It seems like my proposed solution would be an effective compromise, unless you want to get overly argumentative about reason and economic theories that are untested.
I'll write it again here...
Eliminate (most) patents - these are clearly monopolies in broad ideas, not investments in any specific consumer product. The concept of patents can be retained in gathering capital for an idea through contracts, such as non-disclosure...or simply keeping quiet until you have a product.
Reform copyright as financial entitlement to the commercial profits of those who use it, including redistribution or resulting products from unlicensed usage, such as mods. Let juries, not judges or bureaucrats determine what is and isn't infringement on a case by case basis. Clearly, a letter for letter copy is infringement...unless the work is significantly simple...or derived from some prior work. Quoting part of a work in another, satiring an idea in a profitable setting, etc. are gray areas. Let juries figure it out. The amount of commercial revenue due from a user to the copyright holder would be based upon the extent of the copyrighted content used, the amount of original information vs the copyrighted information used, the time since the copyright was first issued, and the cost of producing the copyrighted work before being made available to consumers. Should copyright holders wish to license use/redistribution outside of this legal mechanism, they are free to do so.
In this environment, prices should be calculable for scarce factors required to make infinite goods, as well as expected market demand, also expressed in the form of entitlements from other providers. No legal force could be used to prevent the dissemination or knowledge of ideas or flow of information, only financial gains directly related to their use.
Why is this not a suitable compromise?
Check my blog, if you're a loser
meambobbo: Why is this not a suitable compromise?
The commercial distinction is completely abritiary. For example, I uploaded a music video that I don't have a copyright up to youtube. Youtube is now making money from my video. Read techdirt's excellent article on this.
Beside people who want to make contracts forbidding people to distribute stuff can do so in a free society. They can make all sort of requirement if they wanted to. Isn't that good enough for you already?
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
kiba, sent a friend request to your profile.
@all, I know these IP discussions get heated, but they are fantastic. Some of the best, most practical and relevant stuff we could be discussing. I really enjoy it, and learn new things every day from people for and against.
JParker: Spideynw:Property rights do not expire, if it is property. You're on a slippery slope with this....
Spideynw:Property rights do not expire, if it is property.
You're on a slippery slope with this....
Only because you are misconstruing it. Patents have a life of 20 years before they go into the public domain. You get to keep your house until you die, at which time you can leave it to whomever you like. If you do not leave it to anyone, it gets sold. Someone can always own property.
So, if IP really is property, it should not "expire", or, if it makes you happy, go into public domain after 20 years.
JParker: Spideynw:OK. So, you agree that I should be able to "own" the letter A and force everyone to pay me whenever they use it? This is where logic is used. Obviously the letter A is not property. The book I write is. You're breaking everything down to its smallest part, which we can do with physical property as well. You're claiming ownership of all individual bricks, and intend to charge anyone to use them? Obviously not. You claim ownership of your house. We are claiming ownership of the letter A? Obviously not, we are claming ownership of the works we create using it.
Spideynw:OK. So, you agree that I should be able to "own" the letter A and force everyone to pay me whenever they use it?
This is where logic is used. Obviously the letter A is not property. The book I write is. You're breaking everything down to its smallest part, which we can do with physical property as well. You're claiming ownership of all individual bricks, and intend to charge anyone to use them? Obviously not. You claim ownership of your house. We are claiming ownership of the letter A? Obviously not, we are claming ownership of the works we create using it.
Both the letter A and books are "ideas". And yes, I own all the bricks to my house, and the house as well. But my argument does not imply anything about owning all bricks.
The analogy is that I own the letter A and the bricks to my house. You are saying that it should be OK to take my bricks to build your house, just like you think it is OK to take my letter A and write your book.
Your "logic" will always fail when it comes to IP, because there is no IP. Just monopolies.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
JParker:ogically, why would anyone create ideas?
Competition. Also, Mozart wrote his music without any "IP".
Uhh.. no. There were numerous copyright houses during the time of mozart (even more during the time 1800, such as the Schott Muzic firm - which was sought out by Beethoven to sell publishing rights.) But your argument is deceptive. Mozart did not need to copyright since he was a beneficiary of the state, and the state controlled the market in such a way which made normal copyrighting unnecessarry. (thank you to Charles Anthony for first bringing this point up, which I have subsequently been reading up on). This is why many music historians observe other composers who were more proficient than Mozart taking a hugely minor role, since the state was in fact propping up Mozart - and was why Mozart was able to get away with direct plagarism in some of his compositions.
