Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft

[Libertarian666]

Isn't one way to compensate creators a one-time payment for their creations? (The payment could obviously be negotiated.) It doesn't seem obvious to me that a creator (or anyone else) necessarily has a "right" to continue to extract monetary value from a creation for a long period of time after the creation has been revealed to the public and can be easily copied thereafter.

Wow, I think the author of a novel should get a piece of that for one hundred years, as long as the book continues to sell. (I'd set it at one lifetime, but for certain kinds of valuable IP, some might be tempted to murder the creator).

A lifesaving drug...I can see why generics are eventually allowed to arise.

Just as a thought experiment, what would you think about some kind of mandatory licensing? It could be a middle ground between public domain and full "ownership". In other words, Charles Dickens's estate could still be paid some reasonable percentage of the revenue from derivative works, but could not forbid (or otherwise weigh in on) their creation.

That's sort of how patents work. After the term of the patent expires, anyone can practice the invention.

[CT-Scott]

Another thing you should do is to provide some examples of how creators will still be able to profit from the investment of time/money that they have put into creating a work of art or technology (assuming the work actually has sufficient value to other people) and won't lose all value to free riders. Just saying that "your bad business model is not my problem" is not going to win hearts and minds.

I agree with you that simply saying "your bad business model is not my problem" does not "win hearts and minds", so I do think there's value in anti-IPers engaging in thought excercises to address some examples of those. And I think we do. I've talked in this thread about how creators can benefit from being first to market. In fact, in a non-IP world, creators would learn very quickly that part of their business plan would absolutely *require* that they maximize that, which would include being extra-secretive about what they're working on before they're absolutely ready to release it. They would also do well to set up websites, spread the word about their business, etc., so that when they do release their "thing" and someone else comes along to copy it, that there is an established audience of people who know who the originator was. This is part of building up a reputation. I can't answer all of the questions for you about how it would work, because no one can possibly predict how the world would adjust/adapt absent IP laws. So I could brainstorm some things, but the world would likely react in many ways that I can't even imagine.

But, I also won't shy away from the "it's not my problem" statement, either. How much were we required to worry about people making buggy whips when someone invented the first automobile? A lot of "innocent" hard-working people may have been peacefully involved in the buggy whip industry, but they were forced to adapt to a new world. Many would suffer financially. But that was no argument for preventing someone from making automobiles.

A one-time payment from whom? If this involves government, count me out. I'm a small government guy.

With all due respect, if you're in favor of IP laws, you are absolutely not in favor of "small government." Absent big government, IP laws would not be enforced.

[stuper1]

But, I also won't shy away from the "it's not my problem" statement, either. How much were we required to worry about people making buggy whips when someone invented the first automobile? A lot of "innocent" hard-working people may have been peacefully involved in the buggy whip industry, but they were forced to adapt to a new world. Many would suffer financially. But that was no argument for preventing someone from making automobiles.

The analogies that you and Stephan come up with are completely irrelevant. Nobody here is arguing that progress is not a good thing. Nobody is saying that buggy whip makers need to be compensated when automobiles are invented. All I am saying is that the creator of the automobile needs to be protected against some lazy person coming along and getting a free ride of profit off of the creator's work.

[nskinsella]

Isn't one way to compensate creators a one-time payment for their creations? (The payment could obviously be negotiated.) It doesn't seem obvious to me that a creator (or anyone else) necessarily has a "right" to continue to extract monetary value from a creation for a long period of time after the creation has been revealed to the public and can be easily copied thereafter.

Wow, I think the author of a novel should get a piece of that for one hundred years, as long as the book continues to sell. (I'd set it at one lifetime, but for certain kinds of valuable IP, some might be tempted to murder the creator).

A lifesaving drug...I can see why generics are eventually allowed to arise.

Just as a thought experiment, what would you think about some kind of mandatory licensing? It could be a middle ground between public domain and full "ownership". In other words, Charles Dickens's estate could still be paid some reasonable percentage of the revenue from derivative works, but could not forbid (or otherwise weigh in on) their creation.

