Intellectual Property

[A18]

Discuss.

[John Dibble]

A really difficult subject, mainly because it's sometimes hard to distinquish what actually constitutes intellectual property. I think it's a good thing overall though, similar to copyright and patent laws.

[A18]

I don't get what you mean. Copyrights and patents are intellectual property.

I support it on a limited basis, because ordinary contracts (with regard to sharing the material or information) are impractical in such cases.

[John Dibble]

I don't get what you mean. Copyrights and patents are intellectual property.

I was thinking of them in seperate terms. I was more thinking like a trade secret.

[Emsworth]

The right to property in ideas is justified upon exactly the same grounds as the right to property in material goods. Accordingly, I vote for option 1.

I would suggest that the right to property can be acquired in at least three ways, aside from contract:

1. Each individual has a right to property in himself and in his own body.
2. Each individual has a right to property in previously unowned objects of which he takes possession.
3. Each individual has a right to property in the products of his own labor.

If an abstract idea is considered a production of nature that is merely discovered by an individual, then the individual who discovers an idea becomes its proprietor. Here, an idea is no different than a diamond found in a mine.

If an abstract idea is considered not a production of nature, but a production of man, then the individual who produces the idea must have the right of property over it. Here, an idea is no different from any material production, except that the one is produced by mental labor, and the other by physical exertion.

[muon2]

What about abstract ideas that can be arrived at independently? Much of scientific knowledge can be arrived at by anyone with the appropriate background and technology, which can be fairly acquired. Property rights for such ideas are unenforceable.

For instance, the idea of the gravitational equations that describe a black hole could be arrived at by anyone with detailed knowledge of Einstein's formulation of gravity. Karl Schwarzchild was the first to do so, and he gets credit for the discovery. But scientists understand that many others could and would have arrived at the same result independently, so Schwarzchild has no proprietary rights to the idea, only to his text describing that idea.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The purpose of copyright and patents is to encourage the dissemination of ideas and inventions.  Making the period too long is as destructive to those aims as making them too short.  Too short and people have no reason to use copyright or patent law; too long and dissemination is actually impeded.  Copyrights are way too long these days and they should never be extended once granted as it makes a mockery of the concept of "limited times".  Copyright should last 50 years at most.

[jokerman]

I'm waiting for Bono to respond here.  I know he holds a negative opinion on this concept, and I've always been intrigued by the paleolibertarian position on this issue and wondered what their arguments for it are.

[Nym90]

The purpose of copyright and patents is to encourage the dissemination of ideas and inventions.  Making the period too long is as destructive to those aims as making them too short.  Too short and people have no reason to use copyright or patent law; too long and dissemination is actually impeded.  Copyrights are way too long these days and they should never be extended once granted as it makes a mockery of the concept of "limited times".  Copyright should last 50 years at most.

This seems like a reasonable position.

One thing that annoys me particularly is when old computer games are not being sold anymore, either in brick-and-mortar stores or online at all, but yet can't be legally downloaded. If something like a book, movie, piece of music, computer game, etc. is not sold and hasn't been available for sale for a certain period of time, I would support it being legal to distribute it freely (not for a profit, but to make it available for free).

Of course, that creates a whole 'nother issue in and of itself, since intellectual property can be easily copied and distributed, whereas physical property can't be. It's possible to copy a book, movie, piece of music, computer software, etc. without destroying or harming the original, though the copying of it does cause the original to lose some value as it is no longer as unique.

I definitely support the right of people to profit from their intellectual creations, but it's disputable to what degree ideas are entirely original; every new idea is in some way built upon older ones.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The purpose of copyright and patents is to encourage the dissemination of ideas and inventions.  Making the period too long is as destructive to those aims as making them too short.  Too short and people have no reason to use copyright or patent law; too long and dissemination is actually impeded.  Copyrights are way too long these days and they should never be extended once granted as it makes a mockery of the concept of "limited times".  Copyright should last 50 years at most.

This seems like a reasonable position.

One thing that annoys me particularly is when old computer games are not being sold anymore, either in brick-and-mortar stores or online at all, but yet can't be legally downloaded. If something like a book, movie, piece of music, computer game, etc. is not sold and hasn't been available for sale for a certain period of time, I would support it being legal to distribute it freely (not for a profit, but to make it available for free).

Of course, that creates a whole 'nother issue in and of itself, since intellectual property can be easily copied and distributed, whereas physical property can't be. It's possible to copy a book, movie, piece of music, computer software, etc. without destroying or harming the original, though the copying of it does cause the original to lose some value as it is no longer as unique.

I definitely support the right of people to profit from their intellectual creations, but it's disputable to what degree ideas are entirely original; every new idea is in some way built upon older ones.

You'll be able to legally copy your old Apple games in 2075.

[Brandon H]

In some case Intellectual Property is a good concept, but in some cases, it is easily abused. I'm sure most people remember NTP was suing RIM (Blackberry) saying they violated a patent on wireless e-mail. NTP does not sell any product or service and only makes money by licensing things that they own the patent for.

Another example is from a company called Eolas. Eolas sued Microsoft for some large amount of money claiming they owned the patent for embed media types into webpages. MS released the patch about two months ago to comply with this. I have not tested or updated the patch on my machine, but any page that uses the embed, applet, or object tags may not work on patched versions of IE.

I don't remember details, but Amazon.com claimed to have invented "one click shopping".

Rambus, a manufacturer of computer RAM, was part of a group of RAM manufacturers. A standard was agreed upon by the group, but Rambus patented the standard. Can't remember what happened next, but Rambus ended up suing other RAM manufacturers for royalties.

I could keep going (.GIF, LZH algorythm, and why people use .PNG; .MP3 and why people use .OGG).
---

Video games, or music for that matter, which can no longer be purchased in the store, should be public domain. I remember when Classic Nintentdo Games were $30. While they may have "old hard to find" value, the value of what it would cost to sell and manufacture, would be pretty cheap.

[Emsworth]

I know he holds a negative opinion on this concept, and I've always been intrigued by the paleolibertarian position on this issue and wondered what their arguments for it are.

Most libertarians believe that "intellectual property" is merely a synonym for "monopolistic privilege." However, there are some strains of libertarian thought (chiefly Ayn Rand's Objectivism) that do support copyrights.

[jokerman]

I know he holds a negative opinion on this concept, and I've always been intrigued by the paleolibertarian position on this issue and wondered what their arguments for it are.

Most libertarians believe that "intellectual property" is merely a synonym for "monopolistic privilege." However, there are some strains of libertarian thought (chiefly Ayn Rand's Objectivism) that do support copyrights.

Oh, I was under the imperssion that most neolibertarians were in support of intellectual property.

[Gabu]

One thing that annoys me particularly is when old computer games are not being sold anymore, either in brick-and-mortar stores or online at all, but yet can't be legally downloaded.

They're fairly easy to find, and nobody's going to care one bit if you do download them, given that no one has anything to protect.

Not that I'm speaking from experience or anything.

[Nym90]

The purpose of copyright and patents is to encourage the dissemination of ideas and inventions.  Making the period too long is as destructive to those aims as making them too short.  Too short and people have no reason to use copyright or patent law; too long and dissemination is actually impeded.  Copyrights are way too long these days and they should never be extended once granted as it makes a mockery of the concept of "limited times".  Copyright should last 50 years at most.

This seems like a reasonable position.

One thing that annoys me particularly is when old computer games are not being sold anymore, either in brick-and-mortar stores or online at all, but yet can't be legally downloaded. If something like a book, movie, piece of music, computer game, etc. is not sold and hasn't been available for sale for a certain period of time, I would support it being legal to distribute it freely (not for a profit, but to make it available for free).

Of course, that creates a whole 'nother issue in and of itself, since intellectual property can be easily copied and distributed, whereas physical property can't be. It's possible to copy a book, movie, piece of music, computer software, etc. without destroying or harming the original, though the copying of it does cause the original to lose some value as it is no longer as unique.

