Yes. You know, there is a reason why the US is the richest country in the world. The US version of capitalism is pretty screwed up, meaning that it is not the same as free enterprise, but yet it is the least worst.
In how many poor countries do property owners also own the mineral rights? Ask peasants who have been thrown off their land by their own governments, so that US or Chinese miners/loggers can come in and pillage.
Free is free - there are no "interpretations" to free. Please give me an example of a third world country that has more economic or other freedom than the US. Haiti? North Korea? Zimbabwe? Mali?
Your write about Somalia and no effective government. People can do what they like there, mainly stealing from others. Somalians have no freedom, except the "freedom" to oppress their countrymen. If you really think they are free, then there is no point in further discussion.
Please note that freedom usually requires some effective mechanism for its protection (police, army), most commonly a benevolent government of the people, by the people, for the people. Unfortuately, the system which is supposed to protect freedoms, often becomes the system which denies them.
It is pretty hard to offend me, but insinuating that I am right wing comes pretty close!
The reason they are in poverty is simple - they are not free. Meaning that, they do not have security of property ownership (including natural resources), freedom to enter into mutually beneficial contracts, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, etc., etc.
Availability of resources is not an issue.
Living in a democracy helps, but is not in itself a requirement.
Show me a poor people who have freedom and I'll admit I am wrong. Please understand that I am generalizing, so specific examples don't count.
And no, wealth in the first world does not require poverty in the third world, quite the contrary.
And yet somehow billions have raised themselves out of poverty and their living environment immensely improved. The facts are diametrically opposed to your hyperbole.
To quote the Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
What does "limited Times" mean? We can agree that one day is insufficient to be an incentive. We can also agree that infinity is too long to promote progress.
Therefore, it stands to reason that there is some optimal duration, which both maximizes the rewards for both the inventors, and society at large.
Has any research been done to determine this optimum? Is current legislation based on anything other than what lobbyists can buy for their clients?
Assuming (big assumption) that Congress seeks to maximize "the Progress of Science and useful Arts", then the optimal "limited Times" must be determined, to seek a balance between rewards for authors and inventors, and benefit to society.
One week of copyright is not much incentive to an author. 100 years is not much benefit to society. I think 14 years is about the optimum, but have no data to prove this. However, it cannot be too difficult to determine the optimum, at least to within 5 years.
The current situation is primarily for the benefit of the authors, with promotion of progress only a secondary by-product. As such, current copyright law is unconstitutional.
On the other side, we have the rest of the world, where copyright does not exist or cannot be practically enforced. Where people in the industry really have to hustle and be creative to make a dime.
Which paradigm will prevail? My bet is on the open, crowd-sourced concept. A Korean Psy going Gangnam will become the mainstream (how many DCMA takedowns has he issued?) and the locked-down Americans will fade to obscurity. Your children are going to grow up listening to world music and watching Bollywood for this reason. The Beatles will pass them by because Apple and Apple took so long to come to their senses.
I had not previously read Derek's policy brief, but I googled for it (RSC link did not load) and was gratified to see that it corresponds to my thinking, per my/. post last week:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
The fact that the Constitution explicitly carves out this Congressional power, implies that there is no inherent right to intellectual "property", equivalent to ownership of tangible property. The aim is to "promote progress..." for the nation as a whole. Any legislation should be calibrated to maximize this benefit to society. This is not the same as maximizing the benefits to the authors and inventors. So the definition of "limited times" should be optimized to this objective of maximum benefit to the nation. Too short, and there is insufficient incentive. Too long, and the benefit to society is lost. I believe current patent and copyright durations are much too long and some objective rigor is needed to find the optimum times. Note that one-size-fits-all is not appropriate, and that different durations may be appropriate for different technologies and industries.
Also, the definition of "writings and discoveries" should be much more narrowly defined. Round or square corners on a phone is no benefit to anyone. Reprinting Shakespeare does not entitle you to copyright.
"...incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy..."
In addition, the overhead costs of legislating, regulating, registering, monitoring and enforcing this system must be weighed against its benefits. These costs have now grown so huge that even optimal "limited times" and definitions of "writings and discoveries" will not justify them. So the simplest and most cost-effective solution is to scrap the whole thing.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
The fact that the Constitution explicitly carves out this Congressional power, implies that there is no inherent right to intellectual "property", equivalent to ownership of tangible property. The aim is to "promote progress..." for the nation as a whole. Any legislation should be calibrated to maximize this benefit to society. This is not the same as maximizing the benefits to the authors and inventors. So the definition of "limited times" should be optimized to this objective of maximum benefit to the nation. Too short, and there is insufficient incentive. Too long, and the benefit to society is lost. I believe current patent and copyright durations are much too long and some objective rigor is needed to find the optimum times. Note that one-size-fits-all is not appropriate, and that different durations may be appropriate for different technologies and industries.
