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."
www.againstmonopoly.org
This vile proposal threatens to sacrifice shareholder value on the altar of the progress of the useful arts! The founding fathers would never stand for it.
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
They put their mouths where their money is, or something like that (too late in the day to be properly witty). Read it online for free.
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
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...
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.
I went to ye olde library today to get copies of 2 Articles from the Journal of Applied Polymer Sciences, a Wiley Interscience Publication. Xeroxing the articles under fair use from the library was free for me.
The Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Moment came when I checked online to find out how much it would cost to subscribe to the journal. I thought someone misplaced a decimal point: $23,245 a year is the institutional subscription rate! That's about what I paid yearly in college tuition back when I was in college. Even worse, it's almost the value of the lab equipment I'm using in the work I've been doing on my own time.
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.
Below is a fitting quote from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Isaac McPherson ( http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html )
Thomas Jefferson was originally against copyrights and patents but his beliefs evolved. In correspondence on 1790 June 27 to Benjamin Vaughan he wrote:
"An act of Congress authorising the issuing patents for new discoveries has given a spring to invention beyond my conception. Being an instrument in granting the patents, I am acquainted with their discoveries. Many of them indeed are trifling, but there are some of great consequence which have been proved by practice, and others which if they stand the same proof will produce great effect."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The other side is that many companies refuse to pursue innovations unless they see parts that can be patented to lock in the monopoly returns. Lesser profits just aren't worth the trouble of pursing innovation as they see it these days.
You've got that completely wrong. Due to the fucked up nature of the US patent system, patents are valuable to a company. Either for blackmailing companies that produce actual value, or for preventing blackmail from competitors. There is no innovation behind them.
My company tries to get patents exactly for the reason to prevent blackmail from competitors, who have patents in the same area. That works quite fine, as long as our competitors are doing well because when they are doing well, they can't afford mutual destruction by patent lawyers. Where it goes wrong is in a case like RIMM, where they totally beat their competitor in the market place, so their competitor had no reason anymore to be afraid from RIMM's patent, and could use their own patents in an offensive way.
The reason why my company innovates is not because of patents, it is because we want to offer our customers competitive products, so that they buy ours and not our competitors, and that way we make money. We do _not_ innovate to get patents. We do, however, like everyone else, turn our innovation and also our failed innovations into legalese to get patent.
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.