I definitely support the right of people to profit from their intellectual creations, but it's disputable to what degree ideas are entirely original; every new idea is in some way built upon older ones.

You'll be able to legally copy your old Apple games in 2075.

Well I'll be sure to go and do that then, when I am 97 years old.

[Nym90]

One thing that annoys me particularly is when old computer games are not being sold anymore, either in brick-and-mortar stores or online at all, but yet can't be legally downloaded.

They're fairly easy to find, and nobody's going to care one bit if you do download them, given that no one has anything to protect.

Not that I'm speaking from experience or anything.

I'm fully aware , it's just annoying, is all.

If anything, releasing these old games for free would probably help the companies a lot more than it would hurt, given that no one is going to be willing to pay for them anyway, plus it will help drum up sales for their newer games by people who like the old ones.

The same thing has been true of illegally downloaded music. It gives a band a chance to gain an audience if they are unknown, without having to go through a major record label. The vast majority of people who illegally download music probably wouldn't be willing to pay for it, anyway, so the benefit of the music reaching a larger audience probably outweighs the negative of a few lost sales.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

*is glad to only download obscure techno music and not anything the RIAA cares about*

[ag]

While some form of intellectual property rights would be a valuable, not to say essential, institution to have, the way this has developed over time it is a horribly inefficient, innovation-stiffling, anti-market monstrosity. Too long an argument is needed, but these days economists are taking an increasingly dim view of the copyright and patent laws and treaties: things have gotten so much out of hand, that all the original justification has been forgotten and perverted. Too bad.

[A18]

2. Each individual has a right to property in previously unowned objects of which he takes possession. 

Would this not justify the taking of 'non-scarce' resources?

Under your theory that 'discovering' an 'idea' (I assume this is meant to justify patents as well as copyrights; correct me if I'm wrong), and then claiming it as your own, is essentially the same as acquiring normal, unowned objects, I suppose the 'originator' (for lack of a better word) of the 'idea' and his heirs would be entitled to the exclusive benefits of that idea forever more. The heirs of the 'inventor' of the wheel, for example, could make a fortune. And what about the person to 'discover' fire? This is a very strange idea itself, and perhaps you should claim the rights to it.

It's true that these ideas were not 'claimed.' But the point is, what if they had been? And what does it mean to 'claim' an idea anyway?

Perhaps the U.S. should have patented the atom bomb. We could then accuse the Iranian government of conspiring to infringe upon our property rights.

I think this is a poor justification for intellectual property, but I welcome a reply. I'd also like to hear what Bono thinks. Needless to say, my thinking is not particularly refined on this subject. I personally am much more suspicious of patents than copyrights.

[Emsworth]

Would this not justify the taking of 'non-scarce' resources?

Yes, it would. As Lysander Spooner explains in his Law of Intellectual Property:

"The air, that a man inhales, is his, while it is inhaled. When he has exhaled it, it is no longer his. The air that he may inclose in a bottle, or in his dwelling, is his, while it is so inclosed. When he has discharged it, it is no longer his. The sun-light, that falls upon a man, or upon his land, or that comes into his dwelling, is his; and no other man has a right  to forbid his enjoyment of it, or compel him to pay for it."
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In all strictness, I do not believe that there is such a thing as a right of inheritance. When a person dies, all of his property rights cease. His property, like any unowned object, would then go to the next person who takes possession of them. (I do not think, by the way, that wills should not be respected--but that is a different matter, into which one need not delve at the moment.)

But this line of reasoning cannot apply to intellectual property. I would assert that the act of taking possession of an idea entails discovering it. But how can an idea, once discovered, be discovered again by someone who is already aware of it? Unless the idea has been forgotten, it cannot be rediscovered, and, therefore, cannot be possessed.

Perhaps the U.S. should have patented the atom bomb. We could then accuse the Iranian government of conspiring to infringe upon our property rights.

Of course, if Iran, the U.S.S.R., etc., made independent discoveries of the atom bomb, then they too would share in the intellectual property rights.

