3 ms·

There are free-rider problems everywhere. From a "rights" perspective, the fact that you can see a free-rider problem and have an idea for some kind of law tha

There are free-rider problems everywhere. From a "rights" perspective, the fact that you can see a free-rider problem and have an idea for some kind of law that you think would improve incentives doesn't justify using legal force to impose these changes on everyone else. But I'm not sure how many people there are these days for whom a "rights" argument carries weight. For a more empirical approach, I think it's worth looking at "Against Intellectual Monopoly" [1], from 2008. "Chapter 8: Does Intellectual Monopoly Increase Innovation?" [2] may be of particular interest. [1] http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht... [2] http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal08.pdf http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal08.pdf

6510 6y ago
Very good stuff to read. I'm sure many like me came to the same conclusion on a [shall we say] more emotional level where a few good examples are enough to tip the scale. That book really demolish the monopoly rights from a functional perspective. An argument much more convincing for those who still think patents have merit. Prince applauded Napster and said people could finally go back to making music for the sake of making music. I personally don't consider any entertainment important enough to play a role in the design of society. As long as people are working themselves to death merely to sustain themselves they shouldn't be made to pay for your entertainment in any way. That it also doesn't make any technical sense never truly occurred to me.