|
Two points against Intellectual property laws
Most pro-IP arguments come from a consequential stand point that without IP, artists don't have an incentive to create whatever type of art they are in the business of creating. We have seen that in the case of music, this is complete BS.
In the last decade or so we have seen the proliferation of peer2peer sharing programs for music. Anybody with a computer and an internet connection can get pretty much any song from any artist he wants from many different sources. Yet some how, the music industry hasn't collapsed. Artists are still making music, fans are still buying music, and artists and labels are still making amazing amounts of money (albeit smaller then before, which isn't inherently a problem). The music industry hasn't been destroyed by free music for a few reasons, including- 1) Artists enjoy what they do despite the fact that some may end up enjoying their music for free. 2) Fans have been loyal to their artists and buy copies even when faced with the chance to get a free copy from a friend or the internet. 3) Artists know #2 4) Relative to the average salary, artists (and labels) are still making boatloads of money. The same could be said about movies and television shows, although I know less about that subject. There's many Torrent sites you can find to watch movies and TV online, yet movies are still being made and new shows keep making it to TV. The second point deals mostly with hip hop, and I'm not sure how many fans of hip hop we have in this forum. It concerns mixtapes. Basically, a (usually young artist that isn't known well) rapper will collaborate with a DJ who provides the instrumentals to different rap songs. The rapper then does new lyrics over the beats. The DJ will play the songs at the places he DJ, and he'll usually sell the album to the local record stores. This is crucial for young artists in gaining name recognition towards putting out a major album. There are many now famous rappers out there who owe their success to mixtapes. If it were possible to flip a switch and end this illegal process, it would actually hurt the music business. Less people would be able to get their name out as new artists. People would sell less albums when they do put out their albums because they have less name recognition. With regards to mixtapes the labels attempt to have their cake and eat it too. Many will pay a DJ to assemble a mixtape for a young rapper, and say that they are under the assumption that the mixtape is for promotional use only (wink wink) then through government funding and the RIAA they end up raiding businesses that stock the mixtapes. Both peer2peer sharing and most mixtape practices are illegal, yet even when externalized on taxpayers it can't be stopped. We also see that while this hasn't been stopped, the music industry is still alive and doing quite well for itself, despite the claims of pro-IPers. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
1) Artists enjoy what they do despite the fact that some may end up enjoying their music for free. [/ QUOTE ] As an artist I would probaly enjoy my art alot less while working in some hellhole cubicle job in a world without good Advertizing, TV, Movies, Internet, Computers, Art, Etc. [ QUOTE ] 2) Fans have been loyal to their artists and buy copies even when faced with the chance to get a free copy from a friend or the internet. [/ QUOTE ] SOME fans .... the actual amount of monetary loss is hard to define but it is HUGE. [ QUOTE ] 4) Relative to the average salary, artists (and labels) are still making boatloads of money. [/ QUOTE ] Relativity only counts if your a pysicist. Who cares how much mobnies ppl make? |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
I don't necessarily disagree with this summary. But I think looking at the entertainment industry is not necessarily the best way to assess what is at stake with IP in general. Much more important is how IP affects innovation and R&D for companies heavily reliant on things like computer, chemical, and electrical engineering.
These are not simple questions. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
But I think looking at the entertainment industry is not necessarily the best way to assess what is at stake with IP [/ QUOTE ] good point entertainment as it relates to IP is mercurial. IP as it relates to say Microsoft is pretty cut and dry a good thing IMO. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
As an artist I would probaly enjoy my art alot less while working in some hellhole cubicle job in a world without good Advertizing, TV, Movies, Internet, Computers, Art, Etc. [/ QUOTE ] And I would probably enjoy the internet a lot less if their was no oxygen. I'm sorry what was your point? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 2) Fans have been loyal to their artists and buy copies even when faced with the chance to get a free copy from a friend or the internet. [/ QUOTE ] SOME fans .... the actual amount of monetary loss is hard to define but it is HUGE. [/ QUOTE ] Huge and some are subjective valuations. And while, sure, it has led to less money for artists, you've yet to show why there is something wrong with that, especially considering the fact that new music is still being made. [ QUOTE ] Who cares how much mobnies ppl make? [/ QUOTE ] based on the rest of your post, umm, you. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
I will withhold my lashing out at your one liners and jabs. Its your OP derail it all you want. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
I will withhold my lashing out at your one liners and jabs. Its your OP derail it all you want. [/ QUOTE ] Pot calling the kettle black? You responded with three sentences to my relatively long OP. Two of them I would consider a jab. Have a nice night then. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
I think a substantial portion of the "loyalty" to artists that you refer to is not loyalty to artists, but rather deference to the law. I personally get almost all of my music legally through iTunes, not because I want to support artists, but because I don't feel like breaking the law over 99 cents.
