Note: that’s not just snark on my part. By a fluke, fashion designs have been deemed not copyrightable, and fashion innovation isn’t stifled; the fashion industry learned to cope. Dickens wrote in an era when copyrights were poorly enforced, and although he vented some ire on the subject, he coped. For example, by publishing chapters serially, or by taking up subscriptions before publication. It’s not unreasonable to say that more good than harm is done by eliminating IP altogether.
I hate that anti-IP is considered the domain of Libertarians.
IP law is based on the recognition that knowledge, once shared, becomes part of the commons.
IP law was intended to encourage sharing of knowledge to further enrich the commons, by granting a limited and temporary artificial monopoly.
The original intent of IP law has been undermined by 100 years of lobbying to extend the terms. The result has been a stifling of innovation. Extending copyright on existing works is theft of the commons – works that would have been public domain under the deal in place when they were created are taken from the public when they were supposed to have become public domain.
There are different alterations to, and different problems with the various forms of IP… but taking copyright as an example – well over 90 percent of works created in the last 100 years are still under copyright but are out of print. Nobody is making any money from them, in many cases it’s not really clear who holds the rights, no derivative works can be created… they are locked away from the culture and not doing any good for anyone. We have traded away our culture, locked it away so that most is inaccessible and what IS accessible is pay-per-view, all so that a very few lucky individuals have a lottery-ticket chance of their work still generating revenue for them decades later.
In most cases, works stop generating revenue well within 5 years if they ever earn anything at all. But they are locked up essentially forever now. A child’s fingerpainting is copyrighted from the moment of creation until 75 years after their eventual death… and that is sure to be extended further when Mickey Mouse’s time comes again.
I don’t feel like a Libertarian when I complain about IP law and the privatization of the commons.
I’ve never thought of this as a libertarian issue. While on the one hand they’re generally against “regulation” in any form they tend to be pretty big on goverments’ role in enforcing private property “rights”.
I’m mostly convinced by the arguments in the following, although I’d still be a bit hesitant about complete abolition of copyright (as opposed to patents, which are irredeemable).
Well, there will always be parasites who will use their positions as rentiers to extract value from the capitalist system, the question is what is the remedy? It’s doubtful that moral opprobrium will make the slightest difference. For social democrats like me, the solution is a highly regulated health sector and any exploitative behavior should be illegal. ‘Socialised health’ systems usually produce much better aggregate outcomes.
Healthcare for profit: always was, still is, and always will be a shitty idea.
And, I believe, Alexander Fleming, Florey et al refused to take any profit from the development of Penicillin.
I wonder if the eminent domain rules can be applied to intellectual property?
Anti-patent libertarians may be on to something.
Note: that’s not just snark on my part. By a fluke, fashion designs have been deemed not copyrightable, and fashion innovation isn’t stifled; the fashion industry learned to cope. Dickens wrote in an era when copyrights were poorly enforced, and although he vented some ire on the subject, he coped. For example, by publishing chapters serially, or by taking up subscriptions before publication. It’s not unreasonable to say that more good than harm is done by eliminating IP altogether.
@4: In Dickens’ case he did rather well by delivering readings of his own work:
http://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/dickens-the-performer
This one from 2013 seems appropriate to the discussion. Real saints aren’t that hard to find. Just need to look in the right places.
http://pictoraltheology.blogspot.com/2013/09/real-saints.html
I hate that anti-IP is considered the domain of Libertarians.
IP law is based on the recognition that knowledge, once shared, becomes part of the commons.
IP law was intended to encourage sharing of knowledge to further enrich the commons, by granting a limited and temporary artificial monopoly.
The original intent of IP law has been undermined by 100 years of lobbying to extend the terms. The result has been a stifling of innovation. Extending copyright on existing works is theft of the commons – works that would have been public domain under the deal in place when they were created are taken from the public when they were supposed to have become public domain.
There are different alterations to, and different problems with the various forms of IP… but taking copyright as an example – well over 90 percent of works created in the last 100 years are still under copyright but are out of print. Nobody is making any money from them, in many cases it’s not really clear who holds the rights, no derivative works can be created… they are locked away from the culture and not doing any good for anyone. We have traded away our culture, locked it away so that most is inaccessible and what IS accessible is pay-per-view, all so that a very few lucky individuals have a lottery-ticket chance of their work still generating revenue for them decades later.
In most cases, works stop generating revenue well within 5 years if they ever earn anything at all. But they are locked up essentially forever now. A child’s fingerpainting is copyrighted from the moment of creation until 75 years after their eventual death… and that is sure to be extended further when Mickey Mouse’s time comes again.
I don’t feel like a Libertarian when I complain about IP law and the privatization of the commons.
I feel closer to a communist.
I’ve never thought of this as a libertarian issue. While on the one hand they’re generally against “regulation” in any form they tend to be pretty big on goverments’ role in enforcing private property “rights”.
I’m mostly convinced by the arguments in the following, although I’d still be a bit hesitant about complete abolition of copyright (as opposed to patents, which are irredeemable).
Against Intellectual Monopoly
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
Well, there will always be parasites who will use their positions as rentiers to extract value from the capitalist system, the question is what is the remedy? It’s doubtful that moral opprobrium will make the slightest difference. For social democrats like me, the solution is a highly regulated health sector and any exploitative behavior should be illegal. ‘Socialised health’ systems usually produce much better aggregate outcomes.
But don’t vaccines give kids autism? (Ha, I knew there was a God.)
Danger averted for now. Big Price Increase for Tuberculosis Drug Is Rescinded
Wow, how classy of him.
A $750 Pill And A Founder Who Doesn’t Know When To Stop Tweeting
No, not his fault at all.