3 ms·

Patent and copyright are an external force created by a bureaucracy that prevents a free market for these products.

by zerohp 10y ago

twblalock 10y ago
It is certainly not a logical conclusion of my argument that all bureaucracies that interfere with the market ought to be abolished, or that the market should be free in all cases. My point was that in this particular case, the market would be a better way to solve the problem than a bureaucracy. Therefore, advocating the existence of some bureaucracies and not others does not contradict my argument, nor is it inconsistent with my argument.
- mindslight 10y ago
  In general, while market dynamics are quite important, "the market" doesn't actually constitute a valid argument for anything (as said thing would happen anyway), and usually indicates an attempt to stubbornly ignore differing opinions. The point is that companies are already asking for state intervention to protect their products as being a creative endeavor. So this is no longer some noble two-party private transaction. (Which I would be all in favor for, but we're just not in that realm!) Demanding the protections of their creative work while shirking the responsibilities (an end-user accessing and modifying the whole creative work that they've purchased) may not be definitively inconsistent, but it's extremely one-sided.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    Of course market dynamics are a valid argument! They matter very much, because changes in the market affect peoples' quality of life. Policies that distort the market in a way that adversely affects peoples' quality of life should not be implemented without very good reasons. Even policies that are not expected to introduce such distortions often do, so it's good to be cautious about any proposals which could have unintended economic consequences. Copyright and patent protection are not one-sided. Consumers benefit from them, because copyrights and patents incentivize the creation of things which would not have been created otherwise. Many lifesaving medicines never would have been invented if pharmaceutical companies would not have been able to protect them via patents and get rich. Similarly, much of the music, movies, books, etc. that consumers enjoy never would have been created if their authors and publishers were not able to protect them via copyright, and thereby get rich. A lot of medical, technological, and cultural progress has been made by people trying to get rich. Patents and copyrights are ingenious because they channel peoples' desire to get rich into outcomes that are overall beneficial to society. The benefits compensate for the market restrictions they accompany, and overall, patents and copyrights have made society better off than it would have been otherwise. Finally, what responsibilities do you think companies shirking? A responsibility to make products repairable by the consumers? No such responsibility exists. Nor do you have the right to demand that a company design its products to include a feature you like, such as repairability. If you think such responsibilities or rights exist, prove it. If you think they don't exist, but should be created, prove that the benefit they will bring to society will compensate for the market distortions they will produce (which will be quite significant if you think through all of the extra development, support, and liability costs that manufacturers will have to endure).
    - mindslight 10y ago
      You're simultaneously wed to copyright because it's here, and arguing against a "right" to repair because it is not. So you're just repeating rationalizations for the current status quo. For the third time now - copyright and patents presume to create a type of creative product wherein it is not the manufacture of the product that is really being sold to the consumer, but the design of it. A person buys a cell phone not for the plastic and doped silicon it is made of, but ostensibly for the abstract structure of the way that they are arranged. Since the person is buying an instance of a design, it stands to reason that they should have the ability to service the physical manifestation and otherwise directly interact with that design. It's not surprising that companies want to have their cake and eat it too - implementing only the half of an abstraction that takes away a consumer's rights while ignoring the second half and leaving them subject to law-of-the-jungle. They successfully wrote law like this for scratched cds, binary software, and DRM. But that hardly implies that their land grab is in the public's interest, appeals to "trickle-down" benefits notwithstanding.
      - twblalock 10y ago
        > You're simultaneously wed to copyright because it's here, and arguing against a "right" to repair because it is not. So you're just repeating rationalizations for the current status quo. Oh, so you're a mind reader who can figure out my motivations? By the way, those are arguments, not rationalizations. They are pretty good, too. > For the third time now - copyright and patents presume to create a type of creative product wherein it is not the manufacture of the product that is really being sold to the consumer, but the design of it. A person buys a cell phone not for the plastic and doped silicon it is made of, but ostensibly for the abstract structure of the way that they are arranged. So what? Nothing in this logically necessitates any conclusions about repairability of products. > Since the person is buying an instance of a design, it stands to reason that they should have the ability to service the physical manifestation and otherwise directly interact with that design. How exactly does your previous statement logically necessitate this? Show your work. Otherwise, it is a handwavy "stands to reason," "it's just obvious" kind of assertion. > It's not surprising that companies want to have their cake and eat it too - implementing only the half of an abstraction that takes away a consumer's rights while ignoring the second half and leaving them subject to law-of-the-jungle. What rights are being taken away? In your first sentence, you argued that a right to repair is not "here." How then can it then be violated or taken away by companies? How can anyone violate a non-existent right?
- belorn 10y ago
  Your post above does not say why this particular case is better handled by the market.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    Because if consumers wanted repairable devices, companies would make them. To not do so would be to ignore an opportunity to sell products and make money. So, if people really want repairable devices, they would exist. The fact that they do not exist in large numbers indicates that consumers don't really want them very much. If consumers don't want them, why should companies be forced to manufacture them? Requiring and enforcing repairability in products would therefore cause the government to take action to promote the personal preferences of a small number of consumers. That does not seem justifiable.
    - belorn 10y ago
      Lemons (the economical model, not the fruit) would argue against that claim. People want cars that work, but they also want pay as little as possible. Since customer can't easily determine the additional costs of not being able to repair a product outside of "approved dealers", the market will favor cheaper products even if they are less desirable for the customer. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons Here is a solution: Lets have a mandatory class in every public school that teach children the cost difference between an "open" market where anyone can repair a product, and a closed monopoly where only the approved shops are allowed to do the after-market repairs. Then customers will be armed with the knowledge to compare products. Do you think companies will keep making products that you can't repair, or will the market promote the preferences of the majority? Alternative solution: Add a market requirement that the sticker price include the price of repairs and failure rates over the expected life cycle of the product. This allow the customer to directly compare products and decide if they want to pay a cheaper car that cost 10x to repair and the owner is prevented to do it themselves, or a more expensive car where anyone can do the repair, including the owner. Again we would see a shift in market behavior, both by customers and manufacturers.

Patent and copyright are an external force created by a bureaucracy that prevents a free market for these products.

by zerohp 10y ago

Patent and copyright are an external force created by a bureaucracy that prevents a free market for these products.

It is certainly not a logical conclusion of my argument that all bureaucracies that interfere with the market ought to be abolished, or that the market should be free in all cases. My point was that in this particular case, the market would be a better way to solve the problem than a bureaucracy. Therefore, advocating the existence of some bureaucracies and not others does not contradict my argument, nor is it inconsistent with my argument.

mindslight 10y ago
In general, while market dynamics are quite important, "the market" doesn't actually constitute a valid argument for anything (as said thing would happen anyway), and usually indicates an attempt to stubbornly ignore differing opinions. The point is that companies are already asking for state intervention to protect their products as being a creative endeavor. So this is no longer some noble two-party private transaction. (Which I would be all in favor for, but we're just not in that realm!) Demanding the protections of their creative work while shirking the responsibilities (an end-user accessing and modifying the whole creative work that they've purchased) may not be definitively inconsistent, but it's extremely one-sided.
- twblalock 10y ago
  Of course market dynamics are a valid argument! They matter very much, because changes in the market affect peoples' quality of life. Policies that distort the market in a way that adversely affects peoples' quality of life should not be implemented without very good reasons. Even policies that are not expected to introduce such distortions often do, so it's good to be cautious about any proposals which could have unintended economic consequences. Copyright and patent protection are not one-sided. Consumers benefit from them, because copyrights and patents incentivize the creation of things which would not have been created otherwise. Many lifesaving medicines never would have been invented if pharmaceutical companies would not have been able to protect them via patents and get rich. Similarly, much of the music, movies, books, etc. that consumers enjoy never would have been created if their authors and publishers were not able to protect them via copyright, and thereby get rich. A lot of medical, technological, and cultural progress has been made by people trying to get rich. Patents and copyrights are ingenious because they channel peoples' desire to get rich into outcomes that are overall beneficial to society. The benefits compensate for the market restrictions they accompany, and overall, patents and copyrights have made society better off than it would have been otherwise. Finally, what responsibilities do you think companies shirking? A responsibility to make products repairable by the consumers? No such responsibility exists. Nor do you have the right to demand that a company design its products to include a feature you like, such as repairability. If you think such responsibilities or rights exist, prove it. If you think they don't exist, but should be created, prove that the benefit they will bring to society will compensate for the market distortions they will produce (which will be quite significant if you think through all of the extra development, support, and liability costs that manufacturers will have to endure).
  - mindslight 10y ago
    You're simultaneously wed to copyright because it's here, and arguing against a "right" to repair because it is not. So you're just repeating rationalizations for the current status quo. For the third time now - copyright and patents presume to create a type of creative product wherein it is not the manufacture of the product that is really being sold to the consumer, but the design of it. A person buys a cell phone not for the plastic and doped silicon it is made of, but ostensibly for the abstract structure of the way that they are arranged. Since the person is buying an instance of a design, it stands to reason that they should have the ability to service the physical manifestation and otherwise directly interact with that design. It's not surprising that companies want to have their cake and eat it too - implementing only the half of an abstraction that takes away a consumer's rights while ignoring the second half and leaving them subject to law-of-the-jungle. They successfully wrote law like this for scratched cds, binary software, and DRM. But that hardly implies that their land grab is in the public's interest, appeals to "trickle-down" benefits notwithstanding.
    - twblalock 10y ago
      > You're simultaneously wed to copyright because it's here, and arguing against a "right" to repair because it is not. So you're just repeating rationalizations for the current status quo. Oh, so you're a mind reader who can figure out my motivations? By the way, those are arguments, not rationalizations. They are pretty good, too. > For the third time now - copyright and patents presume to create a type of creative product wherein it is not the manufacture of the product that is really being sold to the consumer, but the design of it. A person buys a cell phone not for the plastic and doped silicon it is made of, but ostensibly for the abstract structure of the way that they are arranged. So what? Nothing in this logically necessitates any conclusions about repairability of products. > Since the person is buying an instance of a design, it stands to reason that they should have the ability to service the physical manifestation and otherwise directly interact with that design. How exactly does your previous statement logically necessitate this? Show your work. Otherwise, it is a handwavy "stands to reason," "it's just obvious" kind of assertion. > It's not surprising that companies want to have their cake and eat it too - implementing only the half of an abstraction that takes away a consumer's rights while ignoring the second half and leaving them subject to law-of-the-jungle. What rights are being taken away? In your first sentence, you argued that a right to repair is not "here." How then can it then be violated or taken away by companies? How can anyone violate a non-existent right?
belorn 10y ago
Your post above does not say why this particular case is better handled by the market.
- twblalock 10y ago
  Because if consumers wanted repairable devices, companies would make them. To not do so would be to ignore an opportunity to sell products and make money. So, if people really want repairable devices, they would exist. The fact that they do not exist in large numbers indicates that consumers don't really want them very much. If consumers don't want them, why should companies be forced to manufacture them? Requiring and enforcing repairability in products would therefore cause the government to take action to promote the personal preferences of a small number of consumers. That does not seem justifiable.
  - belorn 10y ago
    Lemons (the economical model, not the fruit) would argue against that claim. People want cars that work, but they also want pay as little as possible. Since customer can't easily determine the additional costs of not being able to repair a product outside of "approved dealers", the market will favor cheaper products even if they are less desirable for the customer. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons Here is a solution: Lets have a mandatory class in every public school that teach children the cost difference between an "open" market where anyone can repair a product, and a closed monopoly where only the approved shops are allowed to do the after-market repairs. Then customers will be armed with the knowledge to compare products. Do you think companies will keep making products that you can't repair, or will the market promote the preferences of the majority? Alternative solution: Add a market requirement that the sticker price include the price of repairs and failure rates over the expected life cycle of the product. This allow the customer to directly compare products and decide if they want to pay a cheaper car that cost 10x to repair and the owner is prevented to do it themselves, or a more expensive car where anyone can do the repair, including the owner. Again we would see a shift in market behavior, both by customers and manufacturers.