A recent CNET video on “Intellectual property rights vs. journalism” shows a Stanford University’s Innovation Journalism conference on June 7, with a panel discussion by various mainstreamers discussing the quesion “Is intellectual property protection a threat to journalism?” The lack of libertarian principle and sound economics has these commentators floundering as they discuss various cases where IP infringes free speech and freedom of the press. Lacking any principled approach they retreat to legal positivism, talking about how the Constitution protects both freedom of the press and speech as well as IP rights, so some “balance” must be made. Without Austrian economics and libertarian principle, even well-intentioned people, who sense that something is wrong, are helpless before the state’s propaganda and onslaught of legal positivism.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13053/helpless-mainstreamers-grappling-with-intellectual-property/
Helpless Mainstreamers Grappling with Intellectual Property
Previous post: The clock must be ticking on the Euro
Next post: Oh, Nevermind
{ 17 comments }
Anyone is free to start a publication and waive IP rights to the material, such as through Creative Commons.
Relevance? Anyone is free to choose not to own slaves in a slavery society too. So?
So, nothing’s stopping them from starting non-IP publications … except for the inability to gather some of the news people might like … and are willing to pay for … unless someone gives it away for free … which makes some of that news not get produced in the first place, making potential consumers of this news worse off.
Hey, maybe there *is* a purpose to starting an IP-protected publication…
That’s a non-sequitur. You can do that by not allowing viewing without payment and acceptance of a contract. No IP required.
Silas, I’d like to know how you believe any government can be minimal if you support IP rights and enforcement related to protecting it the same as any other property. Given your usual comments about “IP socialists” that I’ve seen I can’t imagine you support real life socialism, but a government of the size necessary to prevent things to the degree you think necessary would be insane.
Do you think ISPs should be forced to track everything customers do? If encryption is used, do you think this should be made illegal to make sure transfers that take place using it are legal? I’m not sure how your view of IP is realistically enforceable without a police state.
Except that wouldn’t bind third parties.
If you accept that a minimal government can still enforce property rights, you should be able to easily see how it can enforce intellectual property rights. As long as enough people accept the valdity of IP, the rights are enforced as any other right would be under a minarchist government. If people didn’t generally accept the validity of *physical* property rights, you wouldn’t be able to enforce that against the hordes of violators either. Not without a giant government, anyway.
I think your’e applying a different standard to the two cases by assuming people go along with physical property but not intellectual, and then screaming about how enforcement of one of them requires a totalitarian regime given this same composition of the populates.
So your ideal of “minimal government” would enforce anything “enough people accept”? Then what we have today already fits the bill, no?! Most of the people here are libertarians: we care more about what’s right and wrong than how many people “accept” it.
Silas, I’m sorry if I do not get it right.
Let’s use examples in which the state will solve the problem.
Violators of physical property damaged your fence, invaded your land, and filled a niche that is not theirs. Then comes the state. He expelled the violators. Problem solved.
Now…
Violators of intellectual property get access to information that you own, the mere act of understanding it requires copying in their own minds, thus capturing the essence of your right. Then comes the state. Lobotomize violators and ensure that your idea is yours and whoever else you want…
… then the state must create demand, becoming a blinder (http://images.webster-dictionary.org/dict/104/415819-blinker.gif)?
So, please explain it to me. How the state will help you preventing me from having a copy of your book/music/design on my house/mind?
And a century from now?
Nothing’s stopping them, except copyright law, which is very sticky. http://blog.mises.org/9240/copyright-is-very-sticky/
Relevance? CC (and numerous alternatives) allows you to waive your IP. If you’re talking about copying other people’s works to distribute as content, sure, copyright stops that, at least if someone sues. But what does that have to do with your *own*, original material?
can someone then take the creative commons info and then with some type of state enforced copyright in essense monopolize it??
Consumers are harmed when an oil company is given a monopoly on drilling from an oil deposit. Certainly we would all be better off if we could all drill to this deposit and get the oil out all at once.
There is no need to find new oil deposits anyway, and finding them costs nothing and is effortless.
A finite amount of oil can be taken from a particular deposit, so this doesn’t work.
That is irrelevant. A finite amount of information can be extracted from any media before new information has to be produced, and this requires capital investment.
Looking at it from a strictly legal point of view, wouldn’t the first amendment overrule patent and copyright protection whenever they get into conflict?
Hah, great point.
Any comments on this story: http://techdirt.com/articles/20100621/2320049908.shtml ?
(“Court Says It’s Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright”)
Masnick is great and heroic here as usual, but this is no surprise. They are talking not about individuals putting public domain works under copyright but legislation that does this. I don’t see why such legislation is any worse than what we have now. After all this is exactly waht copyrgiht law does: takes something that is public domain (a new idea you have, say) and puts a copyright on it.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }