6 ms·

The concept of intellectual property was invented to further certain economic goals. It provides a social good. There is no doubt about that but it has a drasti

The concept of intellectual property was invented to further certain economic goals. It provides a social good. There is no doubt about that but it has a drastically shorter history than the concept of physical property (which predates written records to my knowledge) The legal system has evolved many safeguards over the years related to improper search, self-incrimination and due process. I find it curious how easily the latter is sacrificed in favour of the former without anyone suggesting we need to continually reevaluate the degree that the former provides us benefit. I think this is partly a language problem. Intellectual "Property" has now become merely Intellectual Property without the quotes. This sleight of hand has led many to forget it's origin's and contingent nature and to treat it as some kind of natural right rather than a concession from the state to further commerce and creativity.

adrianN 8y ago
I think it's mostly a money problem. IP owners have a lot more money with which they can influence politics than people pirating movies.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  Isn't that a systematic problem? Money should not influence politics
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    Should they not?
  - jacobush 8y ago
    Money is free speech ... :-P
  - radicalbyte 8y ago
    Doesn't pure Capitalism require that money rules?
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      Pure capitalism has no government that would suppress armed pushback
      - coldtea 8y ago
        Pure capitalism relies on government to enforce contracts. There's no capitalism without government, that would be anarchy. Whether it's big government (with welfare, education, etc) or not, is another thing. But capitalism, pure or not, requires police, army, courts, and so on, and by extension, a tax system to fund their operation. Else, it's just might that enforces anything it wants, and there are no contracts other than between people of equal power (since the more powerful can just steal whatever people with less power have).
        TomMarius 8y ago
        Pure capitalism specifically doesn't rely on government with anything - even courts and enforcement would be private. It's much more complex, I recommend you to read something by Ludwig von Mises, he answers what you said on top of saying why it'd be more fair etc. And yes, pure capitalism is anarchy but that doesn't mean there would not be order. Of course these terms were redefined a lot during the last 100 years. We might simply misunderstand each other because each of us uses a different definition made by another person and taught by another school of thought as well as different university/professor. Anyways even if there was a government and law enforcement etc, in pure capitalism having more money would not help, government would be strictly neutral and the civil law minimal. If the government helps a company it's definitely not pure capitalism regardless of what the exact definition is.
        coldtea 8y ago
        >Pure capitalism specifically doesn't rely on government with anything - even courts and enforcement would be private. Doesn't make sense to have private courts since anybody with a large enough power (e.g. hired thugs) can take them over. If you mean that the individuals in such a scheme would agree to pay each to have a "private court/police" enforce their contracts etc, then that's the same as government, just one without voting (and presumably there would be some way to settle how those courts/police would operate too, which might end up as a contract itself, but people will have to agree to its terms first, so there's some voting there too). >If the government helps a company it's definitely not pure capitalism regardless of what the exact definition is. How that makes it anything more than wishful thinking though? If the government officials pocket money to favor one company, that's fully compatible with the greed and egoism that's essential for capitalism (according to Adam Smith and co “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"). What would prevent them to do it under the table, aside from morals?
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Politics are controlled by two things: (a) money (b) popular revolt (or vigilance) Without (b) there's just (a).
    - sharemywin 8y ago
      There's some kind of moral value in there some where isn't there? a little shred of human decency? At least for a month or two when the politicians first get started?
      - zbentley 8y ago
        In some few specific cases? Sure. On average/over time? Effectively never.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        It's easy to adapt one's moral values to what brings in more money. "Yeah, I'm getting these paybacks from companies, but I do it to support my campaign, else this scoundrel, my opponent would have gotten elected, who would have voted for very bad policies". Besides, long term, the system self-selects against too much morality. If they can't trust you to keep your mouth shut and play the game, you wont get the support you need to get to the next level. The one willing to put up with everything and anything, either participating, or keeping their mouth shut and pretending to be above it while still allowing it to happen, becomes President.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - lez 8y ago
      Money (USD) is controlled by one thing: * The FED
      - coldtea 8y ago
        That's just an agency. He who has the money controls the FED too.
blihp 8y ago
That ship sailed long ago (at least one or two copyright extensions ago in the last century) when copyright and patents ceased to serve their intended purpose and started being used to protect business turf in perpetuity.
beerlord 8y ago
The websites offering piracy services or advertising/promoting the availability of pirated content should simply be blocked at a national level. It seems to be working well enough in Australia: piracy visits are down 50%, piracy volumes are down 25%. This is following their DNS-based blocking of sites like ThePirateBay a few years ago. Its certainly better than suing people.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  Let's start by dialing back the ridiculous DRM, which makes it a lot more convenient to pirate content, rather than pay for the DRM-laden official releases.
  - kingo55 8y ago
    No thanks. I prefer to help content rights holders fund increasingly broad DRM capabilities which enable control of my devices by unknown third parties. Can't wait until the next "innovation" like this gem comes out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
  - beerlord 8y ago
    What ridiculous DRM?
- richthegeek 8y ago
  I can use Google for piracy, should that be blocked as well? Search for "NameOfMovie watch online free" and either the top links will be just that or the "DMCA Blocked" link at the bottom will be another website containing exactly that. Should we block Google? If not, under what situation would we block other sites? They also just 'link to content' rather than host it themselves.
  - beerlord 8y ago
    The industry generates a list of URLs which are submitted to an Australian court to review, then ISPs are instructed to block them. Of course there are loopholes, but a 53% reduction in vists to piracy sites after about 14 months indicates that the blocking was effective. https://www.smh.com.au/technology/site-blocking-hinders-fewer-than-half-of-australia-s-would-be-pirates-20180228-p4z23q.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/site-blocking-hinders-fewe...
eschevarria 8y ago
> There is no doubt about that Yes there is. Look up dominant assurance contracts. Why is it that people don't even think there could be doubt that the fundamental idea of copyright is sound? Why do they not look up if there have been arguments the opposite way? People are been given handwavey arguments for why the free market can't do this, why the free market can't do that, why this requires government intervention. And then they buy the reasoning that if not for copyright, there would be no incentive to provide intellectual goods. And then they immediately buy the conclusion that we ought to have copyright lengths of 70 years, that we ought to apply copyright automatically to all created goods. Soon they tell you that actually copyright was a natural right all along! The whole thing is diseased. At least have some doubt.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  Reading their whole post, their opinion seems to either be similar to yours, both of you end by rejecting it as a natural right, or they are the most devout absolute monarchist in centuries. There really is no doubt that it provided some good, there is doubt that it provided a total benefit or if that good was worth the cost.
  - RodericDay 8y ago
    nah, the difference is crucial it's like two people agreeing abortion should be legal, but one saying "it's bad, but it's still better legal" and another saying "it's not bad at all, it's a woman's right" one is a lot more intelligent and principled, and won't be undermined by the premises it foolishly conceded early on
- andybak 8y ago
  I actually do but I was trying to state a reasonable middle ground and sow some seeds of doubt. The general consensus seems to be that intellectual property is an unbridled good and so moving the needle a small amount towards doubt seemed like a good first step.
scotty79 8y ago
> The concept of intellectual property [...] provides a social good. There is no doubt about that [...] There's definitely a doubt about that. Not only about copyright but even about patents. Nearly all most influential discoveries were not patented. And when it comes to copyright there is vast amount of data how disregarding copyright improves peoples lives and economy developments. Outside US there are whole industries running on pirate software thay wouldn't exist if copyright was enforced.

adrianN 8y ago

I think it's mostly a money problem. IP owners have a lot more money with which they can influence politics than people pirating movies.

TomMarius 8y ago
Isn't that a systematic problem? Money should not influence politics
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  Should they not?
- jacobush 8y ago
  Money is free speech ... :-P
- radicalbyte 8y ago
  Doesn't pure Capitalism require that money rules?
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    Pure capitalism has no government that would suppress armed pushback
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Pure capitalism relies on government to enforce contracts. There's no capitalism without government, that would be anarchy. Whether it's big government (with welfare, education, etc) or not, is another thing. But capitalism, pure or not, requires police, army, courts, and so on, and by extension, a tax system to fund their operation. Else, it's just might that enforces anything it wants, and there are no contracts other than between people of equal power (since the more powerful can just steal whatever people with less power have).
      - TomMarius 8y ago
        Pure capitalism specifically doesn't rely on government with anything - even courts and enforcement would be private. It's much more complex, I recommend you to read something by Ludwig von Mises, he answers what you said on top of saying why it'd be more fair etc. And yes, pure capitalism is anarchy but that doesn't mean there would not be order. Of course these terms were redefined a lot during the last 100 years. We might simply misunderstand each other because each of us uses a different definition made by another person and taught by another school of thought as well as different university/professor. Anyways even if there was a government and law enforcement etc, in pure capitalism having more money would not help, government would be strictly neutral and the civil law minimal. If the government helps a company it's definitely not pure capitalism regardless of what the exact definition is.
        coldtea 8y ago
        >Pure capitalism specifically doesn't rely on government with anything - even courts and enforcement would be private. Doesn't make sense to have private courts since anybody with a large enough power (e.g. hired thugs) can take them over. If you mean that the individuals in such a scheme would agree to pay each to have a "private court/police" enforce their contracts etc, then that's the same as government, just one without voting (and presumably there would be some way to settle how those courts/police would operate too, which might end up as a contract itself, but people will have to agree to its terms first, so there's some voting there too). >If the government helps a company it's definitely not pure capitalism regardless of what the exact definition is. How that makes it anything more than wishful thinking though? If the government officials pocket money to favor one company, that's fully compatible with the greed and egoism that's essential for capitalism (according to Adam Smith and co “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"). What would prevent them to do it under the table, aside from morals?
- coldtea 8y ago
  Politics are controlled by two things: (a) money (b) popular revolt (or vigilance) Without (b) there's just (a).
  - sharemywin 8y ago
    There's some kind of moral value in there some where isn't there? a little shred of human decency? At least for a month or two when the politicians first get started?
    - zbentley 8y ago
      In some few specific cases? Sure. On average/over time? Effectively never.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      It's easy to adapt one's moral values to what brings in more money. "Yeah, I'm getting these paybacks from companies, but I do it to support my campaign, else this scoundrel, my opponent would have gotten elected, who would have voted for very bad policies". Besides, long term, the system self-selects against too much morality. If they can't trust you to keep your mouth shut and play the game, you wont get the support you need to get to the next level. The one willing to put up with everything and anything, either participating, or keeping their mouth shut and pretending to be above it while still allowing it to happen, becomes President.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - lez 8y ago
    Money (USD) is controlled by one thing: * The FED
    - coldtea 8y ago
      That's just an agency. He who has the money controls the FED too.

