.

This is a tangent, but I wish to tweak your last sentence...
Goverment theft of property is what made America a great sovereign nation. Personally I preferred the antebellum approach when America was a humbly protective federal union of free and sovereign republics. Okay, I got that off my chest, back to the IP thang...

The premise is wrong

Your first argument is like saying that one girl must not be pretty because it devalues another girls beauty. Or that you must not be too intelligent because it makes me look stupid.

If you are correct that my bad copy of the Mona Lisa devalues the real Mona Lisa then so be it. That is not my problem (and I don't think it would devalue the real thing but that is beside the point).

I am free to paint what I like no matter what other paintings exist in the world. Anything else would be an attack on my personal liberty and a restriction of my freedom. To see this all you need to do is to imagine a lone painter on a desert island. Do you think he should be restricted because someone far away thinks he has some copy "rights"?

The real reason we have copyright is to grow government power. There are so many grey areas and confusion that we need more laws, lawyers and government and it is a great excuse to take away our freedom and protect big companies from competition. Then there is the China argument so now we need international IP enforcement which will create more world IP government and laws. IP "rights" are used in the same way as terrorism "threats", world hunger problem, global warming, human "rights" and all the rest of the socialist nonsense propaganda to get us to buy into more big (international) government.

The only thing I can agree

The only thing I can agree with is that a company, like say McDonalds, ought to have the right to its name and it distinctive golden arches. But this is just an application of fraud. People cant go around telling people they are McDonalds when they arent

23

The mona lisa was created in

The mona lisa was created in a time without the machinery of today. It took skilled craftsmen to make it and there werent that many.

Today, "The Fed" has already devalued all of art to the point where everyone has trouble making money painting. But what they can do is offer services. I've wanted for some time to get custom portraits done if I had the money.

If anything, most of the art made in olden times belongs to the people commissioning the work.

To get philosophical and add to my post below, imagine I have a photographic memory as some people truly do. If IP were to hold, then I wouldnt be allowed to speak the words of a book or to reenact a play. To me that breaks free speech.

Everything in the art world would be better without IP "rights."

23

To the Mona Lisa itself, it

To the Mona Lisa itself, it already is everywhere. You can buy Mona lisa coffee mugs. But Davinci doesnt see a dime of that. That is beside my point though. There is only one mona lisa, and it is really a great experience to go to the Louvre and see it in all of its original glory. Suppose someone photographed jesus. It still wouldnt beat seeing the real jesus in person. There's lots of pictures of Tupac, and Dr Dre and Snoop even got a hologram of him on stage and spit with him again, but there's nothing like what it would have been to see him in person again. The CD is great, but the concert is original.

There's just a certain je ne sais quoi about it, which ends up being in itself financial beneficial to the original creator.

Plus there's everything else I said.

23

Adam you are totally wrong on

Adam you are totally wrong on intellectual property. Protecting people's ideas, inventions and such is what made America the power house it has become. Look at it today, china steals lots of inventions and makes them. Why would an American company spend millions of their hard earned money to invent something to just have China steal the idea and reap the rewards of the idea. Copywrights and pantients allowed people to spend great wealth

What Adam is proposing is socialism. Just like in socialism with physical property, money, etc... As the steal from the wealthy and give to the poor. What Adam is proposing is that Intellectual property should be taken from the wealthy ( intelligent) and give it to the poor (low IQ). There is a reason America outpaced the rest of the world so fast, in less than 100 years we were world leaders in technology. America respected that you should reap the rewards of your labor/ideas. IP is actually at the heart of most other freedoms. Most countries do not recognize IP and most of them are still in the dark ages.

Without IP Thomas Edision would have never have made any money inventing, and many of the technologies we enjoy today we might not have, like the light bulb.

He Is A Socialist

Adam worked for Russian TV, which is ADMITTED to be a communist propaganda tool to be used in the US. For those that get upset about what I just said, look it up first. Adam gets paid by the Russian government. Adam preaches atheism all the time, a TOP requirement in socialist/communist countries.

Do not assume atheism means

Do not assume atheism means anything beyond a lack of belief in the supernatural. It is not Communistic.

you almost had me til the last sentence

It's almost true...
"Without IP Thomas Edision would have never have made any money..."

This is true...
"Without IP Thomas Edision would have never have made as much money as he did... on other people's inventions."

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2009080804544...

Adam is right

Socialism is taking from some and giving to others. That is what you are proposing; taken away the rights for the many to use their ideas and giving one person/company the monopoly to one idea based on force.

And since IP laws benefit the rich and powerful it is actually more correctly described as fascism; Government and big business and other powerful entities colluding against the people.

Think about the wheel as the classic example - or language or drinking or thinking. If IP laws had been in place back then would you argue that the guy who first came up with the idea should be entitled to government force to stop others doing it?

I know some of these examples are far fetched but they prove the point that IP laws are inherently unlawful and unfair and are an infringement on personal liberty.

One point that is often missed is that because of IP laws people are forced to reveal their ideas. Apparently 10000 patents or so have been classified and the idea stolen from the inventor. The elite use IP laws to steal all the best ideas and since normal people haven't got the money to fight them in court they get away with it.

Before the elite used the church to get people to confess all their secrets so the elite knew what was going on. Today they use IP laws (and facebook, Google and many other things).

Look up the word "idea" and never again

confuse it with the descriptor, "intellectual property". NOT THE SAME THING, GET IT?

Great point Lars!

"Apparently 10000 patents or so have been classified and the idea stolen from the inventor. The elite use IP laws to steal all the best ideas and since normal people haven't got the money to fight them in court they get away with it."

Oh, but it's for our own good!

I feel so secure! o_o

Actually, American industry was founded on patent infringement.

Protecting people's ideas, inventions and such is what made America the power house it has become.

Actually, American industry was founded on the violation of patents.

Initially it was British patents (in those days a royal decree that only person X and his delegates could build something). They were used to try to keep the American colonies from industrializing. The colonies were supposed to provide the raw materials to Britain (and the British companies that founded them) and buy the finished products - similar to the way "third world" countries and their people are victimized now. Patents were part of keeping the colonies from building mills. But the colonies were able to get a few skilled millwrights to immigrate (and be smuggled in). They built and ran mills in gross violation of patent law, getting rich in the process.

But it didn't stop with independence and Constitutional patent law. For instance: Ever wonder why the movie industry is in Hollywood? Because Edison, who invented and patented motion pictures, was located in New York. But setting up on the opposite coast the production companies made it impossibly difficult for Edison to enforce his patents in court.

Ever wonder why UNIX is so pervasive? It was written back when software wasn't patentable or clearly copyrightable. For several reasons AT&Ts ownership rights over it were in doubt. Up to then designers of computers pretty much built a custom operating system for them. UNIX was an easy port and the source code was circulating. So AT&T, rather than trying to enforce their claim would ignore people porting it during the design phase and then cut a reasonably priced license when the product was ready to ship. And dozens of companies - many of them garage shops - built microcomputers, ported UNIX to them, and went to market.

UNIX SVRn was a rewrite project by a few big companies, performed after the copyright law was adjusted to explicitly cover software. It was supposedly an upgrade but actually broke some important stuff. But it was also clearly under copyright. In my (and a number of other people's) opinion(s), the idea was to replace the earlier versions and lock up the new version so it could be licensed for far more bux - or withheld.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

If two inventors are working

If two inventors are working on the same thing for months on end, one shouldnt be shut out because the other beat him by a day.

That's the thing. Some of these drug companies have taken naturally occuring things and simply isolate one part of it and they call it theirs.

The benefit of inventing something is in the trade secrets. Whoever invents ought to just take it to a venture capitalist and get their ducks in a row to become first to market. Look at microsoft. Their operating system is pretty shitty, but since they were first people invested a lot of sunk costs into training people on that particular platform. Later, a great platform called (generally) Linux came out. It is "open source" software. It works better, gets fewer viruses, but not enough people know how to use it. Games arent developed for it because of its low market share. Software isnt developed for it. But the OS is completely free.

