Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Is Intellectual Property a legitimate concept?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSince I never said anything about trying to deceive anyone, I can only assume this is a red herring that you are using to avoid the issue.
To me the creator has rights to his creation. Whether that creation is a hammer, a song, or a formula for a soft drink. Without his idea and expression of it, the creation would not even exist to be copied. I also believe that a person has a right to try to benefit from their labor, whether that labor is building a unique item, or writing a unique song. If anyone can just take that labor and use it for themselves without compensation to the creator, then that is basically slavery. If I build a widget that nobody has ever thought of before, and you have more money than me and can make 1 million widgets where I can only make 100, you basically stole my labor and my widget and turned me into a slave. Sure I still have my 100 widgets, but where I might have been able to sell each one for a nice profit, you flooding the market with 1 million widgets cuts the price of MY creation down to just pennies and my 100 widgets are essentially worthless. I created something and you benefited from me.
The next time I come up with a widget, why even bother making it? I know it will just be stolen by you and cut me out of making a living on it. So I won't make any more widgets. I will either just sit on my butt, or steal someone else's widgets. Pretty soon you have a world where nobody is making anything new. They just want to leech off of everyone else's ideas. And nobody creates anything.
It is basically socialism, not libertarianism at all. The whole society just falls apart in a type of welfare state, where nothing gets done.
I don't want to live in such a world. And the only reason you do is because you want "free stuff" that you don't have to invent or pay for. That is real theft and deception. Darth E is correct, we have IP laws to protect us from parasites.
Don't be a parasite.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GioD View PostI am, however, against the restrictions on individuals, businesses, and economies IP creates and find the concept to be unfounded from a philosophical standpoint.
Sparko, I'm curious where you draw the line on IP, and perhaps property rights in general. Is there a statute of limitations on private access? Is there a minimum to how much someone else can modify your idea before they're allowed to call it their own?I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GioD View PostThis is a dandy illustration but in the real world it is and would be much more nuanced. First of all, as Joel points out where does this leave innovation on your product? If the person who took your idea implemented it of higher quality, or slightly changed it but nevertheless improved it, would he be stealing it?
Would not competition of different manufacturers of the same idea lead to lower prices, better quality and faster improvements? It's not like the resources aren't scarce anymore.
Second, what if the reason the person who took your idea succeeds is precisely because he has more resources and better quality than you? If you made a drug for HIV would you not be happy if it can get to more people in a purer state? Alternatively, what if your 100 copies are of superior quality? It is not unimaginable that a small but committed or even large crowd would ultimately choose your product over the other guy's if it were higher quality. Of course, there are countless other nuances and alternatives to the example you gave I see no reason to assume the worst here.
Because it's not like you still need capital and labor to produce the invention and for countless inventions people won't want or be able to make it themselves making a market still present for the goods.
Personal attacks and psychologizing have no place here. In my post that was quoted at the beginning of this thread I explicitly stated that although I reject IP I do follow the law (and have incentive to - vinyl records - another example showing that the issue is more nuanced than your paragraphs above make it out to be), and I probably would in general if not in whole continue to do so if IP were repealed. I am, however, against the restrictions on individuals, businesses, and economies IP creates and find the concept to be unfounded from a philosophical standpoint.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostWould you mind fleshing this out?
Sparko, I'm curious where you draw the line on IP, and perhaps property rights in general. Is there a statute of limitations on private access? Is there a minimum to how much someone else can modify your idea before they're allowed to call it their own?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostNot in your world. because anyone can just copy the improvement and you will not be able to make profit on your improved invention.
And continue to give more reasons and examples. Here's some more:
It turns out in the real world that "first-mover advantage" is huge. The person inventing the widget (or the improvement) has a huge advantage from being initially the only one to know the idea. I understand that this advantage is known and studied theoretically in game theory. Being the first one with the new product on sale is very profitable. It takes time and money for the competition to reverse engineer the product. And efforts at reverse engineering and copying are typically taken only on those products that are known to be successful and profitable (by virtue of their having already sold a lot and been profitable). The first mover naturally has a short-term monopoly, even without a legal monopoly. And then the first mover is also more experienced than those who follow. The first mover gets the first chance to gain reputation and consumer loyalty. And the businessman who keeps innovating, without IP, can stay one step ahead of the competition and keep out-competing them.
Here's another way: The person who discovers the improved widget and knows that it will make the old widget obsolete could short-sell the old widget and then simply release the plans for the improved widget to the public.
Here's another way: The person who discovers the improved widget can go to the maker of the original widget (or some other manufacturer) and sell them the opportunity to be the first-mover making the improved widgets. (This is useful for the inventor who doesn't have the resources to be the first mover himself.)
And there is lots of empirical evidence that there is a significant first-mover advantage in pharmaceuticals, motion pictures, books, music, etc. Studies of firms have also shown that only a minority of innovative businessmen think IP protections are helpful, and that they much more value secrecy, being the first mover, and sales of complementary goods.