Also, the definition of "writings and discoveries" should be much more narrowly defined. Round or square corners on a phone is no benefit to anyone. Reprinting Shakespeare does not entitle you to copyright.
Cross-border lobbying is ok, both ways. But the US seems to very keen on "extreme" lobbying, which is the kind they practise with you staring into a gun barrel. Or when they shut down your economy because you dare to buy cigars from Cuba, or make a foreign government send in a swat team to arrest one of their own residents at US corporations' behest. In the old days it was called gunboat diplomacy.
No, I don't think it is risky, but then I am not afraid of change. By definition, I am not a conservative like you. Science merely tells us that things will probably change. Science does not tell us whether the change will be worse than before. The Dismal Science helps us sort through the consequences. I does not "trump" science.
By "risky experiment" I mean using our food to make fuel, generating power in ridiculously expensive ways, putting mercury in our lightbulbs, letting a third-world woman use renewable wood to cook her food in her renewable straw hut, and so on.
The risk is driving the world economy into a sustained downward trajectory, which will make the consequences of global warming seem like a picnic.
Look, if we were seriously serious about this, then we would make contraception and abortion compulsory, move into caves and drop all the feel-good pretense. Everyone hailed Kyoto as the saving of mankind, while vilifying the US for abstaining, but whether much will be achieved remains to be seen. If we are in an emergency situation, then why is even experimentation with seeding the ocean with iron banned? I'm not saying that is the solution, just that all options should be on the table.
As the OP I am now forced to explain that I was being facetious. If you didn't get it, then I pity you.
Nevertheless, there is a serious intent in highlighting that Americans seem to feel it is their god-given right to tell others how to run their business. This used to be great when Americans still believed in their own Bill of Rights and felt that the rest of the world would benefit from the same. But now they have been turned into sniveling cowards by a bunch of barbarians, they are happy to trample anything that sticks up.
I respect Nordhaus and his way of thinking. It's just that I think the downsides of warming are overstated and do not fully account for human adaptability. It is true there will be individual winners and losers, but I am looking at the big picture.
Regarding the libertarian approach you describe, I am in full agreement. The problem lies in calculating the cost, if any. Maybe the winners (Canadian strawberry growers) should compensate the losers (Maldives fishers).
Some interesting stuff from Nordhaus. I found this interesting: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12741.pdf But I don't understand the fixation on reducing greenhouse gases? Why are the alternatives not considered? Why do anything at all? Why does the fear of change make people do very risky experiments, such as deliberately shutting down valuable parts of the economy?
Environmental chicken littles don't have an unblemished track record, from preventing logging and forest fires, to opposition to GMO's, to the misery inflicted on poor countries by the blanket ban on DDT. Don't get me wrong, the green movement has some proud moments, but I fear it is turning into a new religion. A religion being when you believe what everyone else believes, with no supporting evidence.
Long story short, all this social and economic engineering is a Fatal Conceit, as Hayek would say. There, I have given myself away!
You can argue all you want about whether global warming is real or not, and if so, man-made or not. But those who believe it is real (and I am cautiously one of those) deploy a long array of data, scientific studies, models, peer-reviews and global consensus.
BUT, when it comes to deciding what action is needed, if any, then the solutions are based on nothing at all. Where are the scientific studies that prove that renewables, carbon capture and storage, fossil fuel phase-out or carbon taxation, etc. leave us globally with a better standard of living? There are other alternatives, but the hysterics only promote the ones that inflict maximum misery by returning us to caves. And the unintended consequences are rarely evaluated.
As Hippocrates would have it regarding a sick patient, "First, do no harm". I believe that doing nothing is the best strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. You know, there is a reason why the US is the richest country in the world. The US version of capitalism is pretty screwed up, meaning that it is not the same as free enterprise, but yet it is the least worst.
In how many poor countries do property owners also own the mineral rights? Ask peasants who have been thrown off their land by their own governments, so that US or Chinese miners/loggers can come in and pillage.
If India is free, why can't Walmart open a store there?
