Dismantling Intellectual Property Myths
Submitted by pencils2 on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 11:54Adam Kokesh: Dismantling Intellectual Property Myths
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.
Rothbard is pro-IP. Perpetual IP even.
He supports copyright, but opposes patent because it outlaws two people coming up with the same invention without copying. However, he is in favor of copyright being used in place of patent, so that inventions can be intellectual property too.
"Let us consider copyright. A man writes a book or composes music. When he publishes the book or sheet of music, he imprints on the first page the word “copyright.” This indicates that any man who agrees to purchase this product also agrees as part of the exchange not to recopy or reproduce this work for sale. In other words, the author does not sell his property outright to the buyer; he sells it on condition that the buyer not reproduce it for sale. Since the buyer does not buy the property outright, but only on this condition, any infringement of the contract by him or a subsequent buyer is implicit theft and would be treated accordingly on the free market. The copyright is therefore a logical device of property right on the free market."
"On the free market, there would therefore be no such thing as patents. There would, however, be copyright for any inventor or creator who made use of it, and this copyright would be perpetual, not limited to a certain number of years. Obviously, to be fully the property of an individual, a good has to be permanently and perpetually the property of the man and his heirs and assigns."
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10e.asp#7._Patents_Copyrights
If you believe in natural right to own the fruits of your labor, you have to believe in intellectual property. If you don't you're confused about natural rights.
He took it as far as he did.
I agree that if we accept IP [into libertarian philosophy] it would have to be perpetual.
I also would agree to remove Rothbard from my little list, but just as Rothbard elaborated from and advanced the Mises vein, so have Kinsella, Tucker, and Kokesh elaborated from the Rothbard vein. We will never know what Rothbard might have thought of Kinsella or Kokesh. Rothbard's thoughts on IP were admittedly incomplete. One sign of that is his lack of example regarding the reproduction and dissemination of anothers work without "sale". His examples of selling reproduction are not complicated and rather intuitive. Funny that it takes a genius to keep it simple.
"If you believe in natural right to own the fruits of your labor, you have to believe in intellectual property. If you don't you're confused about natural rights."
I know this is your quote and not Rothbard's. I know he flirted with this sentiment, but I'm not familiar with his ever being convinced of it. I'm no Rothbard expert, and for all I know you very well may be. Please guide me to any [later] writings of his in which he succinctly, such as you have, brought intellectual property under the umbrella of natural rights.
Here's a general Kinsella link,
good as any...
http://youtu.be/cWShFz4d2RY
http://spiderjohn.com/direction/
First why don't you explain
First why don't you explain what IP is and how it is implemented and affect you and others legally. Then we can decide who is right. The problem is most people have no clue what IP is, so they go by what they HEAR, which is usually and mostly all nonsense.
If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...
While it is an important issue to be
explored in theory, the world itself is already showing us the problems of the current model; and Rand and Rothbard are no longer in the forefront of the ongoing discussion. Stephan Kinsella and many current libertarian intellectuals are at the forefront of the unfolding debate. I think in time libertarians will come together or much closer in agreement on this.
But for the current purpose of the DP this is a side issue. It is not one that RP highlights in his national policies and it sucks energy from our forum when it's given major prominence at this time, IMO, especially by those who rashly take heated positions with rather little time for study and reflection of all the ramifications. This is quite a complex issue, and no sweeping change will be effected rapidly.
If any changes at all are
If any changes at all are made, I would guess that the duration of software patents MIGHT be reduced at some point to encourage fiercer competition between companies.
www.gunowners.org
It is a very strange split in
It is a very strange split in Libertarian philosophy because individual rights and property rights are so integral to the philosophy. Socialist Libertarians are dangerous to Libertarian thought and deserve to fade away into obscurity.
www.gunowners.org
I'm with ya half way,
and strange as it may seem, it's a split that among libertarians rose to the surface half a century ago. I agree, as do [most] all libertarians, that individual and property rights are integral to the philosophy. But many of us libertarians make the distinction that intellectual property is not private property and that its protection actually runs counter to the protection of individual rights.
It is absurd for me to pay financial tribute to Edison's grandchildren for an idea he lifted from Tesla. I digress.
Liberty is actually quite simple.
Anti-IP is impeccably revolutionary.
http://spiderjohn.com/music/van/takefind.wma
http://spiderjohn.com/direction/
Actually, I find intellectual
Actually, I find intellectual property revolutionary since acceptance of its existence advances theories of Homo Sapiens Superioris (versus humans as mindless animals) as well as the promotion of the idea of the sovereign individual.
www.gunowners.org
I agree with you on
I agree with you on somethings, but I do take exception to the whole superior idea over "mindless animals."
Are you superior in strength to a lion? To the stamina of a horse? to the speed of a Dolphin? This whole superior idea over animals leads to destructive behavior. Animals don't destroy the earth like we do so that sense they are superior to us, because they don't poison the lake they drink from.
If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...
Superior in the sense that
Superior in the sense that intellect and machinery (including the machinery for the mind, computers) enable us abilities far greater than those that historically have limited mere physical creatures.
The power to destroy is an intellectual burden also.
www.gunowners.org
I just don't like the whole
I just don't like the whole concept of superiority. It sets a bad precedent and can lead to disastrous consequences. Believe or not, they did studies of people in prison who were given animals to care for and they pretty much all became non-violent. The attitude towards animals makes a difference.
If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...
