Intellectual Property rights, good or bad? Should they be re-evaluated?

If you think this is true, then you understand nothing about intellectual property or the laws that protect it.

 

I'm on the other side of this issue from most posting here, apparently. I've watched intellectual property thieves, exploiting Amazon's seller platform, basically put people out of business. They stole a bunch of my designs - some of my best sellers - and consequently I don't offer those items anymore to anyone but family and friends. There's no point in trying to sell this stuff myself anymore, because even though the thieves are using low-resolution images to produce inferior goods, they're selling through a popular platform with lots of name recognition, and massively undercutting us on price. Plus, even when we manage to persuade Amazon to take down the offending products, more often than not they leave those images in their catalog, which allows the thieves to just open up a new store, retrieve them from the catalog, and be right back in business within a few hours.

So if you want to know what stifles creativity and innovation, it's actually the theft of intellectual property. If I have to spend my day chasing thieves on Amazon and writing take-down notices, how productive/creative do you think I'm going to be at producing my art?

When you buy something bearing a copyrighted image, you aren't buying rights to use that image in any way you want. Now, if you had bought one of my T-shirts and decided it made a better rag for washing your car - then sure, you can do that. But you don't get to run it through a copy machine, reproduce the image, and then sell it as your own.

But I guess it's a new age, where people are so bent on screwing 'the man', that they don't care who they hurt in the process.

 

i go for the kidney punch test. If your argument for why you deserve the IP of something doesnt make me want to kidney punch you then you deserve it

make a new book? go for it. Your process uses 1/2 inch screws instead of 1/4 inch? kidney punch time.

 

IP protection began during the Renaissance. I disagree with Franklin's views, as I think part of the reason that American invention became so robust is because we esconced the idea of patents and copyrights in our Constitution. That said, inventors have the right to not patent their inventions.

 

The original intention of having a patent system was to encourage people to publicize their innovations, thereby spreading the information to other practitioners who can then patent and publicize further improvements, which speeds innovation that creates greater public benefit. This actually worked for a while but does not any more.

Patents are intended for tangible things that do not exist in nature. Patents are not allowed for abstract ideas, anything found in nature, prior art, or anything that is obvious to a practitioner of the art. In other words, you can't patent philosophy or economics, coal or DNA, or something described in an old scientific journal or last year's Wired magazine, or a circuit that every engineer learns as an undergraduate. Unfortunately, except for philosophy and coal all of the rest have somehow received patents.

The problem today is that the patent system has been so distorted by political influence that now impedes innovation. It is likely that 80% or so of the patents granted in the last twenty years would never even have been applied for if the original definition of what is patentable still held.

Since patents are no longer a vehicle for speeding innovation but have become a huge impediment to increasing the public benefit from innovation the patent system should be scrapped.

 

I have a new thought on this subject. People have an inherent, natural right to copy what they see and learn from the environment in which they live, and we all do this on a daily basis. We even send our children to schools that they might learn the ideas and procedures of those who came before them.

Patents and copyrights are privileges – created and issued by government – designed to infringe on this natural right. Patent and copyrights are simply people asking government to help them form a monopoly over an idea or process, that they might gain more profit. It is my belief that when you ask government to do something for you personally, for your personal profit, that you should be required to pay for that special service. In other words, legal privileges are something that you should buy from those whose rights are violated or infringed upon by those privileges.

With the above statement in mind. I would propose the we change the way that patents and copyrights are managed. I propose that those who seek governments help in forming a monopoly, such as a patent or copyright, pay a fee for the services rendered. The fee can be small at first. As an example, government could sell its protective services to the patent holder for $1 for the first month; $2 for the next month; $4 for the month after that. In other words, the fee doubles every month – with the patent expiring when the patent holder can no longer afford to pay for his privilege.

I would like to see government funded entirely by selling the services it provides – instead of arbitrary taxation, which is often collected from those whose rights are being violated by governments actions in the first place. Collecting fees from those who hold legal privileges is a step in that direction.

 

An interesting idea, but I would rather they just expire much more quickly and that be that, especially copyrights. I can foresee a problem with your plan in that it would create something similar to the British East India monolith

 

Patent trolls extort money from businesses by claiming the use of their patented IP in the victims business operations is a violation of the patent laws. This is not what the law says.