Free is free - there are no "interpretations" to free. Please give me an example of a third world country that has more economic or other freedom than the US. Haiti? North Korea? Zimbabwe? Mali?
Your write about Somalia and no effective government. People can do what they like there, mainly stealing from others. Somalians have no freedom, except the "freedom" to oppress their countrymen. If you really think they are free, then there is no point in further discussion.
Please note that freedom usually requires some effective mechanism for its protection (police, army), most commonly a benevolent government of the people, by the people, for the people. Unfortuately, the system which is supposed to protect freedoms, often becomes the system which denies them.
It is pretty hard to offend me, but insinuating that I am right wing comes pretty close!
The reason they are in poverty is simple - they are not free. Meaning that, they do not have security of property ownership (including natural resources), freedom to enter into mutually beneficial contracts, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, etc., etc.
Availability of resources is not an issue.
Living in a democracy helps, but is not in itself a requirement.
Show me a poor people who have freedom and I'll admit I am wrong. Please understand that I am generalizing, so specific examples don't count.
And no, wealth in the first world does not require poverty in the third world, quite the contrary.
And yet somehow billions have raised themselves out of poverty and their living environment immensely improved. The facts are diametrically opposed to your hyperbole.
My posting from nearly four years ago:
To quote the Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
What does "limited Times" mean? We can agree that one day is insufficient to be an incentive. We can also agree that infinity is too long to promote progress.
Therefore, it stands to reason that there is some optimal duration, which both maximizes the rewards for both the inventors, and society at large.
Has any research been done to determine this optimum? Is current legislation based on anything other than what lobbyists can buy for their clients?
And more than a year ago:
Assuming (big assumption) that Congress seeks to maximize "the Progress of Science and useful Arts", then the optimal "limited Times" must be determined, to seek a balance between rewards for authors and inventors, and benefit to society.
One week of copyright is not much incentive to an author. 100 years is not much benefit to society. I think 14 years is about the optimum, but have no data to prove this. However, it cannot be too difficult to determine the optimum, at least to within 5 years.
The current situation is primarily for the benefit of the authors, with promotion of progress only a secondary by-product. As such, current copyright law is unconstitutional.
And here is another, from December:
We are in the middle of a huge, global experiment. One the one side we have the American model of almost infinite copyright, fiercely defended by the RIAA and MPAA middlemen, who load on extra costs while a pittance goes to the artists – see http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-08-27/entertainment/bs-ae-sugarman-film-20120824_1_strydom-royalty-checks-music-industry for an example.
On the other side, we have the rest of the world, where copyright does not exist or cannot be practically enforced. Where people in the industry really have to hustle and be creative to make a dime.
Which paradigm will prevail? My bet is on the open, crowd-sourced concept. A Korean Psy going Gangnam will become the mainstream (how many DCMA takedowns has he issued?) and the locked-down Americans will fade to obscurity. Your children are going to grow up listening to world music and watching Bollywood for this reason. The Beatles will pass them by because Apple and Apple took so long to come to their senses.
I had not previously read Derek's policy brief, but I googled for it (RSC link did not load) and was gratified to see that it corresponds to my thinking, per my /. post last week:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
The fact that the Constitution explicitly carves out this Congressional power, implies that there is no inherent right to intellectual "property", equivalent to ownership of tangible property. The aim is to "promote progress..." for the nation as a whole. Any legislation should be calibrated to maximize this benefit to society. This is not the same as maximizing the benefits to the authors and inventors. So the definition of "limited times" should be optimized to this objective of maximum benefit to the nation. Too short, and there is insufficient incentive. Too long, and the benefit to society is lost. I believe current patent and copyright durations are much too long and some objective rigor is needed to find the optimum times. Note that one-size-fits-all is not appropriate, and that different durations may be appropriate for different technologies and industries.
Also, the definition of "writings and discoveries" should be much more narrowly defined. Round or square corners on a phone is no benefit to anyone. Reprinting Shakespeare does not entitle you to copyright.
Johnny-cum-lately!
So who are the Dutch?
Buy a Mercedes.
"...incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy..."
Sounds like a lot of Green people I know.
http://archive.mises.org/5216/patent-and-penicillin/
In addition, the overhead costs of legislating, regulating, registering, monitoring and enforcing this system must be weighed against its benefits. These costs have now grown so huge that even optimal "limited times" and definitions of "writings and discoveries" will not justify them. So the simplest and most cost-effective solution is to scrap the whole thing.