Also, law enforcement actions against p2p providers have certainly made it more difficult for people to get stolen music. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
Whatever happened to the absolute right of individuals to the integrity of their property?
Does this mean it's ok to violate patents or drug formulas, because people will continue to invent things? Does it mean it's ok to tax people a little bit, so long as it doesn't cause them to abandon the marketplace? I am struggling to see the moral difference in the eyes of an ACist. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever happened to the absolute right of individuals to the integrity of their property? Does this mean it's ok to violate patents or drug formulas, because people will continue to invent things? Does it mean it's ok to tax people a little bit, so long as it doesn't cause them to abandon the marketplace? I am struggling to see the moral difference in the eyes of an ACist. [/ QUOTE ] The difference is ideas aren't scarce, you're not deprived of anything if I copy your idea (you still have it). Unlike your second example. Regarding your first sentence, their non-scarcity makes classifying ideas as property quite dodgy imo. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Whatever happened to the absolute right of individuals to the integrity of their property? Does this mean it's ok to violate patents or drug formulas, because people will continue to invent things? Does it mean it's ok to tax people a little bit, so long as it doesn't cause them to abandon the marketplace? I am struggling to see the moral difference in the eyes of an ACist. [/ QUOTE ] The difference is ideas aren't scarce, you're not deprived of anything if I copy your idea (you still have it). Unlike your second example. Regarding your first sentence, their non-scarcity makes classifying ideas as property quite dodgy imo. [/ QUOTE ] So you're saying that Dave Grohl isn't deprived of anything if I steal his record? What if I go around and perform his music? After all, he still has it. How is a great album not scarce? Does everyone go around recording them all the time? 'Ideas' in general aren't scarce, but the kind of ideas that people pay for certainly are. That's like saying medicine's not scarce because aloe grows in the wild. What if I steal someone's formula for an AIDS vaccine and start selling that? I mean, it's not like he's deprived of it, he still has it. It's just an idea. For someone who is convinced of the absolute sanctity of property this position is completely untenable. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Whatever happened to the absolute right of individuals to the integrity of their property? Does this mean it's ok to violate patents or drug formulas, because people will continue to invent things? Does it mean it's ok to tax people a little bit, so long as it doesn't cause them to abandon the marketplace? I am struggling to see the moral difference in the eyes of an ACist. [/ QUOTE ] The difference is ideas aren't scarce, you're not deprived of anything if I copy your idea (you still have it). Unlike your second example. Regarding your first sentence, their non-scarcity makes classifying ideas as property quite dodgy imo. [/ QUOTE ] So you're saying that Dave Grohl isn't deprived of anything if I steal his record? What if I go around and perform his music? After all, he still has it. [/ QUOTE ] Correct. [ QUOTE ] How is a great album not scarce? Does everyone go around recording them all the time? 'Ideas' in general aren't scarce, but the kind of ideas that people pay for certainly are. [/ QUOTE ] By scarce I do not mean rare, I mean economically scarce. [ QUOTE ] That's like saying medicine's not scarce because aloe grows in the wild. What if I steal someone's formula for an AIDS vaccine and start selling that? I mean, it's not like he's deprived of it, he still has it. It's just an idea. [/ QUOTE ] Right. [ QUOTE ] For someone who is convinced of the absolute sanctity of property this position is completely untenable. [/ QUOTE ] No it's not. My position is that I have the right to use my property (printing press, say) to do whatever I want (print off copies of the NYT) as long as I don't harm anyone else's body or property. (Perhaps I should have chosen a different example as copyrights can be solved voluntarily with point-of-sale contracting.) It's the opposite position where property rights are not absolute, with IP I can't make my plastic into certain shapes in my factory because someone may have patented them, with or without my knowledge. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
I should be honest and say I'm playing the devil's advocate here. I don't support unlimited patents on drugs (particularly vital drugs like an AIDS vaccine or a cure for cancer). I think IP regarding things like music is a very murky and entirely undiscovered terrain, one that is evolving along with technology, and I'm honestly not sure what I think of it yet.
