3 ms·

> copyright laws exist for the express purpose of creating an artificial monopoly for your business > your monopoly over commercial exploitation Does this a

> copyright laws exist for the express purpose of creating an artificial monopoly for your business > your monopoly over commercial exploitation Does this article need to offer some account of how these premises are true? Since it isn't clear either are. ie., the law is a guarantee of any right. If you produce some physical good your "monopoly" (ie., ownership), without the law, is only so good as your safe. It is a coincidence not some principle that physical goods require less, in-practice, deployment of the courts to enforce ownership rights. (ie., theft is rarer). It is unclear why ownership over a non-physical good is an "artificial monopoly" where as ownership over physical goods is a "natural" one which properly implies a "commercial right to profit" etc. Why in one area does one's efforts to produce imply a right to profit; and in the other, not?

jakswa 6y ago
The time limit on patents/copyright imply to me that they are giving you time to recoup costs and enjoy the reward of your innovation. If that's so, I'd argue that over the last century the time required to enjoy innovation (time to market saturation) has gone down. Even for physical goods? I think that the radio took decades to become widespread. The ipod took... a few years? All that to say, maybe virtual innovation takes even less time, and should have less time to enjoy monopoly? But I'm only playing your devil's advocate.
pawelmurias 6y ago
Physical goods aren't trivially copied, but they tend to be a lot easier to steal. Actual theft of intellectual property is practically unheard, but often easily infringed. There is a natural monopoly for the people who has physical access to them.
adrianN 6y ago
The cost of making a copy of a non-physical good is pretty close to zero. I can't give away my teapot while also keeping it, but I can give away a copy of a book. In the same way I can't really "steal" someone's intellectual property because it's hard to take away ideas, or every copy of a work, such that the original author no longer has access to them.
MereInterest 6y ago
To answer you first question, because historically "monopoly" is the term used. To have exclusive rights to produce a particular object is a monopoly over that production. One of the earliest instances of patent law is the "Statute of Monopolies". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies To answer your second question, all ownership is a restriction on the actions of others, in some way. If you own a house, what that means is that everybody else is restricted from entering that house without permission. If you own a copyright monopoly, it means that everybody else is restricted from making copies of particular books without your permission. Where I would draw the line between "artificial" and "natural" monopolies is in how straightforward those restrictions are to apply. It is very easy to maintain restrictions on wearing a particular hat or entering a particular house. On the other hand, it is very hard to monitor all copies of a book to ensure that nobody is making additional copies of it. For one, exclusivity is a function of it being a physical object. For the other, exclusivity is not an inherent trait of the book, and is instead bolted on through legal measures.

jakswa 6y ago

The time limit on patents/copyright imply to me that they are giving you time to recoup costs and enjoy the reward of your innovation. If that's so, I'd argue that over the last century the time required to enjoy innovation (time to market saturation) has gone down. Even for physical goods? I think that the radio took decades to become widespread. The ipod took... a few years? All that to say, maybe virtual innovation takes even less time, and should have less time to enjoy monopoly? But I'm only playing your devil's advocate.

pawelmurias 6y ago

Physical goods aren't trivially copied, but they tend to be a lot easier to steal. Actual theft of intellectual property is practically unheard, but often easily infringed. There is a natural monopoly for the people who has physical access to them.

adrianN 6y ago

The cost of making a copy of a non-physical good is pretty close to zero. I can't give away my teapot while also keeping it, but I can give away a copy of a book. In the same way I can't really "steal" someone's intellectual property because it's hard to take away ideas, or every copy of a work, such that the original author no longer has access to them.

MereInterest 6y ago

To answer you first question, because historically "monopoly" is the term used. To have exclusive rights to produce a particular object is a monopoly over that production. One of the earliest instances of patent law is the "Statute of Monopolies". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies To answer your second question, all ownership is a restriction on the actions of others, in some way. If you own a house, what that means is that everybody else is restricted from entering that house without permission. If you own a copyright monopoly, it means that everybody else is restricted from making copies of particular books without your permission. Where I would draw the line between "artificial" and "natural" monopolies is in how straightforward those restrictions are to apply. It is very easy to maintain restrictions on wearing a particular hat or entering a particular house. On the other hand, it is very hard to monitor all copies of a book to ensure that nobody is making additional copies of it. For one, exclusivity is a function of it being a physical object. For the other, exclusivity is not an inherent trait of the book, and is instead bolted on through legal measures.