You (or someone in this thread, may not have been you) made the argument that copyright would NEVER be used in a free society. I presented the argument of exactly how a stateless world WOULD have and enforce copyright. This was all I wanted to prove, and I feel that I did. Refusing to recognize that becacuse its not what I personally would like to see happen doesnt make it less true. But fine, I’m done posting in regard to copyright on this site. I feel i’ve made my point.
I think the point is that in a stateless society, there is no guarantee that I.P. would be utilized as much as it is now, or if it wouldn’t be outcompeted by no one or a majority not utilizing I.P.
If there was something forcing the use of I.P. beyond a voluntary agreement, contracts etc. this force would violate the free-market itself.
so…Jpark and Jack…is Intellectual Property a meaningful phrase? how so?
Yes, contracts would exist in a stateless society, and just like Coke has kept their recipe a secret, the same thing could be used for other recipes. But not for music or art. Why would anyone pay for music they could not play? Or an art piece they cannot display?
mind you…some people are weeeeeeeird.
(some even believe in intellectual property¬!)
You jumped from “it could protect IP without inconsistancy” to “it would protect IP”.
Non-compete and Non-disclosure agreements exist in the free market. These contracts essentially serve the same function as patent or copyright protection without government coercion. These agreements exist now in the free-market, why would we not expect them to exist in a future free market? This is one of the major points. The market is already dealing with this issue via voluntary contracts and other mechanisms, why will what is occurring in the free-market now not occur in the free-market in the future?
i think he has made some small progress. instead of IP, he now writes “IP”(copyright)
you are strawman-ing, and also off topic.,check the title. Meambobo wanted to talk about the dispute between IP believers and “IP” deniers. not about how well secrets can be kept in a free market, or how contracts can influence how people behave.
Protecting your ideas or inventions simply creates barriers to entry. If your in a business it is good to create barriers to future entrants. If these barriers can be created through voluntary contracts or other voluntary mechanisms then why should I be prevented from doing that? I don’t think anyone has suggested that efforts to protect ideas will guarantee complete protection of the idea.
Unless you consider not being a good entrepreneur to be a barrier to entry, your contractual agreements aren’t either.
Unless you consider not being a good entrepreneur to be a barrier to entry, your contractual agreements aren’t either.
You should go back and read the original post then. The OP’s main point is what would happen to innovation in the absence of IP laws. The arguement I make is that the market has already addressed this issue and that we would expect to see those types of solutions continue, namely contracts. There would be instances where this might be easier in some cases but the market has already shown this to be an effective method in some cases. So it is not a choice between protecting of ideas and not protecting ideas, it is a decision of is the cost of protecting the idea lmore than the anticipated loss of revenue from not protecting it. In the case where the cost is too great then you will probably not see any attempt to protect ideas and in the cases where the cost is less then you would expect some effort to protect the idea.
This is why your fascination with the defintion of IP is pointless and why I used specific examples. The market has moved beyond our discussion. It doesn’t require your approval of any particular defintion in order to function.
I am not sure of your point. Back to the Coke example, they are using NDA to protect their idea. This protection makes it more difficult to reproduce the same product. Competitors are required to at least conduct their own research even if they are just trying to reverse engineer the product. So protecting the idea creates a barrier to entry without coercion. Coke’s NDA (patent contracts if you will) appear to have raised a successful barrier to entry and allowed Coke to capture the value of the original idea all without any coercion.
It’s not a barrier to entry, that’s all I was saying.
wrong again max, i checked the OP. earlier on before we had presented our refutation of the “Ideas can be Property” fallacy, the original poster claimed that mises.org was frequented by anti-IP utopian fantasists, who didnt credit the idea that there was IP..
of couse there isnt IP, so we arent fantasist. IPers are fantasist.
I’m sorry, but only by your limited definition of what IP is. I say copyright is IP. Copyright exists, as you I believe agreed. Therefore to me, IP exists. If I say Dodo’s are birds, but dodo’s are now extinct, and thus dont exist, birds dont exist, thats a fallacy correct? You’re assuming that because you dont believe in patent and coersion in support of copyright that IP cannot exist. Get over your semantics, its just the term thats used. Your assertations that ‘of course there isn’t ip’ is not an argument, but rather you applying your semantic understanding of a common phrase incorrectly. This is akin to me saying that you in fact are NOT a supporter of anarchy, because you agree to voluntary government (protection firms, courts, etc). Anarchy means absolutely no form of leadership or interference in personal preference at all! This is semantic misunderstanding of the way you use the term. Ditto with you and IP. Please get over it
How so? By your own standards you claim to not own the idea that you’re selling, merely making a contract regarding said idea when you sell/ buy the good in question.
JParker, i caution you to be careful how you answer the following.
—copyright is IP?–
is it a A ⇔ B equivalence?
or is it copright → IP
or is it IP->copyright.
if you says its A ⇔ B then you are basically saying that copyright says all yo want to , and despite IP being such a loaded term whose proponents occupy a wide tent and are broadly absurd, it still a worthwhile endeavour, to stick to your guns. and say IP, when all you mean is copyright. and you could just always say copyright.
Copyright, as you understand it, is all I argue for. I type IP because that’s the title of the post, its easier to type, and the current umbrella of ''IP" covers copyright. I say IP because the definition should be changed. Now, because its so hard to say IP and not be blasted by calls of statist!, I will stop using it and just say copyright. But to me they’re synonymous.