If nobody can make any money selling their inventions, then they cannot afford to hire labor and banks will not lend them capital to throw away on something that can't sell. The entire economy would collapse.
Or more directly, it's like saying nobody will grow grain because nobody can make any money selling it because everybody does (or because anyone can). Anybody can grow grain, yet labor and capital is in fact invested (profitably) in growing grain. The economy did not collapse because of the widespread copying of the ideas and innovations of agriculture. Quite the opposite.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostYou keep making this claim, but it's just not true, as I keep pointing out.
And continue to give more reasons and examples. Here's some more:
It turns out in the real world that "first-mover advantage" is huge. The person inventing the widget (or the improvement) has a huge advantage from being initially the only one to know the idea. I understand that this advantage is known and studied theoretically in game theory. Being the first one with the new product on sale is very profitable. It takes time and money for the competition to reverse engineer the product. And efforts at reverse engineering and copying are typically taken only on those products that are known to be successful and profitable (by virtue of their having already sold a lot and been profitable). The first mover naturally has a short-term monopoly, even without a legal monopoly. And then the first mover is also more experienced than those who follow. The first mover gets the first chance to gain reputation and consumer loyalty. And the businessman who keeps innovating, without IP, can stay one step ahead of the competition and keep out-competing them.
Here's another way: The person who discovers the improved widget and knows that it will make the old widget obsolete could short-sell the old widget and then simply release the plans for the improved widget to the public.
Here's another way: The person who discovers the improved widget can go to the maker of the original widget (or some other manufacturer) and sell them the opportunity to be the first-mover making the improved widgets. (This is useful for the inventor who doesn't have the resources to be the first mover himself.)
This doesn't make any sense. Like saying that nobody drives in city X because there's too much traffic.
Or more directly, it's like saying nobody will grow grain because nobody can make any money selling it because everybody does (or because anyone can). Anybody can grow grain, yet labor and capital is in fact invested (profitably) in growing grain. The economy did not collapse because of the widespread copying of the ideas and innovations of agriculture. Quite the opposite.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWe do that now. But you have to reverse engineer a product and not merely copy it first.
Not in your world. because anyone can just copy the improvement and you will not be able to make profit on your improved invention. Your IP free world would only work in a society that had no need for money, basically the Star Trek universe with replicators.
yourself. If nobody can make any money selling their inventions, then they cannot afford to hire labor and banks will not lend them capital to throw away on something that can't sell. The entire economy would collapse.
I completely agree that our system of IP needs overhauling and is misused on many levels. This is generally the fault of greedy lawyers. An example would be making copies of movies and music that you paid for in one format (blueray or CD for example) and wanting to rip it to a digital format to store on another device (like your computer or phone). As long as you have paid for the item already and only want to use it for personal use, there should be no restrictions on making backups or other format copies. To add such idiotic restrictions is pure greed. But what we have is better than NO IP rights at all.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostWould you mind fleshing this out?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWhy would the public buy the widget? They could just copy it.
Both the grain and the widget require capital investment, know-how, resources, labor, time, etc. to copy (i.e., produce). People don't produce everything for themselves because they see the added value of division of labor.
You may then say, okay, that's true for manufactured goods, but what about things that are easily and quickly copied by anyone, like an mp3?
Yes, there is a difference there, and because of that I think it is easier to argue against patents than to argue against copyright (in the scope of the utilitarian argument).
However, even there we find that lots of people still do purchase books, music, movies, etc, even though people can find these things for free online. I remember seeing a study even showing that those whose illegal music collections are the largest are also the people who purchase the most music. I've read about evidence that small-time publishers sell more books if they also make their works available for free online than otherwise (the latter tend to remain in obscurity).
Note also that lots of people place a value on getting the book/game/music early. People pre-order. This again is the first-mover advantage. Sure, someone can wait until it is widely available online (which may not happen for less successful works), but people can similarly wait until the product on the shelf drops in price, which drop always seems to happen (or get cheaper used, or for rent). But people do pay extra to get it earlier (otherwise sellers wouldn't price high at first and then drop price later). Movies also capture more first-mover advantage by first showing in theaters.
Again, why would the original inventor pay the new guy if he can just copy it for free?
Depending on the nature of the innovation the inventor may be able to keep the secret a secret from the producer, and thus the producer pays the inventor to reveal the secret to the producer. But in that particular case I mainly had in mind the idea of the producer paying for silence.
Grain is a commodity used in the production of goods. The value is in the quantity available to supply the material for those goods. Yet each of those goods are protected by the rights of the people who create the snack cakes, flour, etc.
If you think it does matter, we could use a different example, say, loaves of bread, which anyone is free to make, yet people still invest resources in making bread. (Anyone can make flour too.) But it doesn't matter whether the good is a consumer good or capital good. In both cases people in fact still invest in producing things in the face of unhampered competition.
It's also not the case that "each of those goods" is under IP. I'd say a small proportion of goods are under patents or copyright. Even those snack cakes you mention I doubt are usually patented. Most name-brand food products in the store also have a virtually identical 'generic' version.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
589 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
137 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment