3 ms·

Thousands of years of history show that there is no need for so called "Intellectual Property" as an incentive, the greatest artists mankind has produce certain

by luriel 15y ago

Thousands of years of history show that there is no need for so called "Intellectual Property" as an incentive, the greatest artists mankind has produce certainly didn't need it. What the few hundred years of IP law have shown is that IP will be abused to perpetuate monopolies and stifle competition and creativity.

gaius 15y ago
... because you couldn't reproduce a Rembrandt unless you happened to be, or hire, Rembrandt. In the old days, they didn't think about IP because they didn't have to: it was enforced by the laws of physical reality.
- icebraining 15y ago
  That's not really true - there were a many painters who could copy a Rembrandt that would look real to anyone but an expert. The difference is that the reason people put so much value on a Rembrandt is not because they want to look at a nice painting but because of social signaling, and that can't be copied. Most painters were not Rembrandt, though, and they still made a living even if they didn't provide that signal.
- njharman 15y ago
  Copy not reproduce. Still can't reproduce a Rembrandt. Original is a unique, limited, and (very) valuable object. Copies or representations in other media (e.g. photographs, jpegs) are practically unlimited. If they are copyrightable their value is almost entirely due to artificial scarcity and monopoly that copyright provids.
stanfordkid 15y ago
what about the drug industry? the movie industry? Furthermore the idea that artists aren't motivated by profit is wrong. It is true that unlike -- say investment bankers -- they have intrinsic value for the work they are doing this does not negate the fact that they also want profit.
- luriel 15y ago
  The drug and movie industries are your best examples of healthy innovation and creativity? Really? They are some of the closer examples to cartels you will find anywhere. There is also plenty of evidence that shows historically industries have done better when free of intellectual property. For details see this book by two respected economists that looked into the issue: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h...
  - v0cab 15y ago
    Could you explain why they are cartels? I don't disagree (I say, for the benefit of my comments history); just looking for info.
    - luriel 15y ago
      Both are very aggressive towards anyone trying to disrupt their industry (eg., generic drugs or online distributions for example), and both use government power (regulations, patents, DMCA, etc.) to try to preserve their control over their market. How pharma companies (ab)use patents is a great example, they will patent some drug, and then wait until the patent has almost expired, and then make the slightest modification (sometimes in something as basic as packaging for 'slow release' or whatever) and patent the same thing again.

by luriel 15y ago

gaius 15y ago

... because you couldn't reproduce a Rembrandt unless you happened to be, or hire, Rembrandt. In the old days, they didn't think about IP because they didn't have to: it was enforced by the laws of physical reality.

icebraining 15y ago
That's not really true - there were a many painters who could copy a Rembrandt that would look real to anyone but an expert. The difference is that the reason people put so much value on a Rembrandt is not because they want to look at a nice painting but because of social signaling, and that can't be copied. Most painters were not Rembrandt, though, and they still made a living even if they didn't provide that signal.
njharman 15y ago
Copy not reproduce. Still can't reproduce a Rembrandt. Original is a unique, limited, and (very) valuable object. Copies or representations in other media (e.g. photographs, jpegs) are practically unlimited. If they are copyrightable their value is almost entirely due to artificial scarcity and monopoly that copyright provids.

stanfordkid 15y ago

what about the drug industry? the movie industry? Furthermore the idea that artists aren't motivated by profit is wrong. It is true that unlike -- say investment bankers -- they have intrinsic value for the work they are doing this does not negate the fact that they also want profit.

luriel 15y ago
The drug and movie industries are your best examples of healthy innovation and creativity? Really? They are some of the closer examples to cartels you will find anywhere. There is also plenty of evidence that shows historically industries have done better when free of intellectual property. For details see this book by two respected economists that looked into the issue: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h...
- v0cab 15y ago
  Could you explain why they are cartels? I don't disagree (I say, for the benefit of my comments history); just looking for info.
  - luriel 15y ago
    Both are very aggressive towards anyone trying to disrupt their industry (eg., generic drugs or online distributions for example), and both use government power (regulations, patents, DMCA, etc.) to try to preserve their control over their market. How pharma companies (ab)use patents is a great example, they will patent some drug, and then wait until the patent has almost expired, and then make the slightest modification (sometimes in something as basic as packaging for 'slow release' or whatever) and patent the same thing again.