Slashdot Mirror
Copyright and Patent Laws Hurt the Economy
Norsefire writes "Two economists at Washington University in St. Louis are claiming that copyright and patent laws are 'killing innovation' and 'hurting [the] economy.' Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine state they would like to see copyright law abolished completely as there are other protections available to the creators of 'intellectual property' (a term they describe as 'propaganda,' and of recent origin). They are calling on Congress to grant patents only where an invention has social value, where the patent would not stifle innovation, and where the absence of a patent would damage cost-effectiveness."
Copyrights should only be a limited amount of time, not the current infinity+ that it is now.
More than the authors life is excessive.
A picture I took today shouldn't expire in 75 (if I live to 100) + 70 years, or in 2154.
If I had a son, he might not be alive at that point.
That is just way too long.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Would it be irony if their book was copyrighted? ;)
Also, I'm glad to see the description of the term "Intellectual Property" called for precisely what it is : propaganda. It's time for this term to be thrown out, and not to let so-called self-professed "intellectual property owners" inject this horrible term into the collective mind-set any further - it muddies the water of the discussion.
This vile proposal threatens to sacrifice shareholder value on the altar of the progress of the useful arts!
Shareholders benefit because their money isn't going into lawyers pockets, and being lost to the invisible, incalculable cost of hindered progress.
(yes I know you were being sarcastic. Sadly, that is actually the majority sentiment on this issue.)
"They are calling on Congress to grant patents only where an invention has social value"
And of course, such a thing as "social value" can be easily determined before the product has the ability to hit the market...
I'm not sure getting rid of either entirely would be the best option but I don't see much use of limits being longer than five years. Protection is supposed to give the original creator a short monopoly to give them, and others, incentive to create more. As it is now, someone can make something and sit on it for the rest of their lives; where's the incentive?
-SaNo
While I agree that it has its uses, the current infinity-bazillion-year copyright goes way too far.
Protecting your work from duplication for a time, allowing you to make money and, hopefully, finance future works? Good!
Creating one successful work and living off it for your whole life while preventing anyone else from improving on it? Terrible, and sadly what we're dealing with today.
Your post starts with the assumption that simply because they are economists they are not worth listening to before suggesting critical thinking as a positive thing that most of the slashdot readership do not engage in. This is either an example of an American not understanding irony or a brilliant piece of irony.
You then use the term 'reds', an old propagandist word, as if 'reds' are inherently bad before highlighting "China's lack of respect for IP" as if IP has real meaning beyond your own mindset, as if it is a part of reality that exists outside of you political environment. In doing this you demonstrate that you are not flexible enough to think within the bounds defined in the fine article which has clearly stated that intellectual property is a modern propagandist word.
Even if you disagree with that premise, it is important to take that concept on, suspend disbelief if you will, in order to understand the whole point of what they are saying. You are unable to do this, apparantly incapable of critical thought, so you can only miss the point.
Oh, and the 1950's called. They'd like their bigotry back.
I don't therefore I'm not.
No, it says that Congress has the power to secure it, if Congress so wishes. There is no Constitutional obligation, though.
As for your essay, while I'd agree with you on some issues, and disagree with you on many others, I don't really see the point.
There are really only three options for an author who would see his works published. First, make a deal with a publisher. As there are a lot of authors (who tend to be bad at making deals) and rather fewer publishers (who tend to be quite good at making deals), the author is probably going to get a bad deal. Second, self-publish, but this is often inefficient, as authors are unlikely to get the best deals, or have working relationships with retailers, big-name reviewers, etc. The Internet is making this a little easier, but not a whole lot easier, unless your sights are set low (e.g. being the top dog of some sort of fanfic community). Third, for the law to treat authors paternalistically, not allowing them to make deals which outsiders viewed as bad (by letting the authors terminate transfers, or be unable to sell the entirety of their rights in a work). This is offensive, and it certainly isn't in keeping with the normal level of government involvement in business dealings. If the author were selling land to a developer, we'd certainly let him make a bad deal.
This is what we have under a normal copyright system, and I don't see how your somewhat Lockean approach really would help authors any.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
A lot of old 8 bit software we grew up with won't even run on most modern platform, but they're still "protected."
One is due to the other.
How we know is more important than what we know.
... or writing if someone else can come along and make money off your invention.
Because you also make money off it.
Just imagine if Wal-Mart could print and sell and book they wanted without permission from the author or the publisher. What if they could take your program or product, have it made in China for a tenth of your cost and sell it for their own profit.
Good for them. If there's enough volume for them to do this profitably, then I've probably already made enough money and can move on to something else.
If I come up with a unique and new idea, it's mine (or at least it belongs to the company I created it for.)
Why? And what happens when someone else has the same idea later, should they be denied the right to their own thoughts?
