“The book is not “copyrighted.” The state imposes a copyright on it, and grants it to me. It’s not my doing. I don’t want it.”

Oh, but you could have given permission to freely copy after the copyright information, chosen any of the various alternatives (Creative Commons, etc.).

We do. The book is free now. What are you talking about? Anyone is free to do WHATEVER THEY WANT with the text. Translate it. Slap your name on it. Sell copies of it with my name on it. I don’t care.

And interestingly, the copyright appears to actually be held by the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

no, it’s not. The law gives the author the copyright, and I have not assigned it by writing to anyone. If it says “(c) Mises Institute” this is simply false, and the result of common mistakes made by normal people trying to deal with the insane IP system people like you promote.

I am quite interested to know why you chose to give them the IP rights for your work, seeing as how you don’t believe in it!

I have assigned copyright before to commercial publishers. You do not need to “believe” in copyrihgt to do this. this is cheap equivocation on your part. Because of the universal application of the horrible copyright law you support, and industry has built up around it, making it impossible for me as an author to publish a work with a normal commercial publisher without assigning to them the artificial rights your system has placed in me. are you blaming me for complying wiht your unjust laws? Ridiculous!

In any case, for my libertarian writing I have never assigned it to anyone. Copyright “belongs” to me–but I refuse to enforce it. What else would you have me do? Use my Libertarian Willpower to Nullify Copyright Law?

If an artist’s song is “stolen” by a car company and used in an add, this would INCREASE the artists exposure, particularly if they complain publicly about the song being used without permission and the story gets picked up in the media. Also, many people would disapprove of “stealing” songs for commercial use and this could lead to a backlash against the car company.

Personally, I think that that sort of behavior from a company is immoral, and it might lead me to change my shopping preferences. However, I do not believe that it is the place of the law to regulate morality. I think that cheating on a romantic partner is immoral, but I would not pass a law against it… ditto for IP.

I brought up the examples I did because you asked for something that could encourage innovation independently from IP, and those example fulfill that requirement. Whether the artists intended to give up their IP entirely or not is beside the point… they were making money off of their creations without using IP.

Regarding patents, there is an advantage to being the first to market with a new invention, and there is another advantage to being able to forgo the huge legal risks involved in defending against patent suits.

As for trademark, abusing a trademark is illegal if you are fraudulently pretending to represent another company, so IP laws are not necessary.

Even if none of the above arguments are true, the fundamental issue is that the ownership of ideas is not possible in any way that is both logically consistent and consistent with physical property rights. Therefore any law that is derived based on the notion that ideas can be owned is unjust, regardless of how utilitarian the outcome is. If enforcing real property rights limits innovation then so be it.

Because if IP is done away with, that is the logical outcome. “Why pay the artist for that great song? ”

The logical outcome is that you don’t pay the artist for the song.

You pay for performances of the song. Why? Because there is no comparison between recorded song and seeing a live performance. If anybody fails to understand this then find a artist you like and put effort into seeing them live. Then you will understand. It’s extremely obvious.

This is how most successful musicians make most their money… performances. The studios make money from album sales and the actual artists make either a tiny fraction (less then pennies per dollar spent by the consumer) or nothing at all. There are a few artists that make a lot of money from album sales, but it’s extremely rare.

This reflects back to the reason we have of recorded albums and studios in the first place… The original purpose of singles and albums was as a promotional item for a artist to drum up excitement for live concerts. We are in a process of going full circle were music is becoming communal activity again and studios are going to reduce in importance and profitability from being masters of the music industries to being promoters under contract for the artists.

Shockingly, in some ways he is preferable to Silas.

Is this Dave Narby chap still hanging around?

He spends all his time asking for proof that IP laws hurt innovation without ever considering the fact that he also has no proof that IP laws encourage innovation.

Can’t he see that it is virtually impossible to prove that IP laws either increase or decrease innovation?

(When he finally manages to figure this point out, maybe then he will realise that the best policy is one which does not systematically trample physical property rights.)

Because if IP is done away with, that is the logical outcome. “Why pay the artist for that great song? ”

Since you are so sure of yourself as to say no artist, here’s a link to one who does exactly that and still makes money out of his work: http://kalyanvarma.net/index.php
He has been cited by Rashmi Bansal in a book called Connect the Dots, as saying he makes more money now than he would have had he continued working in Yahoo India, even though he shares his work on his site for all to see. And this is a guy in India, the land of the poor and downtrodden.

If you think no one pays for free stuff, you’re mistaken. All those who donate to wikipedia have proven you wrong. All those who donate to LvMI have also proven you wrong.

The reason most people attend a math class is get the educational institution’s “stamp of approval” showing they completed the requirements and satisfied the course objective.

Funny. I go to school to learn stuff. Not to have the ability to wave papers in other people’s faces. But then again higher education is lost of many people as they do go to school just to get paper work filed out in their name.

Guess this this is not the type of school for the latter.

So the enterprising person would benefit as much from simply obtaining reading the material as he would having it spoon-fed by Kinsella!

That’s a possibility, yes. That’s true for any school. It’s the fault of modern society to mistake graduation papers as a sign of competency. (quite often whether somebody has the official papers is completely irrelevant to whether or not they can actually accomplish anything of merit for a employer) It just requires more work and more time.

School is a labor saving device, ultimately. Condensing experience and work and ‘spoon feeding’ it to people. That’s why you pay for it.

The most entertaining (and educational) aspect of Mr. Kinsella is the questions he refuses (or is incapable) of answering.

lol

Besides, I find it funny you suggest that you would disseminate Stephan’s work, while simultaneously objecting to the contents of it. Stephan would probably be laughing too at how instead of proving your point you would end up digging your own grave.

Stephan should have no problem with this, if he truly believes what he argues.

If you were to follow your own logic, you would not post on the internet for free. So, in order to remain consistent, how about you shut up until someone pays you?

I am not surprised that you attribute sarcasm where I offered none, and errors where I made none, as beating straw men seems to be the local pastime of the Intellectual Communists haunting Mises.org.

I am however, a bit surprised that you bring up artists who freely give away their IP for advertising concerts and book sales as an argument for compensation for innovation (not the least of which is ignores the issue of patents and trademarks entirely).

This is because it is doubtless none of those artists would approve of their work being appropriated by an individual or corporation for their own personal gain without compensation for the artist, for instance by using that art/song in an advertising campaign for their products.

Because if IP is done away with, that is the logical outcome. “Why pay the artist for that great song? Let’s just use it in our ad campaign to sell our snazzy new car! After all, there’s no IP laws stopping us!”

Can you honestly say you’re You OK with something that happening? Think about it!

I’m not, and I’m sure artists like Trent Reznor aren’t either! Just because they choose to give away their work for free doesn’t mean they have given up their IP rights!

Your comments on this thread are truly pathetic. First you ask sarcastically where you can download Kinsella’s book for free, and when the link is provided you don’t even acknowledge that you were wrong. Next you say “maybe I will join the course and share all the information” and when Kinsella says “fine” you fail to acknowledge that you were wrong, again. Your petty sarcasm and poorly argued, mean spirited posts are impressing no one.

As for your question about a “system that will encourage innovation and invention” without IP, this course was a perfect example. Even though Kinsella provided all of his work freely on the internet people STILL PAID HIM for it. He made money on “ideas” without using IP laws to protect it… I am sure he has sold many copies of his book as well, even though it is freely available on the internet.

IP is NOT necessary to make money… ask Kinsella, any number of artists and authors who provide their work for free on the internet (in exchange for exposure in hopes of concert and book sales), independent video game studios who provide free games and forgo DRM. People are subsisting off of their ideas without IP all around you. Open your eyes.

Then why bother charging for it at all? Why not just publish it to the Internet?

Are you claiming special value to your words and ideas over and above the cost of data transmission and replication?

But while math, like engineering or chemistry, requires a fair amount of practical knowledge and practice, the majority of a course like that Kinsella offers consists of the material presented and the novelty of his arguments.

So the enterprising person would benefit as much from simply obtaining reading the material as he would having it spoon-fed by Kinsella!

But this is besides the point – The most entertaining (and educational) aspect of Mr. Kinsella is the questions he refuses (or is incapable) of answering. They are quite revealing.

Oh, but you could have given permission to freely copy after the copyright information, chosen any of the various alternatives (Creative Commons, etc.).

But you didn’t!

And interestingly, the copyright appears to actually be held by the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

I am quite interested to know why you chose to give them the IP rights for your work, seeing as how you don’t believe in it!

BTW, we are all still waiting as to how you propose innovation be compensated and encouraged in an anti-IP world. Care to finally answer that question?

Care to make this official?