Hey guys,
I wrote an article that I'd be glad if you guys would check out.
http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2010/06/ending-monopoly-of-ideas-compulsory.html
Basically, it's about compulsory licensing of intellectual property (well, the last page or two are about that. The rest is kind of history.) I think a lot of people aren't satisfied with this idea of 'no intellectual property rights' that seems to be popular at the Mises Institute. Hopefully, people view this as a better solution.
The idea behind compulsory licensing is basically that no one is able to keep others from using their ideas, whether it's a song for a mash-up or an invention to make a new invention. However, the original creator and the second user can negotiate a rate together. If they don't agree, it can be taken to a court.
Up until now, compulsory licensing seems to be used primarily in antitrust cases (with the exception of in music). It's absolutely astonishing how the government applies compulsory licensing in these cases. They decide what companies can license whatever product caused the anti-trust case. They decide its rate. It's true fascism. ...A system where compulsory licensing was the status quo would work quite differently.
Anyway, I won't ramble on. The paper will explain the rest. Thanks.
I dislike it. In the past (as you've mentioned), its been used only to try anti-monopoly cases.
Austrian economics does not recognize such a thing as monopoly on the free market. (Mises showed in 1912,1924, virtually every store that sets a price and waits for people to take it or leave. That is a one-sided price-setting. But its the only way companies can know whether to lower or increase the price without bartering each time.)
(I would like a different processing method for intellectual property, however.)
I don't think of this as a monopoly. It's the same thing as property rights. It's giving one person the right to benefit from an idea, but it simultaneously allowing the idea to be open to others for derivative works.
My question is, if I agree with you: How will debates about licensing terms (those cases where private agreement has not been reached, a court of law must mediate) be settled without government?
[[Supplementary:
For instance, X demands 55, Y is willing to pay 52, and neither budges; if its compulsory, how can either one's subjective preferences be satisfied while still satisfying the "take it or leave it rule", critical to economic calculation in the market (Gossen and Mises viewed money-prices as not a measure of value, but the solution to the Index Problem of deciding to do something or not do something based on its cost).
Government mediation opens up too much room for anti-trust investigatations and legal fee waste as in the way the anti-trust law was applied for similar effect in the past.
I argue IP defended by private defense contractors, based on a golden rule approach suggested by Bruno Leoni ("you'll respect my IP if I respect your IP"), would arise naturally on the free market without government.
IP seems critical in defense self-ownership due to nondisclosed information and privacy. Suppose otherwise, anyone who initiates violent force in order to attempt industrial espionage can still profit if they are allowed to use information neither voluntarily divulged not independently discovered, because compensation will be only for use of violence. Thus, incentive for use of torture, threats, etc., etc.) Thus, independent discovery prior to publication of an existing IP can be allowed to ignore existing IP.
IP of all other data follows from IP of knowledge, in the same way Destutt De Tracy had property in things follow from property in a person's own body and appendages. ]]
"My question is: How will debates about licensing terms (those cases where private agreement has not been reached, a court of law must mediate) be settled without government?"
Well, with a government, it would be done by courts. Without a government (a completely hypothetical situation), you'd go to whatever court system you'd like. It'd be settled the same way everything else is settled in that society.
Courts in a free market (private security and private judges) can only discuss compensation if X or Y has been harmed.
But how can they discuss compensation for X or Y, when neither has commited a crime? Compensation is set due to nature of crime, so only if crime committed can compensation be determined.
Thus, there is not there is no compensation to X possible with Y still recieving the use of idea for 52, not 55, due to the Pareto Rule because preferences are ordinal (Pareto [1906] 1971;Rothbard 1956). If you force Y to pay more than 52, then you harm Y. If you force X to sell below 55, you harm X. And no compensation can remove this harm; it will always be either too much (subsidy!!!) or too little (punishment for despite no crime being committed!!!). This is not a free market then (so the free-market Judge will be removed if trying to enforce compulsion, and knowing this, will refuse to intervene. Only government will intervene, but we refuse government in a free market.)
"But how can they discuss compensation for X or Y, when neither has commited a crime?"
I view people to have rights in intellectual work the same way that they have rights in physical property. Therefore, if someone tries to take that property without consent, they are committing a crime.
There is nothing to take.... only to use your own property to make a copy of other person's property.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
protip: Let dumb threads die.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.