Patents and copyright exist to ensure that the creator is protected. Sure there are problems with the way things are now, where patents are being given a little too freely, but to abolish copyrights and patents altogether is just absurd.
This protection comes at the public expense. And since it appears that this expense is greater than the benefits resulting from the protection, not abolishing copyright and patents is what is absurd.
This is the real issue...
Article 1, Section 8 says:... "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
A copyright that lasts for 200 years (or even 20 years in our modern society may be too long... 10 years, I think is OK) is NOT conducive to progress.
No, it says that Congress has the power to secure it, if Congress so wishes. There is no Constitutional obligation, though.
There is no Constitutional *mandate* to grant copyrights and patents at all, but once Congress chooses to allow even one copyright or patent, they must do so on grounds that are fair and equitable for everyone.
Congress cannot merely grant copyrights and patents to whomever they choose based on mere whim. That would violate so many Constitutional provisions... Off the top of my head, the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments and the General Welfare clause. There may be more, but that would be sufficient for someone to force Congress to apply their copyright/patent rules fairly to everyone.
I'll begin simply by suggesting that companies strong in IP are looking pretty good now.
GM is the penny stock.
Not Microsoft. Not Pfizer.
They are calling on Congress to grant patents only where an invention has social value, where the patent would not stifle innovation, and where the absence of a patent would damage cost-effectiveness."
Now this scares me.
Because it means that "social value" would be defined by the legislator, the bureaucrat, and the courts.
--- and how this new measure of socially redeeming value - could be limited to the denial of a patent or copyright escapes me entirely.
The politician, after all, likes to be pro-active.
I am not sure what it takes to "stifle innovation." I don't even have a clear notion of what innovation really means.
A patent only implies only distinction - a measure of originality in concept and execution.
The examiner does not have a crystal ball.
He does not ask and can not know whether you have accomplished anything significant and lasting.
The geek who would give the politician - the bureaucrat - that crystal ball and demand that he play oracle does enormous harm, I think.
"Cost-Effectiveness" is a lovely phrase.
Damnation in two words.
Big Pharm gets the Malaria patent because Big Pharm can quickly and safely ramp up to full production.
The little guy will botch it.
Cost-Effectiveness is about economies of scale. Technical competence. Managerial competence. Financial resources.
Cost-Effectiveness is also about papering over the politically unpalatable choices you know you have to make.
I'll admit to having become very cynical about this sort of thing.
But it still surprises me sometimes how High Church the geek really is.
Well, I feel about the GPL the same way I feel about firearms... I'll gladly toss mine into the bonfire, as long as mine is the last one left after all others are in the pit. I won't need it then.
Ok, I'll step into the flamewar.
When I see Enron and AIG and all pretty much lying to investors' faces, deliberately abusing the notion of deregulation, and eventually destroying tens of thousands of peoples lives, homes, and savings, I don't sit down and think "damn regulations!".
Maybe I should. Maybe you're right and all the work that the EPA does, and DHEC, and the FDA- maybe it's all just a false savings, and the market could correct against them without government interference.
Obviously, though, I wouldn't be writing this screed if I thought that were the case. I appreciate the phenomenal theoretical beauty of the informed participant model, both from a political and economic standpoint, but I cannot completely agree with it in practice. The fact is that liars are common, and their art is highly profitable. Deception, known in some circles as "marketing", is the bane of that theory, and the backbone of the modern economy. Add to that that our system is rife with the local dependencies that obliterate the free exchange of goods and services demanded by the founders of Enlightenment thought, and I simply cannot agree that economic issues should be allowed to ride roughshod over the social concerns of the day.
So when I hear someone ranting about regulation, I have to stop and think- has this person never worked minimum wage? Never pondered the implications of the forty hour work week, or of working 80 hours at the age of 8? It seems foolish- shortsighted- for us to sit in the midst of our comfortable lives, griping about the difficulty of accruing more comfort, and pondering enacting a system virtually guaranteed to grind the comfort from our lives. Do you think we would live so well without those protections? If so, how? And how can you be sure that that is true for society in general, rather than just yourself, or me? I look forward to hearing your answers.
Exactly. The proponents of unrestricted free trade are like proponents of a frictionless physical world. Sure would be nice if it could exist, but the reality is that because of political manipulation (friction) the system is skewed so that some systematically benefit at the expense of others.
Example: When a large corporation sends jobs overseas it's called "Free Trade" and they even get tax breaks for it. When an ordinary citizen tries to buy prescription medicine from Canada it's called "smuggling."
WRT deregulation, you've also hit the nail on the head. Sadly, those advocating it don't even have a recent historical sense, much less a deep one. It took centuries to achieve things like a 40 hour work week, outlawing child labor, and outlawing slavery. These would *all* come back if we eliminated regulation. For those who doubt the last, slavery, because the efficient market would eliminate it, realize that slavery still exists and is on the rise