Actually we have something sort of like that for music, in the ASCAP system. I have in fact proposed that something like this be implemented in the patent system--get rid of injunctions, or, what would be similar, have the fedgov issue compulsory licenses for all issued patents.

see.e.g. my post “How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law” http://c4sif.org/2011/02/how-to-improve ... emark-law/

[Tortoise]

Do I as the creator have the right to reject the modest amount offered by the early adopters and take my risks in the open marketplace on my own?

Yes, absolutely. But isn't the free-market "group auction" of early adopters part of my imaginary open marketplace already?

Do you envision any other mechanisms in the open marketplace (perhaps imaginary ones) by which the creator could potentially fetch a higher price than what he'd get from a group auction?

In your Titanic example, I would imagine that if the creator puts together a sufficiently accurate and engaging trailer (maybe an extra-long trailer... who knows) that really conveys the essence of his film, it would be strange for the early adopters to predict it'll be a stinker if the movie would actually be very popular among the general public. But maybe I'm wrong.

[nskinsella]

But, I also won't shy away from the "it's not my problem" statement, either. How much were we required to worry about people making buggy whips when someone invented the first automobile? A lot of "innocent" hard-working people may have been peacefully involved in the buggy whip industry, but they were forced to adapt to a new world. Many would suffer financially. But that was no argument for preventing someone from making automobiles.

The analogies that you and Stephan come up with are completely irrelevant. Nobody here is arguing that progress is not a good thing. Nobody is saying that buggy whip makers need to be compensated when automobiles are invented. All I am saying is that the creator of the automobile needs to be protected against some lazy person coming along and getting a free ride of profit off of the creator's work.

Free riding is a common feature of a free society. We all benefit from knowledge and innovation of others now and in the past. This isn't "lazy". When someone creates an automobile and they sell it in the public they are revealing information to the world, and that others will learn from and maybe compete with them. So what? Competition is not a bad thing, it's an unavoidable feature of the free market. Just like learning is part of any free society. There is nothing wrong with emulating others, competing with them, learning from them, copying them, whatever.

[nskinsella]

Reading your site, I saw you mentioned patent trolls. I had completely forgot about them. I think there was an episode of 60 Minutes about them once upon a time. If not, perhaps a popular article.

That’s something you and CT-Scott should really mention early on if you want to win the hearts and minds of non-lawyers. Patent trolls are truly repulsive.

Actually I disagree. Patent trolls are not really the issue. What they do is legal, and all they usually want is a little fee. They act like a small tax. The real problem is not "bad" or "weak" patents or bad examination at the PTO or people like trolls who "don't even make a product". The real problem is a *good*, solid patent that has a good examination and that is owned by some company that *does* make the product covered by the patent--because they are the ones who will sue all potential competitors and use the court's injunction power to literally shut them down.

[nskinsella]

Another thing you should do is to provide some examples of how creators will still be able to profit from the investment of time/money that they have put into creating a work of art or technology (assuming the work actually has sufficient value to other people) and won't lose all value to free riders. Just saying that "your bad business model is not my problem" is not going to win hearts and minds. Believe it or not, fairness means a lot to a lot of people. Believe it or not also, you are not arguing for the status quo, but for just the opposite, so if you are going to get things changed, you have a bigger burden of proof.

I have provided examples. So have others, like Mike Masnick at Techdirt, for example. For example see my post “Conversation with an author about copyright and publishing in a free society” and my monograph Do Business Without IP at http://c4sif.org/2012/01/conversation-w ... e-society/ and http://www.stephankinsella.com/2014/10/ ... -property/

But as I try to point out to people who are willing to think and lisetn--there is nothing whatsoever "unfair" about other people emulating you or competing with you.

I think IP is too entrenched and the special interests will fight it too hard. Luckily, the advent of the Internet and encryption and torrenting makes it very difficult to really stop piracy. So technology is helping take a lot of the teeth out of copyright. I have hope that 3D printing will do the same, eventually, to the patent system. I love to see people using technology to evade evil laws.

[stuper1]

I must be a total loser for thinking that if I want to enjoy a song or a movie I should be willing to pay the creator's asking price.

[CT-Scott]

Actually I disagree. Patent trolls are not really the issue. What they do is legal, and all they usually want is a little fee.

In fact, based on my very limited understanding of what "patent trolls" are, I actually consider them to be a very good thing. Because they're "working the system" (legally). Most people *hate* patent trolls, but "patent trolls" merely make it clear how stupid the entire patent system is. They frustrate people because there's no obvious way to "get rid of patent trolls" while maintaining IP laws.