blihp 8y ago

That ship sailed long ago (at least one or two copyright extensions ago in the last century) when copyright and patents ceased to serve their intended purpose and started being used to protect business turf in perpetuity.

beerlord 8y ago

The websites offering piracy services or advertising/promoting the availability of pirated content should simply be blocked at a national level. It seems to be working well enough in Australia: piracy visits are down 50%, piracy volumes are down 25%. This is following their DNS-based blocking of sites like ThePirateBay a few years ago. Its certainly better than suing people.

KozmoNau7 8y ago
Let's start by dialing back the ridiculous DRM, which makes it a lot more convenient to pirate content, rather than pay for the DRM-laden official releases.
- kingo55 8y ago
  No thanks. I prefer to help content rights holders fund increasingly broad DRM capabilities which enable control of my devices by unknown third parties. Can't wait until the next "innovation" like this gem comes out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
- beerlord 8y ago
  What ridiculous DRM?
richthegeek 8y ago
I can use Google for piracy, should that be blocked as well? Search for "NameOfMovie watch online free" and either the top links will be just that or the "DMCA Blocked" link at the bottom will be another website containing exactly that. Should we block Google? If not, under what situation would we block other sites? They also just 'link to content' rather than host it themselves.
- beerlord 8y ago
  The industry generates a list of URLs which are submitted to an Australian court to review, then ISPs are instructed to block them. Of course there are loopholes, but a 53% reduction in vists to piracy sites after about 14 months indicates that the blocking was effective. https://www.smh.com.au/technology/site-blocking-hinders-fewer-than-half-of-australia-s-would-be-pirates-20180228-p4z23q.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/site-blocking-hinders-fewe...

eschevarria 8y ago

> There is no doubt about that Yes there is. Look up dominant assurance contracts. Why is it that people don't even think there could be doubt that the fundamental idea of copyright is sound? Why do they not look up if there have been arguments the opposite way? People are been given handwavey arguments for why the free market can't do this, why the free market can't do that, why this requires government intervention. And then they buy the reasoning that if not for copyright, there would be no incentive to provide intellectual goods. And then they immediately buy the conclusion that we ought to have copyright lengths of 70 years, that we ought to apply copyright automatically to all created goods. Soon they tell you that actually copyright was a natural right all along! The whole thing is diseased. At least have some doubt.

boomboomsubban 8y ago
Reading their whole post, their opinion seems to either be similar to yours, both of you end by rejecting it as a natural right, or they are the most devout absolute monarchist in centuries. There really is no doubt that it provided some good, there is doubt that it provided a total benefit or if that good was worth the cost.
- RodericDay 8y ago
  nah, the difference is crucial it's like two people agreeing abortion should be legal, but one saying "it's bad, but it's still better legal" and another saying "it's not bad at all, it's a woman's right" one is a lot more intelligent and principled, and won't be undermined by the premises it foolishly conceded early on
andybak 8y ago
I actually do but I was trying to state a reasonable middle ground and sow some seeds of doubt. The general consensus seems to be that intellectual property is an unbridled good and so moving the needle a small amount towards doubt seemed like a good first step.

scotty79 8y ago

> The concept of intellectual property [...] provides a social good. There is no doubt about that [...] There's definitely a doubt about that. Not only about copyright but even about patents. Nearly all most influential discoveries were not patented. And when it comes to copyright there is vast amount of data how disregarding copyright improves peoples lives and economy developments. Outside US there are whole industries running on pirate software thay wouldn't exist if copyright was enforced.