No one has even attempted refutation of my Economic argument for IP, which naturaly would need to exclude any appeal to natural law, or morality. I would like to at least see some recognition by someone of both Mises' argument (good G, requiring a complementary good F which fetches a 0 price on the market) - and my own (that the disconnect inherent in IP based goods, would, without IP, naturaly create no difference in the relative prices of the IP based good, thus leading to no real economic indicators on what areas of IP based goods entrepeneurs should devote scarce resources... This would cause a blindness of investment, which would lead to not satisfying consumer demand, leading to an eventual demolition of the IP based goods market. Thus this follows the same line of argument Mises puts forward on the failure of socialism - namely economic calculation is dislodged since relative prices do not exhibit consumer demand.) For a more elaborate thought process refer to posts above.
This is entirely an economic theory argument, using Mises' own assumptions (that I outlined previously - and are more extensively found in "Human Action"), and as such makes no appeal to natural law or morality or ethics.
kiba: Beside people who want to make contracts forbidding people to distribute stuff can do so in a free society. They can make all sort of requirement if they wanted to. Isn't that good enough for you already?
Thats all copyright is, a contract. What we are debating is if third parties can be bound by a buyer/seller contract. I, and so does Rothbard (read what I quoted) argue that all subsequent receivers of the good are bound by that contract. This is similar to a reserved rights land agreement.
In a lawsuit brought against someone for copyright infringement (breaking a contract) it would be the duty of the accuser to show that the good was an actual copy, and not the other man's own independent invention - In the cases of specific copyright, this would be no problem.
JackSkylark: Thats all copyright is, a contract. What we are debating is if third parties can be bound by a buyer/seller contract. I, and so does Rothbard (read what I quoted) argue that all subsequent receivers of the good are bound by that contract. This is similar to a reserved rights land agreement. In a lawsuit brought against someone for copyright infringement (breaking a contract) it would be the duty of the accuser to show that the good was an actual copy, and not the other man's own independent invention - In the cases of specific copyright, this would be no problem.
Sure, but if I hear you singing a song you wrote, I have agreed to no contract that could prohibit me from singing it in the shower, on the way home, or for 30,000 screaming girls.
JonBostwick made an excellent point. IP basically claims every idea can only be owned by one person at a time, and if you come up with it second (doesn't necessarily work this way with all state IP claims) then you are stealing someone else's idea as though two people cannot hold the same idea or invention or concept at once. Totally ludicrous.
The Randians struggle with stuff like this, because they also believe you can sue for defamation of character, that you can own what someone else thinks or says about you, which is of course false. It's actually very silly to think someone is required to believe in your reputation and cannot dissent against it. Walter Block has covered this extensively.
JackSkylark: No one has even attempted refutation of my Economic argument for IP, which naturaly would need to exclude any appeal to natural law, or morality. I would like to at least see some recognition by someone of both Mises' argument (good G, requiring a complementary good F which fetches a 0 price on the market) - and my own (that the disconnect inherent in IP based goods, would, without IP, naturaly create no difference in the relative prices of the IP based good, thus leading to no real economic indicators on what areas of IP based goods entrepeneurs should devote scarce resources... This would cause a blindness of investment, which would lead to not satisfying consumer demand, leading to an eventual demolition of the IP based goods market. Thus this follows the same line of argument Mises puts forward on the failure of socialism - namely economic calculation is dislodged since relative prices do not exhibit consumer demand.) For a more elaborate thought process refer to posts above. This is entirely an economic theory argument, using Mises' own assumptions (that I outlined previously - and are more extensively found in "Human Action"), and as such makes no appeal to natural law or morality or ethics.
Economic calculation is complete nonsense with infinte goods because it isn't subject to economization like scarce resource is. I am sorry but my experience and the thousand of examples tell me otherwise, as well as reasoning.
Dude fund me to develop game. I developed game according to what this dude want according to what I would like to be paid. I get paid for it and this dude is happy. Where is the hell is the economic calculation chaos? There is none!
kiba:Dude fund me to develop game. I developed game according to what this dude want according to what I would like to be paid. I get paid for it and this dude is happy. Where is the hell is the economic calculation chaos? There is none!
Dude doesnt fund you anything, because dude cannot sell the game for any amount of money, it being an infinite good. You have no job, unless dude is a philanthropist who wants to feel good about himself by funding 'the arts'. Without something protecting the code, your labor will be worthless.