[CT-Scott]

I must be a total loser for thinking that if I want to enjoy a song or a movie I should be willing to pay the creator's asking price.

There's nothing "stupid" about wanting to support (whether financial or otherwise) artists whose work you appreciate. In fact, absent IP laws, a lot of people would continue to do so. You seem to think that absent IP laws, you and other fans of an artist would somehow transform into people who don't give a crap about the artist anymore. Do you think that's how human behavior would necessarily follow?

But it *is* evil to forcibly prevent others from learning from, emulating, etc. an artist/creator.

[stuper1]

But it's perfectly okay in your view for other people to enjoy a creator's song or movie without paying a penny, even though the creator has specified that they are supposed to pay a certain amount of money before they do so?

[dualstow]

Actually I disagree. Patent trolls are not really the issue. What they do is legal, and all they usually want is a little fee.

In fact, based on my very limited understanding of what "patent trolls" are, I actually consider them to be a very good thing. Because they're "working the system" (legally). Most people *hate* patent trolls, but "patent trolls" merely make it clear how stupid the entire patent system is. They frustrate people because there's no obvious way to "get rid of patent trolls" while maintaining IP laws.

I’m surprised that the first thing you both say about patent trolls is that they are within the law. Yes, i know what they do is legal. I thought this would fall under the status quo that you (especially NKinsella) despise. I mean, isn’t all intellectual property legal by definition? It is the abuse of the system that I don’t like about patent trolls, not that they are breaking the law at all.

NK continues,

The real problem is a *good*, solid patent that has a good examination and that is owned by some company that *does* make the product covered by the patent--because they are the ones who will sue all potential competitors and use the court's injunction power to literally shut them down.

I see what you’re getting at. On the face of it, you don’t mind parasitic non-producers because they only take a little blood. As paradoxical as it sounds, you don’t like the content creators because they will protect their own work a little too vigorously, and that’s where you think progress and creativity gets stifled. Wow.

Meanwhile, I look at Stuper’s convesation with you both and I see that while it’s ok for the patent trolls to take their cut, the original content creators are getting ripped off by bootlegs, and that’s ok. Double wow.

[CT-Scott]

I’m surprised that the first thing you both say about patent trolls is that they are within the law. Yes, i know what they do is legal. I thought this would fall under the status quo that you (especially NKinsella) despise. I mean, isn’t all intellectual property legal by definition? It is the abuse of the system that I don’t like about patent trolls, not that they are breaking the law at all.

How do you "abuse" an immoral system? IP law is immoral and evil. Someone who is adjacently profiting from that immoral system in such a way that it seems so blatant that bystanders notice and question how good of a job the system does to hand out justice appropriately, and hopefully start to dig deeper and question aspects of the system itself, is at least a step in the right direction. Absent the "patent trolls", the common man would be happy to remain completely, willfully ignorant of the immorality and evil of the IP laws that were in place.

[dualstow]

Right, if you believe IP is immoral, then all bets are off. It can’t be abused, as you said.
I don’t accept the premise, hence “abuse.”

[nskinsella]

I must be a total loser for thinking that if I want to enjoy a song or a movie I should be willing to pay the creator's asking price.

This is a typical strawman; this is not the anti-IP position at all. The anti-IP view is that laws based on the idea of ownership of patterns of information, are unjust. That is all. Your being snide and sarcastic about how you "think that" you "should" "be willing to pay for" the "asking price" of the "creator" means you must be a "total loser" is typical dishonest and irrational dialogue. But this is how these IP talks usually devolve. You people have deep-seated but intellectual shallow and ad hoc and incoherent bases for your intuitive IP views, and you think the way you figure things out is by reinventing the wheel with no serious study and by sarcasm and resort to accepted tropes. Congrats--you are doing what every other monkey does.

