The debate "Intellectual property dosen't exist." was started by
September 9, 2018, 2:39 pm.
9 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 19 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
lachlan2 posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
TheExistentialist posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
lachlan2 and 8 visitors agree.
TheExistentialist, freakgirl, Fowling, tenyiyi and 15 visitors disagree.
what if the author is a corporation and never dies?
copyrights are actually 70 years after authors death, but thanks for clearing this issue up.
Not all IP is indefinite in the US. Patents have a 15-20 year time limit. Copyright has a 70 year or lifetime of author time limit. The only IP which is unlimited are trademarks.
Mickey Mouse is a trademark and thus is the property of it's creators until the company ceases to use the trademark, or the company no longer exists.
Patents and Copyrights have a sunset in order to allow improvements to them without having to jump through unnecessary hoops while at the same time giving the original inventor/creator a window of exclusivity during which he/she/they/it can profit from their invention without being copied by other parties.
Trademarks like Mickey Mouse have unlimited protection because there is NO harm to society if they don't become public domain. In other words, there is no way to "improve" on Mickey Mouse, the Nike swoosh, the Disney Logo, etc... that would be of benefit to society as a whole. Therefore, the biggest benefit, when it comes to trademarks, is the integrity of the company that created it. So no one but Apple can use the apple logo, no one but Microsoft can use the name "Windows" for in OS, etc... The dilution of a trademark into public domain essentially doesn't produce any innovation and only serves to harm the initial creators of a trademark by allowing others to harm their brand, dilute their revenue stream, and confuse consumers.
intellectual property should not be indefinite as modern corporate America has made it.
there is no way Mickey mouse who is nearly 100 years old should not be in the public domain.
indefinite intellectual property rights is as bad as no intellectual property rights.
"There are free ways of limiting the copying of books, like through contract."
--This makes no sense. Even if a author and a publisher have an exclusivity contract (i.e. the author can't sell their work to another publisher), in the absence of IP laws, there is nothing that would prevent a second publisher from just copying the text and releasing it. Neither the author nor the initial publisher violated the contract, however, there is still no recourse to protect the investment.
"it dosent mean all creations are public domain."
Actually it does. IP laws cover the formulas for drugs for example. Without them, I could synthesize any drug I want meaning a lab can simply wait for a pharmaceutical company to research a new drug and replicate it the next day for a fraction of the cost. IP laws also include various types of patents (utility, design, and plant patents). Without IP laws, I could copy the new iPhone exactly and Apple would have no recourse, I could then also copy their iOS and apple would still have no recourse, I could even go one step further and copy Siri, and still there would be no legal recourse. Why would Apple or any company innovate if someone can simply copy their product, their code, or formula if someone else can simply copy it and sell it cheaper. There would be no financial incentive.
"I'm saying intellectual property is an arbitrary concept that results in forcing people not to say or write a particular thing"
Intellectual property doesn't force people to not say or write a particular thing. It simply means you can't use another person's work for your own gain or in a way that demonetizes/hurts the original product. IP, for example, doesn't mean you can't make statements about Peter Singer's utilitarian philosophy, it simply means you can't copy his words as your own or publish his work without his express permission in order to make a profit. So how exactly does IP force people to not say or write a particular "thing"?
"Another fallacy with intellectual property is that the idea that things wouldnt be invested if they didnt have monopolies..."
you're going to have to expand on this because I don't think your premise here is sound. Why would anyone invest millions of dollars into something like Windows, iOS, Siri, Alexa, etc... if another company can literally have a single person hitting ctrl+A --> ctrl+C ---> ctrl+V and then sell that same product with no actual investment.
"So in conclusion IP is just arbitrary protectionism and is often used for crony capitalism ( Since the amount of time granted on pantents is just a made up number)."
There is nothing arbitrary about IP's. IP law can be traced back as far as 500 BCE, when the government of the Greek state of Sybaris offered one year's patent "to all who should discover any new refinement in luxury". There is basis for it in the Hebrew law as well; the principle of Hasagat Ge'vul (unfair encroachment) was used to justify limited-term publisher (but not author) copyright in the 16th century.
The purpose of intellectual property law is to give as little protection as possible in order to encourage innovation. That is why IP laws also include various "forms" of protection. Patents, like the ones given to drugs and physical goods have a 15-20 year protection clause. Copyrights like books have a protection clause that sunsets at the end of the author/inventors life. Trademarks, like the nike swoosh, expire only when that trademark is no longer used by a company. So if Nike goes bankrupt, the nike swoosh would become public domain. These protection windows, are not arbitrary as you claim, but serve specific purposes. The length of patents is such that a company can reclaim the investment made into an innovative product without fear of someone else stealing their idea. However, it sunsets so that other inventors can build on the idea later without having to obtain permission to do so.
While there is an argument to be made to limit the length, scope, and application of IP laws, the abolishment of IP laws would necessarily hinder innovation and capitalism. If all industry were owned by the state, IP laws would be unnecessary as there would be no corporate competition for market share. However, in capitalism, the non-existence of IP laws would mean that no one would have incentive to create original products as copying a product will always be cheaper than inventing it. Microsoft would never invent a new OS, apple would never spend money on AI (siri), google would never spend money on Android, etc... because a guy in a basement somewhere could simply copy their code, sell it for a fraction of the cost and the original inventors who spent resources making the product would have no recourse.
Another fallacy with intellectual property is that the idea that things wouldnt be invested if they didnt have monopolies can apply to every conceivable good or service produced. Every good would be produced more with a legal monopoly from government, so why not grant patents on everything. You could guess that certain things would not have been invented without IP but how many things that dont get IP havent been invented because they dont have IP? So why not protect everything to everything gets invented?
So in conclusion IP is just arbitrary protectionism and is often used for crony capitalism ( Since the amount of time granted on pantents is just a made up number).
Abolition of intellectual property dosent keep people from writing books. Do you think the government invention of copywrite was when people invested the concept of writing? There are free ways of limiting the copying of books, like through contract.
Futhermore it dosent mean all creations are public domain. The physical product is still private property. Especially since pantents are used for inventions and drugs as well.
Regardless, you told me why intellectual property should exist, not why it is a real thing. I'm saying intellectual property is an arbitrary concept that results in forcing people not to say or write a particular thing.
Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce.
If intellectual property does not exist then every piece of writing art, computer program, corporate symbol, slogan, etc... are all public domain. This means anything and everything can be reproduced for the sole purpose of either turning a profit or sabotage a product.
If, for example, person X writes a book; publishes it and begins to sell it, I am able to simply take that same book, make copies of it and sell it for 25% less and there is no legal recourse against it.
If a software company codes a new program that took thousands of man hours to create, I can simply copy and paste the code and sell it 3 days after it's release for a fraction of the cost since I don't have to recover the cost of creating the product.
Without intellectual property, the process of creation for the purpose of industry is meaningless.