A patent does not give the patent holder the exclusive right to control all use of their IP, it only grants them the option to prevent others from selling it. People are free to make use of any patented thing for whatever purpose they wish as long as they do not sell it.

 

So if I create a work of art, people should just be able to steal it and use it for their own profit? Why would anyone bother with the learning and expense involved in becoming an artist in that case?

The government already charges for the registration of copyrights. But the law doesn't require them to be registered to be protected.

Most people who create art don't get rich from it. Many artists can't even support themselves from creating art alone - most of us have day jobs/night jobs. It takes a long time for most independent artists to turn a profit - if they ever do at all.

Under your proposal, I quite frankly would just quit producing my artwork and find something else to do - there simply wouldn't be any point in my bothering.

Bottom line: My labor isn't free, and I won't slave for intellectual property thieves and those who have no respect for my rights to control the use of what I've created.

 

I never said people should be allowed to steal anything, copy yes, steal no.

What is “learning” but the act of creating a copy of other peoples knowledge within your own brain. Since you believe the word copy is synonymous with the word steal you should be against learning.

Sorry, but the entire fashion industry proves you wrong. People come up with new fashion designs daily, with no copyright protection at all, some get rich at it. According to you that is impossible, and yet that is the reality.

Did you know that Charles Dickens often made more money selling his books in the U.S. where there was no copyright protection, then he did in England where he did receive copyright protection, with the populations of the two countries at that time nearly the same?

Sorry, but the cost to society for allowing individuals to monopolize every nook-and-cranny of the productive economy is simply too high. Competition will serve us better. Try working a trademark into your designs, almost everyone likes the idea of protecting trademarks, including myself.

 

So if someone 'makes a copy' of my art and uses it for their own profit, you think that's okay?

Playing word games doesn't make theft okay.

I didn't say that 'copying' is synonymous with stealing - you did when you tried to substitute the word 'copy' for 'steal' to make it sound like something other than an act of theft. If you think that learning is the equivalent of theft, then there's really no point in us discussing the issue at all.

I'm not talking about the kind of knock-offs that happen in the fashion industry. I'm talking about someone straight-up stealing an image and selling it as their own. What you're talking about has nothing to do with anything that I've said.

A lot has changed in the world since the time of Dickens.

So I'm supposed to try to compete with a thief from China who steals my art and sells it as their own on Amazon? How exactly am I supposed to compete with that? They don't have any right to sell my work as their own. If I steal your car, should I be able to sell it online and keep all the profit for myself? Because this is basically what you're proposing.

Why should that make any difference? My work of art is only my property if I put my trademark symbol on it? Nonsense. If you think having a trademark in one's design does anything to stop thieves, I'm afraid you're very mistaken. They just remove it. It's not hard to do. Once again, you're asking artists who are at the early stages of establishing themselves to spend large amounts of money they don't have on a trademark that doesn't give them any more actual protection from intellectual property thieves than their copyright already affords.

 

And why, specifically, trademarks?

 

Because consumers have a right to know who the producer of a product is. Trademarks simply convey that information. Trademarks allow consumers to discriminate between originals and copies, which is something consumers have a right to do. Why do you ask?

 

should a pharmaceutical company invent a drug that cures cancer but charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for that drug knowing they can because there wont be any competition and those that can afford it would pay
this is why I have reservations about Intellectual property rights because it could be abused like my above example

 

if a persona or company doesn't have the right to protect their intellectual property, you will see fewer and fewer large companies actually inventing and creating things, because as soon as they invent or create something, other much larger and more powerful companies will come along and distribute products quicker, more efficient, and far cheaper than that person or smaller company could ever hope to do... meaning there will be little competition to spur on efficiency and inventions... a slow and steady downfall of economic conditions that would ultimately stall the entire nation...

think of it this way... if you invented something, that was lets say as remarkable as the cellphone... but you need investors to make it happen... you need to approach people, show them your idea, convince them to invest in you so you can build and grow a company... meanwhile the first guy you met with, owns a billion dollar company, and he had his engineers take your plans and start producing products before you ever found an investor to say yes and invest in you... so now before you even make a single marketable product, store shelves are filled with your invention that someone else is reaping all the rewards from...