[nskinsella]

But it's perfectly okay in your view for other people to enjoy a creator's song or movie without paying a penny, even though the creator has specified that they are supposed to pay a certain amount of money before they do so?

how many times have you wandered arond town and heard some Beatles song and kind of enjoyed it? Does that make you lazy or a loser? Think about what you are saying. You literally don't know how to make a coherent argument--notice your loaded terms, "specified" (surprised you didn't say "stipulated," the favorite term of the amateur legal sleuth--when you cite Black's Law Dictionary in your favor, that's when you know you've hit the hat trick) and "supposed to". I guess if someone "specifies" something that means others are "supposed to do it". Well it's all magical spells! No wonder lawyers are popular. We help people weave their magical spells, that bind people and "create" "obligations" about what you are "supposed to do"--if we "specify" or "stipulate" enough of our magic spell incantations.

[nskinsella]

Actually I disagree. Patent trolls are not really the issue. What they do is legal, and all they usually want is a little fee.

In fact, based on my very limited understanding of what "patent trolls" are, I actually consider them to be a very good thing. Because they're "working the system" (legally). Most people *hate* patent trolls, but "patent trolls" merely make it clear how stupid the entire patent system is. They frustrate people because there's no obvious way to "get rid of patent trolls" while maintaining IP laws.

I’m surprised that the first thing you both say about patent trolls is that they are within the law. Yes, i know what they do is legal. I thought this would fall under the status quo that you (especially NKinsella) despise. I mean, isn’t all intellectual property legal by definition? It is the abuse of the system that I don’t like about patent trolls, not that they are breaking the law at all.

NK continues,

The real problem is a *good*, solid patent that has a good examination and that is owned by some company that *does* make the product covered by the patent--because they are the ones who will sue all potential competitors and use the court's injunction power to literally shut them down.

I see what you’re getting at. On the face of it, you don’t mind parasitic non-producers because they only take a little blood. As paradoxical as it sounds, you don’t like the content creators because they will protect their own work a little too vigorously, and that’s where you think progress and creativity gets stifled. Wow.

Except you peopel can't seem to be honest and fair in representing others' views. I never said "I don't mind" trolls. I simply said they are the least of the problem. I am pointing out how YOU PEOPLE don't have the right focus. You focus on the things like "abuse" and "incompetent patent examiners" or "bad patents" "cluttering up the system" or on "people who are trolls who 'don't even produce the products they are suing over.'" (even though this is NOT a requirement of getting a patent! Get it? You guys focus on the crust. You focus on teh abuse. You think the probem is the system is"broken" but "originally" it "had a good intention" or whatever. You are all 100%, completely wrong. The abuse is not the problem!! The real problem is patents that ARE ENFORCED. The real probem is not a small royalty fee you pay to a nuisance troll; the real problem is Apple or Nokia SHUTS YOU DOWN. Helloooooo. But none of you even understand the difference between trademark and patent and copyrfgiht, much less the nuances of this arcane system. Instead you hurl accusations at me--basically this stupid Texas drawl "welllllll auhhhhh don' know why ah should listen to a guy who feathers his pocket with patents and then say they is bad". I mean you guys literally have no clue as to waht you are talking about. You don't understand the law, you don't understand the history, the politics, the economics, the reality. You just run around spouting a few things you heard on saturday morning propaganda commercials and repeating words like "piracy" and "theft" and "plagiarism" that you hear a few congressman mutter, you really have no idea what you are even proposing or talking about or defending.

so, yes, I can *easily* defend my contention that patent trolls are not the scourge they are held out to tbe, that it's the opposite: the "legitimate" holders of "valid" patents who are the real problem. (That's a misstatement: they are also not the problem: the problem is the persistence of the system; which is caused by democracy and legislation itself. As long as we have these, we are doomed to hobble ourselves as a human race, with utterly evil and retarded patent law. Sorry, guys, for being clear, and informed and honest. I know this is not the way of most people who stumble like drunks into a conversation like this and want to belly up to the bar, belch loudly, and give their ignorant opinion, then walk away and ferget about it).

[l82start]

i am finding both the arguments for and against IP law interesting, but the vitriol is getting a bit thick and ruining the arguments being made, lets try to keep it civil....

[dualstow]

Except you peopel can't seem to be honest and fair in representing others' views. I never said "I don't mind" trolls. I simply said they are the least of the problem

You said they were like a small tax and I lumped you in with Scott, who said they are “a good thing.” Kind of the way you lump us all together as having no idea what we’re talking about.