But guess what? It is crowd sourced. Everyone makes it. Everyone makes it better. The profit model is through a company called "Canonical" who provide technical support services.

Inventions could be alot better this way. A million heads are always better than one.

We stand on the shoulders of giants. There is hardly an invention out today that isnt a result of a previous invention.

What YOU are proposing is socialism. I have no inclination to pay some gestapo police force and all of their lawyers to run around protecting other people's IP so I can pay more for something that is only half theirs at best. When I could just be part of the crowd helping righteous people do it anyway. Dont act like anyone else wouldnt have thought of that thing.

If you have a secret and dont want anyone to know dont tell anyone. That simple. I can see how it would be a regular crime of theft if someone broke into the vault and say, took the KFC secret recipe. Hacking into someone's computer is a crime, so the China thing would have to stop anyway. And of course nondisclosure agreements are enforceable as well, so if you go to a venture capitalist with an idea, he can't say no and then use it. Also, employees at major firms cant just babble after they get fired. (or before.)

He didnt go really in depth, and it was obvioulsy not the focal point of his lecture, so he missed some important points. I hope I was able to help clarify.

But if the crowd wants to chime in on my ideas, please by all means....

23

sharkhearted's picture

What is intellectual property?

I am talking about the less broad definition...more specific to people's trade...and their creation which is UNIQUE to them which, by natural law, is owned by them and they have labored for it and have the NATURAL RIGHT to keep the fruits of their labor:

"Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.

IP is divided into two categories: Industrial property, which includes inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source; and Copyright, which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works, artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, and architectural designs. Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances, producers of phonograms in their recordings, and those of broadcasters in their radio and television programs."

http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

sharkhearted's picture

There is...and only will be ONE John Williams.

What do I mean by that?

Because without the mind of John Williams, the Star Wars symphonic soundtracks, as well as many others such as Schindlers List, Saving Private Ryan, ET, Jaws, and many others...would not exist as they are today.

John Williams labored for it. He created material that NO OTHER PERSON COULD CREATE in his place...so he has the NATURAL right...to keep the fruits of his labor.

I realize in the pop culture world this argument has been cheapened because anyone can "write" a song these days.

But the idea of intellectual property is not a myth...only cheapened because, you know, these days, "everybody is a DJ".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvDNWhbjewo

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Hey, me too!

I wrote the score for a film too. I also performed and recorded it. I also got paid for it. I received the fruits of my labor, but I didn't keep them for very long. I spent the fruits within a month of their placement into my receivership.

I certainly didn't get paid as much as John Williams. Frankly, I'm not as talented as he is. Oh, and I probably didn't work as hard either, but John Williams, Joe the Plumber, and I all have the natural right to the fruits of our labor for the same reason. We all did the work to get it.

I don't really detect anything specifically about IP here.

Funny video though. Thanks.

I've been thinking about this...

...subject for a few months now. I haven't read copyright law line for line, I understand differences between patents, trademarks and copyrights. I'm an artist who owns a business so I ponder the IP idea both from a creative and practical position while reconciling my conclusions with libertarian, agorist, minarchist and anarcho-capitalist philosophies.