I also don't disagree with the facts stated in Shake's post; the recording industry is still quite powerful, and mix tapes are an important tool for the industry in finding and testing new talent. What rubs me wrong about his post is that he's basically arguing against IP protection because someone else is still willing to pay for it, and people are still relatively well-off from it. Well, what if they weren't? Would it still be ok? What if artists couldn't make a living, despite being immensely popular? What if there was no funding for innovative new drugs, because there was no money in it? Would patent infringement still be ok? I sort of made this about AC, and I don't think it's necessarily an AC issue, it just so happens that I know Zula's position on property and that's why his post startled me. Nowhere else is there this relativistic approach to the integrity of property. His post doesn't talk about scarcity, or dispute the notion that IP is a form of property. Rather, he basically points out that misappropriating this particular form of property doesn't seem to be hurting anyone, and may actually be aiding in its production in some ways. One could make a similarly structured argument for involuntary taxation, if one believed that a state could manage a small percentage of wealth more effectively than those who produced it, or use it in a more beneficial way. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
I agree with you that I don't think the OP is a particularly strong argument against IP. But the topic has come up before multiple times from the theoretical, property-rights angle I am taking, and I presume the OP is meant to supplement that, and as such might be persuasive to some "What about the real world not AC fantasyland" consequentalists.
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
Purely as a rebuttal of consequentialist positions, I don't dispute the OP at all. I see that there is some discussion of this that I've missed in the past.
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
For the music industry I'm not so concerned about IP.
For those adding "concrete value" to society, i.e. scientists and engineers IP becomes a much HUGER concern. Drug companies invest massive (Bilions upon billions) in nw drug research much of which is committed to improving society. Now of course they are doing this for mostly commercial reasons (big payoff of overcharging on patented drugs) but in this case the commercial reasons tend to align with positve social benefits. I don't see why or even fiscally how, this research could carry on if the $Bs invested were instantly lost due to loose IP. Also, from the "arts" side, literature would seem to require far stricter IP. It matters not if you still have "the idea" if someone has reproduced your work then made it to publisher/market prior to you. They reap all the rewards and you certainly would be far less motivated to produce more "art." |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
The federal government subsidized research behind 45 of the 50 top-selling drugs in the US in 2005. This is common in other industries as well; taxpayers are the ones who foot a large portion of the bill for research, yet drug companies still attain record profit margins selling the drugs back to us.
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
For the music industry I'm not so concerned about IP. For those adding "concrete value" to society, i.e. scientists and engineers IP becomes a much HUGER concern [/ QUOTE ] Musicians and artists add tons of real value to society. [ QUOTE ] Drug companies invest massive (Billions upon billions) in new drug research much of which is committed to improving society. [/ QUOTE ] Most new drug research is profit driven, and and new drugs cost billions to develop because cheap possible alternatives from plant and animal extracts are non patentable, but synthesized chemicals are, so drug companies explore the more lucrative avenues. [ QUOTE ] but in this case the commercial reasons tend to align with positve social benefits. I don't see why or even fiscally how, this research could carry on if the $Bs invested were instantly lost due to loose IP. [/ QUOTE ] Simply put someone else (not for profit organizations) would have to do it. [ QUOTE ] Also, from the "arts" side, literature would seem to require far stricter IP. It matters not if you still have "the idea" if someone has reproduced your work then made it to publisher/market prior to you. They reap all the rewards and you certainly would be far less motivated to produce more "art." [/ QUOTE ] This is prevented via contracts which prohibit reproduction and requires no special consideration. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
The federal government subsidized research behind 45 of the 50 top-selling drugs in the US in 2005. This is common in other industries as well; taxpayers are the ones who foot a large portion of the bill for research, yet drug companies still attain record profit margins selling the drugs back to us. [/ QUOTE ] OK, even accepting this, would drug companies bother with the research if there were no profit motive at the end of the development cycle? From a buisness standpoint, I don't see how they could and until there was some other system in place to foster the development, I'd be very wary of eliminating/loosening IP. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The federal government subsidized research behind 45 of the 50 top-selling drugs in the US in 2005. This is common in other industries as well; taxpayers are the ones who foot a large portion of the bill for research, yet drug companies still attain record profit margins selling the drugs back to us. [/ QUOTE ] OK, even accepting this, would drug companies bother with the research if there were no profit motive at the end of the development cycle? From a buisness standpoint, I don't see how they could and until there was some other system in place to foster the development, I'd be very wary of eliminating/loosening IP. [/ QUOTE ] Well if we're already paying someone to do it, we could easily hire the scientists who had been working for the drug companies once they all close up shop. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The federal government subsidized research behind 45 of the 50 top-selling drugs in the US in 2005. This is common in other industries as well; taxpayers are the ones who foot a large portion of the bill for research, yet drug companies still attain record profit margins selling the drugs back to us. [/ QUOTE ] OK, even accepting this, would drug companies bother with the research if there were no profit motive at the end of the development cycle? From a buisness standpoint, I don't see how they could and until there was some other system in place to foster the development, I'd be very wary of eliminating/loosening IP. [/ QUOTE ] Well if we're already paying someone to do it, we could easily hire the scientists who had been working for the drug companies once they all close up shop. [/ QUOTE ] Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could? |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could? [/ QUOTE ] If you hire the exact same scientists, and give them the same funding you were already giving them as part of a 'competitive capitalist company,' do you think they'd just stop trying? |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could? [/ QUOTE ] If you hire the exact same scientists, and give them the same funding you were already giving them as part of a 'competitive capitalist company,' do you think they'd just stop trying? [/ QUOTE ] I'm suggesting that Very few if any wholly state sponsored companies can produce/achieve anything like the results/efficiencies of a competitive capatilist company. I think the defence industry is an excellent example of this. Looking at any single source contractor, the cost overuns and inefficiencies are explosive as opposed to competive sourcing. I wouldn't suppose that the scientists working for the single source companies "aren't trying," I would simply say they are far less efficient due to the end motivation being far different. Perhaps I could just say "innovation seems sparked far more through competition than through altruism." |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could? [/ QUOTE ] If you hire the exact same scientists, and give them the same funding you were already giving them as part of a 'competitive capitalist company,' do you think they'd just stop trying? [/ QUOTE ] I'm suggesting that Very few if any wholly state sponsored companies can produce/achieve anything like the results/efficiencies of a competitive capatilist company. I think the defence industry is an excellent example of this. Looking at any single source contractor, the cost overuns and inefficiencies are explosive as opposed to competive sourcing. I wouldn't suppose that the scientists working for the single source companies "aren't trying," I would simply say they are far less efficient due to the end motivation being far different. Perhaps I could just say "innovation seems sparked far more through competition than through altruism." [/ QUOTE ] What is the basis for this statement? What 'competitive capitalist companies' are doing a better job of providing services than similar, wholly state sponsored companies? "Innovation is sponsored more through competition..." ... in this case the innovation is sponsored by the government. If a scientist is paid the same, and receives the same equipment and funding, why will he work less hard for the government, or for a non-profit, than he will for a corporation? He receives the exact same compensation. There is no difference in end motivation, if you are correct that the end motivation is money. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could? [/ QUOTE ] If you hire the exact same scientists, and give them the same funding you were already giving them as part of a 'competitive capitalist company,' do you think they'd just stop trying? [/ QUOTE ] I'm suggesting that Very few if any wholly state sponsored companies can produce/achieve anything like the results/efficiencies of a competitive capatilist company. I think the defence industry is an excellent example of this. Looking at any single source contractor, the cost overuns and inefficiencies are explosive as opposed to competive sourcing. I wouldn't suppose that the scientists working for the single source companies "aren't trying," I would simply say they are far less efficient due to the end motivation being far different. Perhaps I could just say "innovation seems sparked far more through competition than through altruism." [/ QUOTE ] What is the basis for this statement? What 'competitive capitalist companies' are doing a better job of providing services than similar, wholly state sponsored companies? "Innovation is sponsored more through competition..." ... in this case the innovation is sponsored by the government. If a scientist is paid the same, and receives the same equipment and funding, why will he work less hard for the government, or for a non-profit, than he will for a corporation? He receives the exact same compensation. There is no difference in end motivation, if you are correct that the end motivation is money. [/ QUOTE ] There is far more to it that just the scientists. Who gets hired? who get how much funding? How do you run trials? what is the supervision/management structure? |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Are you arguing that a wholly state sponsored and owned research company could achieve anything like the results that a competitive capitalist company could? [/ QUOTE ] If you hire the exact same scientists, and give them the same funding you were already giving them as part of a 'competitive capitalist company,' do you think they'd just stop trying? [/ QUOTE ] I'm suggesting that Very few if any wholly state sponsored companies can produce/achieve anything like the results/efficiencies of a competitive capatilist company. I think the defence industry is an excellent example of this. Looking at any single source contractor, the cost overuns and inefficiencies are explosive as opposed to competive sourcing. I wouldn't suppose that the scientists working for the single source companies "aren't trying," I would simply say they are far less efficient due to the end motivation being far different. Perhaps I could just say "innovation seems sparked far more through competition than through altruism." [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What is the basis for this statement? What 'competitive capitalist companies' are doing a better job of providing services than similar, wholly state sponsored companies? [/ QUOTE ] I have already given you an example of the state sponsored companies (defence industry single source suppliers). As a counter example of competitve capatilist companies you need look no further than the supply chains for the auto industry. These suppliers are in a fiercely competitive environment and thus achieve far greater efficiency and productivity in achieving thei output. [ QUOTE ] "Innovation is sponsored more through competition..." ... in this case the innovation is sponsored by the government. [/ QUOTE ] Assuming your sticking with drug research here, the innovation is "subsidized" by government spending but is still primarily motivated by "endprofit". I think you'll agree there is a difference between this and a wholly governemnt owned and operated company. [ QUOTE ] If a scientist is paid the same, and receives the same equipment and funding, why will he work less hard for the government, or for a non-profit, than he will for a corporation? He receives the exact same compensation. There is no difference in end motivation, if you are correct that the end motivation is money. [/ QUOTE ] Companies are not run by scientists (in general), they are run by buisnessmen. PS Please add further content to the debate aside from straight DA questions. PPS I cant seem to get the quote spacing fixed in this post so pls feel free to use your forumerator powers to make it look clearer. ktx. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
4) Relative to the average salary, artists (and labels) are still making boatloads of money. [/ QUOTE ] Do you have any statistics to back that up? Most musicians aren't Justin Timberlake, most labels aren't EMI. Most (recording) musicians that I know don't get paid that much and most have dayjobs as well and many of those who don't are still struggling, making way less than the average salary. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
What rubs me wrong about his post is that he's basically arguing against IP protection because someone else is still willing to pay for it, and people are still relatively well-off from it. Well, what if they weren't? Would it still be ok? What if artists couldn't make a living, despite being immensely popular? What if there was no funding for innovative new drugs, because there was no money in it? Would patent infringement still be ok? [/ QUOTE ] I was having a hard time putting together what my problem with the OP was, but this says it better than I could. I react very emotionally to this issue because I am a musician myself, and although I haven't achieved a level of success to where this is an issue as of yet, I would hate to think that my money stream would be restricted because there was no protection of my creation. I'm a Libertarian, but I don't understand this line of reasoning(and I've heard it before). It seems like the AC line is that anybody could've written a particular song, and that it would've happened eventually, so there is no reason to commemorate the person who "crossed the finish line" first. Given how difficult it is to write a song(that people actually want to hear), I find this a very dubious sentiment. If this is actually the case, why isn't everyone an artist? Beyond that, NT brought up the exact question I had, which is that while, yes, at this point, a few artists are making good money(quick aside: the majority are not). What happens if they are no longer able to do so? Are you naive enough to think that artists will continue to create, simply because of their love of creation? Even if I concede that creation will continue, where's the incentive to share it, if it will just be pirated and repackaged as the work of anybody else? Not all artists make a killing. If I have to work an extra year or two years at a different job because rampant theft of my property goes unchecked, is that really right and fair? Why is intellectual property so different from regular property, in the mind of the ACist? Does this mean that every business should have to make public their proprietary materials? Isn't having a good idea and profitting from that idea the whole point of business? |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
Music is something where the performance is unique unto it self and cannot be easily replicated by anyone. What about writing? Writers are a lot less profitable in the first palce and it's a lot easier to "steal" their work. For either a novelist or a screenwriter, the dangers of having someone else take your work and publish it without your consent is very real and dangerous. Even worse, what if you put out the first book of a trilogy that ends up really popular and while you're writing your second book someone else puts out a book that claims to be the second book and uses your name and the look of the book is all correct? Now the author and the fans both are clearly getting scammed, but without IP, what recourse do they have? Personally, I think this kind of thing will work itself out in a free market as being agressive behavior and therefor prosecutable, but it's still IP.
