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.
»
- Login to post comments
In either case, both are
In either case, both are untenable.
www.gunowners.org
Is anything but your own
Is anything but your own vision of utopia not untenable?
http://spiderjohn.com/direction/
There's nothing utopian about
There's nothing utopian about minarchism... "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Ventura 2012
I don't aim for Utopia, just
I don't aim for Utopia, just Practicalia.
www.gunowners.org
I am SO stealing the word "Practicalia"
for my own use!
Me too. *holds up hand for high-five*
But who knows? Perhaps my unconscious concept of utopia is synonymous with practicalia. My previous comment was inspired by contemplating what we [or anyone] would ultimately consider tenable.
Is this not untenable? Is it not even worth a double negative?
http://spiderjohn.com/music/pandora/lament/06_PerfectWorld.wma
http://spiderjohn.com/direction/
More propaganda from the
More propaganda from the Russia Today mouthpiece? What a balloon.
I view anti-IP blather with the same disdain as socialist health care.
www.gunowners.org
Should you not view it rather
Should you not view it rather from an honestly intellectually critical perspective rather than from a dinsdainful one, the same way you would look at socialist health care?
Is this BS all a result of
Is this BS all a result of a sizable flight of Democrats from Obama to Ron Paul? I can hardly explain the mismatch otherwise.
www.gunowners.org
No,
...to answer your question. I've followed the IP debate for years and am unaware of any Democrats [or Republicans] ever engaging this issue. In other words the issue didn't drift into this space as the result of a flight of Democrats to Ron Paul. The debate predates Thomas Jefferson and has advanced in modern day almost exclusively in libertarian circles.
I do admit though, to be confused by your use of the term "mismatch", and to what it refers.
http://spiderjohn.com/direction/
There is actually a large
There is actually a large (and very libertarian) intellectual force in favor of abolishing ip:
* mises.org/books/against.pdf
* http://mises.org/daily/3682
* http://mises.org/daily/5025
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWShFz4d2RY
I find it insulting that you would associate a legitimate intellectual movement with the Democratic party. In my particular case, I can assure you, that is not the case.
Would you mind telling me
Would you mind telling me know why two of the three threads you've ever commented on in your more than 1 year of coming has have been IP related?
Are there other aspects of the freedom movement that interest you, or is it because you have some direct personal experience that applies?
www.gunowners.org
"Would you mind telling me
"Would you mind telling me know why two of the three threads you've ever commented on in your more than 1 year of coming has have been IP related?"
I was actually a frequent visitor long before I registered and I registered for an account precisely because I wanted to comment on a thread. Not having an account or not being logged in does not inhibit someone from reading the comments made by others, though, as you well know.
I am especially interested in intellectual property because I think the core of libertarianism is its rigorous legitimization of property rights. If such a legitimization exists, it cannot be two-fold. It cannot rule in favor of party A one time and another in favor of party B. It has to be principled and clear-cut. Intellectual property is either entirely legitimate or entirely illegitimate (without taking into account its current incarnation in the justice system I'm sure we would both agree is nothing but poor).
I think the great Rothbard's natural law is a step in the right direction but in my opinion he is not nearly rigorous enough. I like intellectual property discussions because they get to the heart of what property really is.
So. Does my history validate or invalidate my arguments?
I like the questions inherent
I like the questions inherent in your arguments. We arrive at different places, which is what I find interesting. As I mentioned in another comment, it all depends on how one either benefits or is harmed.
www.gunowners.org
Question
Does anyone know what Ron Paul has said about IP? He's a smart guy and has studied economics and free market societies for a long time.
I personally would like to see Intellectual Property last 5 years. After that, it's in the public domain. Long enough that the creator can benefit from the work, short enough that society can benefit.
Living organisms, DNA, organs, tissue, ect should NEVER be patented.
Example - Pharmaceutical companies spend billions making new drugs which are too expensive for poor people to purchase. 5 years later knock off drugs can be purchased for cheap and the inventors invent newer drug formulas.
Here are some famous examples of why we need to examine IP laws - Paris Hilton http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/31/us-parishilton-hal...
and Trayvon http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-family-lo...
If my memory serves me well,
If my memory serves me well, Ron Paul would disagree with Adam Kokesh that the entire idea is immoral. However, he would concede that it is currently overused and in its current incarnation hurts society more than benefits it.
But then, even Murray Rothbard was in favor of IP, and his intellectual progeny has very eloquently corrected this error.
Stick to empirical evidence people..
For those who still disagree, I have a question for you.. why theorize about this subject when we can look at real world evidence of how a world might look like without the silliness that is IP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
Because it doesn't matter what 'the world would look like'
or whether 'society would be better off'.
This is a moral issue not a societal wealth maximisation issue.
Why bother? You can see what
Why bother? You can see what happens in societies that have no respect for intellectual property, such as China. All IP is stolen and feeds the coffers of their government behind the scenes, while the IP originators are left exposed to copying and exploitation of their work for no profit.
The populist notion that an economy will run just fine if there is no protection for IP results in a society of pack wolves who join to steal the best properties en masse and give no credit or recompense to the originator.
Adam, you should've stayed in the Kremlin.
www.gunowners.org
The person whose argument you
The person whose argument you attempt to rebut, did bother referring to a source for further investigation. What do you have to back up your claims about China?
I also noticed you referred to the IP being "stolen". Will you concede that this is a circular argument? If I declare our of the clear blue sky red hair to be my property, then anyone who has red hair has clearly stolen it from me. But their having stolen it doesn't validate my claim to property of red hair. I need an ethical legitimization before I can declare red hair to be my property. Since I cannot find one, red hair is not my property. Likewise, in order to defend intellectual property, one needs to demonstrate its legitimization.
No matter what you or I
No matter what you or I supply as "proof" it will likely be discounted by the other side as lacking for one reason or another. For your review and dismissal... take your pick:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=estimate...
www.gunowners.org
This refers me to a Google
This refers me to a Google search for the estimated value of stolen intellectual property in China. How is this different from me calculating the value of stolen red hair?
I thought your argument was that by ignoring intellectual property, the Chinese people are empowering their State more than necessary. If this were true, I would consider it a powerful argument in favor of IP. But apparently, I misunderstood you. Would you care to elaborate?
The point was, 'take your
The point was, 'take your pick'. Any proof can be found online to support either argument. What really matters is, how are you or I individually affected by IP theft. In my case, it takes money out of my pocket by diluting the exclusivity and value of what I create. How does it apply to you?
In the case of China, theft of IP translates directly into money that is funneled back into the mechanism of the state. The Chinese government is complicit with this theft as I've seen it with my own eyes.
From what I've seen, the "age of the individual" is fast disappearing in favor of mass entitlement and mob mentality... exactly what our Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to protect us from.
www.gunowners.org
IP "theft" dilutes the
IP "theft" dilutes the exclusivity and value of what you create -- this does actually not apply to, say, Gucci, but suppose for the sake of argument that this assertion is true.
This takes money out of your pocket. NO! A mugger on the street takes money out of your pocket. The state's tax laws take money out of your pockets. But someone's infringing on your IP leaves your pocket wholly intact.
You may argue that other people will not want to pay the same amount for your product, which results in lower revenues for you. But it is their right -- I am sure you would agree -- to spend any amount of their own money on whatever product they choose. You do not own their money. You do not have a right to the value of your property -- intellectual, or tangible -- because value is held in the minds of others.
Also, can you elaborate on the China example. How does theft of IP translate directly into money and how exactly is it funneled back into the mechanism of the state? I have not seen this with my own eyes so I will appreciate your first-hand account of this since you have.
It is up to me to make my IP
It is up to me to make my IP valuable, or it is up to the marketplace to decide the value by competing for the limited resource I may offer or decline to offer. Just like material things in this world, value comes from the property owner's ability to efficiently exploit their property.
Regarding China... I've seen for myself malls full of knock-offs, and streets full of vendors offering knock-offs with many police nearby. The police are representatives of the government and there is deep graft and corruption in China.
In the online world, it has been shown that Baidu has been involved in the illegal promotion and sales of music MP3s through deep-linking and their connection to the Chinese government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_copyright_infringement_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
www.gunowners.org
I disagree. Value does not
I disagree. Value does not originate from the owner's ability to efficiently exploit their property. It is not the by product of labor or of skill or of artistic expression. (That is actually a Marxist stance.) Value is not an intrinsic property of tangible or intangible things. As such, "value" does not exist but is a mental abstraction of a marketplace phenomenon.
What does exist is the individual and his own subjective valuation of the good in question. This is demonstrated by his choosing to trade it for something he owns but values less or not choosing to do so. When many individuals act together on their respective valuations, a price emerges. We may call "value" an abstraction for the aggregate of valuations of all participants that result in this price. Therefore, value is entirely in the minds of all participants.
The idea that you have the right to the value of your property implies that you may justly use violence against someone who would act in a manner you disapprove of, even if it is with their own property and in mutual agreement with the party they traded with. Clearly, property value rights are not compatible with property rights.
As for the China example, it is an interesting anecdote, but if falls short of being an argument against the abolition of IP. Firstly, these Chinese traders are not ignoring the IP laws, they are actively taking precautions to deal with the consequences of thwarting it. Secondly, this money flow to the government is bribe money. It ends up in the private pockets of corrupt law enforcement officials, rather than the coffers of the state.
Formulated like this, the fallacy becomes obvious: In China IP laws exist. However, many people choose to disregard these laws and instead bribe the law enforcement to avoid the consequences. This flow of money is undesirable. Therefore, abolition of IP laws would result in an even less desirable flow of money.
Except that this bribe money would not exist in the first place if IP laws were repealed. In fact, this sounds more like an argument in favor of abolishing IP laws ;-)
If, rather than the undesirable money flow, the point of the anecdote is to demonstrate that the original artists are cheated out of a large sum of money to which they have a proper right ... then the anecdote fails to make a point because the abolitionists attack this "proper right" in the first place.
Definitions are important.
We need to make sure we know what we are talking about before disagreeing. Performing someone else's song is much different than claiming to have written it. Fraud only exists when a lie is used to gain profit. And it only exists because it is the outcome of a government decision. Some of you are saying it is okay to perform other's work, or copy it and profit, but not to claim you are the originator of the work. However, what makes that claim fraud rather than simply a lie? If IP isn't a concept we endorse, then nothing makes a lie into fraud. A lie is just a lie, and if you convince more people you wrote the song, or designed the computer, and so you make more money than the real inventor who only made a little, then so what. However, if we agree that lying about who originated it for financial gain is still fraud, then we must also at least admit that the government is the entity which dictates that it is fraud, and thus, we do believe in the concept of intellectual property, just not the idea that others can't copy the idea so long as they don't gain financially from lying about it's origin. In my opinion, Adam's speech indicates that he doesn't believe "fraud" extends to this area. If someone wants to lie to profit, they can.
Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).
I don't agree with Kokesh on everything....
But as far as I'm concerned he absolutely NAILED this one!
Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. -Ron Paul 7/10/03
I'm convinced.
I've created several pieces of copyrighted material in the past and sold them. If I do it again I think I won't be putting a copyright notice. Recently I had people ask my permission to translate my work to other languages and republish. I replied that I would need to think about it, because I would need to have control over distribution due to copyright. Now I understand how silly that is.
I'd love to see how the economic climate changes if we can someday get the IP laws repealed.
Thanks for sharing!
Adam is absolutely right
This is a difficult topic to get one's head around and like most other topics it's because of the propaganda in society for big government.
IP is morally wrong, it is not based on principle and therefore not enforceable (too many contradictions) and it does not help the individual (despite popular belief).
On the contrary it is an assault on individual liberty.
Just one small example: I invent something and patent it. You have the same idea without knowledge of my idea/patent and now you are not allowed to produce and sell your own idea.
If you look into it you will find that IP does not work and that it is morally wrong. Individuals don't have the money to defend their IP and big companies' IP prevent the smaller ones from competing which is why there is no lobbying for less IP - Big Business and Big Government love it - big hint right there.
The waking up manual: http://www.dailypaul.com/168937/the-waking-up-manual-how-to-...