I believe I understand what
I believe I understand what you are saying, however I also happen to believe that humans represent the "top of the food chain". Because of this, it is our responsibility to treat animals "humanely" ( however you choose to interpret that word).
www.gunowners.org
It can just as easily be used...
to advance theories of White Supremecy as well as the promotion of the the idea of corporate governance,..
strictly speaking.
http://spiderjohn.com/direction/
How do you figure? You are
How do you figure? You are calling intellectual property creation a "whites"-only pursuit? I can't believe the arrogance.
www.gunowners.org
???
I don't seem to understand you. Are you calling intellectual property creation a "Homo Sapiens Superioris"-only pursuit and not a pursuit for mere humans? Arrogance?
I actually don't care what you think of theories of Homo Sapiens Superioris. That's not my point anyway. My point is that IP may be used to advance many other concepts, good or bad. The fact that IP could advance something good, in and of itself, does not make it good. "Arsenic pills to Fascists" may advance one theory of going about promoting the idea of the sovereign individual, but that doesn't make "Arsenic pills to Fascists" a good idea.
Anyway, IP might have been revolutionary centuries ago, but it ain't anymore. Now it's the status quo. How can promotion of the status quo be revolutionary?
http://spiderjohn.com/direction/
Again, you are going off the
Again, you are going off the rails on some tangent. What was with your "white people" diversion? Stay on topic and we can have a sensible discussion.
When was the last time you saw a dolphin invent something? Human beings differ from the animal kingdom because we reason, invent and can imagine (and create) the future.
IP is as valid as property, because it is property. I don't care if Obama and his legion of drones has influenced public thinking to the point that the individual and property are no longer considered "American" or defensible. He and you are equally wrong about this.
www.gunowners.org
still ???
1) I didn't bring up dolphins. That was Brian. However, I am more clearly understanding why you brought up IP helping to advance theories of Homo Something Something, and that those theories aren't neccessarily about subgroups of Homo Sapien, but merely a distinction in the vast difference between we humans and the other animals [or that we are not animals]. I still don't buy your argument though. [As far as we know] dolphins have never created anything like IP. What are you saying? That we have conceived of such a concept demonstrates that we are intellectually superior to the other critters that inhabit the globe? I certainly won't argue against that.
2) Just because we conceive of something through high intellect does not make it inherently beneficial. We have also figured out how to terminate 99% of all life on the globe via thermonuclear detonation. Should we exterminate ourselves to advance theories of Homo Sapiens Superioris?
3)"Because dolphins can't" is not a valid reason to support the concept of IP. In fact, I'm trying but I simply can't resist calling it idiotic and ultimately destructive to the theories of Homo Sapiens Superioris. No offense intended.
4)For the sake of argument I'll accept your notion that Obama disregards property and individuals. However, he has shown himself to be quite supportive of IP. I don't see your benefit in bringing up Obama in this context as I remain [and not you] his complete polar opposite on all counts.
5)"IP is as valid as property, because it is property."
Intellectual Cheese is as valid as cheese, because it is cheese.
http://spiderjohn.com/direction/
IP laws
IP laws are like the govt outlawing gossip, except that the more true the gossip the more likely you are to be punished.
Funny!
...and an insightful analogy!
http://spiderjohn.com/direction/
Not at all comparable. Try
Not at all comparable. Try again.
www.gunowners.org
Is this any better?
IP laws are inherently monopolistic. IP does more harm than good. IP may SEEM to generally secure benefit to honest people at the onset, but ultimately promotes racketeering and stifles innovation.
or
Have fun watering your terminator seeds!
http://spiderjohn.com/direction/
Yes, IP law is a time-limited
Yes, IP law is a time-limited monopoly granted TO THE INDIVIDUAL, which is perfectly aligned with property ownership. You should note that on every single invention the name of the inventor takes preeminence over everything. Inventions are created by individuals, but as property they can be sold, licensed or used not at all to promote or protect business.
My property is not your property and the government acts as a the repository for proof of ownership.
www.gunowners.org
He's dead wrong on this...
I couldn't disagree more with someone than I just did watching this video. The fruits of your mind and hands are your property. Creating something new, and then being able to capitalize on it is not, at all, morally wrong. None of his arguments make sense....
Likewise. Kokesh's stance
Likewise. Kokesh's stance here is as Communistic as they come.
www.gunowners.org
EXACTLY.. I just wrote the
EXACTLY.. I just wrote the same thing above... What a communist...
If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...
Perhaps...
Kokesh's stance is as ANARCHISTIC as they come.
http://spiderjohn.com/direction/
That would also apply.
That would also apply. Libertarianism shares elements of anarchy, to be sure, but I've always viewed full-on Libertarianism as minarchy, not anarchy. Anarchy has no inherent protection for the individual, just like direct democracy and fascism.
www.gunowners.org
Communism IS anarchism,
Communism IS anarchism, anarchism is its ultimate aim.
Ventura 2012
Do you own the comment you just wrote?
Does Michael Nystrom now own it? Do you both? Is it public domain? You can't even delete it! Michael can. You've lost control of it. What if Michael deleted part of it? Would that be legal? Illegal? Unethical? Have you bothered to read the DP's terms of use? Do you care? Do we need IP laws to govern our proceedings here? Are you worried about it? Are you scared? Is this forum civil enough for you? Welcome to anarchy!
http://spiderjohn.com/direction/
Comments written here abide
Comments written here abide by the terms of use agreement Michael has implemented. At some sites, they automatically own all submitted content.
www.gunowners.org