4 ms·

> "For computer software, patents together with copyright protection are the entire price of the product." That doesn't ring true. Software is sold in far more

> "For computer software, patents together with copyright protection are the entire price of the product." That doesn't ring true. Software is sold in far more complex ways that in no way benefit from the copyright regime. That could mean software consulting and support for open source projects, or it could mean advertising and IAP-supported free-to-play games. Both are extremely lucrative. You might want to call in-app purchases something that corresponds to copyright. I think all that matters is what is enforceable (ask the movie and music industries). That game services have figured out how to make the enforceability of copyright irrelevant by centralizing hosting and matchmaking is the far bigger story. Put another way, the researchers bring up removing patent regimes on drugs in order to save money and reduce rents. That's only because of the peculiar way that drugs work—it doesn't necessarily make sense. Jana Hunter, an indie musician, had this great phrase: "If technology provided loopholes for free food and shelter, that’s what we’d be arguing about." [0] But technology only provides loopholes for some free stuff, like music and drugs, and we can't just decide that property rights can be ignored when they're cheap to exploit (like copyright or patent infringement). On the other hand, we will just, in a Darwinian way, end up in a world where the technological loopholes intrinsically don't exist. This happened in commercial video games, and it happened so quickly only because of enormous ingenuity, an extremely competitive market and a complete disconnect from the conventional political process (ever heard of a video game studio lobbyist?). If you want to improve wealth distribution, messing with the mechanics of how things are bought and sold, as always, isn't going to get you very far. Maybe just raise taxes, you know? [0] http://lowerdens.tumblr.com/post/34308869231/on-spotify-and-music-consumption http://lowerdens.tumblr.com/post/34308869231/on-spotify-and-...

VikingCoder 11y ago
Advertising and IAP-supported free-to-play games, if they did not have copyright protection, would be IMMEDIATELY hacked to not have advertising or IAP.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
we can't just decide that property rights can be ignored when they're cheap to exploit (like copyright or patent infringement) Copyrights and patents are state-granted exclusionary privileges, not property titles. If you want to improve wealth distribution, messing with the mechanics of how things are bought and sold, as always, isn't going to get you very far. What are you talking about? Abolishing and reforming institutions is one of the most powerful tools there is. Maybe just raise taxes, you know? The whole point of this paper is that simplistic fiscal shenanigans like this don't work.
- CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
  I used to argue against conflating property and immaterial rights along those lines. But it gets kind of interesting if you realize that all property titles are state-granted exclusionary privileges. So the distinction might not be that important. When John Locke argued for the moral right of property as a result of labor, he also argued that it only applies when there are an abundance of resources. An extension of that though could be, why not look at all rent generating propert with suspicion. Property rents, as a result of exclusive rights to scarce resources, could be seen as an externality, as a result of everybody else accepting those exclusive rights without compensation for being excluded.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    But it gets kind of interesting if you realize that all property titles are state-granted exclusionary privileges. Insofar as current arrangements of a state holding eminent domain, yes. Not intrinsically. Property rents, as a result of exclusive rights to scarce resources, could be seen as an externality, as a result of everybody else accepting those exclusive rights without compensation for being excluded. A property owner may extend easement or some other non-possessory right to usage, so to immediately classify all property as an "externality" is flat out wrong. If anything, private property rights are a necessary (if not the primary) precondition to resolving externalities.
    - CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
      I meant rent as the externality, not the property as such. Without the state taking the cost of enforcing the exclusivity the possessor would probably have to invest some cost in securing it. Either buying weapons or entering some kind of contractual agreements. In either case the cost would probably correlate with the value of property. The rent, then, is the value the possessor can extract from the property as a result of not having to take those costs. In fact, it is the other way around, the cost is distributed among the non-possessors. Assuming we would like to avoid a situation where possessors have to invest in violent means of exclusivity, I argue that the states role should be to enforce propery as, fair, contractual agreements between possessor and non-possessors.
humanrebar 11y ago
> ...we can't just decide that property rights can be ignored when they're cheap to exploit (like copyright or patent infringement). That's not the argument against IP. The argument is that IP isn't a thing as such. When you are copying ideas, the originator of the idea can eat his cake while you bake your own (literally). The crime (again, sometimes literally) is that you disrupted someone's monopoly, not that you took their car so they don't have a car anymore. The whole concept of intellectual property is that it's supposed to be a win-win; limited monopolies are granted to encourage creation and innovation, and the public benefits from the innovations and the growing public domain. If, as proposed, rent seeking in the form of IP protection is causing wealth imbalances, then the bargain is probably a net good for the monopoly holder and a net bad for the public. If that is the case, the terms of the bargain should be revisited. The types of patents granted, how strict the process is, how soon things enter public domain, the terms of "fair use", and other things might need to be relaxed to make the deal fairer to the general public.

VikingCoder 11y ago

Advertising and IAP-supported free-to-play games, if they did not have copyright protection, would be IMMEDIATELY hacked to not have advertising or IAP.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

we can't just decide that property rights can be ignored when they're cheap to exploit (like copyright or patent infringement) Copyrights and patents are state-granted exclusionary privileges, not property titles. If you want to improve wealth distribution, messing with the mechanics of how things are bought and sold, as always, isn't going to get you very far. What are you talking about? Abolishing and reforming institutions is one of the most powerful tools there is. Maybe just raise taxes, you know? The whole point of this paper is that simplistic fiscal shenanigans like this don't work.

CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
I used to argue against conflating property and immaterial rights along those lines. But it gets kind of interesting if you realize that all property titles are state-granted exclusionary privileges. So the distinction might not be that important. When John Locke argued for the moral right of property as a result of labor, he also argued that it only applies when there are an abundance of resources. An extension of that though could be, why not look at all rent generating propert with suspicion. Property rents, as a result of exclusive rights to scarce resources, could be seen as an externality, as a result of everybody else accepting those exclusive rights without compensation for being excluded.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  But it gets kind of interesting if you realize that all property titles are state-granted exclusionary privileges. Insofar as current arrangements of a state holding eminent domain, yes. Not intrinsically. Property rents, as a result of exclusive rights to scarce resources, could be seen as an externality, as a result of everybody else accepting those exclusive rights without compensation for being excluded. A property owner may extend easement or some other non-possessory right to usage, so to immediately classify all property as an "externality" is flat out wrong. If anything, private property rights are a necessary (if not the primary) precondition to resolving externalities.
  - CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
    I meant rent as the externality, not the property as such. Without the state taking the cost of enforcing the exclusivity the possessor would probably have to invest some cost in securing it. Either buying weapons or entering some kind of contractual agreements. In either case the cost would probably correlate with the value of property. The rent, then, is the value the possessor can extract from the property as a result of not having to take those costs. In fact, it is the other way around, the cost is distributed among the non-possessors. Assuming we would like to avoid a situation where possessors have to invest in violent means of exclusivity, I argue that the states role should be to enforce propery as, fair, contractual agreements between possessor and non-possessors.

humanrebar 11y ago

> ...we can't just decide that property rights can be ignored when they're cheap to exploit (like copyright or patent infringement). That's not the argument against IP. The argument is that IP isn't a thing as such. When you are copying ideas, the originator of the idea can eat his cake while you bake your own (literally). The crime (again, sometimes literally) is that you disrupted someone's monopoly, not that you took their car so they don't have a car anymore. The whole concept of intellectual property is that it's supposed to be a win-win; limited monopolies are granted to encourage creation and innovation, and the public benefits from the innovations and the growing public domain. If, as proposed, rent seeking in the form of IP protection is causing wealth imbalances, then the bargain is probably a net good for the monopoly holder and a net bad for the public. If that is the case, the terms of the bargain should be revisited. The types of patents granted, how strict the process is, how soon things enter public domain, the terms of "fair use", and other things might need to be relaxed to make the deal fairer to the general public.