Debate discussion: intellectual property in an AC land

[censored] · #1 03-16-2007, 09:17 PM

discuss here

ShakeZula06 · #2 03-16-2007, 09:35 PM

Should be an interesting thread. I'd like to have a debate thread for the merits of IP in general, not just AC land.

Poofler · #3 03-16-2007, 09:49 PM

Based on the provided statements, it looks like they'll be arguing that too.

almostbusto · #4 03-16-2007, 09:56 PM

I can't remember which, but one poster states that Ideas are not scarce? I hope they flush that out since that assumption seems false to me.

sure, when a song is recorded, 10 copies or 10 billion copies can be downloaded at negligible cost. still there are huge 'discovery' costs associated with most worthwhile ideas. if people aren't compensated for incurring 'discovery' costs then what incentive do they have to properly invest their time into discovering new ideas.

i hope the solution isn't "humans have an innate desire to create" or "love".

Poofler · #5 03-16-2007, 10:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't remember which, but one poster states that Ideas are not scarce? I hope they flush that out since that assumption seems false to me.

sure, when a song is recorded, 10 copies or 10 billion copies can be downloaded at negligible cost. still there are huge 'discovery' costs associated with most worthwhile ideas. if people aren't compensated for incurring 'discovery' costs then what incentive do they have to properly invest their time into discovering new ideas.

i hope the solution isn't "humans have an innate desire to create" or "love".

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh boy have you missed a few pages of IP debate threads. You won't find an ACist here who thinks ideas are scarce. By non-scarce, they mean, if I have an idea, and tell you that idea, I still have my idea. If I give you my shirt, I don't have my shirt anymore. Sure, the resources to discover ideas are scarce. One discovered, the actual idea isn't scarce.

almostbusto · #6 03-16-2007, 10:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't remember which, but one poster states that Ideas are not scarce? I hope they flush that out since that assumption seems false to me.

sure, when a song is recorded, 10 copies or 10 billion copies can be downloaded at negligible cost. still there are huge 'discovery' costs associated with most worthwhile ideas. if people aren't compensated for incurring 'discovery' costs then what incentive do they have to properly invest their time into discovering new ideas.

i hope the solution isn't "humans have an innate desire to create" or "love".

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh boy have you missed a few pages of debate threads. You won't find an ACist here who doesn't think ideas are scarce. By scarce, they mean, if I have an idea, and tell you that idea, I still have my idea. If I give you my shirt, I don't have my shirt anymore. Sure, the resources to discover ideas are scarce. One discovered, the actual idea isn't scarce.

[/ QUOTE ]

who cares about existent ideas. i am talking about innovation. innovation requires some incentive to innovate. I am saying "what incentive does the average individual have to innovate?" IE why cure cancer if as soon as you find the cure 10000000 companies buy your medicine then reproduce it themselves. the result is a competitive market where no economic profits exist. why should I work on entering a market that would create ZERO (economic) profit? This is what I would like you to address. how will your framework address discovery costs? because if there is no IP in your framework, how do you incentivize intellectual production?

regarding ACists on this forum. there are very very few that seemed to be at all versed in the literature(admittedly I am no genius myself, but I have at least read Hayek). seriously, read the threads, they don't have a basic understanding of the underlying economics they are discussing. you may however, I don't mean to insult you. But regarding you last point, I don't care if i have a friend among the ACists on this forums since the vast majority wouldn't make very good economists.

(FWIW I don't consider myself and ACist but I am guessing almost everyone on this forum would consider me one. at least to some extent.)

Poofler · #7 03-16-2007, 10:13 PM

I agree 100%. The means to discover ideas are very very scarce. De-incentivizing the intellectual capital makes those resources even more scarce. This results in less ideas being discovered. That's a little over-simplified, and some of the ACists will still dispute the utility of IP. WRT to scarcity, I don't particularly care whether the ideas themselves are non-scarce. But I'm a utilitarian. You'll get a lot of "So?" comments from moral ACists.

almostbusto · #8 03-16-2007, 10:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree 100%. The means to discover ideas are very very scarce. De-incentivizing the intellectual capital makes those resources even more scarce. This results in less ideas being discovered. That's a little over-simplified, and some of the ACists will still dispute the utility of IP. WRT to scarcity, I don't particularly care whether the ideas themselves are non-scarce. But I'm a utilitarian. You'll get a lot of "So?" comments from moral ACists.

[/ QUOTE ]

it sound likes you accepting a welfare loss? is this correct? meaning you are reducing the incentive for discovering ideas below its optimal level.

why would you knowingly want this? this results in a net welfare loss which is the metric by which policies are judge as a utilitarian.

Poofler · #9 03-16-2007, 10:22 PM

<--Not an ACist

almostbusto · #10 03-16-2007, 10:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
<--Not an ACist

[/ QUOTE ]

oh sorry [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
I guess i should have been tipped off when you said you were a utilitarian. those frameworks are so intertwined though, the underlying thesis of libertarian thought is that markets maximize welfare, making them utilitarians.

well hopefully a self-described ACist can jump in and answer my questions.