Now, Kiba and LS keep arguing as though the IP proponents support the current IP system. I know I certainly do not. I support more of a copyright system. The issue you seem to have with this is that a copyright (contract between buyer/seller) doesnt apply to third parties. I would think that copyright law could be a contract to anyone who possesses the item, binding them to not mass distribute or profit from the item in question, be it code, a book, music, etc without consent from the author. This would be very similar to the idea of you buying a stolen car. You may not directly be a criminal, but if you knew it was stolen, you are liable. If you buy a book, and proceed to copy its entirety, you know that you are breaking the contract you agreed to with the author when you purchased it. Dont want to deal with this restrictive contract? Dont buy the book. You may argue that a contract that restricts human action is invalid, as it is claiming ownership of the human. Yet you also argue that in your free society you would prevent mass atrocities by signing contracts with your neighbor compensating him for not building a bomb and blowing up your houses. This restrics human action, with just compensation. Copyright restricts people no more than this, and they are compensated in the form of possession and enjoyment derived from the book/code/music/art/etc.
This copyright could expire upon death of the author, or upon his releasing of the item to public domain. Because anyone who possesses the item is bound by the contract of the copyright, there is no problem with this situation I see. If you come up with the exact same code, it would be my job to prove you had my code and copied it in a court.
You also keep bringing up putting an arbitraty number on copyright. Well that didnt originally happen. It was life of the author, until Walt Disney died, and his company decided that they wanted to keep mickey mouse as their property, and lobbied congress to extend the copyright past death. Every few years now, when Mickey Mouse is close to expiring, they lobby some more to extend it further. This is BS, but it is not the system we are wanting to have.
JParker: kiba:Dude fund me to develop game. I developed game according to what this dude want according to what I would like to be paid. I get paid for it and this dude is happy. Where is the hell is the economic calculation chaos? There is none! Dude doesnt fund you anything, because dude cannot sell the game for any amount of money, it being an infinite good. You have no job, unless dude is a philanthropist who wants to feel good about himself by funding 'the arts'. Without something protecting the code, your labor will be worthless.
perhaps a logic fallacy?
it is not necessary for Dude to be able to sell product A for some definite price >0 in order for him to commision kiba to produce good A.
as Dude can transform or combine A to create A* and sell that. (A* != A)
it is not necessary for Retailer to be able to sell 'tomatoes in tomatoland]*( a fantasy utopia where although tomoatoes are pleantiful no one likes to eat tomatoes and they are a nuisance))
yet he can still pay a definite price to purchase tomatoes from a Tomatoland farmer and repackage the product (by act of transportation/delivery/distribution) to be 'tomatoes in america'
in other words, you are ignoring the free market methods whereby non scarce non rival concepts or ideas, add value to real pyhscial scarce and rival goods by virtue of their combination. i.e the various exmaples cited in this thread of subscriber models, customized/personalised products, charging for supporting products that are themselves scarce and rival. etc. et.c
note:good A that Kiba would be producing is a pattern of zeros and ones encoded onto a definite physical medium.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: it is not necessary for Retailer to be able to sell 'tomatoes in tomatoland]*( a fantasy utopia where although tomoatoes are pleantiful no one likes to eat tomatoes and they are a nuisance)) yet he can still pay a definite price to purchase tomatoes from a Tomatoland farmer and repackage the product (by act of transportation/delivery/distribution) to be 'tomatoes in america'
You're suggesting we sell computer software on another planet? Or somewhere where they dont have the internet, and thus the ability to pirate said software the second it is available? The earth is tomatoland if nothing is protecting software, as everyone will take for free whatever they wish.
If you're suggesting I fell into a logic fallacy, please tell me how to use computer programs without running them on a computer? They have no other use. You would have been much better off trying a SAAS argument, though thats easy enough to refute as well due to the custom nature of all that software, as well as how the buyer has no intent to resell, and in fact never would.
Subscriber models: easily debunked. Google free WOW servers. Blizzard collects nothing from the hundreds of thousands of people who play on them.
Customized products: Usually installed on closed systems, protected all to hell with armed guards etc, and utterly useless to anyone but a direct competitor of the purchaser in question. And what, pray tell, is a customized book? You actually expect an author to write one book for every customer? Who would ever pay the price that would cost? This is bunk.
Charging for support/add on products: these will be scarce how? Is unbutu support scarce? Hell no. Sure, they charge for it 'officially'. How many linux users actually pay for their support? Why would they when its all available in the free support forums scattered across the net. Anyone smart enough to pirate software is smart enough to find this kind of support, they will not pay for it.