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
Companies are not run by scientists (in general), they are run by buisnessmen. [/ QUOTE ] You didn't answer my question. My question was, if he was compensated the same, why would a scientist work less hard for a university or a non-profit organization or the government than he would for a for-profit company? Businessmen don't design drugs. They select the research topic, they gather the funding and they market the product. You tell me that the market drives drug manufacturers to make better products, do better research, and thus contribute more to society. But when I look at the drug industry, they've spent MY money developing pills to prevent hair loss or give me a rock-hard erection. The most lucrative drugs on the market, and those that garner the highest priority in research and development, are lifestyle drugs. Meanwhile there are only a handful of clinical trials in the world aimed at finding a vaccine for AIDS. Meanwhile, the cost of health care spirals out of control for Americans, with prescription drugs as a major factor. I am a United States taxpayer. I 'invested' (involuntarily) in the research that went into that drug. I didn't get a 36% return on my investment, as some private companies did last year. Nor did the US Treasury. That profit went straight to their pockets, while the people who paid for the research struggled to pay for the drugs as well. So I am really struggling to understand how the free market is doing me such a favor when it comes to prescription drugs. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
Buisnesses are not necesarily idealy suited to altruistic aims. However, in this case, would you agree that more than likely the profits derived from "lifestyle drugs" are in large part subsidizing research into other more critical projects such as cancer research, heart disease treatment or even AIDS drugs?
Also, please provide examples of wholly government owned and operated companies that produce their products, whether purely commercial or altruistic, more efficiently than private competitve corporations. OK, you have problems with US Pharmeceuticals manufacturers. Please provide a viable, alternative plan. (Without significant examples of prior success, I don't consider the goverment independently hiring research scientists as a viable plan). |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
You tell me that the market drives drug manufacturers to make better products, do better research, and thus contribute more to society. But when I look at the drug industry, they've spent MY money developing pills to prevent hair loss or give me a rock-hard erection. The most lucrative drugs on the market, and those that garner the highest priority in research and development, are lifestyle drugs. Meanwhile there are only a handful of clinical trials in the world aimed at finding a vaccine for AIDS. [/ QUOTE ] I'm sorry I don't have a source; I've heard that the head of one of the major drug companies has said that they are shifting research away from curing cancer/aids purely because they have found they don't get paid. Whereas with "lifestyle" drugs governments are under no pressure to force price controls/manufacture generics. Anybody who thinks that non-profits would ever be able to even come close to duplicating the work of a for-profit drug company, absent IP protections, is just nuts imho. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
Just so I understand: IP rights don't exist in ACland?
|
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
Who cares how much mobnies ppl make? [/ QUOTE ] Right before that, you just wrote: [ QUOTE ] the actual amount of monetary loss is hard to define but it is HUGE. [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
Arguments against patents being "absoulutely necessary" for scientific innovation:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Pythagoras.jpg http://web.hao.ucar.edu/public/educa...ges/newton.gif http://www.evergreen.edu/library/gov...polio/salk.jpg http://www.maniacworld.com/albert-einstein-1.jpg |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
Just so I understand: IP rights don't exist in ACland? [/ QUOTE ] If the people want them to exist, the market will provide that service. If they don't, it won't. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
Just so I understand: IP rights don't exist in ACland? [/ QUOTE ] It depends. Does the culture in ACland largely believe IP rights should exist? If yes, then they will. If no, then they won't. My personal opinion is that patent would not survive but copyright probably would (in some form). |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Just so I understand: IP rights don't exist in ACland? [/ QUOTE ] If the people want them to exist, the market will provide that service. If they don't, it won't. [/ QUOTE ] MY PONY TOO SLOW |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
Why is intellectual property so different from regular property, in the mind of the ACist? [/ QUOTE ] Because ideas aren't economically scarce like other forms of property. And because 'owning' an idea isn't sensible in the way that owning, say, a chair is. |
Re: Two points against Intellectual property laws
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why is intellectual property so different from regular property, in the mind of the ACist? [/ QUOTE ] Because ideas aren't economically scarce like other forms of property. And because 'owning' an idea isn't sensible in the way that owning, say, a chair is. [/ QUOTE ] I think you are being a bit redundant and repetitive. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.