eventually this will lead to a couple large companies that control the majority of shelf spaces in stores through purchasing agreements of that shelf space which is common practice now... you wouldn't even be able to penetrate retail markets at that point unless you go through that single company that controls it all... and lets be honest, why would any retail store actually work with another company, when they could rip you off directly and have someone else make it for them, thereby removing the need for even that other billion dollar company that stole your idea... they'll just wait till that company comes to them with stolen ideas and make it themselves...

now lets take a moment to address some of your examples... the playstation/xbox thing... I don't have one so I'll take your word for it that the disc locks itself to your device and now you could never sell it used... thats a perfect reason to be upset, and thats a perfect example where a government entity should be able to step in and make a law saying its illegal for them to take away your means to resell that item should you choose not to use it anymore... just because they failed to come up with a better way to stop piracy and copying should not negate or limit your rights to sell your own personal property as you see fit... but hardly a reason to eliminate copyrights...

now I can speak to your example of Steam games, I was frustrated one day when I wanted to play this silly little chess game I downloaded... but since my wifi was having a hissy fit I was unable to connect to the internet and it said I would not be allowed to play until I was connected to the internet... despite it in fact being a free game... now since I didn't pay for it I can't offer much out of pocket loss, just personal sadness, however if I was to pay for a game and was unable to use it because of unreasonable limitations placed upon it, not only should that be disclosed for purchase so I can make a conscious decision if I want to risk buying it or not... and like you said what happens if one day they go out of business, where will that leave the millions of players who no doubt have paid hundreds or thousands over the years, this is where a law should be created to catch up to modern times where they can not restrict access to play, or upon bankruptcy must unlock all games in order to protect those purchases...

 

Sorry no drug will ever "cure" cancer.....

Also, I hate your example, if I concocted a life saving drug I would put it in the hands of a company that DOESN'T charge people their life savings just to stay alive, and I would keep my rights to the drug to ensure it would be affordable ....

People should really look into the legal side of their intellectual property before they expose these ideas or whatever it may be...

If I found a drug that could cure anything I would quit my job, wait 1-2 years and then give it to the world because I would know that the company/corporation I worked for would automatically attempt to claim they own it because I worked for them.... Funny how these alleged intellectuals don't know that, they develop something and they let it get basically stolen from them...

 

If someone makes a copy of your art, then something new has been created. You still have your art and they now have a copy, which they created, and therefore that copy belongs to them. Nothing has been stolen.

You really don't need to argue with me because you will not change my mind … I have already heard the different sides of the argument and I have simply decided to throw my support on the side of freedom, abundance and prosperity. You, on the other hand, have thrown your support on the side of monopolistic privilege, scarcity, and the eventual impoverishment of our society.

Bottom line, you want government to help you create artificial scarcity. Sorry, but allowing individuals to use government to create artificial scarcity of goods – be it art or artichokes – that is a rabbit-hole I do not want to find the bottom of.

 

that's you. I'm referring to the legal right to do what I just described and with intellectual property laws a company can do just what my example described and not a dam thing could be done about it
this is why there needs to be limits to intellectual property rights

you know the wright brothers set the development of the airplane back almost a decade by taking out a patent for everything involved with aircraft including the wing shape which kept any other company from producing any airplanes luckily the government saw a national interest in the airplane and revoked many wright brother patents so other companies could build airplanes and make improvements

 

Of course companies/corporations will steal intellectual property rights from individuals, but at the same time these individuals are responsible for letting it happen...

And the Wright Brothers - never heard that and have read several books and have seen several documentaries about them... If anything at the time they (the public and engineers) thought the concept of flying was "eccentric" at best and many thought it was impossible....

 

you need to read the patent court battles between the Wright Brothers and Curtiss aircraft how the Wright Bros fought every devolvement and improvement Curtis aircraft made and tied the development of the aircraft up for years

for example Curtis aircraft developed ailerons and flaps which is what is used today as an aircraft control surfaces instead of wing warping the Wrights used, but Curtis at first was denied the use of them because he had to use the same wing shape of the Wright Brothers airplane from which they had a patent on. the shape that all aircraft was required to use to be able to fly

allowing the Wright Brother to keep the patent on the shape of a wing would be the same as allowing someone to have a patent on the wheel

 

Interesting...

Believe me I know how lift works....

 

The almost exact same thing happened with the development of the steam engine.