When Scott invited you to register, how did you think this was going to go down? That we would all spend several years studying law and your documents and then get back to you? Or that we would all already have law degrees under our belt? Or that we would just accept your point of view that the IP system is immoral without questions?

Imagine someone asks a biologist a question online and the biologist goes on this rant. You are WAY OFF. I can see from your question that you have no idea how the human body works. You don’t even know the difference between obscure term A and obscure term B. Why don’t you shut up and go away, Tiny. .

The person who asked had thought his question, at worst, would reveal a deeper ignorance of the whole system, and the answerer would say, ‘Well, the question you really want to ask is ... because ...”
And the questioner starts to learn something.

That’s how I thought it would go here, because that’s how it usually goes. You, on the other hand, spend up to 90% of your words telling us that not only are we clueless, but we also have no idea just how clueless we are. Is that really how you want to spend your time? I don’t think you’re getting anything out of it. It doesn’t read like a cathartic rant. It seems like you’re tearing your hair out in frustration that we haven’t just fallen into line when, outside of the forum, the real world hasn’t fallen into line either. (That’s not to say that the world is right. You’ve already complained about the status quo argument and how it’s wrong. Fine).

I accidentally learned something about patent trolls, or at least your view of them, because you took a break from telling us how incredibly small we are, and how vast the void of our ignorance is, to say something about patent trolls.

So stuper’s not allowed to use the word “specified”, but to use legal terms would truly be an insult to you, as you have stated because we’d be wrong. I wonder if there is a list of words that are acceptable to use when approaching you.

This just isn’t a constructive conversation, so this is my final belch at the bar and I will now wander back to my dimly lit table and similarly dim thoughts, and try to forget that this thread exists. Scott, thanks for trying, anyway.

[nskinsella]

Except you peopel can't seem to be honest and fair in representing others' views. I never said "I don't mind" trolls. I simply said they are the least of the problem

You said they were like a small tax and I lumped you in with Scott, who said they are “a good thing.” Kind of the way you lump us all together as having no idea what we’re talking about.

I don't think it's "kinda like". this is just lazy stuff. I actually understand the IP system. I understand patents. I get patent trolls. I get taxes. I get it all. I never said patent trolls are a "good things."

When Scott invited you to register, how did you think this was going to go down?

Exactly as it has. I am 54 year sold and have done this 1000 times. Nothing you people will say is likely to surprise me at this point.

But this is not your real question. You people can never ask an honest question or whatever. I don't get it. I am am probably quite literally the greatest expert on the planet on this small set of issues and I am willing to talk with people with 1 ten thousandth the level of knowledge of me--for free. For a time. And yet... all I get is grief. It's incredible. Why not take advantage of it? Ask me anything, while I'm answering anything for free.

" That we would all spend several years studying law and your documents and then get back to you? Or that we would all already have law degrees under our belt? Or that we would just accept your point of view that the IP system is immoral without questions?"

I get this cocky engineering attitude. bUt I think you are misreading me. I don't expect anything. I'm world-weary at this point. You hate people and distrust them blah blah blah. Fine by me bro. Go your own way.

"
That’s how I thought it would go here, because that’s how it usually goes. You, on the other hand, spend up to 90% of your words telling us that not only are we clueless, but we also have no idea just how clueless we are."

But what if I'm right? What if you are all pontificating on something you know nothing about, you are clueless, and you are so clueless you don't know what you are talking about? What then?

"Is that really how you want to spend your time? I don’t think you’re getting anything out of it. It doesn’t read like a cathartic rant. It seems like you’re tearing your hair out in frustration that we haven’t just fallen into line when, outside of the forum, the real world hasn’t fallen into line either. (That’s not to say that the world is right. You’ve already complained about the status quo argument and how it’s wrong. Fine). "

I am only half-reading your blathering at this point because--trust me--I've seen your little mental process at work 10,000 times. IT's so predictable. I'm not being cathartic; I'm not "expecting" anything. I actually know what I'm talking about and what's more, I know that I know it, and I think anyone of any sense who reads me, knows I know it. You know I'm not making this up. But at this point you bow up and become Georgia- he-man and just attack the guy who knows more than you. THa'ts your prerogative but honestly *it's not my fucking problem*'. I've made millions of dollars (and I never exaggerate) off your little system; fine by me. HAve it your way, buddy. While you are carping like a stupid engineer trying to reinvent the wheel someone will call me to help them defend their patents and I"ll make tons of money off of it. Okay! Good for you, I guess!


