Should it be protected by the government?
Should it existt at all?
You can read this and if it doesn’t help I’m sure there’s more where that came from. Just giving you some help.[:)]
Man… maybe I should warn him???
LOL…
These arguments against IP are making no sense. From what I have read, if someone comes up with beautiful poetry and writes it down in a book, I can’t sell that book off as my own, but I could just pass it off on the internet as my own or write it down in a different book authored by myself
On another note, IP is neccessary because it protects small time inventors from big corporations stealing their ideas. If we banish all IP rights then big companies will eventually become monopolies because no one will be able to compete with them, since they have more resources and are therefore able to produce the “stolen idea” more efficiently.
Then small time inventors are no longer incentivized to invent or innovate because their ideas get stolen. We now do not get to enjoy all the possible inventions that could have been enjoyed had IP rights been granted.
Maybe you do not understand them?
It doesn’t work.
IP is a monopoly. If you banish IP rights, you have a free market in ideas. Don’t conflate the size of the firm with efficiency.
That is what IP does.
Unprovable assertion.
It does not exist without government. It is a state created legal fiction. It is a monopoly grant from government, a monopoly that could not occur in a free market.
Government? Heck no.
A book is worth more than the paper it is written on because of the copyright. Is this good or bad?
You could sell the book, because you purchased the book, therefore the individual book is your property…
When the original author exposes you for copying his work and selling it as your own work, or passing it freely as your own work on the internet, then your reputation is damaged…
Really what stops you from taking poetry and posting it on the internet as your own work, the potential to be seen as a fraud is the only prevention, because there is no legal recourse…
Plagiarism does not cover Intellectual Property, just real property, if the original author did not publish the work and you copied it, how did you come about the book, did he show it to you, did you violate property rights to see it?
No, and the state shouldn’t exist, either.
No. You cannot own ideas. That puts you in the rather ridiculous circumstance of owning something that exists in someone else’s head. What’s more, they aren’t necessary. Most of what IP purports to do is covered by the basic libertarian principle against fraud, and the claims of “protecting intellectual achievment” and the like are just plain false; Stephan Kinsella, Roderick Long, and Michele Bodrin & David Levine all have excellent work on the subject.
There was only a slight mention of Rothbard’s view of copyrights in the previous thread. He emphasised a distinction between copyright and patent, claiming the former, not the latter was a legitimate property right. What do we think?:
Clearly if copyright is indeed a legitimate property right, then it should be respected. Far from mustering a legitimate libertarian defence of copyright, Bodrine/Levine and Long all fall back on utilitarian justifications.
boinks the IP bolsheviks poops on patents boo IP boo! (emotivism)
golf clap
Perhaps you could be more useful with your time, or at least if you think a thread is worth your time explain yourself in a much more clear sense.
Forgive me if this sounds naïve, as I am new to this.But -if there were no IP rights, what incentives would innovators have to do such?
Wrong again LS. The belief that people own the ideas in their head does not originate with government, it originates with people. The market place always has treated ideas as property and will continue to do so with or without government. Ideas are nothing more than information. Information in the market place is bought and sold everyday and given exclusive use all the time. The whole Austrian crusade that ideas are a property of the universal collective is demonstrated false everyday in the marketplace.
The market definitely has NOT always treated ideas as property and only through government doctrines have copyrights, patents, trademarks, and other legal hob-goblins been created and expanded.
Are you saying that people have not always bought and sold information? Ask yourself, if everybody has access to the information why do they buy it?
Austrians are always confused on this issue because they don’t understand that the government protection of property is not related to whether or not people believe and act as if information is property. The market has sorted this out, information is property. What you define as property is irrelevant, only what the market defines as property matters. The market views property as anything of value over which at least partial control can be exercised. That is the manner in which humans relate to each other. Anything else is just you trying to act like government and impose some arbitrary rule.
This begs the question. Preventing corporations from “stealing” the ideas of smaller enterprises presumes that ideas are property that can be stolen.
Not so. A big corporation would have to choose from among a vast array of new ideas being developed by individuals and small enterprises. Ex ante, corporate executives can only guess at which will succeed in the market and which will fail, and that’s only out of the ones of which they’re aware in the first place. Marketing such an idea is still risky. A corporation could wait and see which new ideas start to pan out, but by then they’ve already conceded the first-mover advantage to the smaller firm. Is it possible that a corporation could seize upon an idea for a new product in the early stages of development and yank the rug out from under the original developer? Sure. Is it likely to happen with great frequency? That’s highly debatable. Does it make monopolies inevitable? Not even close.