,look i ws trying to gently point out to you a logic error in your critieuq of kiba.
the fact that you respond with a diatribe containing nothing but strawman and bizarre contradictions. (subscriber models arent a way for producers to package their concepts with physical services and gain a revnue for the package deal, because Blizzard dont get money doing it somehow means no-ones doing it or it cant be done???)
i dont think i can feel motivated to dialogue with you on this given this anti-rationality and over emotional response
I'm not trying to be emotional, if it came off that way I'm sorry. It is merely slightly annoying when people say the market will find a way, or give broad concepts of how something is possible, while not giving concrete details as to how. I know this is difficult to do, seeing how we have never had a world w/o IP, thus we cannot theorize on how the market would react. I am just asking for detail on how the rights of the owner wouldnt be violated. Yes, in the case of a corporation contracting me to write software, the author would willingly give away his rights to the code in exchange for compensation he deems just. I just wonder how exactly the corporation could possibly profit from the software when it is an infinite good the second it touches a consumer's hands? Saying he'll add * to A to create A* doesnt help. What is *? What * can be added to music? To books? I am open to being proven wrong, but with logic and examples, not asterisks.
As for the blizzard example, yes they still earn money. They are very successful with their subscription service. But their rights are still being violated. The people on pirated servers are still illegally using the software.
As for my listing the methods you listed, I dont see how I contradicted myself. I discussed your point about packaging concepts, and moved on to your other point where you listed out the methods.
kiba: Economic calculation is complete nonsense with infinte goods because it isn't subject to economization like scarce resource is. I am sorry but my experience and the thousand of examples tell me otherwise, as well as reasoning.
Do you have the rudamentary capabilty for reading comprehension? I have already explained the disconnect, where IP based goods become infinite in supply - but do not have that property before development. Using Mises' complementary goods assumption - and seeing that there is demand for IP based goods- we can see that ideas are just another market. Thus, in the development of ideas, there is the employment of scarce resources (because, at the time, the idea, or IP based good, is super scarce) to create what will (outside of any form of IP) become a good of infinite supply. But since the whole Idea market acts in two functions, as complementary goods and as a system of development, it is necesssary for developers to follow market signals that would be set by relative prices. But here is the issue. If everything is of infinite supply then all IP based goods hold the same relative price and the entrepreneur has no signals of consumer demand -- and as a result enters into the development of ideas blind (remember that the Idea at the moment is super scarce). Relative prices are the whole theory of economic calculation, and since real resources and capital are used in the development of IP based goods economic calculation fits right in and must be observed within the debate over IP.
JParker:I'm not trying to be emotional, if it came off that way I'm sorry.
apology accepted.
JParker:It is merely slightly annoying when people say the market will find a way, or give broad concepts of how something is possible, while not giving concrete details as to how.
ok, so you have some lack of faith in the freemarket.. lets save that for another topic.
JParker:I know this is difficult to do, seeing how we have never had a world w/o IP, thus we cannot theorize on how the market would react. I am just asking for detail on how the rights of the owner wouldnt be violated.
the rights of the owner would not be violated because there would be no owner who would have rights which could be violated. If you are looking for an example of how a new concept could be pionered by an entrepeneur in the market place, earn lots of $$$ to providers of the products based on the concept, with no ip monopoly privaledge granted to the individual who first demonstrated the concept on the marketplace. I can provide examples. are these the kind of things you want? (if so ask, i have some up my sleeve)
JParker:Yes, in the case of a corporation contracting me to write software, the author would willingly give away his rights to the code in exchange for compensation he deems just. I just wonder how exactly the corporation could possibly profit from the software when it is an infinite good the second it touches a consumer's hands? Saying he'll add * to A to create A* doesnt help. What is *? What * can be added to music? To books? I am open to being proven wrong, but with logic and examples, not asterisks.
perhaps this wonderment should fill you with greater awe and respect for the practice of 'entrepeneurship' . Our lack of imagination does not preclude others from having imaginative ideas. (although some would prohibit more than one person acting on such an idea until some arbitrary period of time had passed)
musicians are able to earn music through perfomance, endorsements and customized branded products.
also, how much money do you want authors of books to make? if a publisher is afraid of a rival publishing competing with them to publish the same book, it just means they will keep their book price low, i.e. thier profit low so as not to encourage competitors in. this doesnt mean that they wont publish it or that they will not find some profit publishing it. it just limits the extent. but why is a monopoly price superiour to a market price?
