4 ms·

> The question around IP law isn't if it's possible for creative work to be created without it, which is obviously true, but what creative works would be create

by pitaj 7y ago

> The question around IP law isn't if it's possible for creative work to be created without it, which is obviously true, but what creative works would be created (and what creative works would not be created) if IP law didn't exist. Those are bad questions, and unanswerable on all accounts. They also don't help us because then we have to compare the subjective values of creations to pick which is better, which is impossible since it varies person-to-person. One question we could ask is "How much money flows from a consumers to creators under both systems?" That question is still hard to answer, but at least the answer would have meaning. > Is your claim that the set of creative works we have today would exist in full without IP law? I don't claim that everything would be the same without IP laws. However, I certainly think it would be better if they didn't exist. > rather easily refutable through any single example where a company's primary competitive advantage hinges upon IP rights. Potential examples abound. It doesn't really matter but I am curious what companies you're referring to that aren't acting as parasitic rent-seeking middlemen. > You can argue that the tradeoffs in IP law are not good tradeoffs. But your post seems to think that there would be no tradeoff -- that simply we'd get all the benefits conferred to society (in the form of creative works), with none of the downsides, if we eliminated IP protections. I don't see any evidence that lifting IP protections will result in a decrease in quantity or quality of creative works as a whole. > The burden of proof is on you for that one, since I'm sure if you surveyed any company relying upon IP protections in any non-trivial way, they'd indicate that capital would have been allocated elsewhere if not for those protections. Let's make it clear what you're advocating for: continued state action that benefits a minority of the population at the expense of consumers by providing the members of that minority with an artificially enforced monopoly on information. Your argument is the status quo fallacy. Just because something currently exists, does not mean I have the burden of proof. In fact, it is you who must prove that IP is beneficial. I cannot prove a negative (that IP is not necessary or beneficial) and asking me to do so is irrational. That's like asking abolitionists to prove that slavery isn't necessary for the economy. (Sorry for the inflammatory example but it's what came to mind)

Silhouette 7y ago
I don't see any evidence that lifting IP protections will result in a decrease in quantity or quality of creative works as a whole. Well, there are millions of people working in creative industries today whose income ultimately derives from selling that creative work under the current IP regime. If removing IP protections is not to result in reduced output, some alternative model must either continue to provide the same incentive for the same people to do that work or provide a sufficient incentive so that others produce at least the equivalent output. I would argue that many alternative models have been tried in recent years, and that in most cases there is no inherent reason that they could not succeed immediately if they created a more effective incentive than the existing IP regime just because we have that regime operating in parallel. And yet so far, I see little evidence that any known alternative has actually done that. There are some isolated success stories, and even those typically don't raise anything like as much funding as the the top tier of works funded through more traditional models. Let's make it clear what you're advocating for: continued state action that benefits a minority of the population at the expense of consumers by providing the members of that minority with an artificially enforced monopoly on information. But that minority of the population is the only group contributing any value here. What you're advocating for is everyone being able to benefit from the work of others without any obligation to give anything back. That might cut it when we're living in a fully automated utopian paradise where money is obsolete and no-one has to work for a living, but until then, the people contributing that value also have bills to pay and families to feed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by pitaj 7y ago

Silhouette 7y ago

I don't see any evidence that lifting IP protections will result in a decrease in quantity or quality of creative works as a whole. Well, there are millions of people working in creative industries today whose income ultimately derives from selling that creative work under the current IP regime. If removing IP protections is not to result in reduced output, some alternative model must either continue to provide the same incentive for the same people to do that work or provide a sufficient incentive so that others produce at least the equivalent output. I would argue that many alternative models have been tried in recent years, and that in most cases there is no inherent reason that they could not succeed immediately if they created a more effective incentive than the existing IP regime just because we have that regime operating in parallel. And yet so far, I see little evidence that any known alternative has actually done that. There are some isolated success stories, and even those typically don't raise anything like as much funding as the the top tier of works funded through more traditional models. Let's make it clear what you're advocating for: continued state action that benefits a minority of the population at the expense of consumers by providing the members of that minority with an artificially enforced monopoly on information. But that minority of the population is the only group contributing any value here. What you're advocating for is everyone being able to benefit from the work of others without any obligation to give anything back. That might cut it when we're living in a fully automated utopian paradise where money is obsolete and no-one has to work for a living, but until then, the people contributing that value also have bills to pay and families to feed.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]