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is frankly absurd. The conclusion to be drawn from this statement is that if a man knows he's going to die in five minutes, the property is his, and he has the right to transfer it; but if he dies with the property, the property can now be taken by the first person to come along.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You assert that a person, by 'discovering' an idea, takes possession of it, just as a man who discovers an island might take possession of it, correct? That means it is his, and he has the right to transfer it to the same extent that he has the right to transfer physical things.

Of course, I do not buy this analogy. An idea can exist in an infinite number of heads, whereas a piece of land, for example, may only be possessed by one individual.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not under your reasoning, whereby once something has been discovered, a person (or entity, I presume) takes possession of it, just as with physical property.

[Emsworth]

This is frankly absurd. The conclusion to be drawn from this statement is that if a man knows he's going to die in five minutes, the property is his, and he has the right to transfer it; but if he dies with the property, the property can now be taken by the first person to come along.

Not at all. I would permit an individual's spouse, child, or other relative to inherit, upon the presumption that the individual intended to transfer his property to them. In essence, one presumes that there is an implicit will.

I would outline the process by which property rights are transferred at death as follows:
- Person A dies.
- The instant before he dies, his property passes to person B, who is named in the will.
- B is in possession of A's property at the moment of the former's death.
- Therefore, B becomes the owner of the property in question for the remainder of his lifetime.

In other words, A can only transfer his property for the duration of his lifetime--he does not control what happens after his death. The instant before A's death, B's obtains possession of the property by virtue of the will. However, the continuation of B's right over the property after A's death is not based upon the will. It is based upon the fact that B was in lawful possession of the property at A's death.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly, but only during his lifetime. As I indicated above, I believe that the right of a devisee to inherit property is founded not upon the will of the deceased, but upon the fact that he was in lawful possession of the property when the original owner's rights were terminated by death.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note, firstly, that the analogy would only apply to inventions. I do not justify copyrights on the grounds that literary works are productions of nature that are merely discovered by individuals. Rather, I would justify copyrights on the grounds that literary works are products of individual labor.

Of course, I do not buy this analogy. An idea can exist in an infinite number of heads, whereas a piece of land, for example, may only be possessed by one individual.

So what? A very large number of people may stand on a piece of land, and make use of it--just as a very large number of people may know of an idea, and make use of it.

[A18]

Very well. Then the instant before A's death, B obtains possession of A's intellectual property. Hence, A discovers fire, patents it, and the world is at the mercy of his heirs, correct?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But as Thomas Jefferson said, "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." If one person stands somewhere on this piece of land, another person can not stand in that same place.

[Emsworth]

Very well. Then the instant before A's death, B obtains possession of A's intellectual property. Hence, A discovers fire, patents it, and the world is at the mercy of his heirs, correct?

No, because (as I see it), B cannot obtain possession of A's intellectual property. It is the act of discovering the idea for the first time that (I have argued) that gives an individual "possession" of that idea.

I do not mean to suggest, however, that patents and copyrights cannot be transferred from one person to the other. Of course, while A technically retains the intellectual property rights, he may simply license B to exercise those rights on his behalf. But the property nevertheless ceases upon A's death.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When one person stands on a piece of land, the other's exclusive ability to use that land is lessened. And, likewise, when one person receives an idea, the other's exclusive ability to use that idea is lessned.

[A18]

It is the act of discovering the idea for the first time that (I have argued) that gives an individual "possession" of that idea.

Yes, but now that he has possession of that idea, why can't he transfer this property of his to another individual? Person A may obtain land through first possession, but he may nevertheless transfer it to Person B, though Person B was not the first to possess it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When one person stands on a piece of land, another's ability to stand there is lessened. Two people can not utilize the same land for contrary purposes without getting into each other's way. But when one person makes use of an idea, the other person's ability to make use of that knowledge is not lessened.

A person's ability to be the only one making use of something is an abstraction, that cleverly includes another person's activities, while at first glance referring only to the individual under consideration himself.