Two points against Intellectual property laws

[NT!]

[ 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.

[Brainwalter]

[ 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.

[NT!]

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.

[Brainwalter]

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.

[NT!]

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.

[NewTeaBag]

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."

[NT!]

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.

[tolbiny]

[ 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.

[NewTeaBag]

[ 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.

[NT!]

[ 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.