I knew we were on a slippery slope in 1950 when deliveries were reduced to once a day - dadgummit!
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
The fact that the Constitution explicitly carves out this Congressional power, implies that there is no inherent right to intellectual "property", equivalent to ownership of tangible property. The aim is to "promote progress..." for the nation as a whole. Any legislation should be calibrated to maximize this benefit to society. This is not the same as maximizing the benefits to the authors and inventors. So the definition of "limited times" should be optimized to this objective of maximum benefit to the nation. Too short, and there is insufficient incentive. Too long, and the benefit to society is lost. I believe current patent and copyright durations are much too long and some objective rigor is needed to find the optimum times. Note that one-size-fits-all is not appropriate, and that different durations may be appropriate for different technologies and industries.
Also, the definition of "writings and discoveries" should be much more narrowly defined. Round or square corners on a phone is no benefit to anyone. Reprinting Shakespeare does not entitle you to copyright.
Cross-border lobbying is ok, both ways. But the US seems to very keen on "extreme" lobbying, which is the kind they practise with you staring into a gun barrel. Or when they shut down your economy because you dare to buy cigars from Cuba, or make a foreign government send in a swat team to arrest one of their own residents at US corporations' behest. In the old days it was called gunboat diplomacy.
No, I don't think it is risky, but then I am not afraid of change. By definition, I am not a conservative like you. Science merely tells us that things will probably change. Science does not tell us whether the change will be worse than before. The Dismal Science helps us sort through the consequences. I does not "trump" science.
By "risky experiment" I mean using our food to make fuel, generating power in ridiculously expensive ways, putting mercury in our lightbulbs, letting a third-world woman use renewable wood to cook her food in her renewable straw hut, and so on.
The risk is driving the world economy into a sustained downward trajectory, which will make the consequences of global warming seem like a picnic.
Look, if we were seriously serious about this, then we would make contraception and abortion compulsory, move into caves and drop all the feel-good pretense. Everyone hailed Kyoto as the saving of mankind, while vilifying the US for abstaining, but whether much will be achieved remains to be seen. If we are in an emergency situation, then why is even experimentation with seeding the ocean with iron banned? I'm not saying that is the solution, just that all options should be on the table.
As the OP I am now forced to explain that I was being facetious. If you didn't get it, then I pity you.
Nevertheless, there is a serious intent in highlighting that Americans seem to feel it is their god-given right to tell others how to run their business. This used to be great when Americans still believed in their own Bill of Rights and felt that the rest of the world would benefit from the same. But now they have been turned into sniveling cowards by a bunch of barbarians, they are happy to trample anything that sticks up.
Extreme lobbying, such as employed in Iraq, etc., etc?
Thank you, too!
I respect Nordhaus and his way of thinking. It's just that I think the downsides of warming are overstated and do not fully account for human adaptability. It is true there will be individual winners and losers, but I am looking at the big picture.
Regarding the libertarian approach you describe, I am in full agreement. The problem lies in calculating the cost, if any. Maybe the winners (Canadian strawberry growers) should compensate the losers (Maldives fishers).
Some interesting stuff from Nordhaus. I found this interesting: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12741.pdf But I don't understand the fixation on reducing greenhouse gases? Why are the alternatives not considered? Why do anything at all? Why does the fear of change make people do very risky experiments, such as deliberately shutting down valuable parts of the economy?
Environmental chicken littles don't have an unblemished track record, from preventing logging and forest fires, to opposition to GMO's, to the misery inflicted on poor countries by the blanket ban on DDT. Don't get me wrong, the green movement has some proud moments, but I fear it is turning into a new religion. A religion being when you believe what everyone else believes, with no supporting evidence.
Long story short, all this social and economic engineering is a Fatal Conceit, as Hayek would say. There, I have given myself away!
You can argue all you want about whether global warming is real or not, and if so, man-made or not. But those who believe it is real (and I am cautiously one of those) deploy a long array of data, scientific studies, models, peer-reviews and global consensus.
BUT, when it comes to deciding what action is needed, if any, then the solutions are based on nothing at all. Where are the scientific studies that prove that renewables, carbon capture and storage, fossil fuel phase-out or carbon taxation, etc. leave us globally with a better standard of living? There are other alternatives, but the hysterics only promote the ones that inflict maximum misery by returning us to caves. And the unintended consequences are rarely evaluated.
As Hippocrates would have it regarding a sick patient, "First, do no harm". I believe that doing nothing is the best strategy.