JParker: Subscriber models: easily debunked. Google free WOW servers. Blizzard collects nothing from the hundreds of thousands of people who play on them. As for the blizzard example, yes they still earn money. They are very successful with their subscription service. But their rights are still being violated. The people on pirated servers are still illegally using the software.
so your argument here is that blizzard arent rich enough ? and that there arent thousands of companies who have subscribers and also can turn a profit regardless of whether they have IP protection or otherwise?
nirgrahamUK: ok, so you have some lack of faith in the freemarket.. lets save that for another topic.
Blind faith should always be questioned, even if you happen to be right.
You treat the market as some magic entity, which it is not. It has inherent forces which act as signals to members of the economic system. We cannot say, the market is an all knowing and always correct without saying what makes it correct, i.e. what forces act upon the economy.
strawman
kiba: Maxliberty: We just used the Coke example but your willful ignorance prevents you from conceding to the obvious. Do you think what Coke is protecting in the vault is a piece of paper? If someone comes up with the formula for Coke on their own...great more power to them and that would diminish the value of the formula for Coke for sure but until someone does it makes sense to keep the secret. So there is one example of non-coercive IP protection that is not only rational but effective at maintaining control over the idea and providing the value of the idea to its original creator. Even if someone discovered the coke forumla independently, they still have an uphill battle removing the cola-cola company from the market. I mean, why buy this guy's coke if you can just buy from the familiar and trusted brand of coke?
Maxliberty: We just used the Coke example but your willful ignorance prevents you from conceding to the obvious. Do you think what Coke is protecting in the vault is a piece of paper? If someone comes up with the formula for Coke on their own...great more power to them and that would diminish the value of the formula for Coke for sure but until someone does it makes sense to keep the secret. So there is one example of non-coercive IP protection that is not only rational but effective at maintaining control over the idea and providing the value of the idea to its original creator.
We just used the Coke example but your willful ignorance prevents you from conceding to the obvious. Do you think what Coke is protecting in the vault is a piece of paper? If someone comes up with the formula for Coke on their own...great more power to them and that would diminish the value of the formula for Coke for sure but until someone does it makes sense to keep the secret. So there is one example of non-coercive IP protection that is not only rational but effective at maintaining control over the idea and providing the value of the idea to its original creator.
Even if someone discovered the coke forumla independently, they still have an uphill battle removing the cola-cola company from the market. I mean, why buy this guy's coke if you can just buy from the familiar and trusted brand of coke?
I don't understand your point. You and LS are argueing that free market protection of IP is an impossibility and would not make sense. Coke is a real world example that proves you are wrong. Free market protection of IP is already taking place without any governement enforcement. The Coke example defeats your entire arguement.
No, it's not a strawman. Your post refuses to acknowledge the importance of economic signals in an economy. Because of this, you treat the entrepreneur as if he is seperate from the system - some sort of superman... Of course, I am in some way going beyond what your post (but this is how you have presented yourself to me) said, but this why I don't think you are grasping the relative pricing/ economic calculation argument.
Edit: I am speaking more of your lack of including the importance of relative prices, than of what you have actually written.
liberty student: You tell me. How are they stopping me from buying a Coke and reverse engineering it by hiding the recipe? How are they preventing me from creating coke on my own? They aren't.
You tell me. How are they stopping me from buying a Coke and reverse engineering it by hiding the recipe? How are they preventing me from creating coke on my own? They aren't.
Do you think people haven't tried to reverse engineer the Coke formula? Do you think you could you do it yourself? If we believe your arguement then the people at Coke must be insane to be protecting a worthless piece of paper, and all the other companies protecting formulas and designs are also insane. The market place is refuting your arguement. Please note that normally protection of formulas and design have nothing to do with government protection this is strictly the market place in action.
liberty student: What next, you gunna tell me that if an inventor doesn't share his invention, the free market provided silence as a protection mechanism?
What next, you gunna tell me that if an inventor doesn't share his invention, the free market provided silence as a protection mechanism?
But Coke did share the invention, it is the formula/the process that is kept secret. Coke rightfully believes that keeping the process secret allows them to retain the value of the invention. So by protecting the idea, Coke is able to capture the value of the invention.
liberty student: Maybe because there are lots of Colas and other drinks, and there is no particular profit in knocking off the Coke brand. Regardless, you can't use a negative to prove a point.
Maybe because there are lots of Colas and other drinks, and there is no particular profit in knocking off the Coke brand. Regardless, you can't use a negative to prove a point.
What is actually occurring in the marketplace is dismantling your pet theory.
liberty student: Your entire post was futile, because you want to insist that secrecy is a market mechanism for protection of IP, when I've demonstrated that just reverse engineering alone, is enough to get the recipe. Not to mention, genuinely discovering it from scratch. There is no way to guarantee it's protection, there is no way to prevent others from reverse engineering it, or creating it.
Your entire post was futile, because you want to insist that secrecy is a market mechanism for protection of IP, when I've demonstrated that just reverse engineering alone, is enough to get the recipe. Not to mention, genuinely discovering it from scratch. There is no way to guarantee it's protection, there is no way to prevent others from reverse engineering it, or creating it.
Who is suggesting a guarantee of protection, nobody has made that claim. What we do see in the Coke example is people protecting an idea and this in fact has prevented people from copying the original invention despite your unfounded assertion that you have demonstrated that Coke can be reverse engineered. It is simply the market interfering with your delusions that you can't handle.
i understand the role of the price system in the market place for real goods and services. you are right that i dont understand the relevance to it vis-a-vis things that are not real. what is the price of a unicorn? what is the price of love? what price of honour?
you seem to imagine that ideas can freefloat outside of physicality and that these free floating ideas need to be bought and sold in the marketplace just like physical books are bought and sold. you keep talking about 'infinite goods' .i.e. non-scarce goods. this is an oxymoron. to be an economic good is to be scarce. of course its a philosphical question what others goods outside of economics goods 'exist' but here we are talking economics
JackSkylark: Uhh.. no. There were numerous copyright houses during the time of mozart (even more during the time 1800, such as the Schott Muzic firm - which was sought out by Beethoven to sell publishing rights.) But your argument is deceptive. Mozart did not need to copyright since he was a beneficiary of the state, and the state controlled the market in such a way which made normal copyrighting unnecessarry. (thank you to Charles Anthony for first bringing this point up, which I have subsequently been reading up on). This is why many music historians observe other composers who were more proficient than Mozart taking a hugely minor role, since the state was in fact propping up Mozart - and was why Mozart was able to get away with direct plagarism in some of his compositions.
Fine, Mozart was a bad example. Let's look at today. There are musicians today that like the fact that people can download their music for free, because it makes it easier for their name to get out, and they get more people coming to their concerts, and they make more money.
Eliminating IP would not eliminate creativity. Look at the recipe market. Recipes are not copyrighted, and there is a huge variety of recipes one can get on the internet. The markets that have strong IP laws are the ones stagnating.
Maxliberty:Do you think people haven't tried to reverse engineer the Coke formula? Do you think you could you do it yourself? If we believe your arguement then the people at Coke must be insane to be protecting a worthless piece of paper, and all the other companies protecting formulas and designs are also insane. The market place is refuting your arguement. Please note that normally protection of formulas and design have nothing to do with government protection this is strictly the market place in action.
obviously the only rational explanation for why coke would incur costs to protect the piece of paper in question is because they believe they receive a value from a) having it b) others not having it. the piece of paper has no objective value, only subjective value to them. LibStu's best point is that IF an entrepeneur thinks some protectable knowledge is worth protecting to some degree they can do that. vis Max's coke example coke. But this doesnt mean that it is propoerty being protected). if the entrepeneur thinks the costs would outway the benefits then they wont take protective measures.
IP law is counter rational sense because it removes the entrepeneur from doing a calculation of what the worth of protecting is (to him). This removes the entrepeneurs in the market from rationally/economicall determining how much resources should be spent on keeping competitors in the dark of , or unable to benefit from, their innovations. This is all compatible with them not owning the concept of their innovations, but only the means employed in realising the innovations etc.
Then you don't understand the temporal disconnect surrounding all IP based goods. Real resources (time, labor, land, capital, etc) are expendend and used in the development of the IP based good while it is still super-scarce. Because of this, it fundamentally requires relative pricing so that entrepreneurs can properly determine what area of the ideas market (which is created by Mises' complementary good assumption, which I quoted earlier) would best satisfy consumer demand. What you haven't grasped yet is the concept of the super-scarce good becoming infinite in supply.
You also seem to imply that I am not speaking in terms of economics, in that case you are saying the exact same thing to Mises in "Human Action" where he lays out the concept for a complementary good that fetches no price on the market since it is of infinite supply. I could go so far as to say you have created a strawman of my argument.
"If on a competitive market" (or in this case, the perfect competition or infinite good) "one of the complementary factors, namely F" (which is the idea, or the concept previously defined by IP) "needed for the production of the consumers good G, does not attain any price at all (since it is non-scarce), although the production of F requires various expenditures (which is the scarce resources such as labor and time, etc.) and consumers are ready to pay for the consumers' good G a price which makes its production porfitable on a competitive market, the monopoly price for F becomes a necessary requirement... The Public would not derive any advantage from the absence of monopoly prices for F. It would, on the contrary, miss the satisfaction it could derive from the acquisition of G."--Once again the I am quoting Mises
ok say F is the Idea of the Combustion engine.
and lets say that F is needed for the production of the consumers good G (The automobile, airplane, motorboat etc)
now mises says :
if TheIdeaOfComubstionEngine does not attain any price at all although it cost resources for the inventor of the Combustion engine to invent it and consumers re ready to pay for cars, planes and boats a price which makes the production of cars planes and boats profitable in a competative market, the monopoly price for TheIdeaOfCombustionEnginge becomes a necessary requirement. The public would not derive any advantage from the absence of monopoly prices for TheIdeaOfCombustionEngine. It would on the contrary, miss the satisfaction that it could derive from the acquisition of cars,planes and motorboats.
Using Mises' assumptions, then that line of argument would be correct.
Edit: I also think there are long run considerations... and also that the good itself "would" attain no price at all. Since, if the idea was already freely available (as in already an infinite good) then why would there be any consideration for the inventor, as there would already be manufacturing of "cars, planes, and boats".
is there a positive price for TheIdeaOfCumbustionEngine?
Price is fundamentally determined by supply and demand (demand, through subjective value... and supply, without any IP, depends on the disonnect). On the developer side of the IP disconnect, the idea is super-scarce, and could be disseminated at a monopoly price chosen by the inventor (factoring in substitutes, etc.) On the market side of the disconnect there is infinite supply and thus has a price of 0.
So, on the market side, there is a price of 0 for "TheIdeaOfCombustionEngine".
so with it being the case that there is a price of 0 for TheIdeaOfCoombustionEngine, and no less other such ideas, such as the idea for the wheel. is mises right to suggest that consumers are suffering from an underproduction of products with engines and wheels on?
and would it be for the good of the consumers if producers of these products be charged a fee to implement wheels and engine? like a wheel tax or an engine tax?
You might have to rephrase your question, but I believe you are making the assumption that "TheIdeaOfCombustionEngine" and "TheIdeaOfWheels" are both at a price of 0. Then you as ask if consumers are suffering from an underproduction of products with engines and wheels...
This depends on definitions of underproduction and on what side of the disconnect we are on. First let us assume we are on the market side of the disconnect, then the idea is non-scarce and all people can freely obtain this idea. In this case there will already be production of the good since everyone already has access the idea. But, if we are on the inventor side of the disconnect, then the idea is still super-scarce, but will fetch a price of 0 if released on the market, and thus will not be produced for the market.
Will there then be an underproduction of products with engines and wheels, assuming the idea is still on the scarce side of the disconnect? Only in the pragmatic sence of consumer benefit, which is Mises' argument.
nirgrahamUK:IP law is counter rational sense because it removes the entrepeneur from doing a calculation of what the worth of protecting is (to him). This removes the entrepeneurs in the market from rationally/economicall determining how much resources should be spent on keeping competitors in the dark of , or unable to benefit from, their innovations. This is all compatible with them not owning the concept of their innovations, but only the means employed in realising the innovations etc.
I have not suggested any law regarding IP, so don't lump me in with that crowd. I merely state the obvious to the anti-ip crowd which is that ideas are perceived as having value in the marketplace. Things that have value are protected. In a society without any government intervention we would expect to see protection of IP by marketplace mechanisms. That is exactly what we see in the marketplace.
The marketplace clearly demonstrates that people will take measures to protect what they see as valuable, some of these will work some won't. Your opinion is irrelevant because the marketplace has already sorted this out.
You are fucking clueless. You misconstructed what I have said not once, but twice. This is not what all I meant is all. It isn't even a hypothetical at all.
The dude funded me because he wanted a game to play with or simply put, a better version of the game he played. I was selling my programming to a consumer, not an entrepneur who want to make extra cash.
That is the business model I was talking about. A regular boring old job where I get paid to create new things.
Maxliberty:I have not suggested any law regarding IP, so don't lump me in with that crowd.
"I just enjoy talking past everyone because I have a lot of time to kill" - Max Liberty
Maxliberty:I merely state the obvious to the anti-ip crowd which is that ideas are perceived as having value in the marketplace.
"I'm very good at employing strawmen." - Max Liberty
Maxliberty:Your opinion is irrelevant because the marketplace has already sorted this out.
"The market is always right. You as an individual market participant are always wrong. We are Borg. Resistance is futile." - Max Liberty
JackSkylark: But, if we are on the inventor side of the disconnect, then the idea is still super-scarce, but will fetch a price of 0 if released on the market, and thus will not be produced for the market. Will there then be an underproduction of products with engines and wheels, assuming the idea is still on the scarce side of the disconnect? Only in the pragmatic sence of consumer benefit, which is Mises' argument.
But, if we are on the inventor side of the disconnect, then the idea is still super-scarce, but will fetch a price of 0 if released on the market, and thus will not be produced for the market.
The first copy will fetch a very signifigant price.(At least those with very high demand) The coke forumla, for example, is a very valuable commodity in the eyes of would be imitators because it mean that they don't have to spend time reverse engineering the product.
Maxliberty:Do you think people haven't tried to reverse engineer the Coke formula? Do you think you could you do it yourself?
"This is an inquisition." - Max Liberty
Maxliberty:If we believe your arguement then the people at Coke must be insane to be protecting a worthless piece of paper, and all the other companies protecting formulas and designs are also insane.
"If people do things I don't agree with, they are insane. I am always right. Even when I am wrong." - Max Liberty
Maxliberty:The market place is refuting your arguement.
"I think what we have is a free market. Everything is perfect. Keep voting for Obama." - Max Liberty
Maxliberty:Please note that normally protection of formulas and design have nothing to do with government protection this is strictly the market place in action.
"These are not the state laws you are looking for." - Obi Wan Liberty
Maxliberty:So by protecting the idea, Coke is able to capture the value of the invention.
"I don't like Pepsi. Or Vernors." - Max Liberty
Maxliberty:What is actually occurring in the marketplace is dismantling your pet theory.
"How many times do I have to tell you, the market place we have now with state law and coercion is the real thing. A free market." - Max Liberty.
Maxliberty:What we do see in the Coke example is people protecting an idea and this in fact has prevented people from copying the original invention despite your unfounded assertion that you have demonstrated that Coke can be reverse engineered.
"I say things I don't know for sure one way or the other, and desperately hope no one calls me on the specialized knowledge I claim to have." - Max Liberty
Maxliberty:It is simply the market interfering with your delusions that you can't handle.
"Forget what is seen and unseen. I can see the unseen which is seen by everyone but you which is why I am a seer. Level 16 Arch-Mage Beotch!" - Max Liberty
JackSkylark: Price is fundamentally determined by supply and demand (demand, through subjective value... and supply, without any IP, depends on the disonnect). On the developer side of the IP disconnect, the idea is super-scarce, and could be disseminated at a monopoly price chosen by the inventor (factoring in substitutes, etc.) On the market side of the disconnect there is infinite supply and thus has a price of 0. So, on the market side, there is a price of 0 for "TheIdeaOfCombustionEngine".
Why can't the labor cost be used as price signal for the production of digital goods?
JackSkylark:No one has even attempted refutation of my Economic argument for IP, which naturaly would need to exclude any appeal to natural law, or morality.
Property rights exist to resolve the disputes that naturally arise over scarce goods. Ideas are not scarce.
If the cotton gin is patented and I create my own, no person has been wronged. No one has been deprived of their cotton gin, a new one has been created through my labor. Since me creating the cotton gin does not violate the NAP, the IP holder's violence against me for having made it does.
The only "just price" for a good is that price agreed upon by both parties.
Your appeal to "economics" is laughable. You want us to prove that IP will flourish just as much without a government grant? That's a matter of preference, not economics. Without the state involved in IP, consumers would benefit and producers would be hurt; the same result as would happen if the state got out of the postal service.
JackSkylark:Thus this follows the same line of argument Mises puts forward on the failure of socialism - namely economic calculation is dislodged since relative prices do not exhibit consumer demand.)
You can't be for real. Prices for IP do not reflect consumer demand, they represent price controls.
Peace