why would you write a book that you don’t want anyone to read?

why would you entrust something you wanted so much control over to someone who could betray you?

having your work out there for all to see is the best protection for it. if you put your book up on the web, you are recruiting witnesses to the fact that the work belongs to you. being the original creator is a real competitive advantage.

establishing yourself as the creator then becomes a trademark issue rather than a copyright issue. there are few who would argue against trademark. levine and boldrine make this argument in the book.

Please see his article in the Feb 2009 is located here:

http://www.the-scientist.com/2009/02/1/28/1/

and his blog is

http://ipshareguy.vox.com

It was I, not newson, who took your post, improved it, and posted it as my own. I am actually awaiting one of your ethics sermons or your treatment of “my” post as you understand contract law.

For that matter, I’d be interested in many of the pro-IP arguments against my conduct from a market perspective, an ethical perspective, or even a penal perspective.

Sherman

“Except for one thing: this is complete violation of the spirit of intellectual property law. All these readers were sharing the same book instead of buying a new copy.”

No it isn’t. Don’t be silly. The copying right holder only owns the right to copy the book. None of the people sharing the book violated this right.

This isn’t anything new either. What do you think a library does?

Suppose that I write a book. And I don’t want anyone else to read my book. Except this one friend of mine. So I show him my book, on the condition that he not share it with anyone else. Then he breaks his promise, and sends copies of my book to all his friends. And they send it to their friends, and so forth.

Or suppose that I never intend for anyone to read my book, but a thief breaks into my house and steals my computer.

I assume that we would all agree that the government should punish the thief who steals my computer, or the friend who breaks his promise. But why should all the rest of the world be allowed to profit from their evil deeds?

Boldrin and Levine appear to be “good” economists in that they examine the unseen consequences of actions. It’s like a breath of fresh air. However, they are certainly not Austrians. It is nice to know that free markets maximize wealth, but that in itself is not a sufficient reason to promote free markets. That fact that free markets are most consistent with morality and liberty would be reason enough even if wealth were not maximized.

For example, they realize one could not eliminate pharmaceutical patents without changing the exorbitant cost of getting drugs approved by the FDA. Their suggestion is to have the NIH sponsor phase II and III studies on drugs after drug companies do the phase I testing. Eliminating both the FDA and NIH is apparently never considered.

Government + Science = Junk Science

See Molecules of Emotion by Candace Pert. This provides an interesting look at the politics inside the NIH by a former star research scientist.

“heuristic says:
“Yes, there is IP: that which is created by contracts between consenting parties.”

…therefore there is no need for ip legislation, standard contract law suffices.”

I do not believe in legislation of anything, since I am an anarchist. I am saying that, in a free world, everything economic would be done by contract and reputation; the industries of dispute arbitration and reputation management would be far greater than they are now.

Contracts between publisher and artist (and between publisher and buyer) would create most of the IP that is called “copyright.” People might still dishonestly flout a contract by copying the work; but, if detected, they would be subject to loss of reputation and in such a world that would be a serious penalty. The bottom line is that IP is a real and natural product of contract between consenting parties.

Anyone who thinks that abolishing copyright laws means a free-for-all orgy of copying is either a bad person (that no one should trust once the nature of the person becomes apparent) or a barely functional moron, who, in a free world, might be an object of charity and pity.

“heuristic says:
“Yes, there is IP: that which is created by contracts between consenting parties.”

…therefore there is no need for ip legislation, standard contract law suffices.”

I don’t believe in legislation of anything, since I’m an anarchist.

I’m saying that in a free world everything economic would be done by contract and reputation; the industries of dispute arbitration and reputation management would be far greater than they are now.

Contracts between publisher and artist, and between publisher and buyer, would create most of the IP that is called “copyright.” People might still dishonestly flout a contract by copying the work but if detected they would be subject to loss of reputation and in such a world that would be a serious penalty. Bottom line: IP is a real and natural product of contract between consenting parties.

Anyone who thinks that abolishing copyrigth laws means a free-for-all orgy of copying is either a bad person (that no-one should trust once the nature of the person becomes apparent) or a barely functiopnal moron who, in a free world, might be an object of charity and pity.

The funny thing is that in days of old, bards were paid to do just that! Before printing, and general literacy.

Keeping a thought only in one’s mind is the only sure form of protection of an idea. So non-disclosure agreements are a way of contractually sharing thought exclusively.

IP seems perfectly suited to ego. But to the intelligent being, the higher rational self, it becomes a gilded cage. I think Ayn Rand missed this point in her observations. Who is John Gault? A man with a secret. A man with a protected ego and a tortured soul.

…therefore there is no need for ip legislation, standard contract law suffices.

to jeff:
i owe a debt of gratitude to b & l in curing me of my agnosticism re:ip

In this thread we have had a series of fallacious arguments (fallacious because they avoid the ethics of violation of contract):

First we had an argument from utility and then an argument ad hominem, and now, argument ad absurdum! Tucker is now straining to find ridiculous, supposed “examples” of IP in order to prove that there is no such thing as IP.

Yes, there is IP: that which is created by contracts between consenting parties.