Trademarks- I recall federal law enforcement busting t-shirt vendors in New Orleans when the Saints were in the Super Bowl. The NFL swooped in and under trademark violation the feds fined and put out of business a lot of entrepreneurs because they were reproducing on t-shirts the Saints official logo. Really? The NFL OWNS the combination of the color gold and the symbol fleur de lis? The question of course is about the $$$. This is completely ridiculous. The tourist down on Bourbon St. isn't going to buy the NFL's offensively overpriced 'official' jersey in the first place, that's why their buying the cheap replica for $15. The NFL isn't losing money because there was no potential for profit in the first place, but the vendor certainly is. And that's money he'd be injecting into the local economy, and job creating with, and spending on silk screening equipment creating a boon for equipment manufacturers and so on... but no. Squashed. Out of business. No added economic development. Were his shirts purporting to be 'official NFL'. No. That's where it changes. You cannot use a business's logo and try to pass it off as authentic or original. That would fall under false representation or fraud. My wife and I run a consignment business, reselling Gucci, Vuitton, Prada, and other high fashion label bags. As everyone knows, China likes to create counterfeits of these immensely expensive bags, mostly in sweatshops full of young children. Now, the person buying the bag on the street knows they're not buying an authentic bag. But bags like this end up being circulated, either on Ebay, or through consignment shops, which perpetrates a fraud on the second, third-hand users and so on. Do these design houses own the style or shape of the bag? No. The materials it's made from? No. But they most certainly have the right to protect the reputation of their name and product. I think this shows quite easily how and where the concept of trademark within the philosophy fit quite easily.

Copyright: Again. It still boils down to perpetrating fraud. Does facebook have the right to copyright the made up compound word 'facebook'? Fuck no. Do you have a right to present yourself AS the corporation facebook. No. You shouldn't be able to copyright words. Even if you came up with them! If so, then Jack Kerouac could copyright the new meaning of 'cool', William Burroughs could copyright 'Heavy Metal' and Chuck Berry could copyright 'rock 'n roll'. Think of the adverse affect there would be on popular culture, music and literature if those terms could not be replicated because of copyright infringement? Now, could I copy word for word The Man in the High Castle, change my name to Philip K. Dick, and publish it as my very own work? No. This is fraud. Can I paint the best replication of the Mona Lisa, and sign it with my name? Yes. No matter how perfectly replicated, I'm not misrepresenting the work itself. I claim it as mine, not DiVinci's.

Patent: This one is tricky, because it doesn't involve fraud, but theft. But when is an idea become an object to steal? I think basically that if you have an idea, keep it to yourself. Once ready to develop and produce get all the binding contracts of confidentiality as possible. If the contracts are broken, then theft has been perpetrated, or at the very least the breaking of contracts. Otherwise, if trademark or copyright isn't infringed, then sorry buddy, it can be replicated. And while your competitors are replicating your 'invention' you can be busy improving on your creation giving you the market edge. And if someone out-develops you on your original product, play catch-up by innovating their improved product of your original invention. This is called 'competition.' It's the same with goods, services, pharmaceuticals...any technology or 'idea.' No grace periods to give you 'the edge.' Imagine how quickly development and boom in technology and NEW IDEAS we'd have without current patent laws? And patenting gene sequences? Preposterous!

Anyway, as a layman sees it, uh, this is how I see it.

Great post!

I said this above, and I'll

I said this above, and I'll try and apply it to this situation. The ONLY situation where "IP" should be protected is in the event that someone purports to be a company that they are not. I cannot open a store with golden arches and call it mcdonalds if it isnt really mcdonalds.

Here...its more tricky.

If the guy is purporting the shirts to be something that is made or sanctioned by the NFL, then I'd say the NFL has a case. But if he clearly makes the claim that his shirts are not in anyway sanctioned created made or distributed by the NFL and that his shirt merely has the image of the saints on it...its hard to say.

But the theory I'm using is an application of a standard libertarian idea, that fraud is illegal.

23

sharkhearted's picture

You make some great points.

Thanks for parsing out your thoughts.

Regards,

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

" as a layman sees it, uh,

" as a layman sees it, uh, this is how I see it."

You may see it that way, but you are also wrong.

"The NFL OWNS the combination of the color gold and the symbol fleur de lis?"

No, they don't BUT they do own the SPECIFIC combination of the color gold and the symbol fleur de lis. Why is this so hard for people to understand. You can't own the English language. You can own the way you specifically EXPRESS it in a tangible form. I.e. the process. This is just a basic fallacy among people who argue against IP. You are creating arguments based on facts that do not exist.

"The tourist down on Bourbon St. isn't going to buy the NFL's offensively overpriced 'official' jersey in the first place"

Then don't buy it.

"that's why their buying the cheap replica for $15." First, it's they're, not their. Second, are you justifying stealing because something is too expensive? That is a ridiculous argument.

"The NFL isn't losing money because there was no potential for profit in the first place, but the vendor certainly is"

Oh God, you are not actually believing what you are saying? This is the typical misguided argument and MORALLY and LEGALLY erroneous argument.

I don't even think you understand what you are saying. Let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that someone takes the logo from NFL, puts it on a cheap shirt and sells it for less, NFL didn't lose money because they wouldn't have made those to begin with? Huh?

Actually YOUR argument would stifle invention and IP because essentially what you are saying is that Disney should not won anything and we should all just be able to copy their DVDs and sell them at whatever price we want and keep the money. Tell me I am wrong, please.

Then you go on to argue against yourself by making arguments about fraud and misrepresentations on counterfeit.

I am lost with your last paragraphs because it's confusing as to what you believe.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Ah, after tens of thousands of words I've...

...written, I made my first grammatical error. Damn! Thanks for being so doggone smart.

"No, they don't BUT they do own the SPECIFIC combination of the color gold and the symbol fleur de lis."

So a slightly different tint, hue, or shade of gold and it would be alright then, right? I also know a few Catholics and Frenchman that will be sad to know that the fleur de lis is property of the National Football Association.

"Then don't buy it."

Um, they aren't. I thought I just said that.

"Second, are you justifying stealing because something is too expensive? That is a ridiculous argument."

Well, it's only stealing if you believe in the aforementioned concept that someone can own a specific color in unison with a symbol, one actually created by 'god' and the other used by Frankish King Clovis I in the 5th century. So it's the premise that's ridiculous, not the argument.

"Let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that someone takes the logo from NFL, puts it on a cheap shirt and sells it for less, NFL didn't lose money because they wouldn't have made those to begin with? Huh?"

Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. If something is being sold for less, someone will buy it. Black market or white market, there will be a market. If the NFL wants to out-compete the lowly street vendor then the NFL should do just that by using their enormous pricing/wholesale/marketing superiority instead of hiding behind trademark laws and government force.

"Actually YOUR argument would stifle invention and IP because essentially what you are saying is that Disney should not won anything and we should all just be able to copy their DVDs and sell them at whatever price we want and keep the money. Tell me I am wrong, please."

"...should not won anything.." Really? Does that sound grammatically correct? Tsk. Tsk. Throwing stones from a glass house again aren't we Brian?

Again. I disagree. If their(look I got it right!) DVD's were copied and sold at 'whatever price' some would be satisfied with the low quality of a copy. Others want a pristine DVD with the fancy sleeve, DVD extras, Blue Ray quality and whatever other goodies come with buying the original. If Disney were VALUE oriented instead of, again, hiding behind the government's enforcement of law, then they'd be selling the DVD they produce at a cost of 50 cents for say, $5 instead of $25, and they most certainly would be able to compete and put out of business black market vendors in mall parking lots. People will buy a $3 copy versus a $25 original- especially since the movie is likely to be viewed only once or twice. Now 'black market Joe' who has a cost of $2, not to mention the time to copy and assemble, sells it for $3 and makes a $1 return. If Disney has a cost of 50 cents, sells it for $5, they make over three times as much 'as black market Joe' putting Joe out of business and sends him on his way to do more productive things. People would be willing to pay the $2 premium for Disney's original than Joe's copy because there is added VALUE. Disney still rolls in the dough, consumers are receiving VALUE for their money, and Disney would be compelled to produce even MORE stories of heroes and villains.

From my perspective, the individual consumer rules the free market. From your perspective, lawyers, anti-competitive 'capitalists' and state power rule the market.

Just a difference of opinion I suppose.

Whoops...

I meant "National Football League".