James Watt was secured a patent for the condenser chamber on the steam engine. The result was that for the next 30 years there would be almost no improvements to steam power, and the older less efficient steam engines remained more popular in use. Those patents (having been extended) finally expired in 1800 and the production of steam engines exploded, figuratively speaking. Within a few years after the expiration of James Watts patents the efficiency of steam power increased by a factor of five, having remained nearly the same for the previous 30 years. It is an interesting story which can be read in just a few minutes.

If you are interested, the story is told at the beginning of this chapter:

http://www.dklevine.com/papers/ip.ch.1.m1004.pdf


white space

 

Wow the linguistic and mental gymnastics behind this are astounding.

No, they did not create 'something new'. They didn't create anything. Stealing a digital copy of a work of art requires zero creativity. You're relying on mere equivocation of terms to make an argument that stretches credulity well beyond the breaking point.

You can speak to which side of the argument you have chosen all you like. To make erroneous claims based on your distorted perception of what you think I support is just desperately dismissive, in order to avoid having to confront or think about the issues with any depth of examination.

The real scarcity will come from real artists deciding there is no incentive for them to create art that can just be stolen and copied to create an artificial abundance.

Art comes from people who create art. Copies come from people without artistic talent who commit theft. If there are no artists, there's nothing to copy.

The reality is that there's no shortage of artists - good artists - whose work is never seen by more than their family and friends - because they have no idea how to even begin marketing it. If efforts to market one's art mean letting people freely steal and profit from it with zero protection for one's intellectual property and the fruit of one's talents, then no artist has any incentive at all to create art that will be seen by anyone but friends and family. While there are certainly artists who create art for its own sake and to express themselves, that doesn't mean the rest of us who feel we have a right to compensation for our skills and labor should be forced to just give it away or compete with thieves whose primary skill is theft.

 

Look, you have a good argument, I do not deny that. However, the other side also has a good argument against intellectual property. After careful study, I have come to the conclusion that intellectual property creates more scarcity than it prevents, and harms innovation more than it helps.

Would I like to see you profit from your artistic work? Sure. It's just that I have never heard a convincing argument for any system by which to do that, that doesn't screw-up the incentives of next generation of innovation in the process. We could set up a system of cash awards for specific technological achievements, which I believe DARPA is already involved in, but I don't see how that would help you.

 

I don't buy the idea that someone not being able to have the fruit of my labors for free should be called "scarcity". I would characterize the proposition as more akin to advocating a form of slavery, expecting artists to produce without compensation. There is no innovation involved in someone stealing my work. So the idea that protecting my intellectual property somehow 'harms innovation' is codswallop.

The value in a work of art comes from multiple factors. Any one artist has a finite number of works they can produce, since we don't live forever. Thus, there is a natural scarcity of authentic works by any one artist. The value of a work can depend on many factors, such as the artist's reputation, whether the artist is still living and likely to produce more works, during what period of their evolving talents the piece was produced, its subject matter, the ebb and flow of popularity for particular styles of art, etc. etc. etc.

In the digital age, the Internet provides many opportunities for artists to reach a much larger audience. It's also lot riskier, due to the ease of ripping off an artist who is trying to market their work via online resources. It requires nothing more than finding an image of the art online, and using software to capture that image. This isn't the creation of a new work. It's a direct theft of an existing work in digital form. Without copyright protections, artists will have to stop utilizing these online marketing opportunities. So you want a real example of scarcity? There it is. You steal my stuff, I stop marketing it, because once a work is stolen, it tends to be irreparably devalued by its widespread availability thanks to the art thieves. So you're going to have to trade the abundance of the stolen work(s) for the scarcity of the much larger catalog of an artist's work that they won't market due to the untenable risk.

Well, you can't have it both ways. If you're going to opt for a system without protections for artists, then you can expect them to create scarcity by either not producing, or by marketing in a much more limited way and raising the price astronomically. The trouble is, an artist who is trying to become established really doesn't have that option. Not being able to take advantage of marketing opportunities due to the risk of theft without any form of compensation or reliefs will just mean fewer people will bother entering art-based professions.

In other words, you can't apply 'scarcity' in the kind of blanket manner you're attempting.

It wouldn't, because that's not how the art world operates. Moreover, government subsidizing of art has been headed in the opposite direction for a long time.