"I accidentally learned something about patent trolls, or at least your view of them, because you took a break from telling us how incredibly small we are, and how vast the void of our ignorance is, to say something about patent trolls.

So stuper’s not allowed to use the word “specified”, but to use legal terms would truly be an insult to you, as you have stated because we’d be wrong. I wonder if there is a list of words that are acceptable to use when approaching you. "

I always find it amusing that hicks get offended that people with advanced degrees use the right words. Whatever. You people will always just be on the back burner. Enjoy your ride.

[dualstow]

I actually understand the IP system. I understand patents. I get patent trolls. I get taxes. I get it all.
You people can never ask an honest question or whatever. I don't get it.

I am am probably quite literally the greatest expert on the planet on this small set of issues and I am willing to talk with people with 1 ten thousandth the level of knowledge of me--for free. For a time. And yet... all I get is grief. It's incredible. Why not take advantage of it? Ask me anything, while I'm answering anything for free.

I get this cocky engineering attitude.

That’s how I thought it would go here, because that’s how it usually goes. You, on the other hand, spend up to 90% of your words telling us that not only are we clueless, but we also have no idea just how clueless we are."

But what if I'm right? What if you are all pontificating on something you know nothing about, you are clueless, and you are so clueless you don't know what you are talking about? What then?

I am only half-reading your blathering

THa'ts your prerogative but honestly *it's not my fucking problem*'. I've made millions of dollars (and I never exaggerate) off your little system;

I always find it amusing that hicks get offended

Anger management is in your future. For now, could you just blow back to Limerick, Ireland, eat some fried doughnuts, and be quiet, please?
Yeah, that's right. I've done my research on you. Bye.

[nskinsella]

I actually understand the IP system. I understand patents. I get patent trolls. I get taxes. I get it all.
You people can never ask an honest question or whatever. I don't get it.

I am am probably quite literally the greatest expert on the planet on this small set of issues and I am willing to talk with people with 1 ten thousandth the level of knowledge of me--for free. For a time. And yet... all I get is grief. It's incredible. Why not take advantage of it? Ask me anything, while I'm answering anything for free.

I get this cocky engineering attitude.

That’s how I thought it would go here, because that’s how it usually goes. You, on the other hand, spend up to 90% of your words telling us that not only are we clueless, but we also have no idea just how clueless we are."

But what if I'm right? What if you are all pontificating on something you know nothing about, you are clueless, and you are so clueless you don't know what you are talking about? What then?

I am only half-reading your blathering

THa'ts your prerogative but honestly *it's not my fucking problem*'. I've made millions of dollars (and I never exaggerate) off your little system;

I always find it amusing that hicks get offended

Anger management is in your future. For now, could you just blow back to Limerick, Ireland, eat some fried doughnuts, and be quiet, please?
Yeah, that's right. I've done my research on you. Bye.

So this is what always happens. I get invited to some forum; fake engineers pretend to get offended; blah blah blah. I've seen this literally 1000 times. What's amazing is you have these hicks chiming in, feigning incredulity that someone might 'not take them seriously" after all "Aunt sadie" was "really impressed with "the young lad's ability with the language or some such bullshit that low class people always trot out." Go ahead. Let's see how it works.

[stuper1]

If you get on the freeway and find that all these idiots are driving in the wrong direction, do you ever wonder why that is?

[dualstow]

I'm going to say something controversial. I don't think this is really Stephan Kinsella. First of all, he has an N at the beginning of his name.
Secondly, I saw some of his videos. This cannot be the pudgy, bald, bespectacled guy who happily takes questions from the man in the purple bowtie in 2015. That guy looks like he's about to announce that he's getting back behind the drums and even reuniting with Peter Gabriel for a GABACAB 2020.

Granted, Libertarians don't know how to market. They remind me of Linux adherents in that regard. But they are clumsy in an endearing way. They aren't like this. Unless he had a meltdown sometime between 2015 and now. Think about it.

Scott, I think we've been duped, especially if you invited the real Mr Kinsella in a public space when you asked him to sign up.

This is just some pro-IP guy trying to make the real man look unstable.